```

[House Report 107-108]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

107th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    107-108

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

 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 
                                  2002

                                _______
                                

 June 22, 2001.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2299]

    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, 2002.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................  ....
                                                                      2
Program, project, and activity.............................  ....
                                                                      7
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      8
        Coast Guard........................................     4
                                                                     15
        Federal Aviation Administration....................     9
                                                                     31
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    15
                                                                     61
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........    17
                                                                     81
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    20
                                                                     94
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    22
                                                                    104
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    18
                                                                     87
        Office of Inspector General........................    34
                                                                    176
        Research and Special Programs Administration.......    32
                                                                    171
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    31
                                                                    170
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    35
                                                                    177
Title II--Related Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    35
                                                                    178
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    36
                                                                    179
Title III--General Provisions..............................    36
                                                                    180
House Report Requirements:
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............  ....
                                                                    190
        Changes in existing law............................  ....
                                                                    184
        Comparison with budget resolution..................  ....
                                                                    190
        Constitutional authority...........................  ....
                                                                    182
        Financial assistance to state and local governments  ....
                                                                    191
        Five-year projections of outlays...................  ....
                                                                    191
        General performance goals and objectives...........  ....
                                                                    183
        Ramseyer...........................................  ....
                                                                    184
        Rescissions........................................  ....
                                                                    191
        Transfers of funds.................................  ....
                                                                    183
Tabular summary of the bill................................  ....
                                                                    194

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $17,118,121,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $1,516,000 
more than the $17,116,605,000 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 (TEA-21) and the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (AIR-21), limitations on obligations, and exempt 
obligations) of $59,080,921,000. This is $1,181,468,000 more 
than the comparable fiscal year 2001 enacted level and 
$109,515,000 more than the budget request.
    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
          (1) An appropriation of $13,275,481,000 for the 
        Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with 
        provisions of AIR-21, an increase of $687,481,000 above 
        fiscal year 2001;
          (2) A limitation of $3,300,000,000 for grants-in-aid 
        for airports, as required by provisions of AIR-21, and 
        an increase of $100,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 
        level and the same as the budget request;
          (3) An appropriation of $3,382,588,000 for operating 
        expenses of the Coast Guard, a 6 percent increase over 
        last year's level including $619,232,000 for drug 
        interdiction activities;
          (4) An appropriation of $521,476,000 for grants to 
        the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), 
        to cover capital expenses;
          (5) A total of $85,319,000 for the office of the 
        secretary, $1,774,000 below the 2001 enacted level and 
        the budget request;
          (6) Highway program obligation limitations of 
        $31,716,797,000, an increase of $2,054,991,000 over 
        fiscal year 2001;
          (7) Transit program obligations of $5,397,800,000, 
        consistent with provisions of TEA-21, and $381,200,000 
        over fiscal year 2001; and
          (8) A total of $298,203,000 for the Federal Motor 
        Carrier Safety Administration, including $205,896,000 
        for the national motor carrier safety program, an 
        increase of $29,600,000 above fiscal year 2001.

                   The Effect of Guaranteed Spending

    Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget 
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide 
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the 
highway category and the mass transit category. In 1990, the 
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st 
Century (AIR-21) provided a similar treatment for certain 
aviation programs. Although using different procedures, each of 
these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised 
spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations 
Committees 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, the majority of budgetary resources 
addressed by this bill are ``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 
across the government to be under more severe budget pressure, 
in order to keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of 
the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered 
transportation programs and activities, since they must compete 
within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues 
to be concerned that bills such as TEA-21 and AIR-21 skew 
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a 
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending 
while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, Coast 
Guard, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs.

                         Priorities of the Bill

    This year, the Committee has focused more directly on 
certain problems which reduce both the management effectiveness 
of the department and the delivery of critical transportation 
services to the public. Addressing these problems are top 
priorities of the recommended bill, and will involve sustained 
commitment over the coming years. The Committee's priorities 
for the bill this year include: (1) improvement in 
accountability and performance management within the 
department; (2) improvement in oversight of large 
transportation infrastructure projects; (3) greater leveraging 
of federal funding for transit projects; and (4) reducing 
aviation delays and improving access to the nation's aviation 
system. Each of these priorities is discussed more fully below:

          Improving Accountability and Performance Management

    For many years, the Committee has advocated stronger 
accountability for performance within the department. With the 
passage of the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA), 
agencies were required, for the first time, to establish 
specific and measurable performance goals. However, GPRA was 
silent on how to effectuate change and compel stronger 
performance based on that information. In addition, reports of 
the U.S. General Accounting Office, the National Transportation 
Safety Board, and the DOT Inspector General provide valuable 
information on agency performance, and agency employee surveys 
illuminate specific problem areas which are not readily 
apparent to the outside observer. The Committee believes that 
the annual appropriations process must use performance 
information to ensure the taxpayers' dollars are spent wisely 
and distributed to the highest-performing programs. This year, 
the Committee has reviewed agency performance plans and matched 
the results to the provision of executive bonuses and requests 
for additional budgetary resources. In too many cases, the 
Committee has discovered little or no linkage between the 
achievement of goals and the provision of bonuses to the 
executives leading those organizations. The Committee will not 
allow this situation to continue. The bill makes adjustments in 
two appropriations to reduce bonuses next year for under-
performing organizations. In other cases, requests for 
additional staffing or contract resources have been denied 
until those organizations can show clear progress in meeting 
their goals. Executive bonuses, discretionary travel funds, and 
support staff are not entitlements. High-performing 
organizations should be rewarded with such benefits and 
incentives. And low-performing organizations should have them 
denied, to stimulate stronger achievement. This is the essence 
of accountability, and the Committee will continue to insist 
upon it.

    Improvement In Oversight Of Major Transportation Infrastructure 
                                Projects

    Enactment of TEA-21 and AIR-21 authorizing legislation, 
combined with impending initiation of the Coast Guard's 
``deepwater'' program, has resulted in an infusion of funding 
for transportation infrastructure not seen since creation of 
the interstate highway system. In addition, new flexible 
funding mechanisms such as state infrastructure banks (SIBs) 
and Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act 
(TIFIA) loans complicate the oversight process. The DOT 
Inspector General has warned that such rapid increases in 
funding, if not properly controlled and overseen, will create a 
climate where fraud and waste can grow. In response, the 
department formed a special task force on the Central Artery 
highway project, and following that, a broader Task Force on 
Oversight of Large Transportation Infrastructure Projects, to 
develop stronger policy and more effective monitoring and 
oversight procedures. The Committee believes that the 
recommendations of these task forces are good first steps. 
However, the department must ensure that agencies continuously 
follow through on those recommendations. This will require the 
office of the secretary to effectively monitor the status of 
those projects, and intervene quickly when action is needed. 
The Committee notes that agencies do not always place a high 
priority on contracts designed to oversee their activities. For 
example, the Committee has had to add funding in fiscal year 
2002 for project and financial management oversight contracts 
of major new transit systems. Without this additional funding, 
FTA would need to limit the number of projects that receive 
oversight or scale back the level of oversight currently being 
provided. Either of these options may expose FTA and the 
Federal Government to criticism if one or more projects not 
fully monitored develops serious problems. Further, FAA and 
Coast Guard have been negligent in requesting funds for Defense 
Contract Audit Agency contract audits. In this bill, the 
Committee is providing additional funding and direction for 
oversight of infrastructure ``mega-projects'', and providing 
stronger direction to ensure requests for contract audits are 
made. The Committee will hold DOT accountable for general 
oversight in future years.

              Greater Leveraging of Federal Transit Funds

    Due to the number of full funding grant agreements (FFGAs) 
signed over the past few years, there is very little funding 
available for other new start transit projects, regardless of 
merit or need. That is evident in this bill, where, with $126 
million available for non-FFGA funding, the Committee has been 
able to satisfy only 10 percent of total requests. These prior 
decisions, while beneficial to a few communities, excessively 
restrict the ability of the annual appropriations process to 
satisfy new requirements for meritorious projects, and to 
accommodate rising transit demand in the coming years. While 
the Committee recognizes that existing law authorizes a maximum 
federal contribution of 80 percent for transit new start 
systems, the time has clearly come to encourage a lower federal 
share for new projects not under construction, in order to 
provide a more equitable distribution of funds among all 
communities desiring federal support. For this reason, the 
Committee intends a greater leveraging of federal resources by 
providing, in this bill, a higher percentage of requested funds 
to those projects where the federal share of total estimated 
cost is 60 percent or below.

Reducing Aviation Delays and Improving Access to the Nation's Aviation 
                                 System

    This year the Committee has focused on the terrible, and 
worsening, problem of airline delays and cancellations. Last 
year, one out of every four flights in the United States was 
delayed, and the average delay has now increased to over 50 
minutes in length. To make matters worse, consumer flight 
delays had already increased 42 percent over the 1995-1999 time 
period. The IG has reported on the growing number of 
``chronically late'' flights--those flights which are hardly 
ever on time. And flight cancellations are just as big a 
problem. The number of cancelled flights has increased 
sevenfold in the past five years.
    The number of actual passengers inconvenienced by these 
delays and cancellations is unknown. However, with load factors 
over 80 percent on many routes, and with a large majority of 
people being funneled through a small number of hub airports 
for connecting flights, it doesn't take many delays or 
cancellations to disrupt the plans of tens of thousands of 
people. Furthermore, because aircraft are so full, it is 
becoming increasing difficult to rebook all passengers on the 
next available flight. So the delay experienced by passengers 
is far greater than is even covered by the available 
statistics. That is why people are furious about airline travel 
today, and that is why the Committee has become involved in 
trying to find solutions.
    The Committee held special hearings on March 15, 2001 and 
May 3, 2001 on the aviation delay problem. Testimony was 
received from senior administration officials, representatives 
of the aviation industry and the air traffic controllers 
association, and university professors. During those hearings, 
the Committee received specific commitments from each witness 
detailing actions they would personally take to address the 
delay problem. At the Committee's second hearing on May 3, 
2001, progress and accomplishments were reported in several 
areas. Much more remains to be done, and the Committee will 
continue to monitor progress on these commitments. However, the 
Committee appreciates the good faith efforts of these 
individuals to make a personal difference to help address the 
problem.
    There is no question that the delay problem must be 
attacked on several fronts:
    Procedural.--FAA needs to continue assigning a high 
priority to making changes in its approved flight rules, 
separation standards, airways, and procedures in ways which 
improve capacity without sacrificing safety. Initiatives such 
as airspace redesign, reduced vertical separation minima, and 
analysis of ``choke points'' will all contribute greatly to 
squeezing additional capacity out of today's infrastructure. 
These initiatives are all fully funded in the accompanying 
bill.
    Redistribution of supply.--Analysis indicates that, in 
total, there is no shortage of airport capacity in the United 
States. However, the economics of airline hubbing creates 
incentives for airlines to pack far too many aircraft in far 
too few airports in far too short a time period. This high-
pressure situation requires only a small unplanned event--such 
as a thunderstorm--to throw the entire system into chaos for 
the balance of the day. FAA's recent development of capacity 
benchmarks demonstrates that airlines are, all too often, 
scheduling more flights at peak hours than can take off under 
even the most optimistic scenarios. The Committee encourages 
the Secretary of Transportation to work diligently with 
airlines to reduce overscheduling by dispersing flights to non-
peak hours and to underutilized airports. If voluntary actions 
are not sufficient to address this problem, next year the 
Committee may have to consider more directive measures.
    Expansion of land-based capacity.--Most observers agree 
that part of the solution, at least over the long term, is to 
construct additional runways and connecting taxiways. The 
Committee is supportive of these efforts, as well as activities 
to streamline the local, state, and federal approval process 
for airport facility construction (``environmental 
streamlining''), without subrogating environmental 
requirements. The bill fully funds the authorized level for the 
Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which provides grants for 
such construction projects at our nation's airports.
    Expansion of airway capacity.--If successfully developed 
and implemented, changes in air traffic control technology are 
expected to allow airway capacity improvements of 5 to 10 
percent in the coming years. In the main, these technologies, 
such as satellite navigation and automatic surveillance, are 
not in operation anywhere in the world on the scale envisioned 
by the FAA. Further, the U.S. aviation system is the safest in 
the world, and radical changes in the use of technology must be 
approached cautiously. However, the Committee is hopeful that 
capacity-enhancement programs currently being developed by FAA 
will, over time, add to airway system capacity and provide a 
measure of contribution to the delay problem.
    Analysis of data.--One of the most difficult to understand 
aspects of the delay problem is that it persists, in part, 
because government and industry have not agreed on how to 
measure the problem. Until recently, there was not even a 
mutually-agreed upon definition of what constituted a delay. 
Now, a departmental working group is trying to better define 
and categorize delay causation. Until standard and consistent 
data--using mutually-agreed upon definitions--is collected and 
analyzed, it will be easier to avoid solutions than to find 
them. The Committee believes the first step in this direction 
is to develop a common delay causation and reporting 
methodology, which is the subject of an OST working group 
headed by the deputy secretary. The Committee will monitor this 
work to ensure a baseline of good data and sound reporting 
practices are put into place so that action plans can be 
developed and organizations held accountable for their portions 
of the problem.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
2001 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2002 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 2002. The Committee received testimony from 
officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, 
university faculty officials of the U.S. General Accounting 
Office, officials of state and local governments, and private 
citizens.
    The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2002 have been 
developed after careful consideration of all the information 
available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2002, for the purposes of the Balanced 
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained 
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and 
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is 
contained in 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.

                                TITLE I

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $63,245,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        69,500,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        67,726,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +4,481,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................       -1,774,000

\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $139,139 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    The bill provides a total of $67,726,000 for the salaries 
and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of 
the Secretary. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 
2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and 
the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2001   Fiscal year 2002
                        Program                               enacted            request          Recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the Secretary......................         $1,827,000         $1,989,000         $1,929,000
Immediate office of the Deputy Secretary...............            587,000            638,000            625,000
Office of General Counsel..............................          9,972,000         13,355,000         11,654,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy...........          3,011,000          3,153,000          3,153,000
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and               7,289,000          7,650,000          7,650,000
 International Affairs.................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and                 7,362,000          7,728,000          7,728,000
 Programs..............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental               2,150,000          2,282,000          2,282,000
 Affairs...............................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...         19,020,000         20,262,000         20,262,000
Office of Public Affairs...............................          1,674,000          1,776,000          1,776,000
Executive Secretariat..................................          1,181,000          1,241,000          1,241,000
Board of Contract appeals..............................            496,000            523,000            523,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Businesses                     1,192,000          1,251,000          1,251,000
 Utilization...........................................
