64–412

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

REPORT

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:

2

Page number

Bill Report

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

3

$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

4

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.

5

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 1Total 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.

6

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, direcVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
7

tion 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.

8

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

9

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.

10

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.

11

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.

12

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

13

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 associated

staffing increases .................................................................................. ¥$1,148,000

Disallow funding for the dockets management system and electronic

grant making standards activities ...................................................... ¥600,000

Defer lower priority studies and evaluations due to budget constraints ................................................................................................... ¥210,000

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. 2Proposed 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.

14

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 Atmospheric Administration’s Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography to the TASC ......................................................................... ¥$43,963,000

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 pasVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
15

sengers 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

Appropriation Limitation on

guaranteed loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 20001 ............................ $1,900,000 ($13,775,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 20012 .......................... 1,900,000 (13,775,000)

Recommended in the bill2 ...................................... 1,900,000 (13,775,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ...................... .......................... ..........................

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 .................... .......................... .......................... 1The fiscal year 2000 limitation on loan authority applies to direct loans.

2The 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.

16

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:

Program

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2000 enacted 2001 estimate

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

17

OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 20001 ........................................................ $2,781,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 20012 ................................................... 3,199,000,000

Recommended in the bill2 .................................................................. 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:

Program, Project & Activity

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2000 enacted 2001 estimate

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

18

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

19

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.

20

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 onemile-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

21

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:

Program Name

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2000 enacted 2001 estimate

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

22

Program Name

Fiscal year— Committee

recommended 2000 enacted 2001 estimate

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,

CA ............................................................................................ .......................... 8,000,000 8,000,000

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, WA .. .......................... 3,800,000 3,800,000

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.

23

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

24

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.

25

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.

26

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-today 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

27

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 grantsin-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:

Program

Fiscal year—

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.

28

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:

Budget Activity

Fiscal year—

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.

29

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

30

‘‘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:

Activity

Fiscal year—

2000 enacted level 2001 estimate 2001 recommendedChange to

budget 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

31

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.

32

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 31⁄2 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 agenVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
33

cy 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:

Activity

Fiscal year—

2000 enacted

level 2001 estimate 2001recommended Change tobudget 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)

34

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

35

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 investVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
36

ments 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:

37

38

39

40

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:

Project Fiscal year 2000

enacted

Fiscal year 2001

budget

Fiscal year 2001

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 tool

(pFAST) ................................................................................................... 59,825,000 ........................ ........................

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.

41

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

42

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

43

$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.

44

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

45

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:

Activity FY 2001 budget estimate

Committee

recommended

Bulk EDS systems ............................................................................................................ $31,200,000 $57,100,000

Trace detection systems .................................................................................................. 15,200,000 20,000,000

Threat image projection (TIP) systems ........................................................................... 25,320,000 25,320,000

Threat containment units ................................................................................................ 750,000 ............................

Computer-based training (CBT) systems ........................................................................ ............................ 8,000,000

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

46

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.

47

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:

48

49

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.

50

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

authorization)

(Limitation on

obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ................. $1,750,000,000 ($1,950,000,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 ............. 1,960,000,000 (1,950,000,000)

Recommended in the bill ............................ 3,200,000,000 (3,200,000,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .......... +1,450,000,000 (+1,250,000,000)

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 ...... +1,240,000,000 (+1,250,000,000)

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-inaid 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

enacted

Fiscal year 2001

estimate

Recommended in

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

51

Fiscal year 2000 enactedFiscal year 2001 estimateRecommended in the bill

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 Mobile Downtown

Airports.

Construct parallel runway, international concourse according

to master plan.

AL .................. Monroe County Airport ............................... Reseal runway, restripe markings and legends, install AWOS,

other improvements.

AL .................. Bay Minette Municipal Airport .................. Extend runway, 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 Airport .................... Extend runway, widen taxiway, extend taxiway, and sealcoat;

new passenger terminal/cargo facilities.

AL .................. Gadsen Airport Industrial Park ................. Resurfacing and 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 International Airport ........ Various improvement projects.

CA ................. Napa County Airport .................................. Runway, taxiway, and ramp maintenance; master plan; taxiway project.

CA ................. Jack McNamara Field, Del Norte County ... Resurface runways.

CA ................. Fresno Yosemite International Airport ....... Design and construct 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 Field Airport, Lancaster.Extend the existing county airport runway.

52

State Location Project description

CA ................. Stockton Metropolitian Airport ................... Lengthen runway.

CA ................. Bishop Airport, Inyo County ....................... Facility, utility and infrastructure improvements.

CA ................. Ontario International Airport ..................... Grove Corridor improvements; structure and ramp improvements; right-of-way acquisition; cargo demand study.

CA ................. Mammoth/Yosemite Airport, Mammoth

Lakes.

Upgrade airport to handle jets.

CA ................. Meadows Field Airport, Bakersfield ........... New terminal, ramp and access road.

CA ................. Gnoss Field Airport, Marin County ............ Runway extension.

CA ................. Sacramento Mather Airport ....................... Runway, taxiway, and apron pavement rehabilitation and runway/taxiway lighting.

CA ................. March Air Reserve Base ............................ Civilian refueling system.

CA ................. Southern California Logistics Airport ........ Runway extension.

CNMI ............. Rota International Airport, CNMI ............... Resurface main runway.

CT ................. Greater Rockford Airport ............................ Reimbursement for costs associated with runway extension

and adjustments to the belt line road.

CT ................. Freeport Albertus Airport ........................... Runway construction and safety area.

FL .................. Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood International ..... Mega-zone transport study.

FL .................. St. Petersburg-Clearwater International ... Runway expansion and other improvements.

FL .................. Orlando International Airport .................... Runway construction.

IN .................. Monroe County Airport, Bloomington ......... Land acquisition.

IN .................. Freeman Municipal Airport, Seymour ........ Runway and taxiway reconstruction.

IN .................. Perry County Municipal Airport, Tell City .. Runway extension.

IN .................. Gary Regional Airport ................................ Maintenance facility.

KS ................. Lawrence Municipal Airport ....................... Various improvements.

KS ................. Newton City-County Airport ....................... Various improvements.

KY ................. Louisville International .............................. Noise mitigation.

KY ................. Caldwell County Airport ............................. Runway extension and overlay.

KY ................. Madisonville Municipal Airport .................. Various improvements.

KY ................. Marion/Crittenden County Airport .............. Master plan development and engineering.

KY ................. Cynthiana Airport, Harrison County .......... Apron overlay and taxiway; runway extension.

KY ................. Estill County Airport .................................. Feasibility study for new airport.

LA .................. Lakefront Airport, New Orleans ................. Repair and restoration Airport/Lake Pontchartrain retaining

wall.

LA .................. Baton Rouge Metropolitian ........................ Noise mitigation; 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 Regional Airport,

Benton Harbor.

Runway extension.

MI .................. Lenawee County Airport ............................. Extend the runway and shift the threshold; airport expansion.

MI .................. Cherry Capital Airport, Traverse City ........ New passenger terminal.

MI .................. Oakland Pontiac International .................. Various improvements.

MI .................. Detroit City Airport .................................... Land acquisition for expansion.

MO ................ Lee’s Summit Municipal, Kansas City ...... Land acquisition to extend runway and creation of required

runway protection zone.

MS ................. Starkville Airport ........................................ Runway extension.

MS ................. Jackson International Airport .................... Design and construction 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 International Airport ........ Runway construction and related improvements.

NC ................. Concord Regional Airport, Cabarrus County.Runway extension, runway protection zone completion, ramp/

ILS zone, Construction to lower a road.

NC ................. Stanly County Airport ................................ Perimeter security fencing, airfield lighting, access roads.

NC ................. Rockingham-Hamlet Airport, Richmond

County.

Parallel taxiway, eastern half; apron expansion.

NC ................. Monroe Municipal Airport, Union County .. Terminal area apron expansion; land acquisition.

ND ................. Minot Municipal Airport ............................. Safety and security needs.

NY ................. Niagara Falls International Airport ........... Rehabilitation of taxiway D.

NY ................. Buffalo Niagara International Airport ....... Runway improvements and extension; east access improvements; expansion of east terminal apron phase II; acquisition and demolition.

NY ................. LaGuardia International ............................ Noise mitigation.

53

State Location Project description

OH ................. Port Columbus International Airport ......... Terminal apron reconstruction and glycol retention/treatment

facility.

OH ................. Fairfield County Airport ............................. Airport master plan.

OH ................. Ohio University Airport, Athens ................. Extend runway.

OH ................. Toledo Express Airport ............................... Expansion of taxiway and apron capacity.

OH ................. Rickenbacker Airport ................................. Various infrastructure needs.

OH ................. Akron-Canton Regional Airport .................. Expansion of runway 1/19 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 Airport, Oklahoma City Extension of runway protection zone; relocation of MacArthur

Boulevard.

OR ................. Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal ............ Expand commercial terminal ramp.

PA ................. Erie International Airport ........................... Extend main runway 1,000 ft.

PA ................. Jimmy Stewart Airport, Indiana County .... Runway expansion and related improvements.

RI .................. T.F. Green Airport, Providence ................... Various improvements.

TN ................. Memphis Shelby County Airport ................ Extend taxiway; construct aircraft apron; reconstruct taxiways;

and reconstruct runway.

TN ................. Millington Airport ....................................... Infrastructure improvements.

TN ................. Chattanooga Metropolitan Airport ............. Shift taxiway to meet design standards.

TX .................. Abilene Regional ........................................ Terminal expansion/taxiway upgrade.

TX .................. George Bush International, Houston ......... New runway and associated projects.

TX .................. Alliance Airport .......................................... Runway extension; cargo apron; noise compatibility program.

TX .................. Sugar Land Municipal Airport ................... Property acquisition and taxiway construction.

TX .................. Laredo Airport ............................................ Noise compatibility program.

TX .................. Robert Gray Army Airfield, Fort Hood ........ Support joint use development.

USVI .............. Henry E. Rohlsen Airport, St. Croix ........... Runway extension and terminal expansion.

UT ................. Wendover Airport ....................................... Expansion of commercial service ramp.

UT ................. Salt Lake City International ...................... Expand cargo facilities to handle Olympic demand; expand

and modernize terminals.

VA ................. Danville Regional Airport .......................... Apron expansion, fillet widening, taxiway lighting, apron overlay.

VA ................. Lee County Airport ..................................... Replace airport.

VA ................. Lonesome Pine Airport, Wise County ......... Construct parallel taxiway.

VA ................. Mountain Empire Airport, Smyth County ... Construct security fence, parallel taxiway, move fuel farm, relocate windsock, and install beacon.

VA ................. Virginia Highlands Airport, Abingdon ....... Construct apron.

VA ................. Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport .............. Extend runway safety area.

VA ................. New River Valley Airport, Dublin ............... Environmental review of an overlay.

WI .................. Rock County Airport ................................... Reconstruction and extension of runway facilities.

WI .................. Chippewa Valley Regional Airport ............. Runway and taxiway.

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

54

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

55

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 fundVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
56

ing, 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:

Program

Fiscal Year— Recommended in

the bill 2000 enacted 1 2001 request

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

57

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

58

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.

59

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 20001 ............................................................. ............................

Budget request, fiscal year 20011 ..................................................... ............................

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) 1Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year 2001 are assumed within the federalaid 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

60

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

61

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 runoff-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

62

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

63

$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 agencywide 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

64

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

65

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

66

Amount

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

67

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

68

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

69

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

70

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

71

Project Amount

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) 1The 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. 2The 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 transporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
72

tation 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]

Programs FY 1999

actual

FY 2000

estimate

FY 2001

estimate

Subject to limitation:

Surface transportation program .................................................................... $6,226,536 $6,216,069 $6,731,321

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 quality improvement .................................... 1,145,000 1,509,389 1,636,014

Minimum guarantee ....................................................................................... 2,167,156 1,762,941 2,000,000

Safety incentive grants for use of seat belts ............................................... 54,137 80,148 98,758

Safety incentive to prevent operation of motor carrier by intoxicated persons ........................................................................................................... 43,029 69,680 78,833

ITS standards, research and development .................................................... 75,122 98,068 96,821

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 and coordinated border infrastructure .............. 118,307 121,964 135,550

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 bridge .................................................................. 1,064 138,650 193,642

Transportation infrastructure finance and innovation .................................. 48,006 100,583 106,503

Appalachian development highway system ................................................... 318,658 393,950 388,253

Emergency Relief ........................................................................................... .................... .................... 9,229

Motor Carrier Administration ......................................................................... .................... .................... 16,335

Total subject to obligation limitation ....................................................... 24,699,758 1 27,308,443 2 29,661,806

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 highways (direct) .............................................. 26,031,136 28,529,814 30,701,382

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:

73

ESTIMATED FY 2001 OBLIGATIONS

[In thousands of dollars]

State

Estimated FY

2001 formula

limitation

FY 2001

minimum

guarantee

Appalachian

development

highways

Total Change from FY

2000

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

74

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

75

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.

76

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 ................................................ ............................ 1Provided 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).

77

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.

78

NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Liquidation of contract

authorization)

(Limitation on

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 2000 .............. (+72,000,000) (+72,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ............ (¥10,000,000) (¥10,000,000)

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

79

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.

80

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 lowspeed 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.

81

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:

82

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 (General Fund)(Highway Trust

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:

83

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

84

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.

85

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(Limitation on

obligations)

(Liquidation of contract 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 drugimpaired 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 imVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
86

plementing 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, highVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00086 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
87

way 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:

Program Fiscal year 2000

enacted level 1

Fiscal year 2001

request

Recommended in

the bill

Safety and operations ........................................................................... $94,288,000 $103,211,000 $102,487,000

88

Program Fiscal year 2000

enacted level 1

Fiscal year 2001

request

Recommended in the bill

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 obligations) ................................................................................................ .......................... (468,000,000) ..........................

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

1Of 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 RevVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
89

enue 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

90

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 1Of 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

91

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 2000

enacted

Fiscal year 2001

request

Committee

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)

92

Fiscal year 2000 enactedFiscal year 2001

request

Committee recommendation

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.

State

Rail-highway crossing

Estimated fiscal

year 2001

apportionment

Unobligated as of

9/30/99

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

93

State

Rail-highway crossing

Estimated fiscal year 2001

apportionment

Unobligated as of 9/30/99

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.

94

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 highspeed 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 reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
95

quested $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

96

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

(Limitation on

obligations)

(Liquidation of

contract 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 revenuealigned 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 proVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00096 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.000 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
97

grams 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 nondefense 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:

98

Program 2000 enacted 2001 request Recommended in 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 5,803,000,000 6,321,000,000 6,271,000,000

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

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(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

99

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 privatesector 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.

100

FORMULA GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(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

101

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

102

that the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s

(WMATA) emergency radio system is not functional, fully operational nor reliable. The Committee expects WMATA to use the appreciable increases in its section 9 apportionment and the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan provided

to the Authority to ensure that fire communications are in place in

WMATA’s tunnels.

The following table displays the state-by-state distribution of the

formula funds within each of the program categories:

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

112

113

114

UNIVERSITY TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ............................. $1,200,000 $4,800,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ........................... 1,200,000 4,800,000

Recommended in the bill ........................................ 1,200,000 4,800,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ...................... — —

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 .................... — —

The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for university transportation research. The recommendation is the same level

as provided in fiscal year 2000. This appropriation is guaranteed

under the transit funding category.

The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of an

appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and $4,800,000

from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the

highway trust fund.

TRANSIT PLANNING AND RESEARCH

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ............................. $21,000,000 $86,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ........................... 22,200,000 87,800,000

Recommended in the bill ........................................ 22,200,000 87,800,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ...................... +1,200,000 +1,800,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 .................... — —

The accompanying bill provides a total of $110,000,000 for tran- sit planning and research. The recommendation is $1,800,000 more

than provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same level as in the

budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit

funding category.

The recommended program level of $110,000,000 is comprised of

an appropriation of $22,200,000 from the general fund and

$87,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit

account of the highway trust fund.

The bill contains language specifying that $52,114,000 shall be

available for metropolitan planning; $10,886,000 shall be available

for state planning; $29,500,000 shall be available for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 shall be available for rural transportation assistance.

TEA21 earmarks the following projects within the funds provided

for the national program in fiscal year 2001:

SEPTA, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania advanced propulsion control

system ................................................................................................. $3,000,000

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

Support in fiscal year 2001 is provided for a number of important

initiatives including:

CALSTART/WESTART ......................................................................... $3,500,000

Safety activities ...................................................................................... 6,100,000

National rural transportation assistance program ............................. 750,000

115

Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota .................. 1,000,000

Athol/Orange community transportation, Massachusetts .................. 300,000

Electric transit vehicle institute, Tennessee ....................................... 500,000

South Amboy, New Jersey transit study ............................................. 200,000

Long Island, New York transportation land use projects .................. 300,000

JOBLINKS ............................................................................................. 1,250,000

Evaluation funds.—The Committee has not approved bill language proposed by the department to permit the Secretary to use

up to ten percent of amounts made available under section

5338(d)(2) of title 49 to provide technical direction and documentation of research projects under sections 5312 and 5314.

Fuel cell bus program.—The Committee directs that none of the

funds available under this heading shall be available to supplement funding provided under section 3015(b) of TEA21 for the fuel

cell buses and bus facilities program. To the extent that supplemental funding is believed necessary above the $14,500,000 provided in TEA21, the Committee directs the FTA and Georgetown

University to obtain additional funding support from transit agencies that have expressed interest in fuel cell transit buses and

other corporate sponsors to finance any perceived program shortfalls.

Garrett A. Morgan program.—The Committee has deleted funding requested for the Garrett A. Morgan program (¥$200,000).

Safety and security programs.—The Committee provides

$6,100,000 for safety and security programs, the same level as requested in the budget. The Committee directs, however, that these

funds are to be wholly administered by the office of safety and security to advance safety programs and are not to be transferred to

other offices to support lesser priority activities.

TRUST FUND SHARE OF EXPENSES

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ......................................................... ($4,929,270,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ....................................................... (5,016,600,000)

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... (5,016,600,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. (+87,330,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ ............................

For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided $5,016,600,000

for liquidation of contract authorization. The increase over last

year is necessary to pay outstanding obligations of the various

transit programs at the levels contained in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and has no scoring effect.

CAPITAL INVESTMENT GRANTS

Appropriation

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations (Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ................. $490,200,000 ($1,996,800,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ............... 529,200,000 (2,116,800,000)

Recommended in the bill ............................ 529,200,000 (2,116,800,000)

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .......... +39,000,000 +150,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ........ ................................ ................................

116

The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,646,000,000 to be

available for capital investment grants. The recommendation is

$189,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same

level as the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under

the transit category.

The recommended program level of $2,646,000,000 is comprised

of an appropriation of $529,200,000 from the general fund and

$2,116,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.

Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be distributed

as follows:

2000 enacted 2001 request Recommended in

the bill

Fixed guideway modernization ........................................................ $980,400,000 $1,058,400,000 $1,058,400,000

New starts ....................................................................................... 980,400,000 1,058,400,000 1,058,400,000

Buses and bus facilities 1 .............................................................. 496,200,000 529,200,000 529,200,000

Total ................................................................................... 2,457,000,000 2,646,000,000 2,646,000,000

1 Includes $6,000,000 provided in title II—other Appropriations matters in P.L. 106–113.

Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.—The Committee

has included bill language that permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses and bus facilities funds

from projects which remain unobligated after three years. Funds

made available in the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act and previous Acts

are available for reallocation in fiscal year 2001 as availability for

these discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous appropriations that remain available after three years and

are available for reallocation to only those section 3 new starts that

have full funding grant agreements in place on the date of enactment of this Act, and with respect to buses and bus facilities, only

to those buses and bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 15 days

prior to any such reallocation, consistent with the department’s reprogramming guidelines.

The Committee, however, directs the FTA not to reallocate funds

provided in the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for the following new start projects:

Austin, Texas capital metro project

Burlington—Essex, Vermont commuter rail

Cleveland Berea Red Line extension

Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor

Galveston, Texas rail trolley system project

New York Staten Island—Midtown ferry terminal project

New Orleans Canal Street corridor project

New Orleans Desire Streetcar project

Scranton, Pennsylvania Laurel line project

Salt Lake City, Utah commuter rail project

San Bernardino Metrolink project

San Diego Mid-Coast project

117

The FTA informs the Committee that these funds are likely to

be awarded by the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2000 or soon thereafter.

In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate

funds provided in the fiscal year 1998 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts

for the following buses and bus facilities projects:

Arlington, Virginia Clarendon canopy project

Burlington, Vermont multimodal center

Chatham, Georgia bus facility

Columbia, South Carolina buses and bus facilities

El Paso, Texas demand response facility

Florence, South Carolina intermodal facility

Inglewood, California transit center

Jackson, Mississippi maintenance facility

King County, Washington park and ride expansion

Rialto, California Metro Link depot

San Joaquin, California buses and bus facilities

Sonoma County, California park and ride facility

Staten Island, New York mobility project

Tampa, Florida buses and bus facilities

Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania mobility project

BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

The accompanying bill provides $529,200,000 for bus purchases

and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and intermodal

facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital role in the mass

transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates that 95

percent of the areas that provide mass transit service do so

through bus transit only and over 60 percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.

TEA21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made available

for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is derived from

$50,000,000 from the formula grants account and $50,000,000 from

funds allocated for buses under this account. Designated recipients

of the clean fuels grant program—funding for which is derived in

part from the formula grants program—are identified in the list

below (to the extent funding is allocated for the purchase of eligible

alternative-fuel vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).