Office of Intelligence and Security....................          1,262,000          1,321,000          1,321,000
Office of the Chief Information Officer................          6,222,000          6,331,000          6,331,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................         63,245,000         69,500,000         67,726,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee has made the following adjustments to the 
budget request:

Reduce requested increases for Secretary's travel.......        -$60,000
Reduce requested increases for Deputy Secretary's travel         -13,000
Provide 5 new staff for Accessibility for all America 
    consumer rights issues..............................        -398,000
Provide 2 new staff for Accessibility for all America 
    technical assistance and information................        -158,000
Deny one new staff for alternative dispute resolutions..        -170,000
Decrease General Counsel travel.........................         -72,000
Decrease new rental space requirements..................        -184,000
Hold contract services to a 10-percent growth rate......        -719,000

    Secretary's travel.--Travel of the Immediate Office of the 
Secretary has grown by 35 percent over the past five years. The 
budget requested an additional $80,000, a 44 percent increase, 
for travel in 2002, which would bring the total travel expenses 
to $263,500; however, the department could not justify why such 
a large increase was necessary. As a result, the Committee has 
provided the Secretary with a smaller increase in travel 
expenses (+$20,000), which would bring the total allowable 
travel expenses to $202,500 in fiscal year 2002.
    Deputy Secretary's travel.--Similarly, travel expenses for 
the Deputy Secretary has increased by 638 percent from 1997 to 
2001. The budget requested an additional $20,000 for travel, or 
a 49 percent increase, for fiscal year 2002. The Committee has 
decreased the requested amount for Deputy Secretary travel by 
$13,000. Even with this reduction, the Deputy Secretary will 
have $47,000 for allowable travel expenses in fiscal year 2002.
    Accessibility for all America.--The Office of General 
Counsel has requested twenty new staff to address accessibility 
issues. The Committee has provided nine new staff to work on 
the Accessibility for all America initative and alternative 
dispute resolution activities instead of the 20 new staff 
requested (-$556,000). Of this total, the Committee has 
approved five new staff for consumer rights issues, two new 
staff for technical assistance and information; one domestic 
aviation attorney; and one alternative dispute resolution 
analyst. Funding for these new staff is provided for one-half 
year because of the time to recruit qualified candidates and 
place them into these positions. The Committee is aware that 
the General Counsel's office has at least seven vacancies for 
similar positions and expects these to be filled promptly to 
help reduce the backlog in resolution of accessibility 
complaints.
    Travel and rental space.--The Committee has reduced the 
General Counsel's budget request for travel (-$72,000) and 
rental space (-$184,000) because the Committee has approved 
less staff than requested in fiscal year 2002. With this 
action, less funding for these two activities is necessary.
    Contract services.--The Committee has held contract 
services to a 10 percent growth rate instead of the requested 
increase of over 700 percent requested (-$719,000).
    Pay raise.--Within the amounts provided, the Committee 
assumes a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay 
raise requested in the budget. This is consistent with other 
sections of the bill.
    Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee again 
directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal 
year Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in 
February, concurrent with official submission of the 
President's budget to Congress.
    The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 
2003 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 2002.
    Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the 
secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 
2001 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed 
in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2002.
    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. The Committee has seen violations of this 
direction in fiscal year 2001, and will not tolerate further 
problems.

                           General Provisions

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 304), 
similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number 
of political and Presidential appointees within the Department 
of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 2002 is 105 
personnel, which is one more than approved in fiscal year 2001. 
The Committee has denied the eight other new political and 
Presidential appointees requested due to lack of justification. 
Also, language is retained prohibiting any political or 
Presidential appointee from being detailed outside the 
Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this 
bill.
    Collection of fees.--Bill language is included that credits 
to the office of the secretary up to $2,500,000 in funds 
received for user fees. Similar language has been carried in 
the past.
    Assessments.--The bill includes a general provision (sec. 
338) prohibiting the obligation of funds for the OST approval 
of new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to 
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act 
unless such proposals have completed the normal reprogramming 
process for Congressional notification. This is necessary 
because the department has not followed Congressional 
guidelines against the use of these funds for policy 
initiatives. The Committee understands that assessments and 
reimbursable agreements are useful ways for the department to 
pool funds for common administrative services of the 
department. However, if the office of the secretary requires 
additional funding for policy or programmatic initiatives, such 
funds should be proposed in the budget requests for OST. The 
Committee is not opposed per se to such initiatives, but 
believes they should be funded directly and not by taxing the 
budgets of the modal administrations after the appropriations 
process is completed.

                         Office of Civil Rights

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................        $8,140,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................         8,500,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +360,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

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

    The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the 
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and 
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity 
precepts in all of the department's official actions and 
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and 
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated 
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office 
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of 
Transportation employees. The recommendation provides a total 
of $8,500,000 for the office of civil rights, which represents 
an increase of $360,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level 
within the amounts provided. The Committee assumes a 4.6 
percent pay raise.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $11,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................         5,193,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,193,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        -5,807,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

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

    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also 
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The 
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with 
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit 
research organizations, and private firms.
    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,193,000 for 
transportation planning, research and development, which is the 
same level as requested but $5,807,000 less than the amount 
enacted in fiscal year 2001. The appropriation assumes a 4.6 
percent pay raise.
    Domestic and international aviation.--The Committee has 
approved the 12 new positions requested to build in-house 
expertise for analysis of domestic and international aviation 
issues, including congestion, airport access and business 
practices, competition, mergers, and international alliances. 
The Committee expects the highest priority in allocation of 
staff resources to be provided to those issues affecting 
aviation delays and system capacity.

              Transportation Administrative Service Center

Limitation, fiscal year 2001........................      ($126,887,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \1\................       (125,323,000)
Recommended in the bill.............................       (125,323,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2001....................        (-1,564,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002................               (--)

\1\ Proposed without limitation. Includes Department of Transportation
  only.

    The transportation administrative service center (TASC) was 
created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative 
services to the various modes and outside entities that desire 
those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed 
through negotiated agreements with the Department's operating 
administrations and other governmental elements requiring the 
center's capabilities.
    The Committee agreed to create the transportation 
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the 
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the 
Committee limited (1) the activities that can be transferred to 
the transportation administrative service center to only those 
approved by the agency administrator and (2) special 
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any 
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those 
assessments or reimbursable agreements and where the agreements 
the basis for them are presented to and approved by the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are 
continued in fiscal year 2002.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $125,323,000 on 
the transportation administrative service center. The Committee 
believes that a limitation is necessary in this account 
because, in the past, TASC has attempted to pass on assessments 
to modal administrations without justification or have charged 
modal administrations with activities that have not been 
approved by Congress.
    Modal usage of TASC.--Consistent with last year's practice, 
the Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2003 
Congressional justifications for each of the modal 
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in TASC 
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the 
modes rather than anticipated by the TASC.
    Information technology omnibus procurement (ITOP).--For the 
past several years, TASC has offered a contracting service to 
its customers under a program called the information technology 
omnibus procurement (ITOP). ITOP is a broad acquisition 
contract, nominally for information technology products, which 
allows purchases through multiple contract types, open 
subcontracting arrangements, incremental funding, and task 
orders. The Committee is concerned that this vehicle is so 
broad and flexible that it could be used by DOT agencies to 
evade departmental oversight or Congressional scrutiny. 
Furthermore, it is not clear why DOT agencies such as the Coast 
Guard use this type of contract, when they have contract 
professionals in-house who perform similar work. The Committee 
is also unsure whether this fits the main mission of the TASC, 
which is to provide common administrative services to the 
department. For these reasons, the Committee directs the DOT 
Inspector General to conduct a thorough review of the ITOP 
program and report findings and recommendations to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than February 
15, 2002.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                          Limitation on
                                        Appropriation   guaranteed loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.        $1,900,000     ($13,775,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....           900,000      (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill.............           900,000      (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.        -1,000,000      (+4,592,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

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

    The minority business resource center of the office of 
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides 
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding 
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The 
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime 
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
    Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were 
funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business 
utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made 
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 
1993, a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's 
budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans 
and the cost to administer the loan program. In fiscal year 
2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a 
direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program.
    The recommendation fully funds the budget request of 
$500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to 
exceed $18,367,000, and $400,000 for administrative expenses to 
carry out the guaranteed loan program. The subsidy costs in 
fiscal year 2002 are $1,000,000 less than fiscal year 2001 due 
to the revised OMB credit subsidy rate.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.......................        $3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................         3,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

    This appropriation provides contractual support to assist 
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in 
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects 
that involve federal spending. It also provides grants and 
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee 
has provided $3,000,000, the same level as provided in fiscal 
year 2001 and the same level as requested in the budget.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       $13,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................       +13,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................       +13,000,000

\1\ The FAA Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorized the collection of
  user fees and stipulated that the first $50,000,000 of annual fee
  collections must be used to finance the EAS program. If a shortfall
  occurs, the Act requires FAA to make up the difference from other
  funds available to the agency.

    The payments to air carriers, or essential air service 
(EAS), program was originally created by the Airline 
Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to continue air 
service to communities that had received federally mandated air 
service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides 
subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet 
certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from $5 to $320 per 
passenger, currently support air service to 82 communities and 
serve about 700,000 passengers annually.
    The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of 
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user 
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation 
Administration to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land 
in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In 
addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees for 
authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the first 
$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance 
the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law 
requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds 
available to the agency.
    Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to 
streamline the essential air service program and to increase 
its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an 
easy drive of a major hub airport or where the costs clearly 
outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of 
communities that receive essential air service funding by 
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are 
located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest large 
or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of 
$200 per passenger, unless such point is more than 210 miles 
from the nearest large or medium airport.
    For fiscal year 2002, the budget has requested several 
changes in the EAS program. First, the budget proposes to 
finance the program from $40,000,000 in overflight user fees 
and $10,000,000 from the Airport Improvement Program. 
Currently, the Department is funding this program from recently 
approved user fees and from the Federal Aviation 
Administration's operation's account. Second, the budget makes 
technical changes to EAS eligibility so that the program would 
not have to subsidize air service to communities in the United 
States (except Alaska) that are located fewer than 100 highway 
miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or fewer 
than 70 highway miles from the nearest small hub airport. 
Third, the budget includes a new subsidy criteria that would 
make communities ineligible for EAS subsidies if they are fewer 
than 50 highway miles from the nearest airport providing 
scheduled service with jet aircraft. The Committee has denied 
these three legislative changes.
    According to the Department of Transportation, changes in 
the aviation industry have created intense financial pressure 
on this subsidy program. The increased use of larger aircraft 
and regional jets, combined with substantially higher fuel 
costs, create a much higher subsidy requirement in order to 
hold in service at EAS locations. By law, the department is not 
given the latitude to eliminate service to eligible 
communities; however, the inability to cover an air service 
provider's costs can cause the same effect, because the 
provider will choose to exit the market. With funding capped at 
$50,000,000, the department is unable to maintain the current 
level of services. For this reason, the President's budget 
proposed to tighten eligibility criteria. This change, would 
have eliminated the following communities from the EAS program:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Estimated     Average daily
                                                    mileage to     enplanements   Annual subsidy    Subsidy per
               States/communities                   nearest hub    at EAS point   rates on April     passenger
                                                  (S, M, or L) 1   (YE 9/30/00)       1, 2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA
    Muscle Shoals...............................              69            24.4        $600,000          $39.23
ARKANSAS
    Hot Springs.................................              53             8.4       1,125,591          213.30
    Jonesboro...................................              79             7.7         825,569          171.24
COLORADO
    Pueblo......................................              43            12.5         527,185           67.46
HAWAII
    Hana........................................              32             6.4         574,500          143.88
    Kamuela.....................................              39             5.1         424,559          132.34
KANSAS
    Topeka......................................              71            12.7         722,141           90.96
KENTUCKY
    Owensboro...................................             105            23.2         888,863           61.10
MAINE
    Augusta/Waterville..........................              68            13.1         634,145           77.42
NEW MEXICO
    Alamogordo/Holloman.........................              91             9.2         882,006          153.23
NEW YORK
    Utica.......................................              49            13.6       1,133,415          132.95
    Watertown...................................              65            13.0         371,835           45.69
OKLAHOMA
    Enid........................................              84             6.3         972,122          246.61
PENNSYLVANIA
    Oil City/Franklin...........................              86            20.4         510,261           39.91
PUERTO RICO
    Ponce.......................................              77            28.2         474,910           26.91
SOUTH DAKOTA
    Brookings...................................              57             3.9         881,662          358.54
TENNESSEE
    Jackson.....................................              85            20.1       1,151,993           91.61
WISCONSIN
    Oshkosh.....................................              49             8.8         460,392           83.50
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The
  above distances are based on the 1998 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1999 passenger data.
2 There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.

    The Committee notes that most other agencies and activities 
are funded in this bill at a level that maintains current 
services. The recommendation includes funding to maintain the 
above-named communities in the program.
    The Committee recommends a total program level for EAS in 
fiscal year 2002 of $63,000,000. This funding consists of an 
appropriation of $13,000,000 and $50,000,000 from overflight 
user fees or other funds available to the Federal Aviation 
Administration.
    The Committee is concerned that current trends in the 
aviation industry may make it difficult for the EAS program to 
remain viable over the long-term. As more service providers 
move toward regional jet service, average per passenger subsidy 
rates are rising to a point where federal support may prove 
unaffordable. In addition, a fresh and comprehensive look is 
needed for this subsidy program initiated at the onset of 
aviation deregulation 23 years ago. The Committee directs the 
U.S. General Accounting Office to conduct a thorough audit and 
program evaluation of the current EAS program, to be submitted 
to the relevant committees of the Congress no later than April 
1, 2002.

                              COAST GUARD

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 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 $4,996,243,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in 
fiscal year 2002. This is $485,580,000 (10.8 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2001 program level.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Fiscal year--
                          Program                          ------------------------------------     Committee
                                                              2001 enacted      2002 estimate      recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................................    $3,192,000,000    $3,382,838,000    $3,382,588,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...............       415,000,000       659,323,000       600,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration..................        16,700,000        16,927,000        16,927,000
Alteration of bridges.....................................        15,500,000        15,466,000        15,466,000
Retired pay...............................................       778,000,000       876,346,000       876,346,000
Reserve training..........................................        80,375,000        83,194,000        83,194,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation...............        21,320,000        21,722,000        21,722,000
Across the board rescission...............................        -8,232,000  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................     4,510,663,000     5,055,816,000     4,996,243,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 Achievement of Performance Plan Goals

    One of the Committee's goals this year is to monitor agency 
progress in meeting the goals of their performance plans. The 
Committee believes that resources and incentives should be tied 
to successful achievement of these goals, and consideration 
should be given to withholding resources where goals are not 
being met. For the Coast Guard, the results are mixed. The 
service reported 9 goals that were met and 7 that were not 
during fiscal year 2000, for an overall success rate of 56 
percent. The non-attainment of goals was not driven by a 
curtailment of planned resources, as the Coast Guard was fully 
funded in that year. Further, the Committee notes that the 
service was unable to meet some goals in critical mission 
categories, including drug interdiction, military readiness, 
and search and rescue, during fiscal year 2000. The Committee 
encourages the service to redouble its efforts to improve its 
achievement of performance plan goals in the coming year, and 
will continue to monitor progress to foster accountability and 
results.

                           Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 1,2.................     $3,192,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \3\.................      3,382,838,000
Recommended in the bill \4\..........................      3,382,588,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001..................       +190,588,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002.................           -250,000

\1\ Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050.
\2\ Excludes $6,967,000 in across the board reduction.
\3\ Includes $340,250,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050.
\4\ Includes $340,000,000 for national security activities scored in
  budget function 050.

    This appropriation provides funding for the operation and 
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units 
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of 
the United States and in selected areas overseas. This is the 
primary appropriation financing operational activities of the 
Coast Guard.

                        committee recommendation

    Including $341,000,000 for national security activities, 
the Committee recommends a total of $3,382,588,000 for 
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2002, an 
increase of $190,588,000 (6 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 
appropriation and $250,000 below the budget request. The 
reduction of $250,000 is necessary to meet the Subcommittee's 
allocation of funds for Coast Guard national security 
activities.

                           Service Reductions

    The President's budget proposed a number of reductions in 
Coast Guard services to the public, including the following:

Decommissionings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Name                         Homeport(s) affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
USNS Persistent...........................  Little Creek, VA
USNS Vindicator...........................  San Diego, CA
USCGC Couragous...........................  Panama City, FL
USCGC Durable.............................  St. Petersburg, FL
USCGC Cowslip.............................  Astoria, OR
PC-1 (Ex-USS Cyclone).....................  Curtis Bay, MD
Deployable Pursuit Boats (8)..............  Little Creek, VA; San Diego,
                                             CA; Miami, FL
HU-25 Falcon Jets (13)....................  Miami, FL; Borinquen, PR;
                                             Cape Cod, MA; Mobile, AL
HC-130 Hercules Aircraft (3)..............  Kodiak, AK; Clearwater, FL;
                                             Elizabeth City, NC
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deferred commissionings:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Name                         Homeports(s) affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barracuda-class coastal patrol boat (3)...  Undecided
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facility closures:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Name                         Homeport(s) affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Facility Long Island..................  Long Island, NY
Air Facility Muskegon.....................  Muskegon, MI
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Service reductions

    Reduction in operations tempo for cutters and aircraft; and
    Reduction in marine safety activities.

    In all, these reductions are expected to result in 
approximately 20 percent less operating hours in public service 
in fiscal year 2002. The Committee is disappointed that, within 
the overall increase of 6 percent, the service is unable to 
find the $90,701,000 needed to maintain current services. 
However, it is apparent that the inability to control rising 
medical and energy costs, combined with increased unit costs 
for personnel compensation and benefits, makes these reductions 
necessary. Because of funding guarantees enacted in TEA-21 and 
AIR-21 authorizations, regrettably the Committee does not have 
the flexibility to restore these resources. However, the 
Committee encourages the Coast Guard to economize wherever 
possible over the coming year, by reducing administrative and 
overhead expenses, to maximize the delivery of services to the 
public.
    Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are listed 
below:

                                                               Change to
        Item                                             budget estimate
Minor information technology projects (transfer from 
    AC&I)...............................................     +$1,000,000
Self-contained breathing apparatus (transfer from AC&I).      +1,000,000
Small boat station staffing and readiness...............     +12,000,000
Civilian/military pay raise parity (4.6%)...............      +4,000,000
Selective re-enlistment bonuses--reduction to growth....      -3,000,000
Aviation career continuation pay--reduction to growth...        -300,000
Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment...............        -300,000
Contract costs--reduction to growth.....................      -3,000,000
Operating funds--other activities.......................      -4,000,000
Local notice to mariners automation--defer..............        -925,000
Human resources information system--defer...............      -1,173,000
Marine transportation system--defer.....................        -845,000
Ice operations--reduction to growth.....................      -4,457,000

    Activities transferred from AC&I appropriation.--The 
Committee recommendation transfers two items in the Coast 
Guard's ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' budget 
to the service's operating budget to more appropriately reflect 
the work being performed. In addition, one of these items 
(minor information technology projects) has been reduced from 
the proposed level of $2,000,000 to $1,000,000 due to budget 
constraints. The items being transferred are minor information 
technology projects and self-contained breathing apparatus 
(SCBA) replacement. The Committee believes that routine 
equipment purchases such as these should be maintained in the 
operating budget, as they do not involve major capital expenses 
of the agency.
    Civilian/military pay raise parity.--The Committee 
recommendation includes funds to provide a 4.6 percent civilian 
pay raise, consistent with the pay raise allowance included in 
the budget estimate for military personnel. This results in a 
$4,000,000 increase above the budget proposal. The Committee 
believes it is important to maintain pay parity between 
military and civilian workforces.
    Selective reenlistment bonuses.--The Committee is concerned 
that, although selective reenlistment bonuses (SRBs) have been 
increasing, they have not been effective at stemming attrition 
from the military workforce. According to Coast Guard data, 
although SRBs rose 17.8 percent in fiscal year 2000, enlisted 
attrition rose 11 percent. In fiscal year 2001, SRBs are 
estimated to rise another 2 percent, while attrition is 
expected to increase an additional 5.6 percent. Despite the 
apparent inability of SRBs to address attrition problems among 
the enlisted workforce, the budget proposes to increase them 
another 68.2 percent (from $8,800,000 to $14,800,000). Until 
evidence demonstrates effectiveness, the Committee cannot 
approve this level of growth. Further, recent changes in the 
national economy may improve the attrition situation without 
the need for further increases. The Committee recommendation 
provides half of the requested increase in SRBs, which is 
$3,000,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    Aviation career continuation pay.--Like the item discussed 
above, this special pay has not been effective at stemming 
attrition, despite large budgetary increases over the past few 
years. The Committee recommendation allows an increase of 
$300,000, which is half the increase proposed.
    Clothing maintenance allowance adjustment.--The President's 
budget proposes an increase in this entitlement, even though 
enlisted staff years would drop by more than 800 under the 
budget proposal. The recommendation holds these costs to the 
fiscal year 2001 level, which should be sufficient given the 
decrease in enlisted personnel.
    Reduce growth in contract costs.--The recommendation allows 
an increase of $21,414,000 in contract costs, a reduction of 
$3,000,000 below the budget estimate. This is necessary to fund 
higher priority safety activities. The Committee believes this 
small reduction in contracts can be managed without impacting 
the Coast Guard's delivery of services to the public.
    Operating funds-other activities.--The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $4,000,000 in this budget activity due 
to budget constraints.
    Local notice to mariners automation.--This project is 
designed to distribute the local notice to mariners via the 
internet, replacing the production and distribution of paper 
notices. The project also automates the management and storage 
of aids to navigation data. Although supportive of the general 
concept, the Committee believes this is a low priority activity 
which can be deferred to fund higher priority activities.
    Human resources information system (HRIS).--The Coast 
Guard's budget includes $1,173,000 for the service's 
contribution to the DOT-wide human resources information system 
(HRIS). The Committee believes this is a low priority activity 
which can be deferred to fund higher priority activities. The 
Committee has received no information indicating the compelling 
need or justification for this project.
    Marine transportation system.--Once again this year, the 
Committee defers funding for this new activity due to lack of 
justification, a reduction of $845,000 below the budget 
estimate. According to the Coast Guard, funds are needed for 
the service to establish and act as an interagency coordinator 
for local port activities. The Committee is not certain why 
this additional layer of government bureaucracy is necessary, 
or how it will contribute to critical Coast Guard missions. In 
a year where the service does not have the funding to maintain 
its own ships and aircraft, administrative and outreach 
activities such as these should not receive a priority.
    Ice operations.--The Committee bill includes a reduction of 
$4,457,000 in ice operations. The budget proposed to increase 
this funding from $65,302,000 in fiscal year 2001 to a proposed 
$128,905,000 in fiscal year 2002. Given the need to fund higher 
priority activities, the Committee reduces this growth by a 
small amount.
    Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $619,232,000 
for drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of 
$36,343,000 (6.2 percent) over the estimated expenses for 
fiscal year 2001 and the same as the budget estimate. The 
Committee is concerned that, despite additional resources, the 
Coast Guard was unable to meet its performance plan goal in 
fiscal year 2000, and does not anticipate meeting its goal in 
fiscal year 2001. The Coast Guard's goal is to interdict 15 
percent of cocaine being shipped through the transit zone in 
fiscal year 2001, and 18.7 percent in fiscal year 2002. The 
seizure rate achieved in fiscal year 2000 was 10.6 percent. 
Given this, it is disappointing that the Coast Guard's budget 
proposes to decommission a large percentage of the service's 
drug interdiction fleet of ships and aircraft, including many 
assets provided by the Congress in emergency supplemental 
appropriations just two years ago. The Committee intends to 
hold agencies accountable for meeting their performance plan 
goals. With their current budget proposal, the Coast Guard may 
be setting itself up for failure and increased oversight in 
this area.

                      small boat station readiness

    The Committee remains extremely concerned over the 
worsening condition of our small boat stations, as well as the 
Coast Guard's inadequate response to that problem. Due to 
severe understaffing, today over 90 percent of station 
personnel work an average of 84 hours per week. In a Coast 
Guard survey in 1999, personnel at these stations reported they 
average 5.5 hours per day for eating and sleeping combined. 
These long hours not only reduce the quality of life for Coast 
Guard personnel and their families, it clearly raises the level 
of fatigue during operational hours. Under contract to the 
Coast Guard, the Center for Naval Analysis concluded in 1999 
``it is plausible that personnel operating under these 
conditions will be more likely to make mistakes that could cost 
lives or lead to injury''. In addition to the staffing 
shortfall, training is a major issue. The stations are largely 
dependent upon on-the-job training (OJT); however, because the 
experience level of station crews has fallen significantly over 
the past few years, OJT is increasingly conducted by 
inexperienced instructors. Although written examinations are 
used to determine proficiency, the Coast Guard has neglected to 
establish a pass/fail standard to determine unacceptable 
scores. Finally, the primary boat used by the young men and 
women at small boat stations is antiquated and difficult to 
maintain. The understaffed and undertrained personnel are 
simply unable to maintain these old boats in a seaworthy 
condition, even though their own lives depend on those vessels 
while underway. During fiscal year 2000, Coast Guard inspection 
teams declared 84 percent of inspected boats to be not mission 
capable.
    Given this situation, it is not surprising that the Coast 
Guard recently incurred a $19,000,000 court judgment stemming 
from improper response to a SAR case; that ``man overboard'' 
cases involving Coast Guard personnel are four times the level 
experienced only three years ago; that small boat groundings 
and collisions are rising at alarming rates; and that one-third 
of enlisted personnel graduating from Coast Guard ``boot camp'' 
do not complete their four year contract with the Untied 
States. Understaffing, inexperience, fatigue, inadequate 
training, and youth combine at these stations with all too 
tragic results for Coast Guard families as well as the boating 
public. The Coast Guard's own internal budget documents state 
``Coast Guard personnel and the American public are 
increasingly being placed at risk as the Coast Guard is forced 
to use inexperienced apprentice-level personnel to staff boat 
crews and boarding teams . . . Over 60 percent of the people 
assigned to stations are the most inexperienced of apprentices, 
many of whom are assigned experienced journeyman or master 
level tasks.'' Despite this warning, the Coast Guard reduced 
funds for small boat stations in their internal budget process, 
and the service has not requested funds to replace the aging 
utility boats.
    The Committee recognizes Coast Guard actions to address 
this issue. The service has taken some modest steps to improve 
readiness during fiscal year 2001, and the Commandant has 
voiced a personal commitment to address the problems. However, 
the budget proposal is inadequate, and would do little to 
improve the situation next year. Funds for replacement of the 
41-foot utility boat were stripped from the fiscal year 2002 
budget to finance other priorities. And increased operations 
funding for small boat stations was cut in the Coast Guard 
internal budget process. In the final President's budget, the 
service requested 194 new positions to improve SAR station 
readiness--then advised the Committee that the positions would 
not be filled until the summer of 2003. Funds were only 
requested to hire these positions after most of the fiscal year 
had passed.
    Once again this year, the Committee reiterates that the 
service must do more to bring the small boat stations up to 
minimum acceptable standards of readiness, staffing and 
workload. This situation must not--and will not--continue. The 
Committee recommendation includes an additional $12,000,000 in 
operating funds to address personnel and training shortfalls, 
and $18,000,000 in acquisition funds to begin replacement of 
the 41-foot utility boat fleet. The Committee will continue to 
monitor this situation over the coming year to ensure that the 
directed improvements are being made expeditiously.