TEA21 requires that the funds provided for buses and bus facilities be allocated as follows:

Altoona, Pennsylvania bus testing facility ....................................... $3,000,000

Georgetown University fuel cell bus program .................................. 4,850,000

In addition, federal support is provided for the following projects:

Amount

State of Alabama:

Huntsville, intermodal facility ....................................................... $1,000,000

Lanett, vans .................................................................................... 250,000

Mobile, buses and bus facilities ..................................................... 2,500,000

Montgomery, civil rights trail trolleys .......................................... 500,000

Shelby County, vans ....................................................................... 200,000

Statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 5,680,000

University of North Alabama ........................................................ 2,500,000

State of Arkansas:

Central Arkansas Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities ... 2,000,000

Nevada County, vans and mini-vans ............................................ 90,000

Pine Bluff, buses ............................................................................. 290,000

118

Amount

River Market and College Station livable communities program 1,100,000

State of Arkansas, small, rural and elderly and handicapped

transit buses and bus facilities .................................................. 2,000,000

State of Arizona:

Phoenix, buses and bus facilities .................................................. 9,000,000

South Central Avenue transit center ............................................ 2,000,000

Tucson, buses and bus facilities .................................................... 4,000,000

State of California:

Alameda Contra Costa Transit District, buses and bus facilities ................................................................................................ 1,000,000

Anaheim, buses and bus facilities ................................................. 500,000

Brea, buses ...................................................................................... 150,000

Calabasas, buses ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Central Costa County Transit Authority ...................................... 1,000,000

Commerce, buses ............................................................................ 2,000,000

Compton, buses and bus-related equipment ................................ 500,000

Culver City, buses .......................................................................... 1,500,000

Davis, buses .................................................................................... 2,000,000

El Dorado, buses ............................................................................. 500,000

El Segundo, intermodal facility ..................................................... 2,100,000

Folsom, transit stations ................................................................. 3,000,000

Foothills Transit, buses and bus facilities .................................... 4,100,000

Fresno, intermodal facilities .......................................................... 1,000,000

Humboldt County, buses and bus facilities .................................. 1,000,000

City of Livermore, park and ride facility ...................................... 1,000,000

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority,

buses ............................................................................................ 9,000,000

Marin County, bus facilities .......................................................... 1,820,000

Modesto, bus facilities .................................................................... 500,000

Monrovia, electric shuttles ............................................................. 580,000

Monterey Salinas Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities ... 1,000,000

Municipal transit operators coalition, buses ................................ 4,000,000

Oceanside, intermodal facility ....................................................... 4,000,000

Placer County, buses and bus facilities ........................................ 500,000

Playa Vista, shuttle buses, bus-related equipment and facilities 3,000,000

Redlands, trolley project ................................................................ 800,000

Rialto, intermodal facility .............................................................. 1,100,000

Riverside County, buses ................................................................. 1,000,000

Sacramento, buses and bus facilities ............................................ 2,000,000

San Bernardino, intermodal facility ............................................. 3,200,000

San Bernardino, train station ....................................................... 800,000

San Diego, East Village station improvement plan ..................... 2,000,000

San Francisco, MUNI buses and bus facilities ............................ 4,000,000

Santa Barbara County, mini-buses ............................................... 240,000

Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority, buses .................. 1,000,000

Santa Clarita, maintenance facility .............................................. 3,000,000

Santa Cruz, buses and bus facilities ............................................. 3,100,000

Sonoma County, bus facilities ....................................................... 1,000,000

SunLine transit agency, buses ...................................................... 2,000,000

Temecula, bus shelters ................................................................... 200,000

Vista, bus center ............................................................................. 300,000

State of Colorado: statewide buses and bus facilities ......................... 4,000,000

State of Connecticut:

Bridgeport, intermodal center ....................................................... 3,000,000

Hartford/New Britain busway ....................................................... 1,500,000

New Haven, trolley cars and related equipment ......................... 2,000,000

New London, parade project transit improvements .................... 2,000,000

Waterbury, bus garage ................................................................... 2,000,000

State of Delaware: statewide buses and bus facilities ........................ 2,000,000

State of Florida: statewide buses and bus facilities ........................... 28,000,000

State of Georgia:

Atlanta, buses and bus facilities ................................................... 4,000,000

Chatham, buses and bus facilities ................................................ 4,000,000

Cobb County, buses ........................................................................ 2,500,000

Georgia Regional Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities .... 3,000,000

State of Idaho: statewide buses and bus facilities .............................. 2,000,000

119

Amount

State of Illinois:

Harvey, intermodal facilities and related equipment .................. 500,000

Statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 3,000,000

State of Indiana:

Evansville, buses and bus facilities .............................................. 1,500,000

Indianapolis, buses and bus-related equipment .......................... 1,000,000

South Bend, buses .......................................................................... 1,000,000

West Lafayette, buses and bus facilities ...................................... 2,180,000

State of Iowa:

Dubuque, buses and bus facilities ................................................. 1,115,000

Mason City, bus facility ................................................................. 1,810,000

Statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 5,000,000

Waterloo, buses and bus facilities ................................................. 1,075,000

State of Kansas:

Johnson County, buses ................................................................... 500,000

Kansas City, buses ......................................................................... 4,000,000

Kansas City, JOBLINKS ............................................................... 500,000

Kansas Department of Transportation, rural transit buses ....... 1,500,000

Topeka, transit facility ................................................................... 600,000

Wichita, buses and ITS related equipment .................................. 6,000,000

Wyandotte County, buses .............................................................. 500,000

Commonwealth of Kentucky:

Audubon Area Community Action ................................................ 190,000

Bluegrass Community Action, buses and bus-related equipment ............................................................................................. 160,000

Central Community Action ............................................................ 100,000

Community Action of Southern Kentucky .................................... 100,000

Kentucky (southern and eastern) transit vehicles ....................... 6,000,000

Kentucky Department of Transportation ..................................... 500,000

Fulton County, vans and buses ..................................................... 140,000

Hardin County, buses .................................................................... 300,000

Lexington, LexTran, buses and bus facilities ............................... 5,500,000

Louisville, buses and bus facilities ................................................ 4,000,000

Maysville, bus-related equipment ................................................. 64,000

Morehead, buses and bus-related equipment ............................... 39,000

Murray/Calloway County, buses and bus related equipment ..... 60,000

Northern Kentucky Transit Agency, vans .................................... 42,000

Paducah Transit Authority, buses ................................................ 500,000

Pennyrile, vans and related equipment ........................................ 200,000

Pikeville, transit facility ................................................................ 2,000,000

State of Louisiana: statewide buses and bus facilities ....................... 7,000,000

State of Maine: statewide buses, bus facilities and ferries ................ 1,500,000

State of Maryland: statewide buses and bus facilities ....................... 10,000,000

Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

Attleboro, intermodal facilities ...................................................... 1,000,000

Berkshire, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 2,500,000

Beverly and Salem, intermodal station improvements ............... 1,200,000

Brockton, intermodal center .......................................................... 2,000,000

Lowell, transit hub ......................................................................... 500,000

Merrimack Valley Regional Authority, bus facility ..................... 1,000,000

Montachusetts, intermodal facility, Fitchburg ............................. 2,000,000

Montachusetts, bus facilities, Leominster .................................... 250,000

Pioneer Valley, paratransit vehicles and equipment ................... 2,500,000

Springfield, intermodal facility ...................................................... 1,000,000

Woburn, buses and bus facility ..................................................... 500,000

State of Michigan:

Detroit, buses and bus facilities .................................................... 4,000,000

Flint, buses and bus facilities ........................................................ 1,000,000

Lapeer, multi-modal transportation facility ................................. 100,000

SMART community transit, buses and paratransit vehicles ...... 6,250,000

Traverse City, transfer station ...................................................... 1,000,000

Statewide buses and bus facilities ................................................ 7,650,000

State of Minnesota:

Metro Transit, buses and bus facilities ........................................ 25,000,000

Greater Minnesota buses and bus facilities ................................. 2,500,000

St. Cloud, buses and bus facilities ................................................ 3,500,000

120

Amount

State of Missouri:

Bi-State Development Agency, buses ............................................ 750,000

Dunklin, Mississippi, Scott, Ripley, Stoddard and Cape

Giradeau counties, buses and bus facilities .............................. 2,000,000

Kansas City, buses and bus facilities ........................................... 1,000,000

Southwest Missouri State University, intermodal facility .......... 2,000,000

State of Mississippi:

Harrison County, multimodal center ............................................ 1,000,000

Jackson, buses ................................................................................ 1,000,000

State of North Carolina: statewide buses and bus facilities .............. 10,000,000

State of North Dakota: statewide buses and bus facilities ................ 2,500,000

State of Nevada:

Clark County, bus rapid transit .................................................... 4,500,000

Reno and Sparks buses and bus facilities .................................... 2,000,000

State of New Jersey: Trenton, train/intermodel station ..................... 5,000,000

State of New Mexico: .............................................................................

Albuquerque, transit facility .......................................................... 5,000,000

Carlsbad, intermodal facilities ...................................................... 630,000

Clovis, buses and bus facilities ...................................................... 1,625,000

Los Cruces, buses ........................................................................... 500,000

Valencia County, transportation station improvements ............. 1,250,000

State of New York:

Buffalo, buses .................................................................................. 2,000,000

Buffalo, intermodal facility ............................................................ 1,000,000

Cherry Grove, ferry dock improvements ...................................... 360,000

Eastchester, Metro North facilities ............................................... 500,000

Greenport and Sag Harbor, ferries and vans ............................... 470,000

Jamaica, intermodal facilities ........................................................ 500,000

Larchmont, intermodal facility ...................................................... 1,000,000

Long Beach, bus maintenance facility .......................................... 750,000

Midtown west intermodal ferry terminal ..................................... 500,000

Nassau County, buses .................................................................... 2,300,000

New Rochelle, intermodal transportation center ......................... 3,000,000

Oneida County, buses .................................................................... 2,000,000

Rensselaer County, intermodal facility ......................................... 1,000,000

Rochester, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 2,000,000

Saratoga County, buses ................................................................. 650,000

Suffolk County, buses and bus-related equipment ...................... 1,000,000

Sullivan County, buses, bus facilities and related equipment .... 2,500,000

Syracuse, buses ............................................................................... 6,350,000

Tompkins County, intermodal facility .......................................... 1,250,000

Weschester County, buses ............................................................. 2,000,000

State of Ohio: statewide buses and bus facilities ................................ 28,000,000

State of Oklahoma: statewide buses and bus facilities ...................... 4,000,000

State of Oregon:

Redmond, buses and vans .............................................................. 50,000

Statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 4,000,000

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Allegheny County, buses ................................................................ 500,000

Area Transit Authority, ITS related activities ............................. 1,800,000

Beaver County, buses ..................................................................... 500,000

Berks County, buses and bus facilities ......................................... 500,000

Bradford County, buses and bus facilities .................................... 1,000,000

Bucks County, intermodal facility improvements ........................ 2,500,000

Cambria County Transit Authority, maintenance facilities ....... 1,500,000

Centre Area Transportation Authority, buses ............................. 3,200,000

Fayettte County, maintenance facilities ....................................... 1,000,000

Indiana, maintenance facilities ..................................................... 700,000

Lancaster, buses ............................................................................. 1,000,000

Lycoming County, buses and bus facilities .................................. 2,000,000

Mid County Transit Authority, buses ........................................... 270,000

Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority, buses .................................... 500,000

Monroe County, buses and bus facilities ...................................... 1,000,000

Philadelphia, Callowhill bus garage ............................................. 500,000

Phoenixville, transit related improvements ................................. 2,500,000

Somerset County, ITS related equipment .................................... 200,000

Westmoreland County, buses and related equipment ................. 480,000

121

Amount

State of Rhode Island: statewide buses and bus facilities ................. 4,000,000

State of South Carolina: statewide buses and bus facilities .............. 12,000,000

State of Tennessee:

Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation, buses ............ 4,000,000

Statewide, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 8,000,000

State of Texas:

Austin, buses ................................................................................... 1,000,000

Brazos Transit District, buses ....................................................... 1,000,000

Corpus Christi, buses and bus facilities ....................................... 500,000

Dallas, buses ................................................................................... 750,000

El Paso, buses ................................................................................. 500,000

Fort Worth, intermodal transportation center ............................. 5,000,000

Fort Worth, buses and bus facilities ............................................. 4,000,000

Galveston, buses and bus facilities ............................................... 500,000

Harris County, buses and bus facilities ........................................ 4,000,000

Houston Metro, Main Street Corridor transit improvements ..... 1,000,000

Lubbock, buses and bus facilities .................................................. 2,000,000

Waco, maintenance facility ............................................................ 3,300,000

State of Utah: statewide Olympic buses and bus facilities ................ 20,000,000

Commonwealth of Virginia: statewide buses and bus facilities ......... 25,000,000

State of Vermont: Burlington multimodal transportation center ...... 1,300,000

State of Washington:

Clallam County, transportation center ......................................... 1,000,000

Clark County, intermodal facilities ............................................... 2,000,000

Ephrata, buses ................................................................................ 440,000

Everett, buses ................................................................................. 1,000,000

King County, intermodal facilities ................................................ 2,000,000

Olympia, bus-related equipment ................................................... 500,000

Richland, bus maintenance facility ............................................... 2,000,000

Sound Transit, regional express buses ......................................... 4,000,000

Snohomish County, buses and bus facilities ................................ 1,000,000

Thurston County, bus-related equipment ..................................... 750,000

State of Wisconsin: statewide buses and bus facilities ....................... 28,000,000

Hot Springs, Arkansas.—Funds contained in the fiscal year 2000

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the transportation depot and plaza project in Hot

Springs, Arkansas shall also be available for buses and bus

facilities.

State of Alabama.—The bill provides $5,680,000 for buses and

bus facilities within the state of Alabama. Within the funds provided to the state, $25,000 shall be available for Lamar County

vans.

State of Florida.—The Committee recommends $28,000,000 for

buses and bus facilities in the state of Florida. These funds are for

the consolidated buses and bus facilities request which inadvertently omitted Tallahassee. When allocating these funds, the Committee expects that all transit providers throughout the state, including those located in Tallahassee, be considered for funding allotments.

State of Maine.—The bill provides $1,500,000 for buses, bus facilities and ferries in the state of Maine, including the Bangor,

Maine intermodal transportation center.

Kentucky Department of Transportation.—The bill provides

$500,000 for the Kentucky Department of Transportation, to be allocated as follows: $88,000 for the city of Frankfort for minibuses;

$64,000 for Community Action of Fayette/Lexington for cutaways

and lifts; and $102,400 for the Lexington Red Cross for minibuses.

State of Michigan, statewide buses and bus facilities.—The bill

includes $7,650,000 for statewide buses and bus facilities, which

shall be available only for the following transit agencies: SMART,

122

Holland, Cadillac/Wexford, Grand Haven, Ludington, Manitee

County, Yates Township, Muskegon area transit authority, Grand

Rapids area transit authority, Barry County, Ionia, Iona transit authority, Alma, Big Rapids, Clare County, Crawford County transit

authority, Galdwin County, Greenville, Isabella County transit

commission, Midland, Midland County, Ogemaw County,

Roscommon County, Shiawassee, Twin Cities, Berrien County,

Cass County, Dowagiac DAR, Kalamazoo County, Van Buren County, Battle Creek, Adrian, Branch area transit authority, Eaton

County, and Lenawee County.

State of Ohio.—The bill includes $28,000,000 for buses and bus

facilities within the state of Ohio. Within these funds, $625,000 has

been included for the Dayton multimodal transportation center.

FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

The accompanying bill provides $1,058,400,000 from the capital

investment grants program to modernize existing rail transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed, consistent with the provisions of TEA21, as follows:

SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS

State

Fiscal year— Change from fiscal

year 2000 2000 2001

Arizona ............................................................................................ $1,526,094 $1,886,447 +$360,353

California ........................................................................................ 95,431,731 105,855,347 +10,423,616

Colorado .......................................................................................... 1,219,287 1,399,669 +180,382

Connecticut ..................................................................................... 36,897,367 38,394,771 +1,497,404

Delaware ......................................................................................... 755,391 933,856 +178,465

District of Columbia ....................................................................... 46,383,358 53,515,908 +7,132,550

Florida ............................................................................................. 13,823,587 17,274,352 +3,450,765

Georgia ............................................................................................ 17,521,698 21,678,953 +4,157,255

Hawaii ............................................................................................. 625,993 777,032 +151,039

Illinois ............................................................................................. 114,500,000 119,210,579 +4,710,579

Indiana ............................................................................................ 7,661,248 8,801,272 +1,140,024

Louisiana ......................................................................................... 2,709,022 2,789,416 +80,394

Maryland ......................................................................................... 22,632,029 25,244,770 +2,612,741

Massachusetts ................................................................................ 63,234,326 66,655,030 +3,420,704

Michigan ......................................................................................... 440,130 567,771 +127,641

Minnesota ........................................................................................ 2,874,132 3,264,028 +389,896

Missouri ........................................................................................... 1,882,830 2,105,783 +222,953

New Jersey ....................................................................................... 85,635,781 89,510,699 +3,874,918

New York ......................................................................................... 316,773,720 334,423,700 +17,649,980

Ohio ................................................................................................. 15,542,858 16,555,990 +1,013,132

Oregon ............................................................................................. 2,868,068 3,583,779 +715,711

Pennsylvania ................................................................................... 96,624,465 100,145,538 +3,521,073

Puerto Rico ...................................................................................... 1,968,870 2,503,755 +534,885

Rhode Island ................................................................................... 1,446,893 1,785,542 +338,649

Tennessee ........................................................................................ 71,083 88,672 +17,589

Texas ............................................................................................... 5,138,282 6,149,522 +1,011,240

Virginia ............................................................................................ 987,183 5,863,181 +4,875,998

Washington ..................................................................................... 15,232,451 18,695,054 +3,462,603

Wisconsin ........................................................................................ 639,123 801,584 +162,461

Total ....................................................................................... 973,047,000 1,050,462,000 77,415,000 3

⁄4 percent oversight ....................................................................... 7,353,000 7,938,000 +585,000

Total appropriation ................................................................ 980,400,000 1,058,400,000 +78,000,000

123

NEW STARTS

The accompanying bill provides $1,058,400,000 of new authority

for new starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and

construction of new systems and extensions. TEA21 requires that

no more than eight percent of the funding provided for new starts

be available for preliminary engineering and design activities.

Funds made available in this Act for new starts are to be supplemented with $10,390,108 from projects included in previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these funds are not

needed due to changing local circumstances or are in excess project

requirements. The bill, therefore, reallocates the following unexpended sums from previous appropriations Acts, which are noted

below:

North Front Range corridor feasibility study (1999) ....................... $496,280

Orlando light rail project (2000) ....................................................... 4,910,000

Pittsburgh busway project (1998) ..................................................... 4,983,828

The bill includes a provision that makes previous appropriations

for the Miami east-west and North 27th Avenue corridor projects

available for the Miami Dade transit busway project. In total, the $1,068,790,108 provided in this Act together with

previous appropriations are to be distributed as follows:

Project Amount

Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects ............................................................ $10,322,000

Atlanta—MARTA north line extension project ................................... 25,000,000

Baltimore central LRT double track project ........................................ 3,000,000

Boston—South Boston Piers transitway project ................................. 36,000,000

Boston Urban Ring project .................................................................... 1,000,000

Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project ................................. 6,000,000

Charlotte, North Carolina north-south corridor transitway project 5,000,000

Chicago—METRA commuter rail projects ........................................... 35,000,000

Chicago—Ravenswood and Douglas Branch reconstruction projects 15,000,000

Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project .................................. 3,000,000

Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project .................................................. 2,000,000

Dallas north central light rail extension project ................................. 70,000,000

Denver—Southeast corridor project ..................................................... 3,000,000

Denver—Southwest corridor project .................................................... 20,200,000

Dulles corridor project ........................................................................... 50,000,000

Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail project .............. 20,000,000

Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit corridor 1 commuter rail

project .................................................................................................. 500,000

Hollister/Gilroy branch line rail extension project .............................. 1,000,000

Houston advanced transit program ...................................................... 5,000,000

Houston regional bus project ................................................................ 10,750,000

Indianapolis, Indiana northeast-downtown corridor project .............. 2,000,000

Johnson County, Kansas I–35 commuter rail project ......................... 1,000,000

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project ............................. 2,000,000

Little Rock, Arkansas river rail project ............................................... 2,000,000

Long Island Railroad East Side access project .................................... 10,000,000

Los Angeles Mid-City and East Side corridors projects ..................... 4,000,000

Los Angeles North Hollywood extension project ................................. 50,000,000

Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor project ............................... 3,000,000

Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire commuter rail

project .................................................................................................. 1,000,000

Massachusetts North Shore corridor project ....................................... 1,000,000

Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail extension project .............. 4,000,000

Nashville, Tennessee regional commuter rail project ......................... 6,000,000

New Jersey Hudson Bergen project ..................................................... 121,000,000

Newark-Elizabeth rail link project ....................................................... 4,000,000

Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail project ......................... 2,000,000

124

Project Amount

Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail system ............................. 10,000,000

Olympic transportation infrastructure investments ........................... 10,000,000

Orange County, California transitway project .................................... 3,000,000

Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley and Cross County

metro projects ..................................................................................... 5,000,000

Phoenix metropolitan area transit project ........................................... 13,000,000

Pittsburgh North Shore—central business district corridor project 5,000,000

Pittsburgh stage II light rail project .................................................... 5,000,000

Portland—Interstate MAX LRT extension project .............................. 5,000,000

Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project .............................. 8,500,000

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit project ...................... 10,000,000

Sacramento, California south corridor LRT project ............................ 35,200,000

San Bernardino, California Metrolink project ..................................... 2,000,000

San Diego Mission Valley East light rail project ................................ 45,000,000

San Francisco BART extension to the airport project ........................ 80,000,000

San Jose Tasman West light rail project ............................................. 12,250,000

San Juan Tren Urbano project ............................................................. 100,000,000

Seattle, Washington—Central Link LRT project ................................ 30,000,000

Spokane, Washington South Valley corridor light rail project .......... 7,000,000

St. Louis, Missouri MetroLink Cross County connector project ........ 2,000,000

St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extension project ................................. 60,000,000

Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway corridor .................................. 8,000,000

Stockton, California Altamont commuter rail project ........................ 3,000,000

Twin Cities Transitways projects ......................................................... 5,000,000

Twin Cities Transitways—Hiawatha corridor project ........................ 55,000,000

Virginia Railway Express commuter rail project ................................ 3,000,000

Washington Metro—Blue Line extension—Addison Road (Largo)

project .................................................................................................. 2,000,000

West Trenton, New Jersey rail project ................................................ 4,000,000

Whitehall ferry terminal project ........................................................... 5,000,000

Wilsonville to Washington County, Oregon commuter rail project ... 1,000,000

Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.—The Metropolitan

Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is constructing a 1.9-

mile, 2-station extension of the north line from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. When completed, this extension will serve

the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this area

with the rest of the region by providing better transit service for

both commuters and inner-city residents traveling to expanding job

opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts funding to this

project. In the conference report to the fiscal year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the FFGA for this project

to incorporate a change in scope as authorized under Section

3030(d)(2) of TEA21. Accordingly, on October 28, 1999, FTA notified Congress of its intent to revise the scope of this project to include 28 additional railcars, a multilevel parking facility in lieu of

a surface parking lot, and enhancements to customer security and

amenity measures at the Sandy Springs and North Springs stations. These changes will increase the total project cost to

$463,180,000, and the Federal share to $370,540,000. Of the

$65,530,000 increase in Federal funding, $10,670,000 will be applied from unexpended funds identified from cost savings on the

Dunwoody section of the north line extension. Of the original

$305,010,000 commitment, a total of $249,870,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 1999. The fiscal year 2000 appropriation provided an additional $44,290,000, leaving $10,850,000 required to fulfill the terms of the original FFGA for this project. In

order to fulfill the original commitment, and in recognition of the

125

FFGA amendment, the Committee has recommended $25,000,000

in new starts funding for this project in fiscal year 2001. This

amount includes the $10,850,000 remaining under the original

FFGA.

Austin capital Metro.—Due to budget constraints, the Committee

has not included additional funds in this bill for the Austin capital

Metro light rail transit system. The Committee has taken this action with no prejudice against the project and notes that $2,970,000

in prior year funding has recently been obligated for the initiation

of preliminary engineering. The Committee is aware that local

project sponsors have undertaken a thorough redesign of the

project and shall consider future funding requests.

Baltimore central LRT double track project.—The Maryland Mass

Transit Administration plans to construct 9.4 miles of track to upgrade designated areas of the Baltimore central corridor light rail

line that are currently single track. The central corridor is 29 miles

long and operates between Hunt Valley in the north to Cromwell/

Glen Burnie in the south, serving Baltimore City and Baltimore

and Anne Arundel Counties, with extensions providing direct service to the Amtrak Penn Station and the Baltimore-Washington

International Airport. The proposed project will double-track eight

sections of the central corridor between Timonium and Cromwell

Station/Glen Burnie, for a total of 9.4 miles. Although no new stations are required, the addition of a second track will require construction of second station platforms at four stations. Other elements included in the project are bridge and crossing improvements, a bi-directional signal system with traffic signal preemption

on Howard Street, and catenary and other equipment and systems.

The double tracking will be constructed almost entirely in existing

right-of-way. The total cost of the double-tracking and related improvements is estimated at $153,700,000, of which MTA is expected

to seek $120,000,000 (78 percent) in section 5309 new starts funds.

A total of $5,650,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2000. For fiscal year

2001, the Committee recommends $3,000,000 for final design and

construction.

Boston Urban Ring project.—The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is conducting a major investment study

(MIS) to examine transportation alternatives to improve circumferential mass transit in a corridor surrounding the Boston central

core. The proposed corridor, known as the Urban Ring and generally following a previously proposed inner belt highway alignment, includes regional trip generators, beginning at the University of Massachusetts’ Boston campus at the southeast end and terminating at Logan Airport at the northeast end. The corridor also

includes many major public, private, and institutional activity centers located in Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Somerville,

and Brookline. Currently, the alternatives under consideration include circumferential rail service, various combinations of rail and

bus service to new station stops on the existing radial system, and

enhanced bus service. These alternatives would connect with extant commuter rail and transit lines. The project is included in the

‘‘future projects’’ section of the Boston area long range transportation plan but is not in the financially constrained plan. Through

126

fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $2,700,000 in Section

5309 New Starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the

Committee has provided $1,000,000.

Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail project.—The METRO

Regional Transit Authority (METRO), in cooperation with local

metropolitan planning organizations, regional transit authorities,

and the Ohio Department of Transportation, is conducting a major

investment study (MIS) to assess the costs and benefits of new passenger rail service, transportation system management (TSM), and/

or capacity improvements for the Canton-Akron-Cleveland (CAC)

corridor. The proposed 62-mile corridor follows a path along Interstate 77 (I–77) between Canton and Akron. Between Akron and

Cleveland, the corridor widens to include both I–77 and State

Route 8 (SR–8). The SR–8 alignment utilizes Interstate 271 and

Interstate 480, returning to I–77 then into the central business district of Cleveland. The corridor frequently experiences traffic congestion and related safety problems on major transportation facilities. The study is currently in the primary scoping stage. The proposed project is included in the Akron metropolitan area transportation study’s long range needs plan. In addition, several miles of

rail right-of-way have been purchased for passenger rail use.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $14,400,000

in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year

2001, the bill includes $6,000,000 for this project.

Charlotte, North Carolina north-south corridor transitway

project.—The north-south corridor extends approximately 36 miles

from Davidson in North Mecklenburg County through downtown

Charlotte to Pineville in South Mecklenburg County. This corridor

was identified in the centers and corridors plan adopted by the

Charlotte council and Mecklenburg County board of commissioners

in 1994 and reaffirmed through inclusion in the adopted 2020 long

range transportation plan and the 2025 transit/land use plan. The

formal scoping meeting for the phase I environmental analysis was

held January 1999. Alternatives analysis is currently underway for

the 11.5-mile southern portion of the corridor from downtown Charlotte to Pineville. Adoption of a locally preferred alternative followed by a request to the FTA to enter preliminary engineering is

anticipated in early 2000. York County, South Carolina is also

doing preliminary investigation of alignments and land use patterns to evaluate possible future extensions to South Carolina. The

city of Charlotte, Mecklenburg County and the six other municipalities in the county have developed a county-wide transit land

use plan for 2025. Transit options and possible land use actions for

five corridors, including the north-south corridor, were analyzed.

The 2025 plan built upon earlier studies and land use plans for the

Charlotte-Mecklenburg area. The plan was also the basis for obtaining November 1998 approval of a county-wide referendum for

a 11⁄2 cent sales tax dedicated to public transportation. The tax

went into effect in April 1999 and is anticipated to yield approximately $46–$48,000,000 during the first year. The city of Charlotte,

Mecklenburg County, and six towns formed the metropolitan transit commission (MTC) to oversee the county-wide transit system.

The adopted MTC capital and operating budget for the current fiscal year exceeds $91,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress

127

has appropriated $7,890,000 in Section 5309 New Starts for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $5,000,000

for the project.

Boston-South Boston Piers transitway project.—The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing transit system with

the South Boston Piers area. The Piers area, which is connected to

the central business district (CBD) by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development. A 1.5-mile tunnel, which is planned

to be constructed in two phases, will extend from the existing

Boylston Station to the World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide connections to the MBTA’s red, orange and green

lines. Dual-mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway

tunnel and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area.

Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus tunnel

between South Station and the World Trade Center, with an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project. South Station

serves the existing MBTA red line, as well as Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated cost of phase I is

$601,000,000. Phase II would extend the transitway to Boylston

Station on the green line and the Chinatown Station on the orange

line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA directed FTA to enter into an FFGA

for this project. On November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for

phase 1, committing a total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new

starts funding. Through fiscal year 2000, a total of $294,760,000

has been provided for this project. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided $36,000,000.

The Committee is concerned about significant cost increases on

the South Boston Piers transitway project. Originally estimated to

cost a total of $413,400,000, the project is now estimated to cost

$601,000,000, an increase of over 45 percent. These costs increases

are primarily the result of schedule delays and the fact that the

original baseline cost estimate was not based on a final design but

rather on conceptual engineering. Factors contributing to the construction delays include coordination problems with the joint Central Artery construction contracts, complications with design for the

relocation of utilities, and differing site conditions. Other issues

that contributed to increasing the project’s cost include: (1) potentially higher than anticipated contract costs to construct the last

major segment of the transitway tunnel; (2) the decision of whether

to build a new vehicle maintenance facility or expand an existing

one; (3) capital participation for eight vehicles by a local agency; (4)

a higher than anticipated unit-cost for the vehicles, and (5) potential additional land acquisition costs. To pay for these cost increases, the project sponsor expects to use federal formula funds

and other resources, such as state bond funds.

In light of these significant cost increases and the uncertainty of

the financial capacity of the grantee to complete the project, the

Committee directs that none of the funds available in this Act shall

be available until (1) the project sponsor produces a finance plan

that clearly delineates the full costs-to-complete and manner in

which the sponsor expects to pay those costs; (2) the FTA conducts

a final review and accepts the plan and certifies to the House and

128

Senate Committees on Appropriations that the fiscal management

of the project meets or exceeds accepted U.S. government standards; (3) the General Accounting Office and the Department of

Transportation’s Inspector General conduct an independent analysis of the plans and provide such analysis to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 60 days of FTA accepting

the plan; and (4) the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations have concluded their review of the analysis within 60 days of

the transmittal of the analysis to the Committees. Lastly, the Committee directs the FTA to conduct ongoing, continual financial management reviews of this project.

Chicago—METRA commuter rail projects.—Metra, the commuter

rail division of the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) of northeastern Illinois, is proposing several extensions: the central Kane

corridor, which would extend trackage west to Elburn, Illinois; the

Wisconsin central limited corridor, which extends from downtown

Chicago to Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, traversing suburban Lake County; and the southwest corridor, which would extend commuter rail service from Orchard Park southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. The accompanying bill provides $35,000,000 for

final design activities for these extension projects in fiscal year

2001.

Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood and Douglas Branch reconstruction projects.—The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is advancing two projects of its existing system, for which the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for final design and construction

activities. First, the CTA is proposing a complete reconstruction of

the approximately 6.6-mile length of the existing Douglas Branch

of CTA’s heavy rail blue line. The line extends from a point just

west of downtown Chicago to its terminus at Cermak Avenue. The

Douglas Branch line was originally built in the early 20th century

with several improvements and upgrades occurring through the

mid-1980s. The line currently carries approximately 27,000 average

weekday boardings utilizing 11 existing stations. Due to its age,

the line has become seriously deteriorated which has resulted in

high maintenance and operating costs and declining service. The

Douglas Branch serves one of the most economically distressed

areas in Chicago. Total capital costs for the proposed heavy rail reconstruction project are estimated at $450,8000,000.

The CTA is also proposing to lengthen existing platforms and expand stations on the existing Ravenswood (brown) line to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line extends 9.3 miles from the

north side of Chicago to the ‘‘loop elevated’’ in downtown Chicago

and includes 19 stations. The majority of the brown line is operated

on an elevated structure (8.1 miles) except for a portion near the

northern end of the line, which operates at-grade (1.2 miles). The

brown line was built between 1900 and 1907. The line currently

carries approximately 104,000 average weekday boardings. However, current station and platform size prohibits CTA from increasing capacity on the line to handle increased demand. The proposed

project would expand stations and platforms and straighten curves

to allow CTA to operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the line. Other related capital improvements would also

129

be undertaken. Total capital costs are currently estimated at

$327,000,000.

Clark County, Nevada Resort Corridor.—Due to budget constraints, the Committee has not included funds in the bill for the

Regional Transportation Commission of Clark County, Nevada Resort Corridor. The Committee has taken this action with no prejudice against the project. The Committee is aware that local sponsors are moving forward with the project and shall consider future

funding requests.

Cleveland Euclid corridor improvement project.—The Greater

Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related capital improvements on

Euclid Avenue from Public Square in downtown Cleveland east to

University Circle. The proposed project is known as the Euclid corridor improvement project (ECIP). The ECIP incorporates a series

of transit improvements including an exclusive center median

busway along Euclid Avenue from Public Square to University Circle, improvements to East 17th/East 18th Streets, as well as a

‘‘transit zone’’ on St. Clair and Superior avenues utilizing exclusive

transit lanes. The proposed busway will provide service to the University Circle area and continue into the city of East Cleveland,

terminating at the Stokes/Windermere rapid transit station.

GCRTA proposes to operate sixty-foot articulated electric trolley

buses (ETB) with both left and righthand side doors for access and

egress of patrons on the corridor. The ETBs will have access to the

entire length of the proposed corridor. However, conventional buses

will not be able to access Euclid Avenue in the central business district. Total capital costs for the ECIP are estimated at

$220,000,000 (escalated dollars). GCRTA estimates that 29,500 average weekday boardings will use the ECIP in the forecast year

(2025).

Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a multiyear

grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown and University

Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of Trustees selected

the ECIP as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) which included

a busway and the rehabilitation and relocation of several existing

rapid rail stations. In December 1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide

coordinating agency (local metropolitan planning organization)

adopted a resolution supporting the ECIP. In mid-1999, GCRTA

reconfigured the scope of the ECIP to incorporate only the construction of a busway along Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements

have been eliminated from the ECIP proposal for Section 5309 New

Starts funding. The environmental review process is scheduled for

completion in Spring 2000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has

appropriated $9,490,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for the

Euclid corridor improvement Project. Of this amount, $4,720,000

was rescinded or reprogrammed by Congress because of project

delays. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided

$3,000,000 for final design and construction activities.

Colorado Roaring Fork Valley project.—In 1995, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) completed a feasibility study of

rail transit in the 40-mile Aspen to Glenwood Springs Corridor in

130

the Roaring Fork Valley, about 160 miles west of Denver. The

study estimated that a valley-wide rail system would cost approximately $129,000,000. As a result, the city of Aspen is considering

a locally-funded light rail transit line in a four-mile segment of the

corridor connecting Pitkin County airport with downtown Aspen.

CDOT is conducting a major investment study/draft environmental

impact statement (MIS/DEIS) to analyze transportation alternatives, alignments, and costs in the remainder of the valley, the

35-mile corridor from Aspen to Glenwood Springs. The MIS/DEIS

is scheduled for completion in fiscal year 2000. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $2,970,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for this effort. The Committee recommends $2,000,000

for this project in fiscal year 2001.

Dallas north central light rail extension project.—Dallas Area

Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated construction of the north central corridor light rail transit (LRT) extension to the region’s 20.5

mile starter system. DART’s starter system opened in three phases

from June 1996 to May 1997 (one underground station will open

in 2000). This extension, part of a 20-year, $4,800,000,000 transit

capital program adopted in fiscal year 1998, measures 12.5 miles

long from the current northern terminus at Park Lane station to

the new terminal in Plano. The extension has nine stations. Although some single track sections were originally planned, the

DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double tracking of

the entire extension. DART estimates that over 17,000 daily riders,

of which 6,800 will be new riders, are expected to use the extension

in the year 2010. The project is estimated to cost $517,200,000.

FTA entered into an FFGA with DART for the north central extension project on October 6, 1999 with a section 5309 new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The project is currently in the construction phase. An associated northeast LRT extension is being built

solely with local funds. The project has been included in the regionally adopted metropolitan transportation plan and transportation

improvement program that conforms with the state implementation

plan for air quality. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $92,270,000 in section 5309 new start funds to this project.

For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes $70,000,000 for this project.

Denver Southeast corridor project.—The Regional Transportation

District (RTD) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)

are proposing the southeast corridor project, a 19.0-mile light rail

transit (LRT) system extending from the existing LRT station at I–

25 and Broadway in Denver along I–25 to Lincoln Avenue and I–

25 in Douglas County, with a LRT spur line along I–225 to Parker

Road in Arapahoe County. The double track system is proposed to

operate on an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and connect

with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail line in downtown Denver at the existing Broadway station. At I–25 and Broadway, the southeast corridor would also connect with RTD’s southwest corridor light rail line that is currently under construction.

The capital cost estimate of the fixed-guideway element is

$882,500,000 in escalated dollars, including right-of-way acquisition, final design, construction, and acquisition of rolling stock. Annual operating costs in 2020 are estimated at $35,300,000. Ridership is estimated at 38,100 average weekday boardings, 12,900 of

131

which are new riders. CDOT, in cooperation with the Denver regional council of governments (DRCOG) and the RTD, completed a

major investment study on the corridor in July 1997. The MIS resulted in the selection of a multimodal package of highway and rail

improvements. The DRCOG Board has included the LRT locally

preferred alternative in the 2020 long range regional transportation plan. Preliminary engineering and environmental work were

initiated in the spring of 1998. A draft environmental impact statement was issued in August 1999. A final environmental impact

statement is expected to be issued in December, 1999 and a record

of decision is expected in early 2000. Opening day is anticipated for

2007. A combination of FHWA and state funds are being utilized

to fund preliminary engineering (PE). In November 1999 voters approved a local referendum that authorizes RTD to incur debt using

low interest rate commercial paper and sales tax revenue bonds for

the purposes of constructing the southeast corridor LRT. The referendum also extended RTD’s current partial exemption from state

revenue retention restrictions. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress

has appropriated $3,440,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for

this project. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for this project

in fiscal year 2001.

Denver Southwest corridor project.—The Regional Transportation

District (RTD) is implementing an 8.7-mile light rail transit (LRT)

extension from the I–25/Broadway interchange in Denver parallel

to Santa Fe Drive to Mineral Avenue in Littleton. The LRT line

will operate over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and

connect with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail line,

which was constructed entirely with local funds and opened in October 1994. The new line will feature five stations. The capital cost

of the project is $176,320,000 (escalated dollars). This estimate includes local costs already incurred by RTD for right-of-way acquisition, a portion of an existing LRT maintenance and storage facility,

transit improvements along the southwest corridor, and preliminary engineering, as well as new costs for final design, construction, and the acquisition of 14 light rail vehicles. The project is estimated to carry 8,400 passengers per day in 2000 (opening year)

and 22,000 passengers per day in 2015. FTA issued the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the project in February

1996 and signed the record of decision in March 1996. RTD and

FTA entered into an FFGA in May 1996, which committed

$120,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $98,460,000 in Section 5309

New Start funds. An additional $1,340,000 was provided in fiscal

year 1997 from reprogrammed funds for a total of $99,796,000

made available to the project. Construction is underway and the

project is on schedule to be completed in July 2000. For fiscal year

2001, the Committee recommends $20,200,000.

Dulles corridor project.—The Virginia Department of Rail and

Public Transportation (VDRPT) proposes to construct, under the

technical guidance of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority (WMATA), an approximately 23 mile extension of Metrorail service in northern Virginia in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles

corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington, DC,

contains major regional employment and residential centers, inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00131 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
132

cluding Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center, Dulles International

Airport, the town of Herndon, the proposed Smithsonian Air and

Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential development in eastern Loudoun County. The phased rapid transit system would provide enhanced service extending from the Metrorail

orange line at Falls Church through Tysons Corner to Dulles International Airport and into eastern Loudoun County, primarily along

the medians of the Dulles Airport Access Road and the Dulles

Greenway. The fully built rail project is scheduled for operation in

2010 at an estimated cost of $2,200,000,000 (escalated). Interim

phases to implementation of rail to Dulles International Airport/

Loudoun County are enhanced express bus service, a fully extended

bus rapid transit (BRT) system, and rail service between Falls

Church and Tysons Corner. The minimum operating segment

(MOS) for the Dulles corridor rapid transit project is the bus rapid

transit (BRT) system currently under review as a New Starts

project. The proposed BRT system will be developed as an interim

step to rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles airport access

road (DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced technology buses.

BRT service will be provided between the Metrorail orange line and

the western regional park and ride lot located at Route 606 in

Loudoun County. The proposed BRT system will include construction of at least three transit stations convertible to rail stations located in the median of the DAAR, stations at major park and ride

lots within the corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in

2003 at an estimated capital cost of $280,000,000 (escalated). Average weekday boardings for the BRT are estimated to be 23,000 in

2020 with 13,600 daily new riders. The report of a major investment study (MIS) for the corridor was issued in 1996, recommending construction of a Metro-like rail system. The Dulles Corridor Task Force issued the Dulles corridor MIS refinement in July

1999, reaffirming development of a rail system but with interim development of a BRT system. The phased BRT/rail system was

adopted by the national capital region transportation planning

board and included in the metropolitan Washington region constrained long range plan in October 1999. VDRPT and WMATA

submitted a request to initiate preliminary engineering for the

BRT MOS and to initiate the NEPA process for the full Dulles corridor rapid transit project to FTA in November 1999. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $41,400,000 for this

project in Section 5209 New Starts funds. For fiscal year 2001, the

bill provides $50,000,000 for final design and construction

activities.