    Maritime patrol aircraft leasing.--The Committee directs 
the Coast Guard to study the benefits and costs of leasing 
aircraft for the maritime patrol mission, rather than acquiring 
new aircraft for this purpose. This analysis should be 
completed, and submitted to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, no later than April 1, 2002. The Committee 
notes that drug interdiction aircraft in the HITRON-10 squadron 
are already leased by the Coast Guard.
    Fire retardant technology.--The Committee encourages the 
Coast Guard to investigate the application of new fire 
retardant technology, for which $2,000,000 was provided for 
application to Navy vessels in the Department of Defense 
Appropriations Act, 2001. The Committee believes that this 
technology may have equal benefits for Coast Guard vessels.

                             Bill Language

    Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that 
$340,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-
related activities, $1,000,000 below the level enacted for 
fiscal year 2001, and the same as the budget estimate.
    User fees.--Consistent with the budget request, the 
Committee bill does not preclude 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. 
312) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or 
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic 
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa 
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic 
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published 
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the 
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide 
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil 
rigs could be built if lease sale 119 goes forward. Under this 
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to 
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could 
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The 
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could 
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the 
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language 
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.

              Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................      $415,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................       659,323,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       600,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................      +185,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................      -59,323,000

\1\ Excludes $869,000 in across the board reduction.

    The bill includes $600,000,000 for the capital acquisition, 
construction, and improvements program of the Coast Guard for 
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and 
related administrative expenses, of which $19,956,000 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.

                        committee recommendation

    The recommended bill includes $600,000,000 for this 
appropriation, including $300,000,000 for the Integrated 
Deepwater Systems (``deepwater'') program. This represents an 
almost 50 percent increase in the Coast Guard's capital budget 
in a single year--an extraordinary feat given the current 
budget constraints. The bill fully funds the high priority 
National Distress System Modernization Project, and begins a 
new initiative to replace the Coast Guard's aging fleet of 41-
foot utility boats. The following table compares the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level, the fiscal year 2002 estimate, and the 
recommended level by program, project and activity:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Recommended
                      Program Name                        FY 2001 enacted    FY 2002 estimate        amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels................................................       $156,450,000        $79,390,000        $90,990,000
    Survey and design--cutters and boats...............            500,000            500,000            500,000
    Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement.............        118,000,000         70,000,000         68,000,000
    Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy......................          1,000,000  .................  .................
    Configuration management...........................          3,600,000  .................  .................
    Surface search radar replacement project...........          1,150,000  .................  .................
    Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement               4,500,000          8,890,000          4,490,000
     program...........................................
    87-Foot patrol boat (WPB) replacement..............         22,000,000  .................  .................
    Alex Haley conversion project--phase II............          3,200,000  .................  .................
    Over-the-horizon cutter boats......................          1,500,000  .................  .................
    Coast Guard patrol craft (WPC) conversion project..          1,000,000  .................  .................
    41 foot utility boat replacement...................  .................  .................         18,000,000
Aircraft...............................................         37,650,000            500,000         26,000,000
    HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement.....          3,650,000  .................  .................
    HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost reduction.....          7,000,000  .................  .................
    Aviation simulator modernization project...........          3,000,000  .................  .................
    Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation support..........         24,000,000  .................  .................
    Aviation parts and support.........................  .................  .................         26,000,000
    C-130J system provisioning/training support          .................            500,000  .................
     analyses..........................................
Other Equipment........................................         60,113,000         95,471,000         74,173,000
    Fleet logistics system.............................          5,500,000  .................  .................
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)..........          6,100,000         17,600,000          6,100,000
    Marine information for safety and law enforcement            8,500,000          7,450,000          7,450,000
     (MISLE)...........................................
    Aviation logistics management information system             1,100,000  .................  .................
     (ALMIS)...........................................
    National distress system modernization.............         23,800,000         42,000,000         42,000,000
    Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system.......          2,000,000  .................  .................
    Local notice to mariners automation................            600,000  .................  .................
    Defense message system implementation..............          2,471,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
    Commercial satellite communications................          5,459,000          1,500,000          1,500,000
    Global maritime distress and safety system (GMDSS).          3,083,000          2,200,000          2,200,000
    Search and rescue capabilities enhancement project.          1,500,000          1,320,000          1,320,000
    Thirteenth district microwave modernization project  .................            800,000            800,000
    Hawaii rainbow communications system modernization.  .................          3,100,000  .................
    High frequency recapitalization and modernization..  .................          2,500,000          2,500,000
    Readiness management system........................  .................          1,675,000  .................
    DOD C41 interoperability...........................  .................          1,530,000          1,530,000
    Command center readiness/infrastructure              .................            727,000            727,000
     recapitalization..................................
    P-250 pump replacement.............................  .................          2,046,000          2,046,000
    Configuration management--phase II.................  .................          6,023,000          4,000,000
    Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA)            .................          1,000,000  .................
     replacement.......................................
    Minor information technology projects..............  .................          2,000,000  .................
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation................         63,336,000         79,262,000         44,206,000
    Survey and design--shore projects..................          7,000,000          8,000,000          7,000,000
    Minor AC&I shore construction projects.............          5,330,000          7,262,000          5,500,000
    Housing............................................         10,000,000         11,000,000         13,500,000
    Waterways ATON projects............................          4,706,000          8,000,000          4,706,000
    Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hanger............          8,200,000  .................  .................
    Transportation Improvements--Coast Guard Island,             8,000,000  .................  .................
     Alameda, CA.......................................
    Coast Guard MEC waterfront improvements--                    2,400,000  .................  .................
     Portsmouth, VA....................................
    Modernize Coast Guard facilities--phase 1--Cape              5,800,000  .................  .................
     May, NJ...........................................
    Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI........          1,300,000          3,100,000          3,100,000
    Modernize Air Station Port Angeles hangar, Port              3,800,000  .................  .................
     Angeles, WA.......................................
    Homeporting pier construction--Homer, AK...........          5,800,000  .................  .................
    Helipad modernization--Craig, AK...................          1,000,000  .................  .................
    Consolidate facilities--Elizabeth City, NC.........  .................          6,300,000  .................
    Consolidate warehouse--Coast Guard Yard, MD........  .................         12,600,000  .................
    Rebuild Group/MSO--Long Island Sound, NY...........  .................          4,900,000          4,900,000
    Construct new station--Brunswick, GA...............  .................          3,600,000          3,600,000
    Replace utilities, ISC building number 8--Boston,    .................          1,600,000          1,600,000
     MA................................................
    Construct engineering bldg--ISC Honolulu, HI.......  .................          7,200,000  .................
    Consolidate Kodiak aviation support--Kodiak, AK....  .................          5,700,000  .................
    Reconstruct North Wall, Escanaba Municipal Dock, MI  .................  .................            300,000
Personnel and Related Support:.........................         55,151,000         66,700,000         64,631,000
    Direct personnel costs.............................         54,151,000         65,700,000         63,931,000
    Core acquisition costs.............................          1,000,000          1,000,000            700,000
Integrated Deepwater Systems...........................         42,300,000        338,000,000        300,000,000
                                                        ========================================================
Total appropriation....................................        415,000,000        659,323,000        600,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                Vessels

    The Committee recommends $90,990,000 for vessels, an 
increase of $11,600,000 above the budget request. Specific 
adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.
    Seagoing buoy tender replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $68,000,000 for the seagoing buoy 
tender (WLB) replacement program, $2,000,000 below the budget 
estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this funding 
level will be sufficient to acquire two WLBs, as proposed in 
the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints 
and the need to fund other high priority initiatives.
    Forty-one foot utility boat replacement.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $18,000,000 to begin a multiyear 
replacement of the aging 41-foot utility boat (UTB) fleet. The 
Coast Guard's five year Capital Investment Plan dated August 
2000 included $116,000,000 (over 5 years) to replace or 
modernize the 41-foot utility boats (UTBs) and other small 
boats, including $12,200,000 for fiscal year 2002. The current 
plan, submitted in April 2001, eliminated all of that funding, 
including any request for fiscal years 2002. This funding would 
have been used to design and procure a replacement for the 
current UTB, which is approaching the end of its service life. 
A 1998 Coast Guard study estimated end of service life for the 
UTB engine in the year 2003, which requires near-term action.
    Boatracs systems.--In last year's conference action, the 
conferees requested the Coast Guard to evaluate the 
``boatracs'' system, which is designed to address 
communications problems in the Coast Guard eighth district. The 
Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit, not later than 
December 1, 2001, an evaluation report and recommendations on 
this effort.

                                Aircraft

    The Committee recommends $26,000,000 for aircraft.
    Aviation parts and support.--Although not included in the 
President's budget, Coast Guard officials indicate a budget 
amendment will soon request $27,000,000 for aviation spare 
parts. The Committee believes these items should be included in 
the ``Operating expenses'' appropriation, and strongly 
encourages the service to include these items in that 
appropriation in future budget requests. The recommended level 
of $26,000,000 includes $1,000,000 for the application of 
ambient temperature-cured (ATC) glass technology to Coast Guard 
aircraft. ATC coatings on aircraft provide a protective barrier 
on treated surfaces, preventing water molecules, salt, and 
other substances from contacting the surface, and thereby 
reducing or eliminating corrosion. The Coast Guard has 
evaluated ATC glass coatings with positive results, and has 
expressed an interest in expanding the program. The funding is 
provided to support the application of ATC coatings on aircraft 
while inducted in scheduled depot level maintenance.
    C-130J system provisioning and training support analyses--
The Committee denies the $500,000 requested for this activity, 
believing it to be more appropriately funded from the 
``Operating expenses'' appropriation.

                            Other Equipment

    The Committee recommends $74,173,000 for other equipment, a 
reduction of $21,298,000 below the budget estimate and 
$14,060,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2001. 
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained 
below.
    Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee 
recommendation allows the fiscal year 2001 funding level for 
this program, rather than the much larger 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 the full $42,000,000 
proposed for this program, given its criticality to the Coast 
Guard's search and rescue modernization effort. However, the 
Committee is concerned over reports that the current program 
design may be unaffordable. The Committee strongly encourages 
the Coast Guard to simplify this program so that essential 
modernization requirements can be met without delay to the 
current schedule. If this is not accomplished, the high 
priority of this program could undermine the Coast Guard's 
ability to fully finance or execute the deepwater program.
    In last year's bill, the Committee provided $1,800,000 for 
the Coast Guard to conduct a test of digital selective calling 
(DSC) technology and its impact on ND&RS system requirements. 
The Committee further directed the Coast Guard to conduct this 
test expeditiously. The Committee is very concerned to learn 
that, instead of proceeding to test DSC, the Coast Guard is in 
the process of letting several contracts for a development 
program, even though the technology already exists in the 
private sector and is ready for testing. This is not in keeping 
with the intent of Congress. Since DSC technology for survivor 
locating devices has already been developed, the Committee does 
not find it appropriate for the Coast Guard to fund additional 
or competing developments of this existing technology, 
particularly when there is some urgency to undertake the 
testing of DSC technology. As recently as March, 2001, two 
Coast Guardsmen lost their lives when they were washed 
overboard while patrolling the Niagara River at Youngstown, New 
York. The crew members were in icy water for several hours 
while a search was conducted. In this situation, survivor 
locating technology could have meant the difference between 
life and death. Accordingly, the Committee directs the Coast 
Guard to implement the intent of Congress as expressed in 
report language accompanying the Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, and to proceed 
expeditiously to a test of existing DSC survivor locating 
devices.
    Hawaii rainbow communications system.--The Committee 
recommends a deferral of this new project pending strong 
justification.
    Readiness management system.--The Committee denies the 
$1,675,000 requested for this activity, believing it to be more 
appropriately funded from the ``Operating expenses'' 
appropriation.
    Configuration management.--The Committee recommends 
$4,000,000, a reduction of $2,023,000 below the budget 
estimate, due to budget constraints and the impending 
implementation of the deepwater program.
    Self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) replacement.--The 
Committee denies the $1,000,000 requested for this activity, 
believing it to be more appropriately funded from the 
``Operating expenses'' appropriation. A similar amount has been 
included in that appropriation.
    Minor information technology projects.--The Committee 
denies the $2,000,000 requested for this activity, believing it 
to be more appropriately funded from the ``Operating expenses'' 
appropriation. Funding of $1,000,000 has been included in that 
appropriation. The reduction is due to the low priority of this 
activity. The Committee believes the Coast Guard can pursue the 
most critical information technology needs within the level 
provided.

                Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation

    The Committee recommends $44,206,000 for shore facilities 
and aids to navigation, a reduction of $35,056,000 below the 
budget estimate and $19,130,000 below the amount appropriated 
for fiscal year 2001.
    Minor AC&I shore construction projects.--The recommendation 
provides $5,500,000, a 3.2 percent increase over the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level, rather than the 34.4 percent increase 
requested.
    Housing.--The recommendation provides $13,500,000, an 
increase of $2,500,000 above the budget estimate. The 
additional funds are for Coast Guard housing at the Joint 
Reserve Center, Belle Chasse, Louisiana. The U.S. Navy is in 
the final stages of finalizing a public-private venture for 
housing units at this base, and additional funding is needed 
for the Coast Guard to take advantage of the project. This is 
expected to provide between 80 and 130 units of family housing, 
primarily for enlisted Coast Guard personnel and their 
families, in Southeastern Louisiana.
    Waterways aids to navigation projects.--The recommendation 
provides $4,706,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 
2001. The reduction of $1,294,000 is due to budget constraints.
    Consolidation projects.--The Committee recommendation 
deletes funding for three facilities consolidation projects in 
the budget request. These include the proposed consolidations 
in Elizabeth City, North Carolina (-$6,300,000); Kodiak, Alaska 
(-$5,700,000); and Baltimore, Maryland (-$12,600,000). These 
reductions are made without prejudice, and are necessary to 
maintain a high level of funding for the deepwater program and 
to begin replacement of the 41-foot utility boat. In addition, 
the budget justifications make no reference to the project in 
Kodiak, Alaska, and the Committee has no other information to 
support the request. The Committee will consider these projects 
again in future years.