Fort Lauderdale, Florida Tri-County commuter rail project.—The

Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) operates a 71.7-

mile regional transportation system connecting Palm Beach,

Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida. This area has

a population of over four million, nearly one-third of the total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing improvements to enhance

significantly the service reliability of commuter rail in the rail corridor owned by the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT).

Tri-Rail intends to construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate

the signal system, and provide station and parking improvements.

133

In addition, project costs include acquisition of new rolling stock,

improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility, and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover facility. The

proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate 20-minute headways

during peak commuter hours, as opposed to the one-hour headways

that now exist. The double track corridor improvement program

segment 5 project is approximately 44.3 miles long and includes

upgrading the existing grade crossing system along the entire 71.7-

mile commuter rail line. Previous improvements made to four other

segments of the line are not included in this project. To date, 9.6

miles of the double track corridor improvement project have been

completed, including a station at Miami International Airport,

which is planned to be a part of the proposed Miami intermodal

center. An additional 7.0 miles are scheduled to be completed in

early 2000. FDOT, in conjunction with Tri-Rail, is arranging to assume the dispatching and maintenance operations in the corridor

from CSX transportation (CSXT) by 2005. Total project cost for the

proposed project is $327,000,000 (escalated), with a proposed Section 5309 New Starts share of $110,500,000 (escalated). Tri-Rail estimates that the average weekday boardings would be 42,100 with

an estimated 10,200 daily new riders in 2015. The Tri-Rail system

was created in 1989 as a traffic mitigation project during the State

widening of Interstate 95. Environmental requirements for the TriCounty Commuter Rail improvements were satisfied with categorical exclusions. The proposed Tri-Rail double track corridor improvement project will be implemented in five segments/phases.

Phase I, an 8.14-mile portion between Pompano Beach and

Broward Boulevard began in Spring 1995 and was completed in

April 1997. Phase II, completed in Spring 1998, is a 1.5-mile southern extension which terminates at the new Miami international

airport station, adjacent to the site of the proposed Miami intermodal center. Construction of phase III, 6.97 miles from south of

the proposed Boca Raton/Glades Road station to south of the Pompano Beach Station, began in March 1998 and is scheduled to be

completed by early 2000. Segment 5 covers all remaining doubletracking and other improvements to the corridor, specifically the

installation of 44.31 miles of a second mainline track system within

the existing right-of-way. The project includes modifications and

renovations to nine existing stations, the construction of two new

stations, the closing of two existing stations, and the upgrading of

grade crossings. Segment 5 is scheduled for completion in 2005.

Tri-Rail is currently negotiating a full-funding grant agreement

with FTA to implement segment 5 of the double track corridor improvement program. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $65,070,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funding for this

project. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $20,000,000.

Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit corridor I commuter

rail project.—The Cumberland-Dauphin-Harrisburg Transportation

Authority (Capitol Area Transit—CAT) is conducting an alternatives analysis (AA) study for a selected priority transportation

corridor known as ‘‘Corridor One.’’ The proposed corridor extends

approximately 55 miles in central Pennsylvania between Carlisle

and Lancaster, via Harrisburg. The proposed corridor has been endorsed by the Harrisburg area metropolitan planning organization,

134

as well as through local funding from the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation and numerous county, township and municipal contributions. The private sector has also been an active participant in this effort. The results of the CAT regional transit alternatives analysis study and the long range transportation plan will

be used to develop alternatives. The AA study is scheduled for completion in late 1999 or early 2000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $1,480,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $500,000.

Hollister/Gilroy branch line rail extension project.—The council

of San Benito county governments is proposing an extension of

Caltrain service approximately 13 miles south from the current terminus in Gilroy, along an exiting rail line, to the city of Hollister,

located in the southeast portion of the San Francisco bay region.

Hollister is the population center for San Benito County, the fastest growing county in California over the past five years. Hollister

has grown in response to the increasing demand for affordable

housing for Silicon Valley workers. Further planning, regional consensus building, and public involvement are needed to determine

the specific technology and frequency of rail service for the proposed corridor. Total capital costs for upgrading the existing freight

rail line are estimated at $15,000,000. For fiscal year 2001, the

Committee recommends $1,000,000.

Houston advanced transit program.—The advanced transit pro- gram (ATP) is a $304,800,000 program proposed to be funded with

fifty percent Section 5309 New Starts funds and fifty percent local

funds. The ATP includes a number of projects, including two major

investment studies (MIS)—(downtown to Astrodome and west loop

corridors). The downtown to Astrodome MIS/environmental assessment was completed in September 1999. Preliminary engineering

for the resultant light rail locally preferred alternative is currently

underway. The west loop MIS is scheduled for completion in March

2000. The west loop MIS is locally funded. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $5,920,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for the ATP. For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes

$5,000,000 for this project.

Houston regional bus project.—Houston Metro’s $625,000,000 regional bus plan consists of a package of improvements to its existing bus system. The package includes service expansions in most

of the region, new and extended HOV (high-occupancy vehicle, or

‘‘carpool’’) facilities and ramps, new buses, several transit centers

and park-and-ride lots, and supporting facilities. This collection of

projects was selected as the locally-preferred alternative over a proposed rail project in 1992. An FFGA was issued on December 30,

1994, to provide a total of $500,000,000 in section 5309 new starts

funds for the regional bus project. A total of $489,270,000 has been

provided through fiscal year 2000. The Committee has recommended $10,750,000, the amount required to fulfill the Federal

commitment. All projects under the regional bus plan are expected

to be completed by December 2004.

The bill includes a provision (sec. 331) that prohibits the expenditure of funds provided in this Act for the preliminary engineering,

design or construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas. The

135

Committee is disturbed to learn that sponsors of light rail in Houston propose to forego elements of the approved Houston regional

bus plan, which are explicit components of the existing full funding

grant agreement, intending to replace those elements with light

rail and deferring the planned bus elements into the future. Current policy dictates that such scope changes must be approved by

the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Committee cannot support these plans at this time and notes that the

funds provided for the existing full funding grant agreement shall

be only for those regional bus plans outlined in the existing full

funding grant agreement. The Committee directs the FTA not to

approve any scope changes in the existing full funding grant agreement that would incorporate any light rail elements.

Indianapolis, Indiana northeast-downtown corridor project.—The

Indianapolis metropolitan planning organization, in cooperation

with the Indiana Department of Transportation and other stakeholders, is conducting a major investment study to examine the

feasibility of major transit investments within the northeast portion of Marion County and the southeast portion of Hamilton County between U.S. Route 31 and Interstate 70. The study corridor

also encompasses parts of Interstate 69/State Route 37 and Interstate 465. In previous years, I–69/SR 37, as well as U.S. 31, were

identified for major highway investments. Traffic congestion, along

with rapid commercial and industrial development, has also been

increasing within the study corridor. However, as a result of including improved transit service as a potential alternative, the

Hoosier Heritage Port Authority purchased the Norfolk Southern

rail line extending from 10th Street in Indianapolis to Tipton, Indiana. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated

$2,230,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $2,000,000.

Johnson County, Kansas I–35 commuter rail project.—Johnson

County, Kansas, is proposing to implement a 5 station, 23-mile

commuter rail line extending from downtown Kansas City, Missouri, southwest to Olathe, Kansas, in Johnson County. The proposed commuter rail project would parallel Interstate 35, the major

highway connecting Kansas City with Olathe, and would utilize existing Burlington Northern and Santa Fe (BNSF) railroad track

(except for the line’s northern-most mile segment, which would require either new track or existing Kansas City Terminal Railway

trackage). Park and ride facilities are being planned for each proposed station. The commuter rail line will terminate in Kansas

City at its historic Union Station. Ridership estimates for the I–35

commuter rail project range from 1,400 to 3,800 trips per day by

2001; these estimates will be refined during subsequent phases of

project development. The project is estimated to cost $30,900,000 in

1997 dollars, with a proposed Section 5309 New Starts share of

$24,750,000. Because the proposed New Starts share is less than

$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the New Starts criteria,

and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating. Johnson

County initiated a major investment study (MIS) on the I–35 corridor in early 1996. The MIS resulted in the selection of commuter

rail as the locally preferred alternative (LPA) in August 1998. The

LPA was adopted in the financially constrained regional plan in

136

February 1999. FTA approved Johnson County’s request to enter

into preliminary engineering (PE) on the project in July 1999. An

environmental assessment for the project will be undertaken as

part of the PE effort. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $1,970,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2001, the

Committee has provided $1,000,000 for final design and construction activities.

Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project.—The Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission (SEWRPC)—the

local metropolitan planning organization—plans to conduct a major

investment study (MIS) to examine the feasibility of extending Chicago-based Metra commuter rail service from Kenosha to Racine

and Milwaukee. The study will focus on a proposed 33-mile corridor

connecting the central business districts of Kenosha, Racine and

Milwaukee in southeastern Wisconsin. SEWRPC has recently completed a feasibility study—funded entirely with local funds—that

concluded that the extension is feasible. SEWRPC has adopted the

project into the region’s long range plan. Through fiscal year 2000,

Congress has appropriated $1,470,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. The bill includes $2,000,000 for this project in

fiscal year 2001.

Little Rock, Arkansas river rail project.—The Central Arkansas

Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on existing right-of-way connecting

the Alltel Arena, the River Market, and the Convention Center in

downtown Little Rock to the communities of North Little Rock and

Pulaski County. CATA proposes that service be provided by seven

replica streetcars operating on a single track powered by overhead

catenary. Phase I of the proposed system will include a 2.1 mile

alignment, purchase of vehicles, and construction of a maintenance

facility. Ridership projections estimate 1,000 to 1,200 average

weekday boardings with an additional 1,000 to 1,800 riders on special event days. Phase II of the project includes a proposed 0.4 mile

extension along existing right-of-way to the William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library site. The project is estimated to cost

$13,200,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed Section 5309 New

Starts share of $8,600,000. Because the proposed New Starts share

is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the New Starts

criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating. A

feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited scale of the

proposed investment, the use of existing rail and street rights-ofway, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval to enter the preliminary engineering phase of project development was granted in

May 1998. FTA approved project entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated

$2,980,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds to this project. For

fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000 is provided for final design and construction.

Long Island Railroad East Side access project.—The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) East Side access project. The

project would provide increased capacity for the commuter rail

lines of the Long Island Rail Road and direct access between suburVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00136 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
137

ban Long Island and Queens and a new passenger terminal in

Grand Central Terminal in east Midtown Manhattan, in addition

to the current connection to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East

Side Access (ESA) connection and increased LIRR capacity would

be achieved by constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR

Main Line in Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the

East River at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level

of this bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry

LIRR trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and

into a new LIRR terminal in the lower level of Grand Central terminal (GCT). ESA will provide the LIRR will additional tunnel capacity across the East River. Increased capacity and headways

would be introduced at most LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains would operate through the existing 63rd

Street Tunnel to GCT. Ten new tracks and five platforms will be

constructed for LIRR trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East

River tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to

improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth of

the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately

$4,350,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000 for

project management, design, construction and right-of-way, and

$790,000,000 for rolling stock (over 225 new vehicles). Overall,

more than 351,000 average weekday boardings to both Penn Station and GCT would benefit directly from the LIRR ESA project by

the year 2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily

boardings serving GCT, 161,000 daily boardings serving Penn Station and 5,500 daily boardings at the proposed Sunnyside Station.

A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road East

Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the New

York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution endorsing the

recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand Central station. In

September 1998, FTA approved preliminary engineering and preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the project.

The DEIS is scheduled for completion in February 2000. MTA anticipates completing the final EIS in June 2000, followed by a

record of decision in August 2000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $45,710,000 in Section 5309 New Start

funds for this project. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for final design and construction.

Los Angeles Mid City and Eastside corridors projects.—The Metro

rail red line project in Los Angeles is being planned, programmed

and constructed in phases, through a series of ‘‘minimum operable

segments’’ (MOSs). The first of these segments (MOS–1), a 4.4-

mile, 5-station segment, opened for revenue service in January

1993. A 2.1-mile, three-station segment of MOS–2 opened along

Wilshire Boulevard in July 1996; an additional 4.6-mile, 5-station

segment of MOS–2 opened in June 1999, and the Federal funding

commitment has been fulfilled. On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was

issued to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the third construction phase, MOS–3. MOS–

3 was defined under ISTEA (Section 3034) to include three segVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00137 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
138

ments: the North Hollywood segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the Hollywood branch of MOS–2 to North Hollywood through the Santa Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment,

a 2.3-mile, two-station western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard

branch; and an undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the

east from the existing red line terminus at Union Station.

LACMTA later defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in

East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS–3

was amended to include this definition of the eastern segment,

bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for

MOS–3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that

the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to complete MOS–2 and MOS–3, while maintaining and operating the existing bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all rail

projects other than MOS–2 and MOS–3 North Hollywood extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15, 1998,

which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis (RTAA) to

analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the Eastside and

Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate existing transit services at

a reliable standard, assessment and management of financial risk,

countywide bus service expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments. On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and directed staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to the Eastside and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of RTAA recommendations, including the LACMTA

accelerated bus procurement plan. The MTA is currently conducting further studies of transit investment options in the

Eastside and Mid-City corridors, and is likely to announce recommendations in early 2000. In terms of the original FFGA for the

three MOS–3 segments, a total of $76,480,000 was appropriated for

the original Mid-City and Eastside segments through fiscal year

2000, with another $11,860,000 was provided in fiscal years 1999

and 2000 for further study of alternatives to these segments. For

fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 for continued planning and analysis in these corridors.

Los Angeles North Hollywood extension project.—Continuing the

discussion noted above under the Mid City and Eastside corridors,

on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated a revised FFGA

covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1–A) of MOS–3,

which is proceeding as scheduled and will open in May 2000. The

total capital cost of the North Hollywood project is estimated at

$1,310,820,000, of which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000

in section 5309 new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2000, a total

of $581,820,000 has been appropriated for the North Hollywood

segment of MOS–3, leaving $99,220,000 million remaining to complete the commitment under the revised FFGA for this project. The

Committee recommends that $50,000,000 be provided to the North

Hollywood segment of MOS–3, as specified in the FFGA, with the

remaining $49,220,000 million to be provided in future years.

139

Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN corridor project.—The Los Angeles-San Diego Rail Corridor Agency (LOSSAN) is implementing a

long-range plan to improve the safety, capacity and speed of intercity and commuter rail service between Los Angeles and San Diego.

This 129-mile stretch of rail includes 18 stations (10 intercity/commuter and 8 commuter only). Three operators provide service in

the corridor: Amtrak operates intercity rail service (the San

Diegan); the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA)

operates Metrolink commuter rail service; and the North (San

Diego) County Transit District (NCTD) operates the Coaster commuter rail service. In addition, the LOSSAN rail corridor accommodates the only freight rail service into the San Diego region.

LOSSAN is proposing to utilize Section 5309 New Starts funding

for two station-area improvements and to improve safety along a

portion of the railway roadbed. Specifically, LOSSAN is proposing

to add capacity enhancing passenger loading platforms and implement track and signal improvements at Los Angeles Union Station;

to construct a 450-space multi-level parking structure at the

Oceanside transit center; and to stabilize the railway roadbed located along the oceanfront bluffs in the city of Del Mar. Proposed

improvements in the LOSSAN rail corridor are estimated to cost

$35,700,000 in 1999 dollars, with a proposed Section 5309 New

Starts share of $24,100,000. Because the proposed New Starts

share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt from the New

Starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating. The LOSSAN agency was created to implement a program of

rail system improvements in the three-county area of Los Angeles,

Orange, and San Diego. A formal major investment study or alternatives analysis was not prepared for the proposed rail improvements. Some environmental and geotechnical work has been completed on each of the proposed improvements. Through fiscal year

1997, Congress had appropriated $19,890,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funding for several prior grade-separation projects along the

LOSSAN rail corridor. Congress appropriated $990,000 in New

Starts funding for the San Diego LOSSAN corridor project in fiscal

year 2000. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for final design and construction.

Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire commuter rail

project.—The Nashua Regional Planning Commission (NRPC) and

the City of Nashua have completed a major investment study for

the corridor between Nashua, New Hampshire and Lowell, Massachusetts. The NRPC plans to proceed with an environmental analysis, along with preliminary engineering-level work, on the commuter rail option in fiscal year 2000. The project is presently not

included in the transportation improvement program/state transportation improvement program, but is included in the Nashua

RPC’s long range transportation plan. Through fiscal year 2000,

Congress has appropriated $980,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes

$1,000,000 for this project.

Massachusetts North Shore corridor project.—The Massachusetts

Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) has previously conducted a

series of feasibility studies for improvements to the North Shore

transportation system. These studies evaluated extensions of the

140

Blue Line; improved commuter rail and express bus services; and

the connection of the blue line and North Shore commuter rail

service in Revere. Area officials now intend to further evaluate

these alternatives for the corridor by focusing on operational impacts to the MBTA system, ridership analysis, capital and operating costs, community impacts, environmental impacts and cost/

benefit analyses. This project is not in the Boston area long range

transportation plan. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $1,970,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort.

The bill includes $1,000,000 for this project for fiscal year 2001.

Memphis, Tennessee Medical Center rail extension project.—The

Memphis Area Transit Authority (MATA), in cooperation with the

City of Memphis, is proposing to build a 2.5-mile light rail transit

extension to the Main Street Trolley/Riverfront Loop village rail

system. The extension would expand the central business district

(CBD) rail circulation system to serve the Medical Center area east

of the CBD. The proposed project would operate on the street in

mixed traffic and would connect with the Main Street trolley, sharing a lane with automobile traffic on Madison Avenue between

Main Street and Cleveland Street. At the eastern terminus, near

Cleveland Street, a bus transfer point and a small park-and-ride

lot would be constructed to accommodate transfers with buses and

cars. At the western terminus, existing stations on Main Street

near Madison Avenue would be utilized for transfers to/from the

Main Street trolley/riverfront loop system. Six new stations would

be located along the route. The line will be designed to accommodate light rail vehicles but vintage rail cars would be utilized until

a proposed regional LRT line is implemented and a fleet of modern

LRT vehicles is acquired. The project is proposed as the last segment of the downtown rail circulation system as well as the first

segment of a regional light rail line. The total capital cost of the

2.5 mile project is estimated at $69,100,000 (escalated dollars),

with a Section 5309 New Starts share of $55,300,000. MATA estimates 2,100 average weekday boardings in the opening year (2002),

increasing to 4,200 by 2020. A major investment study/environmental assessment, resulting in the selection of a trolley service extension as the locally preferred alternative (LPA), was completed in

June 1997. FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering

(PE) for the project in April 1998. A supplemental environmental

assessment is being prepared to document changes to the preferred

alternative and to incorporate updated data developed in preliminary engineering. Completion of PE and the EA was planned for

January 2000, and a request for FTA approval to advance into final

design is expected shortly thereafter. The proposed project is included in the city of Memphis’ capital improvement program, the

Memphis MPO’s transportation improvement program, and the

state transportation improvement program. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $10,380,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for this project. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee

recommends $4,000,000 for final design and engineering.

Nashville, Tennessee, regional commuter rail project.—The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the Regional Transportation

Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee are proposing the implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station commuter rail line between

141

downtown Nashville and the city of Lebanon in Wilson County. The

east corridor commuter rail project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned by the Nashville and Eastern Railroad Authority (N&E), a governmental entity comprised of the Tennessee

Department of Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, Lebanon,

Mt. Juliet, and the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will be

leased from the N&E. The MTA and RTA estimate 1400 average

weekday boardings on the proposed project in 2006, including 700

daily new riders. The project is estimated to cost $30,000,000 in escalated dollars, with a proposed Section 5309 New Starts share of

$20,900,000. Because the proposed New Starts share is less than

$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the New Starts criteria,

and is thus not subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating. In 1996, the

MTA and RTA initiated a study to explore the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From this study, six corridors

were considered for further evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the

capital costs for the three most promising corridors. As the result

of these studies and efforts of the Nashville area commuter rail

task force—which includes the Nashville Chamber of Commerce,

area business leaders, the MPO, MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT), CSX Railroad and the Nashville

and Eastern Rail Authority, and the Nashville congressional delegation—the east corridor was selected as the first corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area commuter rail System. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter rail project in its

fiscally constrained long range transportation plan in September

1999. FTA approved the project to advance into preliminary engineering (during which time environmental assessment will be undertaken) on November 30, 1999. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $1,970,000 for the project. For fiscal year

2001, the Committee recommends $6,000,000 for final design and

construction.