    Construct engineering building, ISC Honolulu, HI.--The 
recommendation deletes the $7,200,000 requested for this 
project. The budget justifications make no reference to this 
project, and the Committee has no other information to support 
the request.
    Reconstruction, municipal dock north wall, Escanaba, MI.--
The bill includes $300,000 for the Coast Guard's share of 
funding to reconstruct the north wall of the municipal dock in 
Escanaba, Michigan. This represents 30 percent of the total 
cost of the project, with the balance being financed by local 
authorities. Given the Coast Guard's presence and use of this 
dock facility, the Committee believes it reasonable for the 
service to finance a portion of the reconstruction cost. A 
similar project was included in the Coast Guard's budget for 
facilities in Bayonne, New Jersey in fiscal year 1998.

                     Personnel and Related Support

    The Committee recommends $64,631,000 for personnel and 
related support, an increase of $9,480,000 (17.2 percent) above 
the amount provided for fiscal year 2001 and $569,000 below the 
administration's request. The reduction is due to higher 
budgetary priorities.

                  Integrated Deepwater Systems Program

    The Committee recommends $300,000,000 for the integrated 
deepwater systems (IDS) program, which is $38,000,000 (11.2 
percent) below the budget estimate and $257,700,000 (609 
percent) above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001.
    The deepwater program--scheduled for contract award in 
fiscal year 2002--is the most costly acquisition program ever 
attempted by the Coast Guard or the Department of 
Transportation. This $18 billion acquisition is designed to 
replace or modernize over 90 cutters and 200 aircraft (fixed- 
and rotary-wing) which are used 50 miles from shore and beyond. 
Under current plans, the program will be accomplished under a 
``winner take all'' contract, currently scheduled to be awarded 
in the spring of 2002.
    According to a recent report by the U.S. General Accounting 
Office, the deepwater acquisition is unique and untried for a 
project of this magnitude, and carries many risks which could 
potentially cause significant schedule delays and cost 
overruns. The Committee agrees that deepwater represents a 
highly risky acquisition strategy undertaken by a service with 
very little experience in overseeing or managing such programs. 
For example:
    --Even though the greatest risk to the program is 
affordability, the Coast Guard is directing industry to design 
a system which exceeds OMB budget targets by almost half a 
billion dollars in the first 5 years alone;
    --Under existing authorizing legislation, the Coast Guard 
is one of the few ``unguaranteed'' programs remaining in the 
DOT budget, which requires the service to compete for increased 
funding against non-transportation priorities in the annual 
budget process;
    --The Coast Guard deepwater acquisition plan states ``any 
significant funding shortfall in a single year, or any 
consistent funding shortfall over a period of years, could 
create an impossibility to manage the systems integration 
contract and could result in a termination of the contract''. 
By knowingly designing a system which greatly exceeds budgetary 
expectations, the Coast Guard is pursuing an extremely high 
risk contracting strategy which could lead to annual claims for 
delay and disruption charges;
    --The benefits of the initial competition will decrease 
after the first few years of the contract, and the service will 
be negotiating any changes in a sole source environment as 
their fleet continues to age. This could provide significant 
negotiating leverage to the prime contractor, not the Federal 
Government.
    --Due to its size, deepwater clearly has a negative effect 
on other capital needs of the Coast Guard. For example, last 
year the Coast Guard planned to spend $475 million on non-
deepwater projects in the year 2005. This funding was reduced 
to $196 million in the current plan. New priorities, or cost 
growth in existing programs, will put additional pressure on 
the deepwater program.
    Given these difficulties, and the Coast Guard's own 
assessment of funding risk, the Committee does not find it 
prudent to provide first-year acquisition funding without 
assurances of long-term support from the administration. 
Therefore, the bill includes a provision prohibiting the 
obligation of funds for the deepwater system integration 
contract until the Secretary of Transportation, or his designee 
within the Office of the Secretary, and the Director, Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) jointly certify to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations that IDS program funding 
for fiscal years 2003 through 2007 is fully funded in the Coast 
Guard Capital Investment Plan and within OMB's budgetary 
projections for those years.

                             Bill Language

    Capital investment plan.--The bill maintains the 
requirement for the Coast Guard to submit a five-year capital 
investment plan with initial submission of the President's 
budget request. This Congressional requirement was first 
established in fiscal year 2001.
    Disposal of real property.--The bill maintains the 
provision enacted in fiscal year 2001 crediting to this 
appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast 
Guard's surplus real property, and providing that such receipts 
are available for obligation in fiscal year 2002 only for the 
national distress and response system (ND&RS) modernization 
project.

                Environmental Compliance and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $16,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        16,927,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        16,927,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +227,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $37,000 in across the board reduction.

    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 $16,927,000 is the same as 
the budget estimate and $227,000 (1.4 percent) above the fiscal 
year 2001 enacted level.

                         Alteration of Bridges

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $15,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        15,466,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        15,466,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................           -34,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $35,000 in across the board reduction.

    The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed 
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. 
The Committee does not agree with the approach of the 
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination 
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal 
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and 
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA-21 
conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to 
improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not 
to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since 
in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway 
beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural 
condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to 
address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
    The Committee recommends $15,466,000 for five bridges. The 
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $3,000,000 shall 
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, 
Georgia; $5,716,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile 
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $1,250,000 
shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in 
Morris, Illinois; $1,000,000 shall be allocated to widening the 
Galveston Causeway railroad bridge in Galveston, Texas; 
$1,500,000 shall be allocated to the Chelsea Street Bridge in 
Boston, Massachusetts; and $3,000,000 shall be allocated to the 
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New 
Orleans, Louisiana.
    Millenium Port selection.--In an effort to expand United 
States trade with Latin America and South America, the State of 
Louisiana has developed the Millenium Port Commission. Funds 
were provided in fiscal years 2000 and 2001 for federal support 
of this commission's activities. The Committee encourages the 
Millenium Port Commission to complete its analysis and release 
its final site selection study, with recommendations for a 
Millenium Port, by January 1, 2002.

                              Retired Pay

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.......................      $778,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................       876,346,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       876,346,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................       +98,346,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................                --

    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.
    The bill provides $876,346,000, the same as the budget 
estimate and $98,346,000 above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the 
Congressional budget process.
    15-year career status bonus payments.--The bill does not 
include funds for 15 year career status bonus payments, which 
were authorized under the National Defense Authorization Act 
for fiscal year 2001. Such funding is inappropriate for 
inclusion in this mandatory appropriation, as it involves 
discretionary payments to active duty personnel, not 
entitlements for retired personnel and their families. The 
Committee has no objection to the use of ``Operating expenses'' 
funds for these bonuses.

                            Reserve Training

                     (Including transfer of funds)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\....................       $80,375,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        83,194,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        83,194,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +2,819,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................               --

\1\ Excludes $176,000 in across the board reduction.

    This appropriation provides for the training of qualified 
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or 
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in 
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall 
into the following categories:
    Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for 
three categories of non-prior service trainees.
    Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted 
personnel.
    Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training 
facilities.
    Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve 
forces program.
    The bill includes $83,194,000 for reserve training, which 
is the same as the budget estimate and $2,819,000 (3.5 percent) 
above the fiscal year 2001 level. This is expected to support a 
Selected Reserve level of 7,920, which is the same level as 
estimated for fiscal year 2001. Last year, Congress provided 
additional funding to maintain a Selected Reserve level of 
8,000. Despite those funds, and the Commandant's desire to 
maintain that level, the Selected Reserve force is expected to 
dip to 7,920 in fiscal year 2001. The Committee encourages the 
Coast Guard to maintain as high a level as possible within the 
funding level provided. Given the level of support provided by 
reservists not only in national security missions, but also to 
routine missions of the active duty workforce, the Committee 
believes the reserves have proven to be a force multiplier 
within the Coast Guard, augmenting the efficient delivery of 
Coast Guard service to the public.
    Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The Committee has 
approved an increase in the limitation on allowable 
reimbursements of the Coast Guard operating expenses 
appropriation from the Coast Guard Reserve training 
appropriation to $25,800,000. Despite approval of this increase 
to the transfer cap, the Committee remains concerned about the 
basis and rationale for the practice of annual reimbursement, 
which appears to be unique to the Coast Guard among the armed 
forces, and the potential commingling of funds from separate 
and discrete appropriations. As a result, the Committee has 
agreed to retain the cap on reimbursements, as well as prohibit 
other direct charges, for fiscal year 2002.

              Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\....................       $21,320,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        21,722,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        21,722,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +402,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................               --

\1\ Excludes $40,000 in across the board reduction.

    The bill includes $21,722,000 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, $3,492,000 is to be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This 
is $402,000 (1.9 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal 
year 2001.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 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 2002. The grants-in-aid for airports program, 
however, will be financed under contract authority with the 
program level established by a limitation on obligations 
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes 
continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related 
aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2002 and assumes 
no new user fees.
    The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 
2002 totals $13,275,481,000, including a $3,300,000,000 
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is 
$687,481,000 (5.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level and essentially the same as the President's request. This 
bill complies with the guaranteed funding levels of Public Law 
106-181.
    The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 program 
levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests, and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                        Program                         --------------------------------------------------------
                                                          2001 enacted\1\     2002 estimate     2002 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................................     $6,544,235,000     $6,886,000,000     $6,870,000,000
Facilities and equipment...............................      2,656,765,000      2,914,000,000      2,914,000,000
Research, engineering, and development.................        187,000,000        187,781,000        191,481,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \2\...................      3,200,000,000      3,300,000,000      3,300,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................     12,588,000,000     13,287,781,000    13,275,481,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $606,697,000 in rescissions and across-the-board reductions.
\2\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.

                               Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\....................    $6,544,235,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................     6,886,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     6,870,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................      +325,765,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................      -16,000,000

\1\ Excludes $14,397,000 in across the board reductions.

    This appropriation provides funds for the operations, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
international, medical, engineering and development programs as 
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
    The operations appropriation includes the following major 
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a 
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance 
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment 
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in 
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations 
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the 
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) 
administration of the acquisition, research and development 
programs; (6) 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 $6,870,000,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $325,765,000 (5.2 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 2001. The recommended level is 
$16,000,000 below the President's budget request.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                    Budget Activity                     --------------------------------------------------------
                                                            2001 enacted      2002 estimate     2002 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................     $5,200,274,000     $5,447,421,000     $5,494,883,000
Aviation regulation and certification..................        694,979,000        744,744,000        727,870,000
Civil aviation security................................        139,301,000        150,154,000        135,949,000
Research and acquisition...............................        189,988,000        196,674,000        195,258,000
Commercial space transportation........................         12,000,000         14,706,000         12,254,000
Financial services.....................................         48,444,000         50,684,000         50,480,000
Human resources........................................         54,864,000         74,516,000         67,635,000
Regional coordination..................................         99,347,000         90,893,000         84,613,000
Staff offices..........................................        105,038,000        116,208,000        108,776,000
Account-wide adjustments...............................  .................  .................         -7,718,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      6,544,235,000      6,886,000,000      6,870,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               user fees

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 2002 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 2001. The FAA estimates that 
$40,000,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during 
fiscal year 2002. However, these funds will not be available to 
augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these 
receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for 
the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. As 
required by statute, should the FAA experience a shortfall in 
overflight fee collections, the agency is required to transfer 
its own budgetary resources to maintain a $50,000,000 level for 
the EAS program during fiscal year 2002. The bill also assumes 
the collection of $19,500,000 from the purchase of aeronautical 
maps and charts produced by the agency.

                     trust fund share of faa budget

    The bill derives $5,773,519,000 of the total appropriation 
from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current 
law. The balance of the appropriation ($1,096,481,000) will be 
drawn from the general fund of the Treasury.

                          staffing adjustment

    The recommendation includes reductions, in several lines of 
business, totaling $57,900,000 in recognition of a slowdown in 
hiring during fiscal year 2001 which affects the agency's 
financial requirement for fiscal year 2002. According to the 
agency, onboard employment as of March 2001 is 930 below the 
level assumed in the current budget request for fiscal year 
2001. The budget request for fiscal year 2002 represents an 
additional 1,457 positions above the current onboard level. The 
Committee does not believe this level of hiring is credible 
over the next several months. The recommendation assumes that 
approximately one-half of the budgeted positions will be filled 
during fiscal year 2001. Continuation funding for the remaining 
one-half has not been provided. New positions requested in the 
fiscal year 2002 budget are not affected by this 
recommendation.

                 national airspace system handoff costs

    Under an activity titled ``National Airspace System (NAS) 
Handoff'', the President's budget proposes to transfer 
$76,400,000 in operations and maintenance (O&M) expenses for 
newly-deployed systems and equipment to the ``Facilities and 
equipment'' appropriation. While the agency has historically 
included first-year O&M costs in their capital appropriation, 
the budget proposes to include the second year of such costs as 
well. The Committee sees no reason to discontinue the 
longstanding practice which recognizes that, in the initial 
year of operation, one-time costs often occur due to startup 
problems. These are more appropriately aligned with the initial 
provision of new capital equipment than a stable recurring 
expense. However, after the first year, the agency's O&M needs 
should be stable and known, and therefore included in the 
operating budget. The Committee believes that extending the 
period of F&E funding support sets an ill-advised precedent 
which could undermine the important distinction between the 
operating and capital budgets of the agency. Furthermore, the 
proposed shift is in violation of direction in the statement of 
the managers accompanying Public Law 106-181. Consequently, the 
recommendation shifts $44,828,000 from ``Facilities and 
equipment'' to this appropriation to more appropriately reflect 
the work being performed. Although this represents a reduction 
from the budget estimate, the Committee notes that the agency 
has accommodated significant reductions in past years without a 
major impact.