New Jersey Hudson Bergen project.—The New Jersey Transit

Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 9.6 mile, initial minimum operating segment (MOS–1) of an eventual 21 mile light rail

transit (LRT) line. The line will run principally along the Hudson

River waterfront in Hudson County. MOS–1 will connect the Hoboken terminal to 34th Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. MOS–1 is expected to cost $992,140,000 (escalated dollars) and to carry 31,300 riders per day. The proposed full rail system is an approximately 21-mile long, 30-station, at-grade LRT line

from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne. The system will pass through Port Imperial in Weehauken,

Hoboken and Jersey City. The outer ends will provide 8,800 parkand-ride spaces. The core of the system will serve the high density

commercial and residential centers in Jersey City and Hoboken and

connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ Transit commuter rail lines. The

full 21-mile system is expected to cost $2,000,000,000 (escalated

dollars) and to carry 94,500 riders per day. In February 1993, NJ

Transit initially selected, as its locally preferred alternative, a 26-

station at-grade LRT line from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride

lot through Hoboken and Jersey City to Route 440 in Southwest

Jersey City. A final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the

142

full project was completed in the summer of 1996. In October 1996,

the FTA issued a record of decision (ROD) for the full project. In

that same month, FTA signed a FFGA committing $604,090,000 of

Section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS–1. In

January 1997, the governor of New Jersey, in conjunction with the

mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the alignment in Hoboken to the west side of the city. An environmental assessment (EA) was completed on the impacts resulting from this

proposed change and submitted to the FTA in August 1998. Public

review of the EA has been completed. The shift from the east side

alignment to the west side alignment in Hoboken places the station

south and adjacent to the Hoboken terminal and raises the number

of stations for the full project from 6 to 30 stations. The HudsonBergen LRT project is one of eight elements eligible for funding as

part of the New Jersey Urban Core project. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $35,430,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds to the Hudson-Bergen MOS–1. For fiscal year 2001,

the bill provides $121,000,000.

Newark-Elizabeth rail link project.—The New Jersey Transit

Corporation (NJ Transit) is proposing a one mile, five station minimum operable segment (MOS) of an 8.8-mile, 16 station light rail

transit (LRT) system which will eventually link Newark and Elizabeth, New Jersey. The MOS will function as an extension of the existing 4.3 mile Newark City subway light rail line, running from

Broad Street Station in Newark to Newark Penn station. NJ Transit estimates that the one mile MOS will cost $207,700,000 (escalated dollars), including associated stations, and will serve 13,300

average weekday boardings in 2015. NJ Transit estimates that the

entire 8.8-mile project will have a capital cost of $694,000,000

(1995 dollars) and will carry 24,900 average weekday boardings per

day in 2015. The Newark-Elizabeth rail link is being advanced in

three stages: the MOS, a one mile connection between the Broad

Street station and Newark Penn Station; the second segment, a one

mile line from Newark Penn station to Camp Street in downtown

Newark; and the third segment, a seven mile LRT line from downtown Newark to Elizabeth, including a station serving Newark

International Airport. The draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS) covering all three stages of the full build alternative was

completed in January 1997. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS), which addressed only the MOS, was completed in October 1998. The FTA signed the record of decision (ROD) for the

MOS in November 1998. Negotiations between FTA and NJ Transit on a full funding grant agreement for the NERL MOS–1 are underway. Environmental work on the other segments of the NewarkElizabeth rail link awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $29,680,000

in Section 5309 New Starts funds for the New Jersey Urban Core

Newark-Elizabeth rail link project. The Committee recommends

$4,000,000 for the project in fiscal year 2001 to continue final design and construction.

New York City Second Avenue Subway.—Due to budget constraints, the Committee has not included funds in the bill for the

New York City Second Avenue subway project. The Committee has

taken this action with no prejudice against the project. The ComVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
143

mittee is aware that local sponsors are moving forward with the

project and shall consider future funding requests.

Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail project.—The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for the Northern Indiana south

shore commuter rail extension project. The Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District (NICTD) operates the south shore

line passenger service between South Bend, Indiana, and the Randolph Street station in Chicago, Illinois. In order to meet the growing demand for commuter rail service in northern Indiana, appropriated funds to be matched local funds will be used for the purchase of additional passenger train cars. For fiscal year 2001, the

Committee recommends $2,000,000.

Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail project.—The North

County Transit District (NCTD) is planning the conversion of an

existing 22-mile freight rail corridor into a diesel multiple unit

(DMU) transit system running east from the coastal city of Oceanside, through the cities of Vista, San Marcos, and unincorporated

portions of San Diego County, to the city of Escondido. The alignment also includes 1.7 miles of new right-of-way to serve the campus of California State University San Marcos (CSUSM). The proposed project is situated along the State Route 78 corridor, which

connects Interstate Highways 5 and 15, the principal east-west corridor in northern San Diego County. The proposed DMU system

would serve fifteen stations; four of these stations would be located

at existing transit centers. Passenger rail would have exclusive use

during pre-defined operational schedules. Average daily weekday

boardings in 2015 are estimated at 15,100, with 8,600 daily new

riders. An environmental impact report (EIR) for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project and an EIR for the CSUSM alignment were

published and certified in 1990 and 1991 respectively. A major investment study was not required based on concurrence from FTA,

FHWA, the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG),

Caltrans, the city of San Marcos, and NCTD. Advanced planning

for the Oceanside-Escondido rail project, which resulted in 30 percent design, was completed in December 1995. The environmental

assessment/subsequent environmental impact report (EA/SEIR),

was completed in early 1997. The North San Diego County Transit

Development Board certified the SEIR in March 1997. FTA issued

a finding of no significant impact in October 1997. It is expected

that NCTD will be ready to proceed into final design on the project

by the first quarter of 2000. Through fiscal year 2000 Congress has

appropriated $7,930,000 Section 5309 New Starts funds for this

project. The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project in

fiscal year 2001 for final design and construction.

Olympic transportation infrastructure investment.—The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for transportation

infrastructured investments related to the Salt Lake City 2002

Winter Olympic Games. These funds are to be allocated by the Secretary consistent with the approval transportation management

plan for the Salt Lake City Olympic Games. The Committee directs, however, that none of these funds shall be available for rail

extensions.

Orange County, California transitway project.—The Orange

County Transportation Authority (OCTA) is developing a 26.6-mile

144

rail corridor in central Orange County between Fullerton and

Irvine. The proposed project will connect major activity centers

within the corridor, including downtown Fullerton and the Fullerton Transportation Center, downtown Anaheim, the Anaheim resort area (including Disneyland, the Anaheim Convention, Center,

Edison Stadium and the Arrowhead Pond) downtown Santa Ana

(and the county government center), John Wayne Airport, El Toro

Marine Base (which is being converted to civilian use), and several

hospitals and regional shopping, employment, cultural, and entertainment centers. OCTA is currently studying several alignment alternatives for a light rail transit system in the corridor, including

minimum operable segment (MOS) options. This profile reflects an

assumption of a 31-station 26.6 mile LRT system which is 97 percent at-grade and 3 percent elevated. Project costs are estimated at

$2,015,000,000 (escalated dollars) with ridership estimated at

71,800 average weekly boardings. OCTA completed a major investment study (MIS) for the corridor in June 1997. The MIS led to the

selection of a rail/bus project consisting of a 28-mile rail corridor

and a 49% increase in bus service. The project is included in the

financially constrained and conforming regional transportation plan

and transportation improvement program. In February 1988, FTA

approved entry into the preliminary engineering (PE) draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) phase of project development.

The DEIS effort is expected to conclude in the summer of 2000

with the selection of a locally preferred alternative (LPA), at which

point OCTA will focus its remaining PE effort on the LPA. The centerline rail corridor project is included in the metropolitan planning

organization’s financially constrained and conforming regional

transportation plan and transportation improvement program.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $8,440,000 in

Section 5309 New Starts funds. The Committee recommends

$3,000,000 for the project in fiscal year 2001.

Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley and Cross Country metro projects.—For these projects, the Committee recommends

a total of $5,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. The Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) and the Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority (BARTA) are conducting an alternative analysis study/draft environmental impact statement (AA/

DEIS) for the Schuylkill Valley corridor. The proposed corridor extends approximately 62 miles and includes the city of Philadelphia,

smaller cities of Reading, Norristown, Pottstown and Phoenixville.

The corridor also includes suburban centers of King of Prussia and

Great Valley, as well as regional activity centers and attractions including Center City, Art Museum, Philadelphia Zoo, King of Prussia Malls, Valley Forge National Park and Reading outlets. The

Proposed corridor also encompasses three transit authorities:

SEPTA, BARTA and Pottstown Urban Transit(PUT) and two metropolitan planning regions; Delaware Valley and Berks County.

The corridor is located along an existing rail freight or commuter

rail right-of-way and parallels major congested expressways: the

Schuylkill Expressway (Interstate 76) US 422 Expressway and US

Route 202. Alternatives currently under consideration include light

rail and commuter rail. Total capital costs for the alternatives are

currently estimated between $700,000,000 and $300,000,000.

145

Project sponsors anticipate submitting a preliminary DEIS to the

FTA for review sometime in the first quarter of calendar year 2000.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has provided $6,890,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for the proposed Schuylkill Valley Corridor. In addition, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, the Philadelphia area metropolitan planning organization, is

studying a proposed regional transit oriented development program

in the corridor under a transportation and community and system

preservation (TCSP) grant.

SEPTA is also completing a major investment study/draft environmental impact statement (MIS/DEIS) along a proposed 60-mile

suburban corridor in a southwest to northeast direction, from

Glenoch in Chester County, through Norristown in Montgomery

County and terminating in Morrisville Bucks County. The proposed

corridor, almost all of which is located along an existing rail freight

right-of-way, is roughly parallel to the US Route 202 Expressway

and the Pennsylvania Turnpike. A draft of the MIS/DEIS is currently undergoing revision to address right-of-way issues in the vicinity of King of Prussia, which will increase costs over those estimated below. The locally preferred alternative (LPA) has been

identified as electrically powered light rail, to be built in two

phases. The first phase would include light rail from Glenoch to

Norristown via King of Prussia, coupled with express bus service

from King of Prussia to Oxford Valley via the Pennsylvania Turnpike. The second phase would extend the proposed light rail system

from Norristown to Morrisville. Total capital costs for the first

phase are estimated at $396,000,000. Total capital costs for the entire corridor, including both the first and second phases, are estimated at $742,000,000. Total daily ridership for the first phase is

anticipated at 8,500. Ridership for the entire corridor is estimated

at 14,700. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated

$3,170,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort.

Phoenix metropolitan area transit project.—The Regional Public

Transportation Authority (RPTA) is proposed to implement a 25-

mile at-grade light rail system to connect the cities of Phoenix,

Tempe, and Mesa. As a first step, the RPTA is undertaking preliminary engineering on an 18.5 mile minimum operating segment

(MOS) which includes a 17.0-mile mainline from downtown Phoenix, through Tempe to Mesa, and a 1.5-mile spur serving the

emerging Rio Salado development along Town Lake in Tempe. The

rail line would run primarily on existing rail right-of-way. The proposed LRT MOS is estimated to cost approximately $883,900,000

(escalated), of which the RPTA intends to seek $441,900,000 in

New Starts funding. The RPTA completed the Central Phoenix/

East Valley (CP/EV) major investment study (MIS) in the spring of

1998. In September 1998, FTA granted RPTA permission to enter

the preliminary engineering/environmental impact statement (PE/

EIS) phase on 13 miles of the corridor. FTA has subsequently approved preliminary engineering on 18.5 miles of the proposed system. It is anticipated that PE/EIS will be completed in December

2000 and a record of decision issued by FTA in January 2001. The

Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) (local metropolitan

planning organization) adopted the CP/EV Corridor as a fixed

guideway corridor and included the CP/EV LRT project in the long

146

range transportation plan and the current regional transportation

improvement plan (TIP). Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has

appropriated $13,860,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2001, the

Committee recommends $13,000,000 for final design and construction.

Pittsburgh North Shore—central business district corridor

project.—The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAT), in cooperation with the city of Pittsburgh and the Southwestern Pennsylvania Regional Planning Commission—the local Metropolitan

Planning Organization—initiated a North Shore/Central Business

District Transportation Corridor major investment study focusing

on assessing alternatives for better connections to the immediate

North Shore area of the Allegheny River across from, and north of,

the Pittsburgh CBD. Development underway along the Allegheny

River corridor includes new facilities for the football and baseball

teams and expansion of the convention center. Improved connections are anticipated to support further development and redevelopment of complementary facilities and activities in both the North

Shore and CBD, including fringe-parking facilities. Some of the

stakeholders in the corridor include the Port Authority of Allegheny County, the Pittsburgh Pirates, Pittsburgh Steelers, Allegheny Conference on Community Development, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, the Carnegie Science Center, Pittsburgh Parking Authority and the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust. A preliminary draft environmental impact statement for the proposed

corridor is currently under review. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $10,800,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided $5,000,000 for final design and construction.

Pittsburgh stage II light rail project.—The Port Authority of Allegheny County (PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile

Pittsburgh rail system to modern light rail standards. The stage I

light rail transit (LRT) project resulted in the reconstruction of a

13-mile system to light rail standards during the 1980s. The stage

II LRT project proposes reconstruction and double-tracking of the

remaining 12 miles of the system consisting of the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines. The stage II LRT project would reconstruct these three lines to modern LRT standards, double track

the single track segments, reopen the closed Overbrook and Drake

Lines, add approximately 2400 park and ride lots, and purchase 28

new light rail vehicles. During 1999, PAAC reconfigured its rail improvement program to prioritize program needs against available

funding. The modified New Starts project, the stage II LRT priority

program, would reconstruct the Overbrook Line and a portion of

the Library Line, and add the 2400 park and ride spaces and 28

vehicles. The remainder of the stage II LRT program would be

built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the priority

program is $383,700,000 (in escalated dollars). The FTA issued a

finding of no significant impact for the project in February 1996.

Environmental documentation for the park and ride lots, which

was not included in the environmental assessment, is under review. Preliminary engineering was completed in April 1998; final

design, including vehicle procurement, is underway. The project is

included in the financially constrained long range plan adopted by

147

the southwest Pennsylvania regional planning commission, the

Pittsburgh area MPO. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $11,820,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds to the

project. For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes $5,000,000 for final

design and construction.

Portland Interstate MAX LRT extension project.—The Tri-County

Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is proposing a 5.6-mile extension of its light rail transit (LRT) system

known locally as the Metropolitan Area Express. The proposed

Interstate Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line will extend existing LRT service northward from the Rose Quarter Arena and the

Oregon Convention Center, to North Portland neighborhoods, medical facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the Metropolitan Exposition Center. Goals of the alignment include complementing regional land use plans by connecting established residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major activity centers,

and providing a key transportation link in the region’s welfare to

work programs. The LRT extension is estimated to cost

$350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry 18,100 average weekday

boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. The FTA approved the initiation of preliminary engineering on the 12-mile south-north LRT

project in April 1996. In February 1998, the draft environmental

impact statement was completed for the project. In November 1998,

voters rejected an affirmation of a $475,000,000 general obligation

bond measure previously approved to fund construction of the

south-north LRT. Consequently, Tri-Met reevaluated alternative

alignments and funding strategies to implement the system. A supplemental draft environmental impact statement for the north

alignment of the proposed south-north LRT was completed in April

1999. In June 1999, Tri-Met passed a resolution endorsing capital

funding for the Interstate MAX project and the city of Portland approved a resolution committing $30,000,000 dollars to the project.

The final environmental impact statement on the Interstate MAX

project was completed in October 1999 and a record of decision is

expected shortly. The project is anticipated to be ready to advance

into final design in early 2000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress

has appropriated $8,960,000 in Section 5309 New Start funds for

the project. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $5,000,000 for

this project.

Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project.—The Central

Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) is proposing to implement peak-hour commuter rail service in the 35-

mile corridor linking Everett and Seattle, Washington. The service

would be part of the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail corridor serving 14 stations between Lakewood and Everett, Washington. The

Everett-Seattle commuter rail segment would include three

multimodal stations that provide connections to a variety of transportation services, including local and express bus service, the

Washington State ferry system (connecting cities on the east and

west sides of Puget Sound), the proposed Link light rail system,

and Amtrak. Twelve trains per day will serve up to six stations,

and by 2020 will carry 1.25 million riders annually. Sound Transit

estimates total project costs for the Everett-Seattle segment of the

Sounder system at $104,000,000 in escalated dollars. Sound TranVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00147 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
148

sit is proposing a Section 5309 New Starts share of $24.9 million.

Because the proposed New Starts share is less than $25 million,

the project is exempt from the New Starts criteria, and is thus not

subject to FTA’s evaluation and rating (TEA21 Section

5309(e)(8)(A)). The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)

for this project was issued in June 1999. Following extensive public

outreach and ongoing coordination with tribes and Federal, state,

and local agencies, the preferred alternative was selected. The final

EIS was to be published in December 1999. Sound Transit will be

seeking FTA authorization to enter final design for this project in

January 2000. To date, Congress has appropriated $54,570,000 to

the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system. The bill includes an appropriation of $8,500,000 for final design and construction activities

in fiscal year 2001.

Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit project.—The

phase I regional rail project is the first proposed segment of a

three-phased regional transit plan for linking the three counties—

Wake, Durham, and Orange—in the Triangle Region of North

Carolina. In phase I, the Triangle Transit Authority (TTA) intends

to initiate regional rail service from Durham to downtown Raleigh

and from downtown Raleigh to North Raleigh. TTA proposes to use

diesel multiple unit (DMU) rail vehicles to serve the 16 anticipated

phase I stations. TTA has proposed that the phase I regional rail

project will use the existing North Carolina railroad and CSX rail

corridors to connect Duke University, downtown Durham, Research

Triangle Park, RDU Airport, Morrisville, Cary, North Carolina

State University, downtown Raleigh, and North Raleigh. The proposed project is estimated to serve 17,600 average weekday

boardings by the year 2020. The most recent capital cost estimate

(submitted in 1998 for the fiscal year 2000 Report on New Starts)

for Phase I is $284,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate

includes final design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and rail vehicles, station construction, park and ride lots, and construction of

storage and maintenance facilities. The ROW proposed to be used

by TTA for the project is shared among a number of operating railroads. The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) Rail Division has suggested that TTA study potential track realignments to accommodate inter-city and high-speed rail improvements in the proposed

rail corridor. TTA’s realignment studies have significantly impacted

the project’s development schedule, and are expected to result in

significant cost increases and some changes in scope. In 1995, TTA

completed the Triangle Fixed Guideway Study. The Authority’s

Board of Trustees has adopted the study’s recommendations to put

into the place a regional rail system, and resolutions of support

have been received from all major units of local government, chambers of commerce, universities, and major employees in the Triangle. The Durham-Chapel Hill, Carrboro MPO and the Capital

Area MPO have each adopted the locally preferred alternative into

their fiscally constrained long-range plans and the phase I regional

rail project is included in their respective 1998–2004 TIPs and

North Carolina STIP. In January 1998, TTA initiated preliminary

engineering and the preparation of a draft environmental impact

statement (DEIS). TTA rail alignment issues are currently being

worked out with a number of participating agencies, including the

149

North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, and

the Federal Railroad Administration. The anticipated completion of

preliminary engineering is February 2000, with a record of decision

on the Final EIS expected in December 2000. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $31,740,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for this project. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee

recommends $10,000,000 for final design and construction.

Sacramento, California south corridor LRT project.—The Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) is developing an 11.3-mile

light rail project on the Union Pacific right-of-way in the South

Sacramento corridor. RT has elected to synchronize the project to

available state and local capital funds as well as to corresponding

available operating funds. Phase 1 is a 6.3-mile minimum operable

segment (MOS) of the full project. The MOS would provide service

between downtown Sacramento and Meadowview Road and is expected to capture 25,000 daily trips by the year 2015. The estimated capital cost of the MOS is $222,000,000 (escalated dollars)

A major investment study/alternatives analysis/draft EIS for the

project was completed in September 1994. The preferred alternative was selected in March 1995. The final environmental impact

statement (FEIS) was completed in February 1997. In March 1997,

FTA issued a record of decision for the south corridor MOS, and

in June 1997, FTA and RT entered into an FFGA committing

$111,200,000 in Section 5309 new starts funds for final design and

construction. The final design phase of the project began in July

1997. Construction began November, 1999 and revenue service is

projected to begin in September 2003. RT expects to begin preliminary engineering for the next segment (phase 2) as soon as additional operating funds can be identified and secured. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $77,990,000 in Section 5309

new start funds for the project. For fiscal year 2001, the bill includes $35,200,000.

San Bernardino, California Metrolink project.—The Southern

California Regional Rail Authority (SCRRA) is proposing a series

of improvements to its commuter rail service within an existing

railroad right-of-way. These improvements include the construction

of sidings in the Interstate 10 corridor, an upgrade of siding at

Marengo and the double tracking of a line between the existing Pomona and Montclair stations. These improvements will result in an

increase in frequencies, a reduction of commuter train delays, and

an improvement to the schedules of counter-flow trains on the San

Bernardino line. The San Bernardino line has the highest ridership

of all Metrolink lines. There are currently 26 daily train trips in

the corridor serving 8,200 daily commuter rail trips. The estimated

capital cost for the proposed project is $31.4 million. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $980,000 in section 5309

New Start funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee

recommends $2,000,000 for the project.

San Diego Mission Valley East light rail project.—The Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is planning to build a 5.9-

mile Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit (LRT) extension of its

Blue Line. The project would extend the existing system from its

current termini east of Interstate 15 to the City of La Mesa, where

it would connect to the existing Orange Line near Baltimore Drive.

150

The line would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego

State University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th

Street, as well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego and

Grossmont Center. The proposed project would include elevated, atgrade, and tunnel portions and provide two park and ride lots and

a new access road between Waring Road and the Grantville Station. The total project capital cost is $431,000,000 (escalated dollars). The project is expected to serve approximately 10,800 average

weekday boardings in the corridor by 2015. The major investment

study/draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed

in May 1997. The locally preferred alternative was selected by the

Metropolitan Transit Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San Diego Association of Governments

(SANDAG, the local metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project

development was granted in March 1998. Preliminary engineering

was completed in July 1998. This abbreviated schedule for PE was

possible due to the extensive public involvement and detailed analyses undertaken during the planning stages, streamlining much of

the work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase.