  travel payments to employees on extended temporary duty assignments

    On February 12, 2001, the DOT Inspector General wrote the 
FAA Administrator expressing concern that FAA employees on 
extended temporary duty (TDY) assignments may be allowed to 
collect per diem payments while at their residences. FAA even 
allows employees to work four ten-hour days, travel home and 
back at agency expense, and continue to be paid per diem over 
the three-day weekend. According to the Inspector General, the 
FAA has proposed changes to its travel policy which will 
expressly permit FAA employees to collect per diem while at 
their residences and while on leave. FAA estimated the cost of 
implementing this change to be $3,300,000 annually. Although 
the IG had expressed concerns in August 2000, over six months 
later a response had not been received. The IG's letter to FAA 
says ``we do not consider the reimbursement of employees for 
expenses they do not incur to be legal . . . Nor do we consider 
the proposal consistent with the intent of personnel reform at 
FAA''. The Committee concurs with the Inspector General, and 
directs FAA not to make such a change in its travel policy. 
Furthermore, the Committee directs FAA to investigate and 
pursue other less expensive options, such as direct billing for 
lodging costs, to reduce unnecessary costs. Should the agency 
implement such a policy change, the Committee will scrutinize 
very carefully its affordability in the current budget climate.
    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                               pay raise

    In all appropriate subaccounts, the bill includes 
additional funding to finance a 4.6 percent general civilian 
pay raise. In total, this results in an additional $35,831,000 
above the budget estimate. This is consistent with other 
accounts in the bill, and will allow pay raise parity between 
military and civilian workforces. Funds have been added as 
shown below:

Air traffic services....................................    +$29,125,000
Aviation regulation and certification...................      +4,126,000
Civil aviation security.................................        +795,000
Research and acquisition................................        +334,000
Commercial space transportation.........................         +48,000
Financial services......................................         +96,000
Human resources.........................................        +119,000
Region and center operations............................        +620,000
Staff offices...........................................        +568,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     +35,831,000

                          air traffic services

    The Committee recommends $5,494,883,000 for air traffic 
services, an increase of $294,609,000 (5.7 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. As the following chart 
indicates, this is above the estimated increase in FAA's air 
traffic workload for fiscal year 2002. 

    Adjustment to new hire controller training.--The 
President's budget requested funding to honor the current labor 
agreement with the National Air Traffic Controllers Association 
(NATCA), which calls for an additional 300 controller staff 
years in fiscal year 2002. However, the budget goes farther by 
proposing to fill 600 positions during the year. In essence, 
the budget proposes to have onboard by the end of fiscal year 
2002 those controllers required in both fiscal year 2002 and 
fiscal year 2003. This led the agency to request an additional 
$17,147,000 in fiscal year 2002 to train the new controllers. 
While fully funding the labor agreement requirement for an 
additional 300 staff years, the Committee bill assumes that, 
through accelerated hiring made possible by personnel reform, 
the agency will be able to bring the 300 new controllers on 
board at the beginning of the fiscal year. This will obviate 
the need for one-half of the requested training increase, 
resulting in a reduction of $8,574,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Controller productivity initiatives.--In hearings this 
year, the Committee requested the DOT Inspector General to 
provide suggestions on measures to hold the FAA accountable as 
a results-based organization. One of those suggestions was to 
implement the productivity improvements agreed to--but never 
carried out--in the 1998 NATCA contract. These changes were 
intended to offset some of the additional $1 billion in payroll 
costs associated with the contract. However, according to the 
IG, ``FAA has been unable to demonstrate any discernible 
savings or that any of the following have actually occurred as 
originally promised''. The changes which need to be implemented 
include:
           Elimination of alternate work schedules to 
        reduce overtime;
           Limit official time for union activities to 
        reduce overtime;
           Buy back unused sick leave to reduce sick 
        leave usage;
           Make greater use of part-time controllers to 
        reduce payroll costs;
           Establish flat rate relocation expenses to 
        reduce travel costs;
           Develop an alternate dispute resolution 
        procedure to reduce grievances and arbitration costs.
    The Committee intends to hold the FAA accountable for 
implementing these changes already agreed to by the labor 
union. The bill assumes savings of $5,000,000 from the initial 
implementation of these initiatives during fiscal year 2002.
    Information security management.--The Committee denies the 
$215,000 requested for this activity due to lack of 
justification.
    Restoration of air traffic supervisors.--The recommendation 
restores 75 air traffic control supervisor positions and 37 
staff years proposed for elimination due to further expansion 
of the controller in charge (CIC) concept. When the Committee 
allowed this program to proceed in 1999, it was with the 
understanding that a small group of exceptional controllers 
would be selected based on objective criteria and appropriately 
trained for the expanded supervisory role. Since a 10 percent 
pay differential is associated with the performance of CIC 
duties, the agency must guard against the program being 
established as an entitlement for all controllers. In addition, 
the agency was expected to formally monitor and objectively 
evaluate the effects of the program as supervisory levels 
decreased. In October 2000, however, the DOT Inspector General 
advised the Committee that FAA was bypassing its own selection 
process, and designating virtually all controllers as CIC-
eligible. Six months later, the FAA had neither responded to 
the IG's letter nor addressed the underlying concerns. 
According to the agency, approximately 56 percent of the NATCA 
bargaining unit have now been deemed eligible for expanded CIC 
duties. At the same time, operational errors and runway 
incursions continue to rise at alarming rates. These safety 
measures are directly related to controller proficiency, 
experience, and supervision. Given these outstanding and 
serious issues, the Committee does not provide funding to 
further expand the CIC program, or reduce supervisory position 
levels, in fiscal year 2002. The Committee will consider a 
resumption of the program if the agency is able to demonstrate 
that further expansion will be cost effective and safe.
    Pay equity, air traffic managers.--The Committee's review 
this year indicates that FAA's decision to limit pay increases 
for air traffic managerial, supervisory, and specialist (MS&S) 
employees has created huge and disconcerting pay inequities 
within the air traffic line of business, as well as recruitment 
difficulties and low morale, which are having an impact on the 
agency's operations. These inequities are compounded by agency 
decisions which allow employees transferring into headquarters 
and regional positions from field facilities to retain their 
higher salaries. Unfortunately, just as the agency is nominally 
trying to move toward a compensation system where pay is based 
on experience, qualifications, and duties, in this case those 
critical factors are not considerations in pay levels. The 
Committee continues to believe that pay should be based on 
performance and contribution, and that wide swings in pay for 
similar jobs will likely lead to severe impacts on morale and 
workforce performance. The Committee directs FAA to report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later 
than December 15, 2001, on how the agency will resolve these 
pay disparities in a way which reestablishes the link between 
pay, duties, and performance.
    Controller retirements.--Although there has been 
speculation this year about an impending wave of retirements in 
the controller workforce, the Committee sees little evidence to 
suggest such an event. Controller retirements have dropped in 
each of the past two fiscal years. In addition, focusing on the 
retirement eligibility date can be misleading. According to FAA 
data, controllers work an average of 6.6 years beyond their 
retirement eligibility date. In addition, the department has 
the flexibility to propose an extension of the current 
mandatory retirement age of 56, which would help alleviate any 
staffing issues. The FAA currently has almost 650 controllers 
over the age of 56. In addition, many controllers in the 
federal contract tower program are above that age.
    Cost control.--The Committee remains concerned over the 
rising unit cost of providing air traffic services. According 
to the FAA, in fiscal year 2002 more than 9,500 air traffic 
controllers will earn a salary over $100,000, with the average 
controller earning $135,000 (93 percent of the FAA 
Administrator's salary). The average staff year cost at the 
agency will be $112,220 in fiscal year 2002, up $21,810 (24 
percent) in the past three years. Given the current budget 
constraints, the agency is strongly encouraged to initiate 
serious cost savings and productivity enhancement measures, in 
order to maintain the ability to deliver key services to the 
public.
    Base adjustment.--The Committee bill includes a reduction 
of $4,102,000 to remove items from FAA's base budget which were 
included for funding in fiscal year 2001, but for which no 
funding was requested in fiscal year 2002. These reductions are 
for RMMS expansion (-$350,000); Lawton, OK air traffic services 
(-$1,500,000); and GPS implementation procedures (-$2,252,000).
    Contract tower cost-sharing.--The bill includes $6,000,000 
to continue the contract tower cost-sharing program. The 
Committee continues to believe this is a valuable program which 
provides safety benefits to small communities.
    Use of credit hours to resolve labor issues.--The Committee 
has noted several recent instances where the FAA has settled 
labor union grievances by granting an arbitrary number of 
credit hours to bargaining unit employees. The Committee 
believes the agency needs to revolve grievance directly and in 
good faith, and not use its scarce resources to entice 
unrelated matters to be dropped. It would be natural for the 
agency to expect an increasing number of grievances if 
employees perceive they will be resolved not through 
investigation and negotiation, but through offers of additional 
benefits or compensation. The Committee directs FAA to 
discontinue the practice of granting credit hours, or related 
benefits, in the settlement of grievances unless such benefits 
are directly related to the cause of the grievance.
    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.
    Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes 
$750,000 to continue support for the Centennial of Flight 
Commission. This is the same amount as provided for fiscal year 
2001.
    Williams Gateway Airport, AZ.--The Williams Gateway Airport 
in Mesa, Arizona is a civilian airport which was converted from 
military use and is currently controlled by an FAA-funded 
contract air traffic control tower. Although the tower is 
staffed by FAA personnel, the airport authority has been made 
responsible for operating and maintaining the FAA-installed 
equipment. The Committee encourages FAA to assume ownership, 
operational control, and maintenance responsibility for all ATC 
equipment in the control tower at this airport. If this cannot 
be accomplished, the FAA should provide a report to the 
Committee explaining the reasons for that decision.
    Airspace redesign.--Of the funds provided for airspace 
redesign, the Committee directs FAA to allocate $8,500,000 to 
further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York metropolitan 
airspace. This is the same amount as provided for fiscal year 
2001. In addition, the Committee urges the FAA to work 
expeditiously to address issues in the Southwest portion of the 
national airspace redesign.
    Spring/summer 2001 initiative.--As part of the spring/
summer 2001 initiative, the FAA has been investigating 
``digital glue'' technology, to put timely and accurate airport 
and flight status information directly into the hands of 
passengers. The Committee notes that this is a continuing 
problem, as evidenced by testimony during the Subcommittee's 
airline delay hearings this year. The Committee encourages FAA 
to continue investigating this technology, using up to 
$1,300,000 for that purpose, during fiscal year 2002.

                 aviation regulation and certification

    The Committee recommends $727,870,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification, an increase of $32,891,000 (4.7 
percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level.
    Base adjustment.--The recommendation makes a reduction of 
$3,000,000 to the base budget to reflect a one-time budget item 
which was funded in fiscal year 2001, but not continued in 
fiscal year 2002.

                        civil aviation security

    The Committee recommends $135,949,000 for civil aviation 
security, a reduction of $3,352,000 below the fiscal year 2001 
enacted level.
    The Committee remains disappointed over management issues 
which continue to surround the civil aviation security program. 
The organization failed to meet a majority of its performance 
plan goals for fiscal year 2000, yet paid significant bonuses 
to executives. The Congressionally-directed strategic plan, 
recently submitted, was little more than a statement of core 
principles, and offered no indication of planned resources, 
management focus, or schedules for accomplishment. Results are 
still slow in deployment of explosive detection systems. In 
all, last year's Committee report directed the agency to 
address these concerns expeditiously; however, there is no 
indication that the agency honored that request. The Committee 
cannot continue providing such significant resources in the 
face of sustained management problems. The Committee 
recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously 
described, a reduction to discretionary activities, and a 
reduction for a facility security survey which is of 
questionable need at this time.

                        research and acquisition

    The Committee recommends $195,258,000 for research and 
acquisition, a reduction of $1,416,000 below the budget request 
and $5,270,000 (2.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level. This activity finances the planning, management, and 
coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs. The 
recommendation includes a staffing adjustment which was 
described in an earlier section of this report.
    Defense contract audit agency audits.--The Committee is 
very displeased to learn that FAA has decreased the number of 
requested audits by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA). 
When this activity was transferred from the OIG to the modal 
administrations a few years ago, Congress expressed a clear 
view that the agencies were responsible for ensuring the timely 
completion of necessary DCAA audits. Regrettably, the FAA has 
allowed its project managers to avoid these important audits. 
This is an intolerable situation which cannot be continued. The 
Committee directs FAA to request DCAA audits on all acquisition 
contracts in excess of $100,000,000, and audits on a sample of 
at least 15 percent of all contracts under $100,000,000. The 
Committee will continue to monitor this situation, and expects 
senior FAA management to develop internal tracking systems to 
ensure that this direction is followed by individual project 
offices.
    Independent government cost estimate.--The Committee 
directs FAA to discontinue the practice of allowing private 
contractors to prepare the independent government cost estimate 
for acquisition projects. This not only represents a conflict 
of interest, but fails to protect the government's fiduciary 
interest. It is a mockery of the word ``independent'' to have 
the estimate prepared by the same contractor submitting the 
proposal itself. The Committee expects FAA to take consequences 
on any FAA employee knowingly accepting such an estimate as 
``independent''.

                    commercial space transportation

    The Committee recommends $12,254,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), $2,452,000 below the 
budget request and $254,000 (2.1 percent) above the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level. The reduction is based upon the staffing 
adjustment previously described.

                           financial services

    The Committee recommends $50,480,000 for financial 
services, an increase of $2,036,000 (4.2 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $204,000 below the budget 
estimate. Adjustments to the budget estimate include a staffing 
adjustment previously described (-$800,000) and transfer of 
funding for the resource tracking program NAS handoff costs 
from the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation 
(+$500,000).

                            human resources

    The Committee recommends $67,635,000 for human resources, 
$6,881,000 below the budget estimate and $12,771,000 (23.3 
percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. The 
recommendation includes the base transfers assumed in the 
budget request. The Committee believes the amount recommended 
is sufficient to finance the agency's necessary human resource 
management (HRM) activities. The Committee is concerned that, 
even though personnel reform was expected to streamline HRM 
administrative costs, the opposite seems to have occurred. The 
scope, activities, and resources of the HRM organization have 
been growing without noticeable impact on employee morale, the 
protection of training resources, or equity in compensation 
system development. Studies of personnel reform indicate that--
five years after establishment--the promise and potential of 
real reform continues to elude the agency. With this track 
record, the Committee believes a slower growth in budgetary 
resources is justified in order to foster accountability and 
stronger performance. The Committee believes that this can be 
accommodated by reducing contracts, organizational development 
and non-essential training activities, and by reducing some 
positions through attrition.