The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed

and the record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA

approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. Negotiations between FTA and the MTDB for full funding grant agreement are underway. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $22,110,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds to this

project. The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for fiscal year

2001.

San Francisco BART extension to the airport project.—The Bay

Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo County Transit District

(SamTrans) are constructing an 8.2-mile, 4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from the Colma BART Station

through the cities of Colma, South San Francisco and San Bruno,

and then continues south along the Caltrain right-of-way to the

city of Millbrae. Approximately, 1.5 miles north of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an east-west aerial ‘‘wye’’ (Y) stub will

service the San Francisco International Airport (SFIA). This project

is now estimated by FTA to cost up to $1,510,000,000 (escalated

dollars). This total includes an unfunded $27,000,000 capital reserve account (CAPRA) and $113,000,000 in civil works on airport

property provided by the SFIA. FTA’s commitment of $750,000,000

to the project remains unchanged. Ridership is projected to be

68,600 trips per day by 2010, including approximately 17,800 daily

trips by air travelers and airport employees. An alternatives analysis/draft environmental impact statement (DEIS)/draft environmental impact report (DEIR) was completed in 1992, resulting in

a locally preferred alternative. New alignments were later evaluated and, in April 1995, BART and SamTrans revised the preferred

alternative. Due to MTC and Congressional direction to evaluate

lower cost options, an aerial design option into the airport was

evaluated in a focused re-circulated DEIR/supplemental #2 DEIS.

The final EIS was completed in June 1996 and a record of decision

(ROD) was issued in August 1996. On June 30, 1997, FTA entered

into an FFGA for the BART/SFO Extension for $750,000,000 in

151

Federal section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2000,

$217,200,000 has been appropriated to the BART–SFO Extension.

For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $80,000,000.

San Francisco Third Street light rail project.—The Committee is

aware that San Francisco views the development of the Third

Street light rail project as an integral component of the Bay Area’s

transportation program. Funding for phase I of the project has

been funded primarily from local resources, though project sponsors

may likely seek federal support for phase II. The Committee encourages the FTA to work with project sponsors in the development

of justification materials for phase II of this project.

San Jose Tasman West light rail project.—The Santa Clara

County Transit District (SCCTD) originally developed a 12.4-mile

extension to the existing light rail line, which would provide service

from northeast San Jose to Capitol/Hosletter and downtown Mountain View. The total project includes 19 stations and 35 light rail

vehicles. The state of California Supreme Court invalidation of the

Measure A sales tax lead to the development of new financing alternatives and the separation of the project into two phases, phase

I (west extension) and phase 2 (east extension). The phase I west

extension consists of 7.6 miles of surface LRT from the northern

terminus of the Guadalupe LRT in the city of Santa Clara, west

through Sunnyvale, to the CalTrain commuter rail station in downtown Mountain View. The project includes 11 stations and is double tracked except for some single tracking in Mountain View. The

phase I west extension has a total cost of $325,000,000 (escalated

dollars). Ridership on the west extension is projected to reach 7,500

per day by 2005. Preliminary engineering on the Tasman corridor

was completed in August 1992. In July 1996, FTA and SCCTD entered into an FFGA with a commitment of $182,750,000 in section

5309 new start funds for the west extension. Construction of the

Tasman west LRT extension has been completed. Originally anticipated to be open for revenue operations by December 2000, the extension opened on December 17, 1999, a year ahead of schedule.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $170,500,000

of section 5309 new start funds to the project. For fiscal year 2001,

the Committee recommends $12,250,000.

San Juan Tren Urbano project.—The Puerto Rico Department of

Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), through its Highway

and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is constructing a 10.7-mile

(17.2 km) double-track guideway between Bayamon Centro and the

Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce in San Juan. Approximately 40

percent of the alignment is at or near grade. The remainder, aside

from a short below-grade segment in the Centro Medico area as

well as an underground segment through Rio Piedras, is generally

elevated above roadway rights-of-way. The project includes 16 stations and a vehicle and right of way maintenance/storage facility.

The original capital cost for the project as specified in the FFGA

totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost of the project is

now estimated at $1,653,000,000. The Tren Urbano project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day in 2010. The Tren Urbano

phase 1 environmental review process was completed in November

1995 and included 14 stations. The alignment design allowed for

the future addition of two stations, one in Rio Piedras and one in

152

Hato Rey. A record of decision (ROD) was issued in February 1996.

In March 1996, FTA entered into an FFGA for the Tren Urbano

project providing a Federal commitment of $307,400,000 in Section

5309 New Start funds out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000.

The cost of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared which revised the alignment at the Villa Nevarez station and

added new stations, in Rio Piedras at the University of Puerto

Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech Street. Findings of no significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were issued for these three environmental assessments in November 1996, February 1997, and

July 1997, respectively. An amendment to the FFGA signed in

July, 1999, added the two stations identified in the environmental

process as well as 10 additional railcars. The amendment also

added $141,000,000 in Section 5307 funds and $259,900,000 in

flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the project encompasses

the cost for extended project management and construction management services, for advance design development activities and for

anticipated costs for claims and contingencies. The local share

funding for the project is being provided by local revenues from the

Puerto Rico Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All

operating costs, as well as debt service on PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the PRHTA annual budget, established in accordance with standard PRHTA budget procedures. The project was

also awarded a TIFIA (Transportation Infrastructure Finance and

Innovation Act of 1998) loan of $300,000,000. The project is well

into the construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997,

seven design-build contracts were awarded for different segments

of the Tren Urbano phase 1 system. The systems test tract and

turnkey contract, awarded in August 1996, provided for the purchase of rolling stock, design and installation of all systemwide

components, construction of one of the civil segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano phase 1 for an initial period

of five years. The project is now expected to enter revenue service

in May, 2002. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated

$79,670,000 in section 5309 new start funds for the project, with

an additional $4,960,000 appropriated to the project but not included in the scope of the FFGA. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $100,000,000.

Seattle, Washington, Central Link LRT project.—Sound Transit

(Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority) is planning a

23.5-mile Central Link light rail transit (LRT) project running

north to south from Northgate, through downtown Seattle, Southeast Seattle and the cities of Tukwila and SeaTac, Washington.

Link will consist of 23 stations, four new park-and-ride lots, and

one existing lot. The system would operate on existing and new

right-of-way (ROW), including the existing 1.6 mile downtown Seattle transit tunnel. Sound Transit estimates a total of 156,400

daily riders on the 23.5-mile system in 2020. Capital costs for the

entire project are $3,100,000,000 (escalated dollars), with annual

operating costs estimated at $62,500,000 (escalated dollars). Sound

Transit proposes to implement the system in several minimum operable segments (MOS). The MOS being proposed for Federal funding will extend 7.2 miles from NE 45th Street station southward

153

to the South Lander Street station. This alignment includes 4.5

miles of wholly new and exclusive ROW, 1.3 miles of exclusive

transit ROW in the existing downtown Seattle transit tunnel, and

1.4 miles of ROW reconfigured from an existing busway south of

downtown. Sound Transit estimates average weekday boardings of

87,200 for the MOS in 2020. The estimated cost of this segment is

$1,500,000,000 (escalated dollars). The Link LRT system is one element of Sound Transit’s voter-approved ten year, $3,900,000,000

($1995) Sound Move regional transit plan, which also includes implementation of a 2-mile LRT line in downtown Tacoma; an 82-mile

Sounder commuter rail system operating between Lakewood and

Everett; 20 new regional express bus routes; 14 high occupancy vehicle (HOV) direct access ramps (providing access to over 100 miles

of existing HOV lanes); 14 new park and ride lots and 9 transit

centers; and other service improvements. The Sound Transit Board

adopted the Sound Move regional transit plan in May, 1996. Voters

approved $3,914,000,000 in local funding for implementation of the

plan in November, 1996. A major investment study of Sound

Move’s services was completed in March 1997. Sound Move is included in the Puget Sound Regional Council’s (the area’s MPO)

transportation plan and regional transportation improvement program (TIP). FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering on

the Link LRT in July 1997. A draft environmental impact statement (EIS) was published in December 1998. The final EIS was

initiated in February 1999 and was distributed for public review in

November 1999. The Sound Transit board formally adopted the 7.2-

mile MOS for Federal participation on November 18, 1999. Sound

Transit expects to begin LRT operations in 2006. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $41,440,000 for the Link

light rail project. The Committee recommends $30,000,000 for the

project in fiscal year 2001 for final design and construction.

Spokane, Washington South Valley corridor light rail project.— The Spokane Regional Transportation Council has conducted a

major investment study (MIS) to examine the impacts of high capacity transportation on a proposed 16-mile corridor between the

central business district of Spokane, Washington and Liberty Lake.

The proposed corridor would connect major residential and employment centers within the Spokane Valley. Spokane has been classified as a ‘‘serious’’ nonattainment area for carbon monoxide. Trips

along the corridor nearly double based on the population and employment forecasts between the years 1990 and 2020. The MIS considered three alternatives including: high occupancy vehicle (HOV)

lanes, express busways, and light rail. Based on the results of the

MIS, light rail was selected as the preferred alternative with

strong public support. The MIS was included in the region’s longrange metropolitan transportation plan in November 1997. The

total estimated capital cost for the light rail project, including local,

state and Federal funds, ranges between $200,000,000 and

$300,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated

$2,950,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided $7,000,000.

St. Louis MetroLink Cross County connector project.—The EastWest Gateway Coordinating Council (EWGCC)—the local metropolitan planning organization (MPO)—and the Missouri Highway

154

and Transportation Department (MoDOT) have completed a major

investment study (MIS) in the Cross County corridor including St.

Louis City and County. The east-west corridor connection is

through Clayton, Missouri to the existing Metrolink system. The

study evaluated transportation alternatives such as light rail transit (LRT), busway, highway, transportation systems management

alternatives and a no-build alternative. Phase I of the MIS was

completed in March 1997. A locally preferred alternative (LPA),

which included highway and transit improvements, was selected in

September 1997. The transit LPA is a 28.8-mile LRT line that extends Metrolink west in the City of St. Louis through downtown

Clayton in St. Louis County, and then south from Clayton beyond

the Interstate 55/Interstate 270 interchange in southeast St. Louis

County and north from Clayton to beyond the I–I70/I–270 interchange in North St. Louis County. Total estimated capital cost

range from $1,000,000,000 to $1,200,000,000. Through fiscal year

2000, Congress has appropriated $2,450,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, $2,000,000 is included in the bill.

St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extension project.—The Bi-State

Development Agency (Bi-State) is planning a 26-mile light rail line

between downtown East St. Louis, Illinois, and the Mid America

Airport in St. Clair County. The project will extend the MetroLink

light rail project that opened in July 1993. The adopted alignment

generally follows the former CSXT railroad right-of-way from East

St. Louis to Belleville, Illinois, serving the Belleville Area College

(BAC), Scott Air Force Base and Mid America Airport. A 17.4 mile

‘‘minimum operable segment’’ (MOS) terminates at BAC. The MOS

includes 8 stations (seven with park and ride lots), 20 new light

rail vehicles, and a new light rail vehicle maintenance facility in

East St. Louis, Illinois. The MOS is estimated to cost $339,200,000

(escalated dollars), and scheduled to open for service in 2001. The

East-West Gateway Coordinating Council (the MPO) completed a

major investment study and draft environmental impact statement

(DEIS) for the project in 1995. A preliminary engineering/final environmental impact statement for the full 26-mile project was completed in August 1996 and a record of decision was issued in September 1996. Section 5409 funds were made available in October

1996 to provide design and construction as far as BAC and an

FFGA was awarded for that segment on October 17, 1996. The

FFGA provides a commitment of $243,930,000 in section 5309 new

start funds contributing to the total estimated cost of $339,200,000

(escalated dollars). The St. Clair County Transit District is providing $95,300,000 in local funds from a 3⁄4 cent county sales tax.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $153,400,000

in Section 5309 New Start funds for the FFGA covered minimum

operable segment portion of the project. An additional $8,500,000

in Section 5309 New Start funds were previously appropriated but

not included in the FFGA scope. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $60,000,000.

St. Louis-St. Clair MetroLink extension project, phase IIb.—The

Committee has not provided new appropriations for the St. Louis

St. Clair MetroLink extension project, phase IIb. The FTA had proposed to execute a full funding grant agreement for the project,

155

which was subsequently not approved by the Committee. The Committee directs the FTA, working cooperatively with project sponsors, to recalculate and reevaluate the cost effectiveness and ridership projections of extending the St. Louis St. Clair Metrolink

project to Scott Air Force Base.

Stamford, Connecticut fixed guideway corridor.—The Stamford

corridor project involves the construction of urban transitway to

improve access to the Stamford transportation center, which is currently being rehabilitated to accommodate high speed rail service

and to provide additional commuter parking. A brownfields area is

adjacent to the center. The Stamford urban transitway project will

include exclusive lanes for buses and other high occupancy vehicles. The Connecticut Department of Transportation, the Southwestern Regional Planning Agency, the metropolitan planning organization, and the city of Stamford have coordinated the development of the proposed project. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress

has appropriated $1,970,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for

this effort. The bill includes $8,000,000 for final design and construction for this project in fiscal year 2001.

Stockton, California Altamont commuter rail project.—The San

Joaquin Regional Rail Commission (SJRRC), the Alameda Congestion Management Agency (ACCMA), and the Santa Clara Valley

Transportation Authority (VTA) have proposed to implement a

commuter rail system along an existing Union Pacific Railroad

right-of-way operating between the three counties. A joint powers

board (JPA) comprised of members from each of the three agencies

was also created to operate the proposed Altamont commuter express (ACE). The SJRRC would be the managing agency for the initial 36-month term of an agreement executed between the three operating funds, the member agencies will define the methods for allocating future costs and the shares of future capital improvement

contributions from the member agencies. Through fiscal year 2000,

Congress has appropriated $980,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $3,000,000.

Twin Cities transitways projects.—The bill provides $5,000,000

for preliminary engineering and design on the Riverview, Northstar

and Red Rock corridors of the Twin Cities Transitways system.

Twin Cities transitways—Hiawatha corridor project.—Metro

Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local metropolitan planning

organization), in cooperation with the Minnesota Department of

Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County and the Metropolitan

Airports Commission (MAC), are proposing to design and construct

an 11.4-mile Light Rail Transit (LRT) line along the Hiawatha Avenue corridor. The proposed LRT will operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55 corridor linking downtown Minneapolis, the

Minneapolis-St. Paul (MSP) International Airport, and the Mall of

America (MOA) in Bloomington. The LRT is the transit component

of a locally preferred alternative which includes reconstruction of

TH–55 as a four lane, at-grade arterial between Franklin Avenue

and 59th Street and construction of an interchange between TH–

55 and TH–63 (Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the

north end of the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business

district (CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th

156

Street. The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H.

Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to

Franklin Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project will

include a 1.5-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP airport

runways and taxiways with the construction of one station. The

line is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West side

of the airport with a station located at the HHH Terminal. It then

would continue south with three proposed stations in Bloomington,

including a station near the Mall of America. The estimated capital

cost for the 11.4-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including 16 proposed stations, totals $548,600,000 (escalated dollars). The project

is expected to serve 24,600 average weekday boardings by the year

2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are projected in the opening year. The proposed Hiawatha Avenue LRT is included in the

region’s financially constrained transportation improvement program and the long-range transportation plan. A record of decision

for the project was issued by FTA on April 26, 2000, at which time

the FTA also approved the project’s entrance into final design.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $69,320,000

in Section 5309 New Starts funds for the ‘‘Twin Cities

Transitways’’ project, which includes the Hiawatha Avenue corridor

light rail project. For fiscal year 2001, the bill provides $55,000,000

for final design and construction.

Virginia Railway Express commuter rail project.—Due to increased congestion throughout the Washington, D.C. metropolitan

region, the Virginia Railway Express (VRE) is proposing to expand

commuter rail service to include the entire Washington, D.C-Richmond, Virginia corridor. VRE currently operates commuter rail

service between Washington, D.C. and Fredericksburg, Virginia.

The Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation

(VDRPT) initiated the Washington, D.C.-Richmond, VA-rail corridor study to identify specific improvements required to increase

the maximum speed of passenger trains and to reduce the running

time between Washington, D.C. and Richmond, Virginia, thus making it feasible for commuter rail service. The commonwealth’s corridor study, completed in April 1996, recommended a six-phase rail

improvement program along the existing CSX right-of-way. The improvements include, but are not limited to, straightening certain

curve tracks, adding new signals, rail-crossing safety measures,

constructing new track in several areas of the existing right-of-way,

incrementally adding a third track, and purchasing new rolling

stock and passenger facilities. To date, the Commonwealth has allocated $13,000,000 for the initial phase of the proposed project.

Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $9,100,000 in

Section 5309 New Start funds for this effort. The Committee has

provided $3,000,000 for the Virginia Railway Express for fiscal year

2001.

Washington Metro-Blue Line extension—Addison Road (Largo)

project.—The Maryland Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and

the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA)

are joint lead local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy

rail extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road Station to

Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital beltway in

157

Prince George’s County, Maryland. The project follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit corridor in the

Prince George’s County master plan. The 3.1 mile alignment, containing at-, above- and below-grade segments, has been modified to

be underground or covered between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address concerns raised during public review of the

DEIS. Two new stations will be provided at Summerfield and at

the Largo town center station. The stations will provide 500 and

2,200 park-and-ride spaces, respectively, plus a hundred or more

kiss-and-ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA

and Prince George’s County bus routes will connect to the two new

stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations and

the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium). The

project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former major

sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. MTA

will manage the project through preliminary engineering, with

WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The project is

anticipated to open for service by September 2004, at a cost of

$433,900,000 (in escalated dollars). Average weekday boardings are

estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with 16,400 daily new riders. The

proposed Largo extension was approved by the WMATA Board as

an addition to the 103-mile Metrorail adopted regional system in

February 1997, applying WMATA compact funding arrangements,

contingent upon requisite FTA approvals. The project is included in

the national capital region’s constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) was completed and approved

by FTA in October 1996. The draft final environmental impact

statement (FEIS) was completed in September 1999; a record of decision (ROD) is expected by early 2000. WMATA will assume managing responsibility for the project upon submission of a request to

FTA for final design approval, following the ROD. Through fiscal

year 2000, Congress has appropriated $5,650,000 for this project in

Section 5309 New Starts funds. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $2,000,000 for final design and construction.

West Trenton, New Jersey rail project.—The New Jersey Transit

Corporation (NJ Transit) is conducting planning, conceptual design

and an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the restoration of commuter rail service on the West Trenton Line between West Trenton

and Newark, Jew Jersey. The rail service would connect with NJ

Transit’s Raritan Valley Line in Bridgewater, New Jersey. The proposed project would include the installation of a second track in selected locations, signal improvements, construction of six new stations, parking facilities, train storage yard, and rail equipment acquisition. Information on mobility improvements, environmental

benefits, cost effectiveness, operating efficiencies, transit-supportive

land use and other factors are being developed. The EA is scheduled for completion in July 2000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated $2,480,000 in Section 5309 New Starts

funds for this effort. The bill includes an appropriation of

$4,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2001.

Whitehall ferry terminal project.—The New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) is undertaking the reconstruction of the Staten Island-Whitehall Street ferry intermodal terVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00157 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
158

minal. The terminal, located at the southern tip of Manhattan was

mostly destroyed by fire in 1991 and ferry service has been operating out of interim facilities since then. Reconstruction of the terminal will include improved connections with the New York City

transit subway system and several bus routes. The Staten Island

to New York ferry system moves over 60,000 riders daily. A finding

of no significant impact (FONSI) was approved in September 1999.

Also in September 1999, FTA awarded a grant for the initiation of

project construction. Originally, the project was estimated to cost

approximately $81,000,000. However, cost estimates are currently

anticipated increase to approximately $100,000,000. Through fiscal

2000, Congress has appropriated $12,950,000 in Section 5309 New

Starts funds for this effort. The Committee recommends $5,000,000

in fiscal year 2001.

Wilsonville to Washington County, Oregon commuter rail

project.—Portland Metro, the metropolitan planning organization

(MPO) for the Portland area, is currently developing an environmental analysis for a proposed 17.8-mile commuter rail line between Wilsonville and Beaverton. The southern terminus of the

proposed project is located in Wilsonville and extends north to Beaverton tying into the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) light rail

transit line. The proposed project would utilize an existing and active branch rail line, and would include the construction of five to

six stations, including park-and-ride facilities. The proposed project

also includes multiple capital improvements, including the construction of a maintenance/storage facility and double tracking portions of the alignment. The northern portion of the rail corridor is

owned by the Union Pacific Railroad. The Oregon Department of

Transportation owns the southern portion of the corridor. As part

of the environmental analysis, the MPO is also developing an alternatives analysis (AA) evaluating the commuter rail alternative

against a no-build, transportation system management and potentially other alternatives. The Oregon DOT and Washington County

have performed two feasibility studies that served as a basis for

the definition of the commuter rail alternative in the current AA

study. A locally preferred strategy is anticipated in March 2000.

Total capital costs for the commuter rail alternative are currently

estimated at $75,000,000. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has

appropriated $490,000 in new starts fund for this effort. For fiscal

year 2001, the bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000.

DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ................................................. ($1,500,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ............................................... (350,000,000)

Recommended in the bill ........................................................... (350,000,000)

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .......................................... (¥1,150,000,000)

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ........................................ ....................................

This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations incurred

under contract authority provided for activities previously funded

under the discretionary grants program. The Committee recVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00158 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
159

ommends $350,000,000 in liquidating cash for discretionary grants.

This appropriation is mandatory and has no scoring effect.

JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE GRANTS

Appropriation,

(General fund)

Limitation on

obligations

(Trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ............................. $15,000,000 $60,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 1 ......................... 20,000,000 130,000,000

Recommended in the bill ........................................ 20,000,000 80,000,000

Bill compared to:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ...................... +5,000,000 +20,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 .................... .......................... ¥50,000,000 1 Includes $50,000,000 in obligations proposed to be transferred from revenue aligned budget authority.

Section 3037 of TEA21 established the jobs access and reverse

commute grants program. For fiscal year 2001, the program is

funded at a total level of $100,000,000, with no more than

$20,000,000 derived from the general fund and $80,000,000 derived

from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. These

funds are guaranteed under the transit funding category.

The program is to make competitive grants to qualifying metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental authorities,

agencies, and non-profit organizations in urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No more than $10,000,000 may be

provided for reverse commute grants.

The Committee has not approved bill language proposed by the

department that would have set aside $5,000,000 each for tribal

governments and the Mississippi Delta region. Indian tribes and

transit providers in the Mississippi Delta region are currently eligible for this program.

The Committee recommends the following allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 2001:

Amount

State of Maryland .................................................................................. $2,000,000

Broward County, Florida ...................................................................... 2,000,000

DuPage County, Illinois ........................................................................ 500,000

Chatham, Georgia .................................................................................. 500,000

Tucson, Arizona ..................................................................................... 1,000,000

State of Washington .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Buffalo, New York ................................................................................. 500,000

Suffolk County, New York .................................................................... 445,000

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania .................................................................. 1,000,000

State of Arkansas .................................................................................. 4,000,000

Sacramento, California .......................................................................... 1,000,000

Portland, Oregon .................................................................................... 1,600,000

Central Ohio ........................................................................................... 750,000

State of Tennessee ................................................................................. 2,000,000

State of Wisconsin ................................................................................. 4,700,000

Hillsborough County, Florida ............................................................... 600,000

State of Oklahoma ................................................................................. 6,000,000

Fresno, Tulare, Kings and Kern Counties, California ........................ 3,000,000

Chicago, Illinois ..................................................................................... 1,000,000

Indianapolis, Indiana ............................................................................ 1,000,000

Nassau County, New York .................................................................... 500,000

State of New Mexico .............................................................................. 2,000,000

Los Angeles,California ........................................................................... 3,500,000

Sullivan County, New York .................................................................. 200,000

Ulster County, New York ...................................................................... 200,000

Tompkins County, New York ................................................................ 300,000

160

Amount

Paterson, New Jersey ............................................................................ 500,000

Rochester, New York ............................................................................. 300,000

State of Maine ........................................................................................ 500,000

Commonwealth of Virginia ................................................................... 4,500,000

Delaware, Jackson and Dubuque Counties, Iowa ............................... $30,000

Dubuque, Iowa ....................................................................................... 100,000

Kansas City, Kansas ............................................................................. 1,000,000

San Francisco, California ...................................................................... 275,000

Western Massachusetts ......................................................................... 750,000

SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation’s operations program consists of lock and marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and development activities related to the

operation and maintenance of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie within the territorial limits

of the United States.

The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the

commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence

Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as

the language provided last year. Continuation of this language in

addition to that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use

of the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use

sources of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust

fund by Public Law 99–662, but which have been historically set

aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs; unused

borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.

OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE

(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ......................................................... $12,042,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001. .................................................... ............................

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 13,004,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. +962,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 .............................................. +13,004,000

On March 4, 1996, the Vice President announced plans to restructure eight federal agencies as performance-based organizations (PBOs). The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (Seaway) was one of the agencies chosen for the conversion to

a PBO. Others include the Department of Commerce seafood inspection; Patent and Trademark Office; National Technical Information Service; Defense Commissary Agency; Federal Housing Administration mortgage insurance services; Government National

Mortgage Association, the U.S. Mint; and Federal retirement benefit services.

Legislation and a financial plan for the Seaway’s PBO was submitted to Congress in July 1996; however, it was not acted upon.

The PBO legislation was resubmitted to Congress in May 1997;

however, no action occurred prior to the end of fiscal year 1998. AlVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00160 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
161

though the Seaway submitted a legislative proposal during the

106th Congress, no action has been taken by Congress yet.

A key element of the PBO initiative is to provide the Seaway

with a five-year, stable funding source to enhance the Corporation’s

long-range planning for capital projects. As a PBO, the Seaway’s

primary funding mechanism would change from yearly congressional appropriation to mandatory formula-based payments. Due to

the PBO proposal, the Seaway is not making an appropriation request in fiscal year 2001, but instead is seeking a mandatory payment from the harbor maintenance trust fund of $13,004,000.

The bill includes an appropriation of $13,004,000 instead of the

mandatory funding as requested. Establishing the Seaway as a

PBO has not been authorized and it is not within this Committee’s

jurisdiction to do so. Neither the Committee nor the Department is

aware of any current or pending congressional action on PBO authorizing legislation. Until authorization is enacted, the Committee

will continue funding the Seaway according to current law. The

Committee recommendation in no way presumes that the Seaway’s

status will change to a PBO.

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION

The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was

originally established by the Secretary of Transportation’s organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad portfolio. Its

diverse jurisdictions include hazardous materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency transportation, and university research. As the department’s only multimodal administration, RSPA

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

SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM

The Committee recommends $76,789,000 in new budget authority to continue the operations, research and development, and

grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special Programs

Administration. This is a 13 percent increase over the fiscal year

2000 enacted level. The following table summarizes fiscal year

2000 program levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and

the Committee’s recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 2000 enacted

Fiscal year 2001 estimateRecommended in the bill

Research and special programs ........................................................... $32,061,000 $42,531,000 $36,452,000

Hazardous materials user fee .............................................................. .......................... ¥4,722,000 ..........................

Pipeline safety ...................................................................................... 1 36,879,000 47,137,000 1 40,137,000

Emergency preparedness grants .......................................................... 200,000 200,000 200,000

Total ......................................................................................... 67,740,000 85,146,000 76,789,000

1 Does not reflect funding derived from the reserve fund because it is not directly appropriated.

162

RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ......................................................... $32,061,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ....................................................... 42,531,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 36,452,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. +4,391,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ ¥6,079,000

RSPA’s research and special programs administers a comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the nation from the

risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by

water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of the

Secretary of Transportation’s statutory responsibilities for providing transportation services during national emergencies; and (3)

coordinate the department’s research and development policy, planning, university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy,

legal, financial, management and administrative support to RSPA’s

programs is also provided under this appropriation. The total recommended program level for research and special programs is

$36,452,000, 14 percent increase over the 2000 enacted level. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:

Fiscal year— Recommended in

the bill 2000 enacted 2001 estimate

Hazardous materials safety .................................................................. $17,710,000 $18,773,000 $18,773,000

(Positions) .................................................................................... (129) (129) (129)

Hazardous materials safety user fees .................................................. .......................... ¥4,722,000 ..........................

Research and technology ...................................................................... 3,397,000 9,416,000 4,516,000

(Positions) .................................................................................... (11) (11) (11)

Emergency transportation ..................................................................... 1,378,000 2,375,000 1,866,000

(Positions) .................................................................................... (7) (12) (12)

Program support ................................................................................... 1 9,576,000 11,967,000 11,297,000

(Positions) .................................................................................... (48) (50) (53)

Total .................................................................................... 32,061,000 42,531,000 36,452,000

(Positions) ........................................................................... (197) (202) (205)

1 Does not reflect a reduction of $296,000 for TASC expenses.

The Committee recommends the following changes to the budget

request:

Reduce funding for five new positions .............................................. ¥$265,000

Crisis response .................................................................................... ¥244,000

Decrease transportation infrastructure assurance .......................... ¥2,400,000

Deny new university marine grants program .................................. ¥2,500,000

Continue to fund Garrett Morgan in-house ..................................... ¥200,000

Business modernization ..................................................................... ¥343,000

Employee development ....................................................................... ¥127,000

New positions.—The Committee has approved the five new positions requested to support emergency transportation programs;

however, it has reduced the funding available for these positions

(¥$265,000). The budget requested a total of $726,000 for 5 new

positions, which is over $122,000 per position. These costs are excessive, particularly for half-year funding. Funding has been reduced to $75,000 per position,

Transportation infrastructure assurance program.—A total of

$1,000,000 has been provided for transportation infrastructure assurance, which is $2,400,000 less than requested. This is a new

program designed to address vulnerabilities of key national transVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00162 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
163

portation infrastructure. The Federal Aviation Administration has

been actively developing ways to protect its infrastructure that

could be vulnerable to a variety of security threats. However, according the Department’s transportation infrastructure research

plan, ‘‘few current surface transportation modes are critically dependent on information and communications systems.... Increased dependence will not occur for at least 5 to 10

years’’. Because FAA is already handling its critical needs, and

funding to oversee other modes within the Department is not immediate, funding for this new program has been reduced.

University marine grants.—Funding for university marine grants

has been denied. This is a new grant program designed to advance

U.S. marine transportation technology and expertise. However,

RSPA has no marine expertise and would just be overseeing a

grant process over which it has little substantive knowledge. If the

Department wants to issue marine grants, it may be more appropriate for the Maritime Administration or the Coast Guard to

award them (¥$2,500,000).

Garrett Morgan program.—Consistent with last year’s conference

action, the Committee has deleted additional funding for the Garrett Morgan program because these activities are currently being

funded within RSPA’s base program. (¥$200,000). Additional funding is unjustified at this time.

Business modernization.—Funding for business modernization

has been reduced by $343,000 because some of the requested activities appear to duplicate funding contained within RSPA’s information resource management program.

Employee development.—Funding for crisis management increases and employee development have been decreased slightly

due to budget constraints.

User fees.—The Committee disagrees with the budget request to

begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from user

fees. On February 14, 2000, RSPA finalized a rule that changed the

agency’s registration and fee assessment program for persons who

transport or offer for transport certain categories and quantities of

hazardous materials. The rule increased the number of persons required to register and increased the annual registration fee for

shippers and carriers which are not small businesses. These fees

will raise additional funds to enhance support for the national hazardous materials emergency preparedness grant program.

To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program would

require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $4,722,000 in user fees in

2001 and fully fund the program beginning in 2002. These fees

would be above those finalized for emergency preparedness grants.

Currently, this new fee is not authorized. Further, the Committee

is concerned about raising fees twice on a small segment of the

transportation industry. While the Committee supported fees to increase funding available for emergency preparedness training and

grants, it is unwilling to have the same segment of the industry

fully fund the Federal Government’s entire hazardous materials

safety program.

164

PIPELINE SAFETY

(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

(Pipeline Safety

Fund)

(Oil Spill Liability

Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ............................. $30,000,000 $5,479,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 ......................... 42,874,000 4,263,000

Recommended in the bill ........................................ 35,874,000 4,263,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ...................... +5,874,000 ¥1,216,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 .................. ¥7,000,000 ..........................

The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to life and

property in the transportation of natural gas, petroleum and other

hazardous materials by pipeline. The enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection and resulted in a new emphasis

on spill prevention and containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The office develops and enforces federal

safety regulations and administers a grants-in-aid program to state

pipeline programs. The bill includes $40,137,000 to continue pipeline safety operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal

year 2001. This is 16 percent above the level enacted for fiscal year

2000. The bill specifies that of the total appropriation, $4,263,000

is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and

$35,874,000 from the pipeline safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included language that permits the office of pipeline

safety to use $2,500,000 from its reserve fund for damage prevention grants authorized by TEA21.

The following table summarizes the Committee’s recommendation by budget activity and funding source:

Budget activity Pipeline safety

fund

Oil spill liability

trust fund Reserve fund1 Total

Personnel, compensation, and benefits ................ $9,588,000 $275,000 .......................... $9,863,000

Administrative expenses ........................................ 4,151,000 45,000 .......................... 4,196,000

Contracts:

Information and analysis .............................. 1,038,000 400,000 .......................... 1,438,000

Risk assessment and technical studies ...... 950,000 400,000 .......................... 1,350,000

Compliance ................................................... 200,000 100,000 .......................... 300,000

Training and information dissemination ...... 1,134,000 100,000 .......................... 1,234,000

Emergency notification ................................. 100,000 .......................... .......................... 100,000

Damage prevention and public education ... 500,000 .......................... .......................... 500,000

Oil Pollution Act ............................................ .......................... 2,443,000 .......................... 2,443,000

Research and development .......................... 2,144,000 .......................... .......................... 2,144,000

Grants:

State grants .................................................. 15,019,000 500,000 .......................... 15,519,000

Risk management ......................................... 50,000 .......................... .......................... 50,000

One-call ......................................................... 1,000,000 .......................... .......................... 1,000,000

Damage prevention ....................................... .......................... .......................... ($2,500,000) 2,500,000

Total .......................................................... 35,874,000 4,263,000 (2,500,000) 42,637,000

1 Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.

State grants.—Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee has provided $15,519,000 for state grants. This is a 19 percent increase

165

over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level but $2,000,000 less than requested.

Damage prevention grants.—The Committee has provided $2,500,000 from the reserve fund for damage prevention grants instead of the $5,000,000 requested. To date, RSPA has not awarded

the $1,000,0000 provided for these grants in 2000 and does not

plan to do so until the end of the fiscal year. Because of the lateness in starting up this program, it is premature to award to the

same groups a 400 percent increase without any review of the effectiveness of their programs.

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ....................................................... $200,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 ................................................... 200,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................. 200,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ................................................ ..............................

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001 ............................................ ..............................

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of

1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a

reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor

public sector emergency response training and planning and provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian

tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.

The bill includes $200,000, the same amount as requested for activities related to emergency response training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of

HMTUSA.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 1 ....................................................... $44,840,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 2 ..................................................... 48,050,000

Recommended in the bill 2 ................................................................. 48,050,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. +3,210,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ ............................

1 Excludes $2,000,000 transferred from the Federal Highway Administration and $1,500,000 from the Federal Transit Administration. 2 Excludes $3,524,000 from the Federal Highway Administration and $1,000,000 from the Federal Transit

Administration.

The Inspector General’s office was established in 1978 to provide

an objective and independent organization that would be more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and abuse in

departmental programs and operations; and (2) providing a means

of keeping the Secretary of Transportation and the Congress fully

and currently informed of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to

the Secretary of Transportation and to the Congress.

The Committee recommendation provides $48,050,000 for activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an increase of

166

$3,210,000 (7.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level

and the same as the administration’s request. The Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of Inspector General

in oversight of departmental programs and activities. In addition,

the OIG will receive $4,524,000 from other agencies in this bill for

audits of the highway trust fund. The OIG’s total funding of

$52,574,000 represents an increase of 8.8 percent above the fiscal

year 2000 level.

DCAA audit reports.—In 1996, the last year that Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) reports were funded by the OIG, the

Department of Transportation required 397 such audits. Up to that

time, these important contract audits had been budgeted by, and

performed under, the general direction of the OIG. However, in

that year the responsibility for requesting and funding such audits

was shifted to the DOT operating agencies. Unfortunately, since

that time reliance on DCAA audits has dropped, as evidenced by

the diminishing number of audits performed. In 1999, for example,

DCAA issued only 68 audit reports related to DOT contracts. To

properly protect the government’s interest, audits of DOT contracts

must be performed in a more aggressive manner. These audits aid

in determining the reasonableness of proposed prices prior to contract award and the appropriateness of charges on cost-type contracts. These contracts are even more important when capital appropriations are increased. Appropriations in this bill for FAA and

Coast Guard capital accounts—those depending most heavily on

DCAA contract audits—are being increased by 28.7 percent. In addition, many of these programs are being executed under cost-type

contracts. To protect that rapidly increasing investment, additional

DCAA support is critical. The appropriations conferees did not

transfer this responsibility to the operating agencies for it to be neglected. The Committee requests the assistance of the OIG in monitoring this situation over the next year, and will consider taking

specific action in the future if the situation is not improved.

Unfair business practices.—The bill maintains language first enacted in fiscal year 2000 authorizing the OIG to investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods

of competition by air carriers and ticket agents.

Audit reports.—The Committee requests the Inspector General to

continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to the Committee

immediately after they are issued, and to continue to make the

Committee aware immediately of any review that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major acquisition project or grant,

or which recommends significant budgetary savings. The OIG is

also directed to withhold from public distribution for a period of 15

days any final audit or investigative report which was requested by

the House or Senate Committees on Appropriations.

167

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 1 ....................................................... $17,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 2 ................................................... 17,954,000

Recommended in the bill 3 ................................................................. 17,954,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1999 .................................................. +954,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 2000 .............................................. ............................ 1Of this total, $1,600,000 is offset through collection of user fees.

2 Assumes collection of $17,954,000 in user fees, to offset the appropriation as the fees are collected

throughout the fiscal year. 3Of this total, $900,000 is offset through collection of user fees.

The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,

1996 by P.L. 104–88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry, the Act

abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that had previously

been implemented by the ICC; transferred core rail and certain

other provisions to the Board; and transferred certain other motor

carrier functions to the Federal Highway Administration. The

Board is specifically responsible for regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The new law empowers the Board through

its exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively

on a case-by-case basis and continues intact the important rail reforms of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially improve rail service and the profitability of the railroad industry. The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $17,954,000,

the same amount as requested by the Board. Included in this total

is an estimated $900,000 in fees, which will offset the appropriated

funding. At this level, the Board will be able to accommodate 143

full-time equivalent positions.

User fees.—The Committee disagrees with the budget request to

fund the entire operation of the Surface Transportation Board, or

$17,954,000, from the collection of user fees. Current statutory authority, under the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31

U.S.C. 9701), grants the Board the authority to collect user fees;

however, not to the level provided in the budget estimate.

Instead of fully funding the Board through user fees, the Com- mittee believes that $900,000 is a reasonable sum, based on current collections and an abeyance in merger applications. Currently,

the Board is revising its merger guidelines and, as a result, will not

consider any new merger applications until this is completed in

early 2001. Mergers have been the main source of user fee revenue

for the Board in the past three years.

Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be credited

to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are

received and credited. This language simplifies the tracking of the

collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in spending

its appropriated funds.

The Committee has deleted bill language, requested by the administration, which would allow any fees received in excess of the

amount specified in the bill to remain available until expended but

168

not available for obligation until the following fiscal year. Since the

Board is permitted to offset its appropriation with user fees, it is

no longer necessary to utilize fees from prior year filings during periods of shortfall.

Employee retirements.—The Board faces a serious problem with

employees eligible for retirement over the next five years. By 2004,

49% of all Board employees will be eligible for retirement, the vast

majority of these being attorneys or other professional staff. While

the Committee commends the Board for taking concrete steps to

address the problem, such as proposing three new full time equivalents to allow the Board to hire and train replacements prior to retirements, the Committee does not believe this will be adequate.

Given the specialized nature of the Board’s work, the Committee

does not believe that a limited increase in hiring authority will offset the loss of the Board’s professional staff. Therefore the Board

is directed to provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 1, 2001, a letter detailing any

plans to address recruiting and retention of employees and a process to retain the key skills of retiring employees.

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.—The Committee is

aware that the Board has continuing jurisdiction over the Union

Pacific/Southern Pacific merger in connection with STB Finance

Docket No. 32760. If it becomes necessary for the Board to issue

a rule regarding the environmental mitigation study for Wichita,

Kansas, the Board shall base its final environmental mitigation

conditions for Wichita on verifiable and appropriate assumptions.

If there is any material change in the bases of the assumptions on

which the final mitigation for Wichita is imposed, the Committee

expects the Board to exercise that jurisdiction by reexamining the

final environmental mitigation measures. Also, if the Union Pacific

Corporation, its divisions, or subsidiaries materially changes or is

unable to achieve the assumptions the Board based its final mitigation measures on, then the Board should reopen Finance Docket

32760, if requested, and prescribe additional mitigation properly

reflecting these changes, if shown to be appropriate.

TITLE II

RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS

COMPLIANCE BOARD

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ......................................................... $4,633,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ....................................................... 4,795,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 4,795,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. +162,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ ............................

The Committee recommends $4,795,000 for operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an increase of $162,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the

same as the budget request.

The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance with the

standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring

that public conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accesVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00168 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
169

sible to and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to the elimination of

architectural, transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being taken to eliminate

these barriers; developing minimum guidelines and requirements

for accessibility standards; and providing technical assistance to all

programs affected by Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 ......................................................... $57,000,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 1 ..................................................... 62,942,000

Recommended in the bill ................................................................... 62,942,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 .................................................. +5,942,000

Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................................................ ............................ 1 Included $10,000,000 new user fees.

Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting special studies,

developing recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the

effectiveness of the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of adverse actions involving airman

and seaman certificates and licenses, and civil penalties issued by

the Department of Transportation.

The bill includes an appropriation of $62,942,000 for salaries and

expenses and does not assume the collection of $10,000,000 in new

user fees. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program level, the President’s fiscal year 2001 request, and the Committee’s recommendations:

Program

Fiscal year 2000 enacted Fiscal year 2001 estimate Recommended in bill

Staff

years

Budget

authority

Staff

years

Budget

authority 1

Staff

years

Budget

authority

Policy and direction ........................................ 101 $13,865,000 104 $15,098,000 104 $15,098,000

Aviation safety ................................................ 150 18,718,000 155 20,454,000 155 20,454,000

Surface transportation ................................... 92 12,877,000 100 14,802,000 100 14,802,000

Research and engineering ............................. 74 8,611,000 76 9,353,000 76 9,353,000

Safety recommendations and accomplishments ......................................................... 12 1,555,000 13 1,782,000 13 1,782,000

Administrative law judges ............................. 10 1,289,000 10 1,453,000 10 1,453,000

Total .................................................. 439 57,000,000 458 62,942,000 458 62,942,000

1 Includes $10,000,000 in user fees.

The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes to deviate in any way from the staff year allocations or by more than

five percent from the funding allocations listed above.