    Personnel reform.--In April 1996, at Congressional 
direction FAA was allowed to develop its own personnel and 
compensation systems, to give the agency more flexibility 
because of its daily interaction with the fast-paced and 
rapidly-growing aviation industry. The Secretary of 
Transportation argued strongly that the agency needed 
flexibility to pay people what the job required and to move 
them where the work was needed, without the restrictions of 
standard government personnel procedures. Five years after the 
effort began, the Committee concludes that FAA's personnel 
reform has been a failure. The most recent FAA employee 
attitude survey showed severe levels of employee 
dissatisfaction, even as compensation levels have risen to make 
DOT the highest-paid cabinet level agency in the Federal 
Government. Fewer than one in ten employees felt that personnel 
reform had been successful at eliminating bureaucracy or 
helping accomplish FAA's mission. Fewer than one in five felt 
the agency rewards creativity and innovation--even though 
personnel reform allows the agency great flexibility in this 
area. A review of staffing at air traffic control facilities 
indicates that reform has not been used to place employees 
where they are needed. And existing pay disparities support the 
view that pay is based more upon negotiation than need or 
individual contribution. These findings are supported by an 
independent study conducted by the National Academy of Public 
Administration, which found that FAA hasn't met many of the key 
goals of personnel reform. The Committee believes that Congress 
should carefully review the effects of personnel reform leading 
up to reauthorization of AIR-21 in fiscal year 2004 to gauge 
whether the experiment should be continued.

                         regional coordination

    The Committee recommends $84,613,000 for regional 
coordination, a reduction of $6,280,000 below the budget 
estimate. The recommendation includes a staffing adjustment 
previously described (-$2,100,000); a reduction in National 
Park overflight tour management plans (-$6,000,000); and a 
transfer of funding for NAS handoff activities at the FAA 
Aeronautical Center from the ``Facilities and equipment'' 
budget (+$1,200,000).
    National park overflight tour management plans.--Title VIII 
of Public Law 106-181, enacted on April 5, 2000, requires the 
FAA to establish air tour management plans for any national 
park or tribal land whenever a person applies for authority to 
conduct a commercial air tour operation over the park. The 
objective of these plans is to develop effective measures to 
mitigate the adverse impacts of air tour operations on natural 
and cultural resources as well as enhance visitor experiences. 
The FAA's fiscal year 2002 budget included $12,000,000 in 
funding for two year's worth of contracts. The Committee's 
recommendation includes the necessary funding for fiscal year 
2001, and suggests the FAA request the follow-on funding in 
next year's budget, if still necessary at that time. This 
results in a reduction of $6,000,000 to the budget estimate. 
This should not cause delay in development of any plans.

                             staff offices

    The Committee recommends $108,776,000 for staff offices, 
which is $7,432,000 below the budget estimate and $3,738,000 
(3.6 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2001. The 
recommendation includes a staffing adjustment previously 
described and an additional reduction to more closely mirror 
the general rate of inflation, due to budget constraints. The 
Committee believes these staff offices should constantly seek 
ways to streamline their costs, and notes a number of offices 
where positions appear excessive.
    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 2002.

                        accountwide adjustments

    OST assessments.--Even though the Committee directed last 
year that assessments only be charged by the office of the 
secretary for administrative activities, and not policy 
initiatives, a review of recent charges indicates the 
department is not adhering to this direction. For example, in 
fiscal year 2000 FAA was charged for an open skies conference, 
an international symposium, and the DOT Center for Climate 
Change (an activity eliminated in OST's budget by this 
Committee). In fiscal year 2001, FAA is being charged for an 
OST delay study ($125,000). The Committee directs FAA not to 
pay such charges in the future, and has included a general 
provision requiring Congressional notification of any new 
assessment or reimbursable agreements. The recommendation 
includes a reduction of $750,000 to reflect the removal of 
policy-related assessments.
    Travel.--Despite Congressional directions, the FAA's travel 
budget continues to grow significantly. Operations-funded 
travel was $103,900,000 in fiscal year 2000, and is estimated 
at $122,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. The recommendation allows 
$117,000,000, still a significant increase over the fiscal year 
2000 level. Field aviation safety inspectors are exempt from 
these reductions.
    Executive bonuses.--The Committee supports the use of 
executive bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement 
and honoring superior performance. However, in the FAA it is 
not clear whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to 
the attainment of performance plan goals. For example, in 
fiscal year 2000 the FAA's largest operating unit achieved none 
of its five performance plan goals, yet awarded almost $250,000 
in bonuses to 42 executives based upon that result. A similar 
pattern can be seen in other organizational units. Despite 
this, the agency paid out over $1,000,000 in bonuses in fiscal 
year 2001, compared to an average of $225,000 for the two 
previous years. The Committee intends to hold senior officials 
accountable in the agency, a result which cannot be achieved if 
bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The Committee 
recommendation reduces the amount of funding available for 
bonuses by one-half, which is approximately the level available 
prior to implementation of FAA's new Executive Compensation 
System in fiscal year 2001.
    Vacant executive positions.--At the time of this year's 
Committee hearings, the FAA had 21 unfilled executive 
positions. The agency stated that, at any given time during the 
year, they have an average of 12 unfilled executive positions. 
These unused funds are available for reprogramming to other 
activities. The Committee recommendation eliminates funds for 
this level of unfilled positions. This should cause no impact 
on the agency's activities, based on historic hiring levels.

                             Bill Language

    Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee 
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's 
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned 
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United 
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such 
stations during fiscal year 2002.
    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 2001, and as requested by the 
administration in the fiscal year 2002 President's budget.
    Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains 
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used 
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) 
activities through the transportation administrative services 
center (TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of 
these activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a 
move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this 
work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively 
delegated to the TASC.

                        Facilities and Equipment

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................    $2,656,765,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................     2,914,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,914,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................      +257,235,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $5,845,000 in across the board reduction.

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

                        committee recommendation

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,914,000,000 
for this program, an increase of $257,235,000 (9.7 percent) 
above the level provided for fiscal year 2001 and the same as 
the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required by Public 
Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the total amount 
recommended, up to $2,536,900,000 is available for obligation 
until September 30, 2004, and up to $377,100,000 (the amount 
for personnel and related expenses) is available until 
September 30, 2002. These obligation availabilities are 
consistent with past appropriations Acts and the same as the 
budget request.
    The following table shows the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2002 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:

             Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation

    The Committee recommends $768,764,200 for engineering, 
development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget 
request are explained below.
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The 
recommendation includes a transfer of airport-related research 
from the AIP program (+$7,547,000), a transfer of funds from 
the free flight phase two program (+$2,000,000), a transfer 
from RE&D of funds for weather experiments and activities at 
Juneau, Alaska (+$5,000,000), and additional funding for the 
systematic study of reducing the current air traffic control 
separation standards (+$1,000,000). During hearings this year, 
both academic researchers and the President of the National Air 
Traffic Controllers Association suggested that the current 
separation standards could be reduced without adverse safety 
impact. The Committee notes that research and simulations of 
this nature are already conducted in this budget activity. The 
recommendation augments funding by $1,000,000 specifically to 
analyze this potential. The FAA is directed to submit a report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later 
than April 15, 2002 on the results of this investigation.
    Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $35,000,000 for 
this program, an increase of $8,500,000 above the budget 
estimate. The Committee believes that both the Ohio Valley and 
Capstone projects are worthy of acceleration, given progress 
shown to date.
    One potential benefit of the safe flight 21 program is the 
potential for reducing runway incursions by allowing pilots to 
know, very precisely, their exact position on an airport. The 
Committee believes use of this technology should be emphasized. 
Accordingly, the FAA is encouraged to disseminate the database 
of airport diagrams at no cost to manufacturers.
    Free flight.--The Committee recommends $235,470,000 for 
free flight, the same as the budget estimate for comparable 
projects. This is $42,670,000 (22.1 percent) above the 
$192,800,000 provided for fiscal year 2001. The Committee has 
realigned funding between the two phases of the project, as 
follows:

    phase one:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
             Activity                FY 2002 estimate     recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Center/Tracon automation system           $42,000,000        $42,000,000
 (CTAS)...........................
Collaborative decision-making               5,600,000         17,900,000
 (CDM)............................
User request evaluation tool               54,800,000        106,000,000
 (URET)...........................
Surface movement advisor (SMA)....          2,000,000          2,000,000
FFP1 integration..................         16,900,000         24,100,000
Information security..............            720,000            720,000
IOT&E.............................            550,000            550,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        122,570,000        193,270,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    phase two:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Committee
             Activity                FY 2002 estimate     recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
User request evaluation tool              $51,200,000  .................
 (URET)...........................
Integration.......................          7,200,000  .................
Collaborative decision-making              12,300,000  .................
 (CDM)............................
TMA...............................         42,000,000        $42,000,000
Research support..................          2,000,000  .................
IOT&E.............................            100,000            100,000
Information security..............            100,000            100,000
                                   -------------------------------------
      Total.......................        114,900,000         42,200,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The Committee 
provides total funding of $42,450,000 for continued 
implementation of the local area augmentation system (LAAS). 
This includes a transfer of $17,400,000 from budget activity 
two and an additional $8,390,000 to accelerate implementation. 
The Committee continues to believe that, if this technology 
proves its potential, it could provide significant capacity and 
safety benefits.
    Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee 
recommends total funding of $75,900,000 for continued 
development of the wide area augmentation system (WAAS). All 
funding has been included in this budget activity.
    Technical center facilities.--The Committee recommends 
$9,500,000. The reduction to the proposed amount of budget 
growth is due to budget constraints. The Committee allowance 
provides an 8 percent increase over fiscal year 2001.

      Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment

    The bill includes $1,353,449,800 for the procurement of air 
traffic control facilities and equipment.
    Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee 
believes the amount of funding requested for technical and 
engineering management is excessive, and therefore recommends a 
reduction of $1,720,000 below the budget estimate. The 
recommended level is $5,782,000 (70.3 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 2001.
    ATC upgrades, Cleveland Hopkins International Airport, 
OH.--In view of the pressing need to increase the nation's 
airport capacity, the Committee seeks to ensure that work on 
the airport expansion project at Cleveland Hopkins 
International Airport continues on an expedited path. The 
Committee believes it essential that FAA employ a systems 
approach to ensure that all F&E projects associated with this 
project are carefully planned and managed, so they can be 
completed and available when the corresponding airport 
construction activities are completed and ready for operation.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $150,000,000 for this program. These funds 
are to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Location                                             recommended
Las Vegas McCarran, NV..................................      $5,000,000
Fort Wayne International, IN............................       6,000,000
Stewart Airport, NY.....................................       5,700,000
Cleveland Hopkins, OH...................................       2,000,000
Continuation of FY01 adds...............................      30,600,000
LaGuardia, NY...........................................       2,000,000
Boston, MA (Tracon).....................................       7,066,000
Savannah, GA............................................         500,000
Salina, KS..............................................         560,000
St. Louis, MO (Tracon)..................................       2,400,000
Corpus Christi, TX......................................         650,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................       2,140,000
Newark, NJ..............................................       1,407,000
Bedford, MA.............................................         468,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................         592,000
Alburquerque, NM........................................         593,000
Beaumont, TX............................................         800,000
Everett, WA.............................................       1,064,000
Louisville, KY..........................................       1,600,000
Seattle, WA.............................................       2,922,000
Richmond, VA............................................       2,500,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................       1,500,000
Newport, News, VA.......................................       1,300,000
Port Columbus, OH.......................................       1,229,000
North Las Vegas, NV.....................................         550,000
Wilmington, DE..........................................          55,000
Phoenix, AZ.............................................      26,330,000
Seattle, WA (Tracon)....................................      26,084,000
Manchester, NH..........................................       7,840,000
Reno, NV................................................       1,461,000
Chantilly, VA (Dulles)..................................         970,000
Abilene, TX.............................................       1,045,000
Ft. Lauderdale Exec, FL.................................         638,000
East St. Louis, IL......................................         572,000
Islip, NY...............................................         550,000
Oshkosh, WI.............................................         365,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................         805,000
Swanton, OH.............................................         824,000
Indianapolis, IN........................................         820,000
W. Palm Beach, FL.......................................         175,000
Baltimore, MD...........................................         175,000
Portland, OR (Tracon)...................................          75,000
Houston, TX (Tracon)....................................          75,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     150,000,000

    Continuation of fiscal year 2001 adds.--In fiscal year 
2001, Congress provided first-year funding for needed towers in 
several locations around the country. The President's budget 
neglected to provide the funds to continue these important 
ongoing efforts. To correct this deficiency, the bill includes 
$30,600,000 specifically to continue replacement of towers 
added in fiscal year 2001 at Congressional initiative.
    Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR).--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for the terminal voice switch 
replacement (TVSR), an increase of $3,052,500 above the budget 
estimate.
    NAS infrastructure management system (NIMS).--The Committee 
recommends $15,000,000 for NAS infrastructure management system 
(NIMS), an increase of $1,900,000 (14.5 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level and a reduction of $15,325,100 
below the budget estimate.
    Voice recorder replacement program (VRRP).--The Committee 
recommends $8,000,000 for the voice recorder replacement 
program (VRRP), an increase of $4,400,000 above the budget 
estimate.
    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$98,520,300 for continued production of the digital airport 
surveillance radar system (ASR-11). This compares to 
$69,690,000 provided for fiscal year 2001 and $156,377,500 in 
the budget estimate. Since development of the budget request, 
testing difficulties have continued to plague this program. The 
Committee believes the resolution of test problems will cause a 
significant delay to the current schedule, making it difficult 
to procure as many additional units in fiscal year 2002 as 
intended. Through fiscal year 2001, the FAA has acquired 22 of 
these radar systems, only 2 of which will be delivered through 
the end of fiscal year 2001. The Committee also encourages FAA 
to develop sound and detailed backup strategies, in the event 
that the continuing difficulties require that the program be 
restructured.