Bill language is contained that permits the Board to reimburse

individuals up to the per diem rate for a GS–15 instead of the rate

for an Executive Level III position. This reimbursement language

has been carried for many years.

170

TITLE III

GENERAL PROVISIONS

(INCLUDING TRANSFERS OF FUNDS)

The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to

the Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed

in the budget with the following changes:

The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of the

following sections, all of which were contained in the fiscal year

2000 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):

Section 313 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year contracts for production end items that include certain specified provisions.

Section 316 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 320 technical staff years under the federally funded research and development center contract between the Federal Aviation Administration

and the Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.

Section 318 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or

promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle

Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average

fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in such title, in

any model year that differs from standards promulgated for such

automobiles prior to enactment of this section.

Section 320 prohibits the use of funds for any type of training

which: (a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities

bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be

highly stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide

prior notification of content and methods to be used during the

training; (d) contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts

to modify a person’s values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness

training, except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of

AIDS and workplace rights.

Section 321 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for activities

designed to influence Congress or a state legislature on legislation

or appropriations except through proper, official channels.

Section 322 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.

Section 323 reduces funding for activities of the Transportation

administrative service center of the Department of Transportation

and limits obligation authority of the center to $115,387,000. The

fiscal year 2000 Act limited obligation authority of the center to

$133,673,000.

Section 327 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary

to any other office of the Office of the Secretary as long as no appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 12 percent. The proposed transfer shall be submitted for approval to the

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Section 329 prohibits funds in this Act unless the Secretary of

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 03:40 May 18, 2000 Jkt 064412 PO 00000 Frm 00170 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\HR622.001 pfrm08 PsN: HR622
171

ment totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department

or its modal administrations.

The Committee included the following general provisions as requested with modifications:

Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses

of more than 104 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of Transportation and includes a provision that prohibits

political and Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary

detail outside the Department of Transportation or any independent agency funded in this Act.

Section 319 provides that funds received from the sale of data

products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be credited

to the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing the Bureau

for such expenses and that such funds shall be subject to the obligation limitation for federal-aid highways and highway safety construction.

Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the department from travel management

centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space,

and miscellaneous sources. Such funds received shall be available

until December 31, 2001.

Section 326 provides $980,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council

and includes provisions that amend section 203 of Public Law 105–

134 regarding the Amtrak Reform Council’s recommendations on

Amtrak routes identified for closure or realignment.

The Committee included the following new provisions:

Section 330 repeals section 232 of Appendix E of Public Law

106–113 that pertains to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office Building in New York City.

Section 331 prohibits funds for planning, design, or construction

of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.

Section 332 amends section 3038(e) of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to the federal share of the rural transportation accessibility

incentive program.

Section 333 amends the allowable federal share requirement for

projects for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings

funded under the surface transportation program.

Section 334 allows funds made available under section 110 of

title 23, United States Code for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement and surface transportation programs to be used

for intercity passenger service by rail.

Section 335 amends item number 273 of section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 pertaining to the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in

Des Moines, Iowa.

Section 336 amends item number 328 of section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 pertaining to Louisiana Highway 30.

Section 337 amends items numbered 63 and 186 of section 1602

of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to projects in Ohio.

Section 338 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses

of any departmental official to authorize project approvals or advance construction authority for the Central Artery/Third Harbor

Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts.

172

Section 339 amends section 3027(c)(3) of Public Law 105–178 relating to services for elderly and persons with disabilities.

Section 340 allows unobligated balances from Public Law 100–17

and Public Law 101–164 to be used for improvements along Route

56 in Cambria, Pennsylvania.

The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget: (1) regarding the distribution of the Federal-aid highways limitation on obligations; (2) making available funds for apportionment

to the sponsors of primary airports that take into account temporary air service interruptions to those airports; (3) authorizing

new railroad safety fees; (4) amending section 3037 of Public Law

105–178 to add ‘‘A tribal government’’; (5) amending section 5338

of title 49 U.S.C. in regards to funds for technical direction and

documentation of research and technology projects; (6) allowing

safety inspectors reimbursement for professional liability insurance; and (7) amending section 4109 of title 15, U.S.C. and section

2441 of title 16, U.S.C. in regards to funding Coast Guard

icebreaking activities.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

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

CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives states:

Each report of a committee on a bill or joint resolution

of a public character, shall include a statement citing the

specific powers granted to the Congress in the Constitution

to enact the law proposed by the bill or joint resolution.

The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to report

this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I of the Constitution of the United States of America which states:

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

Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to this

specific power granted by the Constitution.

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statement is submitted describing

the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying bill.

The Committee recommends the following transfers:

Under Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more

than $21,500,000 of funds made available under this heading may

be transferred to Coast Guard ‘‘Operating expenses’’ or otherwise

made available to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial support

of the Coast Guard Reserve.

Under Federal Transit Administration, Administrative expenses:

Provided further, That of the funds in this Act available for the

execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49, United

173

States Code, $1,000,000 shall be transferred to the Department of

Transportation’s Office of Inspector General for costs associated

with the audit and review of new fixed guideway systems.

Under the general provisions:

Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, and except

for fixed guideway modernization projects, funds made available by

this Act under ‘‘Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment

grants’’ for projects specified in this Act or identified in reports accompanying this Act not obligated by September 30, 2003, and

other recoveries, shall be available for other projects under 49

U.S.C. 5309.

Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds

appropriated before October 1, 2000, under any section of chapter

53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain available for expenditure may be transferred to and administered under the most

recent appropriation heading for any such section.

Sec. 328. The Secretary of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated for any office of the Office of the Secretary

to any other office of the Office of the Secretary, provided that no

appropriation shall be increased or decreased by more than 12 percent by all such transfers.

COMPLIANCE WITH RULE XIII, CLAUSE 3(e) (RAMSEYER RULE)

In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of the

House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill,

as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is printed in italic,

existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

* * * * * * *

TITLE I—FEDERAL–AID HIGHWAYS

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F–High Priority Projects

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount

listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be

available (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(13) of

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years

1998 through 2003 to carry out each such project:

No State Project description (Dollars in

millions)

1 Georgia .................. I–75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County .............. 1.7

*******

ø63. Ohio ....................... Upgrade U.S. Route 35 between vicinity of Chillicothe to Village of Richmond

Dale.

3.75¿

*******

186. Ohio ....................... Construct Chesapeake Bypass, Lawrence County ............................................. ø3,75¿7.5

174

No State Project description (Dollars in

millions)

*******

273 Iowa ....................... øReconstruct I–235 and improve the interchange for access to the ML King

Parkway¿ Construction of the north-south segments of the Martin Luther

King, Jr. Parkway in Des Moines.

5.175

*******

328 Louisiana ............... Conduct a feasibility and design study or construction of Louisiana Highway

30 between Louisiana Highway 44 and I–10.

1.5

*******

TITLE III–FEDERAL TRANSIT

ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3027. APPORTIONMENT OF APPROPRIATIONS FOR FORMULA

GRANTS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) CONTINUATION OF OPERATING ASSISTANCE TO CERTAIN LARGER URBANIZED AREAS.—

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(3) SERVICES FOR ELDERLY AND PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES.—

In addition to assistance made available under paragraph (1),

the Secretary may provide assistance under section 5307 of

title 49, United States Code, to a transit provider that operates

20 or fewer vehicles in an urbanized area with a population of

at least 200,000 to finance the operating costs of equipment

and facilities used by the transit provider in providing mass

transportation services to elderly and persons with disabilities,

provided that such assistance to all entities shall not exceed

ø$1,000,000¿ $1,444,000 annually.

* * * * * * *

SEC. 3038. RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY INCENTIVE

PROGRAM.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(e) FEDERAL SHARE OF COSTS.—The Federal share of costs under

this section shall be provided from funds made available to carry

out this section. The Federal share of the costs for a project shall

not exceed ø50¿ 90 percent of the project cost.

* * * * * * *

CHANGES IN THE APPLICATION OF EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following statements are submitted describing the effect of provisions in the accompanying bill which directly

or indirectly change the application of existing law.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for

more than one year for a number of programs for which the basic

175

authorizing legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended

availability.

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation

and the National Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions

have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.

The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of

automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar limitations

have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.

Language is included in several instances permitting certain

funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ‘‘Assistant

Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs,’’ which would

allow crediting the account with up to $1,250,000 in user fees.

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays of the Transportation Administrative Service Center of the Department of Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity

funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ which specifies that none of the funds appropriated shall

be available for pay or administrative expenses in connection with

shipping commissioners.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation to the

amount of fees collected from yacht owners.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Operating expenses’’ that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement any

regulation that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this Act.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’ that credits funds from the disposal

of surplus real property by sale or lease.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Acquisition, construction, and improvements’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for

the United States Coast Guard, and provides that the amount appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after

initial submission of the President’s budget that the plan has not

been submitted to the Congress.

Language is included under Coast Guard, ‘‘Reserve training’’ that

limits funds available for transfer to ‘‘Operating expenses’’ to no

more than $21,500,000 to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial

support of the Coast Guard Reserve.

Language is included under Coast Guard, ‘‘Reserve training’’ that

prohibits funds by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the

Coast Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so

charged during fiscal year 1997.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ‘‘Research, development, test, and evaluation’’ that credits funds received from state

and local governments and other entities for expenses incurred for

research, development, testing, and evaluation.

176

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations,’’ that provides $5,000,000 for the contract tower costsharing program and $750,000 for the Centennial of Flight Commission.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations,’’ permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant

agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting organization to develop aviation safety standards.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of

the second career training program.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits the use of funds for Sunday premium

pay unless an employee actually performed work during the time

corresponding to the premium pay.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds from being used to operate a

manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United

States.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits multiyear leases greater than five years

in length or greater than $100,000,000 unless specifically authorized and contingent liabilities fully funded.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Operations’’ that prohibits funds for conducting and coordinating

activities on aeronautical charting and cartography through the

Transportation Administrative Service Center.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that allows certain funds received for

expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of air

navigation facilities to be credited to the account.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Facilities and equipment’’ that requires the Secretary of Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment plan for the

Federal Aviation Administration, and provides that the amount appropriated shall be reduced by $100,000 per day for each day after

initial submission of the President’s budget that the plan has not

been submitted to the Congress.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Facilities and Equipment’’ that prohibits the Federal Aviation Administration from entering into a capital lease agreement unless

appropriations have been provided to fully cover the Federal Government’s contingent liabilities at the time the lease agreement is

signed.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Research, engineering, and development’’, that allows certain

funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and

development to be credited to the account.

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’, that provides for procurement, installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention devices

and systems at airports.

177

Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,

‘‘Grants-in-aid for airports’’, that provides not more than

$53,000,000 for administration.

The bill includes limitations on administrative expenses of the

Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Motor Carrier

Safety Administration. The bill also includes a limitation on transportation research of the Federal Highway Administration.

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Operations and research’’ prohibiting the planning or

implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires

for low rolling resistance.

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, ‘‘Highway traffic safety grants’’ limiting obligations

for certain safety grant programs.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,

‘‘Safety and operations’’ authorizing the Secretary to receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit

them to the appropriation charged with the first deed of trust, and

make payments on the first deed of trust.

Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511

through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform

Act.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,

‘‘Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program’’ that prohibits

new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using federal

funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,

‘‘Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation’’

that provides that not more than $208,590,000 shall be obligated

prior to September 30, 2001.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, ‘‘Administrative expenses’’ that transfers $1,000,000 to the Department

of Transportation’s Inspector General for costs associated with the

audit and review of new fixed guideway systems.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,

‘‘Formula grants’’ that provides no more than $40,000,000 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 in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Such grants shall be made to the Utah Department of Transportation and shall not be subject to any local share requirement or

limitation on operating assistance.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,

‘‘Capital Investment Grants,’’ specifying the distribution of funds

for new fixed guideway systems in this Act.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs,’’ which would allow

up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Research and special programs,’’ that credits certain

178

funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Ad- ministration, ‘‘Pipeline safety’’ that allows up to $2,500,000 for

damage prevention to be funded from amounts previously collected

and held in a reserve account.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs Administration, ‘‘Emergency preparedness grants,’’ specifying the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided under this head.

Language is included under Office of Inspector General, ‘‘Salaries

and expenses’’, that provides the Inspector General with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of fraud by any person

or entity that is subject to regulation by the Department of Transportation.

Language is also included under Office of Inspector General,

‘‘Salaries and expenses’’, that authorizes the office of Inspector

General to investigate unfair or deceptive practices and unfair

methods of competition by domestic and foreign air carriers and

ticket agents.

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ‘‘Sala- ries and expenses’’ allowing the collection of $1,000,000 in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board;

and providing that the sum appropriated from the general fund

shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar basis as such fees are received.

Language is included under ‘‘Architectural and Transportation

Barriers Compliance Board, Salaries and expenses’’, that provides

that funds received for publications and training may be credited

to the appropriation.

The bill contains a number of general provisions that place limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing

the application of existing law.

The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow for

the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.

Section 305 prohibits political and Presidential appointees in the

Department of Transportation and independent agencies funded in

this Act from being assigned on temporary detail outside the Department or such independent agency.

Section 312 allows airports to transfer to the Federal Aviation

Administration instrument landing systems which conform to FAA

specifications and the purchase of such equipment was assisted by

a federal airport aid program.

Section 317 provides that funds received for training from States,

counties, municipalities, other public authorities, and private

sources by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit

Administration, and Federal Railroad Administration to be credited

to each respective agency except for State rail safety inspectors

participating in training pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 20105.

Section 318 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or

promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle Information

and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average fuel economy

standards for automobiles.

179

Section 319 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics from the sale of data products be credited to the

Federal-aid highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the

Bureau for such expenses.

Section 320 prohibits funds for any type of training which: (a)

does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly

stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d)

contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a

person’s values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training,

except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and

workplace rights.

Section 323 reduced funding for activities of the transportation

administrative service center of the Department of Transportation

and limits obligation authority of the center to $115,387,000.

Section 324 credits to appropriations of the Department of Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the department from travel management

centers, charge card programs, the subleasing of building space,

and miscellaneous sources.

Section 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow

issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.

Section 329 prohibits funds in this Act unless the Secretary of

Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three full business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is announced by the department

or its modal administrations.

Section 330 repeals section 232 of appendix E of Public Law 106–

113 pertaining to funding for the James A. Farley Post Office in

New York City, New York.

Section 332 amends section 3038(e) of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to the federal share of the rural transportation accessibility

incentive program.

Section 333 provides the federal share requirement for projects

for the elimination of hazards of railway-highway crossings funded

under the surface transportation program.

Section 334 allows funds made available under section 110 of

title 23, United States Code for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement and surface transportation programs to be used

for intercity passenger service by rail.

Section 335 amends item number 273 of section 1602 of Public

Law 105–178 pertaining to the Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway in

Des Moines, Iowa.

Section 336 amends item number 328 of section 1602 of Public

Law 105–1788 pertaining to Louisiana Highway 30.

Section 337 amends items numbered 63 and 186 of section 1602

of Public Law 105–178 pertaining to projects in Ohio.

Section 338 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses

of any departmental official to authorize project approvals or advance construction authority for the Central Artery/Third Harbor

Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts.

180

Section 339 amends section 3027(c)(3) of Public Law 105–178 relating to services for elderly and persons with disabilities.

Section 340 allows unobligated balances from Public Law 100–17

and Public Law 101–164 to be used for improvements along Route

56 in Cambria, Pennsylvania.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following lists the agencies in the accompanying bill which contain appropriations that are not authorized

by law:

United States Coast Guard

Federal Railroad Administration

Research and Special Programs Administration

Surface Transportation Board

COMPARISON WITH THE BUDGET RESOLUTION

Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with section

308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, which requires that

the report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing how that authority compares with the

reports submitted under section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal

year from the Committee’s section 302(a) allocation. This information follows:

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation This bill

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary 1 ................................................ $14,989 $48,513 $14,986 $48,510

Mandatory ....................................................... 739 737 739 737

Total .................................................. 15,728 49,250 15,725 49,247

1 Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

The bill provides new spending authority as defined under section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–344), as amended, as follows:

Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad rehabilitation

and improvement program, authority is provided to issue notes

necessary to pay obligations under section 511 through 513 of the

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. This provision

has been included at the request of the administration because the

government’s financial obligations under this program are difficult

to determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures

of funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that

this authority will be used in fiscal year 2001. Similar provisions

have been included in many previous appropriations Acts.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTIONS

In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

181

344), as amended, the following table contains five-year projections

associated with the budget authority provided in the accompanying

bill as provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

In millions of dollars

Budget authority ................................................................................ $15,705

Outlays:

2001 1 ............................................................................................ 20,254

2002 .............................................................................................. 18,403

2003 .............................................................................................. 8,173

2004 .............................................................................................. 3,735

2005 and future years ................................................................. 3,945 1 Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93–

344), as amended, the Congressional Budget Office has provided

the following estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and

local governments:

In millions of dollars

Budget authority ................................................................................ $677

Fiscal year 2001 outlays .................................................................... 9,162

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House

of Representatives, the following table is submitted describing the

rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:

Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and airway trust fund), rescission of contract authority ........ ¥$579,000,000

Federal Railroad Administration, James A. Farley Post Office (rescission of advanced appropriations, FYs 2001, 2002 and 2003) ... ¥60,000,000

FULL COMMITTEE VOTES

Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules

of the House of Representatives, the results of each rollcall vote on

an amendment or on the motion to report, together with the names

of those voting for and those voting against, are printed below:

No recorded votes ordered.

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

(199)

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF FRANK R. WOLF AND MARTIN OLAV

SABO

These are good times for public transit. With more than nine billion trips taken last year, U.S. transit ridership is at its highest

level in 40 years. Federal funding for transit is also at an all-time

high.

This bill provides nearly $6 billion in transit formula and discretionary funds for fiscal year 2001: $3.345 billion in formula grants

and $2.646 billion for capital investment grants, including $1.058

billion for rail modernization, $1.058 billion for Section 5309 New

Starts discretionary grants, and $529 million for buses and facilities.

This year, the Committee received more than $2.7 billion in

funding requests for discretionary Section 5309 New Starts

projects. Even though the program is funded at an historical high

of $1.058 billion, the amount available to fund New Starts projects

is a fraction of the current demand, and this problem will only

grow worse in coming years.

The New Starts pipeline is huge and growing. Currently, the

Federal Transit Administration has committed the federal government to multi-year Section 5309 funding for 16 transit systems. A

total of $2.4 billion will be required over the remaining life of TEA–

21 to complete the federal share for these projects now under construction.

Another 47 New Starts projects are in preliminary engineering

or final design, and more than 50 New Starts projects are in the

early planning stages. For the 47 projects nearing the final stages

of development, total costs will reach a staggering $25 billion, of

which the allowable federal share under TEA–21 is 80 percent, or

more than $20 billion.

The President has proposed in the fiscal year 2001 budget full

funding grant agreements (FFGAs) for 14 of the 47 projects that

would consume $3.8 billion in federal support through 2005—two

years beyond the life of TEA–21. These 14 proposed FFGAs, together with federal commitments for those projects currently under

construction, would completely exhaust all available discretionary

federal support for new transit systems.

We don’t doubt that most of these are good projects, and some

local sponsors will commit more than their required 20 percent

local share of costs. Nevertheless, it is clear that under current

policies, this Committee will be unable to meet the growing demand for additional project assistance over the next few years.

While the Committee has modified the President’s recommendations, in part, to create room for additional, worthy transit projects

in this bill, the Committee has not made any new commitments

this year to projects that have not previously received Section 5309

New Starts funding.

200

Moreover, it is clear that the Committee will find it increasingly

difficult over the next several years to allocate Section 5309 funds

to worthy projects. This problem will only grow worse since the full

costs are not yet known for the 50 projects that are still in the

planning stages. As a result, many communities simply will be left

out in the cold.

The Federal Transit Administration has acknowledged the high

demand for Section 5309 New Starts funding, and its draft guidance suggests that it will consider the degree of local financial support in making its budget recommendations. However, in practice,

the Federal Transit Administration has managed the New Starts

program on a ‘‘first come, first served’’ basis that does not adequately consider or require a local financial commitment greater

than the minimum 20 percent requirement.

We believe that just as the Committee has a responsibility to

fund worthy New Starts projects under the Section 5309 program,

it should also encourage communities to provide greater state and

local financial participation, especially for early developmental activities.

We have suggested that the Committee should require local

sponsors to contribute 50 percent toward their New Starts project

costs, rather than the current minimum of 20 percent. While we acknowledge it is not popular, we believe this standard will become

necessary in order to fairly provide federal assistance to New

Starts projects across the country.

Far from serving as a disincentive to build transit as some have

suggested, we believe that sending a clear message that more robust local and state financial participation as expected will help to

address the New Starts funding logjam—and more fairly distribute

New Starts assistance to communities in need.

Short of a 50 percent federal share cap, we believe that the Committee must continue to explore options to address the enormous

expectations for federal New Starts funding in the coming years.

Æ