    Control tower/Tracon facilities improvements.--The 
$3,000,000 added to this program is to continue the cable loop 
relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport 
in Missouri. In addition, of the funds provided, $1,000,000 
shall be used for the transfer of notice to airmen (NOTAM) 
services onto the special use airspace management system 
(SAMS). The recent crash of a jet in Aspen, Colorado may have 
been due, in part, to the fact that Aspen tower controllers had 
not received a NOTAM informing them that a certain type of 
instrument approach was prohibited at the airport at night. 
Presently, NOTAMs are disseminated by 1950's-era teletype 
machines. To ensure that NOTAMs are properly disseminated, in 
the short term the FAA should take the central NOTAM processing 
function and rehost it on the SAMS platform. The FAA should 
also give a priority to transitioning from the current, 
outdated system to a digital platform before the system exceeds 
its capacity and becomes unsupportable.
    Low priority activities.--The Committee has made minor 
reductions in two low priority activities (terminal radar 
improvements and terminal applied engineering) due to budget 
constraints and in recognition of internal reprogramming of 
these funds in past years.
    Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee 
recommends $45,932,000, to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Location                                             recommended
ALSF-2 installations....................................     $11,300,000
MALSR installations.....................................       5,800,000
JFK/LaGuardia ILS installations.........................       1,653,000
Install ILS/MALSR, Lonesome Pine, VA....................       1,000,000
Upgrade ILS to category III, Kingston Regional Jetport, 
    NC..................................................       3,780,000
Acquire/install ILS, Madison County Executive, AL.......       1,500,000
Upgrade ILS, North Bend, OR.............................       4,500,000
Install ILS/localizer/glideslope/MALSR, Mena 
    Intermountain, AR...................................       1,400,000
Install ILS, Northeastern Regional Airport, NC..........         500,000
Install ILS, Kissimmee Municipal, FL....................       1,400,000
Install ILS, Orlando International 4th runway, FL.......       3,000,000
Install ILS/MALSR, Sanford Airport, FL..................         300,000
Install ILS/MALSR, Dekalb County Airport, IN............         974,000
Install ILS runway 13/31, Mineral Wells Municipal, TX...         675,000
Install ILS, Dalles Municipal, OR.......................       1,250,000
Install ILS runway 17, Max Westheimer Airport, OK.......       3,000,000
Install ILS, Nikolski Airport, AK.......................       1,500,000
Install ILS, Klawok Airport, AK.........................       1,500,000
Install ILS, Elizabethtown Airport, KY..................         900,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      45,932,000

    Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends 
$3,000,000, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2001.
    Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends 
$7,085,000, including $5,000,000 for continued acquisition of 
the next generation runway visual range system and $85,000 for 
RVR equipment at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport in 
Minnesota.
    Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--The 
Committee recommends $28,517,000, to be distributed as follows:

                                                               Committee
        Location                                             recommended
Items in budget estimate................................      $5,267,000
MALSR installation and procurement......................      10,000,000
Lighting beacon, Powell County Airport, KY..............         150,000
Installation of MALSF, North Las Vegas Airport, NV......         500,000
Medium intensity runway lights, Posey Field, Haleyville, 
    AL..................................................         100,000
Runway lighting, rural airports in Alaska...............       6,000,000
ALSF-2 and related, Minneapolis-St. Paul International, 
    MN..................................................       6,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................      28,517,000

            Procurement of Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment

    The Committee recommends $215,800,000 for the acquisition 
of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment, the same 
as the budget estimate and $11,865,000 above the level enacted 
for fiscal year 2001.
    Explosive detection systems.--The Committee recommends 
$97,500,000 for this program, the same as the budget estimate. 
A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the fiscal year 
2001 enacted level and the budget estimate is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2001         FT 2002        Committee
                            Activity                                  enacted        estimate       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk EDS Systems................................................     $40,000,000     $38,000,000     $40,000,000
Trace detection systems.........................................      12,000,000      12,000,000      12,000,000
TIP-ready x-ray systems.........................................      22,000,000      12,000,000      22,000,000
Computer-based training systems.................................       2,000,000       2,000,000       2,000,000
Integration.....................................................      21,500,000      33,500,000      21,500,000
SAFPAS..........................................................       2,000,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................      99,500,000      97,500,000      97,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Last year, the Committee was extremely concerned with FAA's 
lack of success in developing a viable second source for the 
acquisition of bulk EDS systems and with the inconsistent 
treatment in certification and other matters among vendors by 
the FAA. Therefore, FAA was directed to make funds available in 
equal amounts to procure EDS systems from both certified 
sources. FAA was also directed to ensure that the timing of 
contract awards to the two vendors was paired to the greatest 
extent practicable. The Committee recognizes that some progress 
has now been achieved in fostering the viability of a second 
source of certified EDS systems. Nevertheless, there remains a 
need to ensure that this issue is a high priority with the 
agency and that this progress can be advanced. Furthermore, 
there is a continuing need to see that systems are not just 
acquired in equal amounts, but also deployed on a timely and 
equal basis. These systems have been certified by FAA as 
meeting their performance specifications and security 
requirements. It makes no sense to procure them and let them 
sit in warehouses. The Committee therefore directs the FAA to 
continue providing funds to both certified sources in equal 
amounts for the acquisition of systems, to ensure that the 
timing of such contract awards is paired to the greatest extent 
practicable, and to work more diligently with airlines and 
airports to deploy systems in the field on an equal basis.

                            Mission Support

    The recommendation provides $270,700,000 for mission 
support activities, $4,000,000 above the budget estimate. 
Funding of $262,830,000 was provided in fiscal year 2001.
    Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The recommendation includes a transfer of $4,000,000 from the 
RE&D appropriation to unify funds for CAASD in a single budget. 
The Committee's review of the budget justifications leads the 
Committee to believe that this work is centrally related to 
activities performed in this appropriation, and not in RE&D.

                     Personnel and Related Expenses

    The recommendation provides $377,100,000, an increase of 
$54,447,400 (16.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation 
finances the installation and commissioning of new equipment 
and modernization of FAA facilities.

                             Bill Language

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

                 Research, Engineering, and Development

                    (Airport And Airway Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................      $187,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................       187,781,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       191,481,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +4,481,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................        +3,700,000

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

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

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends $191,481,000, an increase of 
$4,481,000 (2.3 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2002 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      FY 2001         FY 2002        Committee
                          Program name                                enacted        estimate       recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure...........................     $17,414,000     $21,727,000     $13,450,000
    System planning & resource management.......................       1,164,000       1,458,000       1,200,000
    Technical laboratory facility...............................      12,250,000      12,545,000      12,250,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.............       4,000,000       5,143,000               0
    Information security........................................               0       2,581,000               0
Weather.........................................................      24,806,000      28,368,000      21,668,000
    National laboratory program.................................      16,615,000               0               0
    In-house support............................................       4,391,000               0               0
    Center for Wind, Ice & Fog..................................         700,000               0               0
    Juneau, AK..................................................       3,100,000               0               0
    Weather program.............................................               0      28,368,000      21,668,000
Aircraft Safety Technology......................................      62,679,000      53,223,000      60,223,000
    Aircraft systems fire safety................................       4,750,000               0               0
    Advanced materials/structural safety........................       2,797,000       2,974,000       4,974,000
    Propulsion and fuel systems.................................       8,200,000       5,168,000       5,168,000
    Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research..................       4,109,000       4,150,000       4,150,000
    Aging aircraft..............................................      33,384,000      27,111,000      32,111,000
    Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research...........       2,782,000       2,794,000       2,794,000
    Aviation safety risk analysis...............................       6,657,000       5,784,000       5,784,000
    Fire research and safety....................................               0       5,242,000       5,242,000
System Security Technology......................................      54,520,000      50,325,000      44,511,000
    Explosives and weapons detection............................      42,606,000      38,438,000      32,624,000
    Aircraft hardening..........................................       4,307,000       4,640,000       4,640,000
    Airport security technology integration.....................       2,462,000       2,084,000       2,084,000
    Aviation security human factors.............................       5,145,000       5,163,000       5,163,000
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine...............................      24,100,000      25,927,000      24,027,000
    Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors....      10,100,000       9,906,000       9,906,000
    Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.........       8,000,000       9,900,000       8,000,000
    Aeromedical research........................................       6,000,000       6,121,000       6,121,000
Environment and Energy..........................................       3,481,000       7,602,000      27,602,000
Strategic Partnerships..........................................               0         609,000               0
                                                                 ===============================================
Total appropriation.............................................     187,000,000     187,781,000     191,481,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 System Development and Infrastructure

    The Committee recommends $13,450,000 for system development 
and infrastructure.
    System planning and resource management.--The Committee 
recommendation provides approximately the same level of funding 
as provided in fiscal year 2001. The reduction is necessary to 
fund higher priority activities.
    Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation holds 
funding to the fiscal year 2001 level due to budget 
constraints, a reduction of $295,000 below the budget estimate.
    Information security.--For the second consecutive year, the 
Committee recommendation deletes this new initiative due to 
budget constraints, a reduction of $2,581,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    Center for advanced aviation systems development (CAASD).--
The $4,000,000 requested for this activity has instead been 
funded under ``Facilities and equipment''.

                                Weather

    The Committee recommends $21,668,000 to address the effects 
of hazardous weather on aviation. Funding for weather-related 
activities at Juneau, Alaska has been transferred to 
``Facilities and equipment'' at the level of $5,000,000.

                       Aircraft Safety Technology

    The Committee recommends $60,223,000 for aircraft safety 
technology, $7,000,000 above the budget estimate and $2,456,000 
below the level provided last year.
    Advanced materials/structural safety.--Of the funds 
provided, $2,000,000 is to continue activities of the specialty 
metals processing consortium. The consortium is composed of 
companies which use or produce superalloys and titanium alloys, 
including three aircraft engine manufacturers. The focus of 
their work is on mitigation of melt-related defects in jet 
engines. FAA funding is matched dollar for dollar by the 
consortium. The Committee continues to value this work and its 
contribution to aviation research and safety.
    Aging aircraft.--Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only 
for equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation 
Research. A similar amount was provided for fiscal year 2001.

                       System Security Technology

    The Committee recommendation provides $44,511,000 for 
system security technology, which is $5,814,000 below the 
budget estimate. Problems with FAA's management of its civil 
aviation security program have been discussed in a previous 
section of this report.

                  Human Factors and Aviation Medicine

    The Committee recommendation provides $24,027,000, which is 
$1,900,000 below the budget request and approximately the same 
as the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The reduction holds 
funding for ``Air traffic control/airways facilities human 
factors'' to the fiscal year 2001 level.

                         Environment and Energy

    The recommendation provides $27,602,000, an increase of 
$20,000,000 above the budget estimate. This program researches 
ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise around the 
country.
    Aircraft noise research.--The Committee is concerned that 
necessary airport infrastructure cannot be expanded in some 
locations due to understandable community concerns over 
aircraft noise. Further, aircraft noise results in millions of 
federal dollars being spent each year on mitigation measures, 
diverting funds which could be applied to capacity enhancement 
or safety projects. Therefore, the Committee has increased 
FAA's noise research budget by $20,000,000 to speed up the 
introduction of lower noise aircraft technologies. The 
Committee expects FAA to work directly with the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration to advance aircraft engine 
noise research.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                      (Limitation on obligations)

                    (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)

                                      Liquidation of
                                         contract        Limitation on
                                      authorization       obligations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001        $3,200,000,000   ($3,200,000,000)
 \1\..............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2002..      1,800,000,000    (3,300,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...........      1,800,000,000    (3,300,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year         -1,400,000,000     (+100,000,000)
 2001.............................
    Budget request, fiscal year                  (--)              (--)
 2002.............................

\1\ Excludes $27,697,000 in across the board reductions.

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$1,800,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, airport program 
administration, and other authorized activities. This is the 
same as requested in the President's budget and $1,400,000,000 
below the level enacted for fiscal year 2001.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,300,000,000 for fiscal year 2002. This is the same as the 
President's budget request and $100,000,000 above the fiscal 
year 2001 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 
fiscal year 2000 and 2001 levels follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Fiscal year--
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
                                                                2000               2001               2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula grants:
    Primary airports...................................       $556,348,911     $1,067,900,000     $1,053,800,000
    Cargo service airports.............................         55,519,140         94,200,000         97,300,000
    Alaska (sec. 4714(e))..............................         10,672,557         21,100,000         21,100,000
    States (general aviation)..........................        342,368,030        628,000,000        648,700,000
    Carryover (from formula grants)....................        135,525,867        132,600,000        132,600,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, formula grants.........................      1,100,434,505      1,943,800,000      1,953,500,000
                                                        ========================================================
Discretionary grants:
    Discretionary set-aside: noise compatibility.......        206,719,492        315,300,000        334,800,000
    Discretionary set-aside: military airport program..         24,319,940         37,100,000         39,400,000
    Discretionary set-aside: reliever..................  .................          6,100,000          6,500,000
    Discretionary set-aside: C/S/S/N...................        282,719,305        426,600,000        453,000,000
    Remaining discretionary............................         89,239,768        142,200,000        151,000,000
    Small airports (returned entitlements).............        142,204,990        269,000,000        305,500,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal, discretionary grants...................        745,203,495      1,196,300,000      1,290,200,000
Administration.........................................         54,362,000         59,900,000         56,300,000
FAA reduction..........................................        -45,000,000  .................  .................
                                                        ========================================================
      Total............................................      1,945,000,000      3,200,000,000      3,300,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          Discretionary Grants

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$1,273,800,000 is available for discretionary grants to 
airports. This is $77,500,000 more than provided for fiscal 
year 2001. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee 
encourages that priority be given to grant applications 
involving further development of the following airports:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
        State                   Airport                  Project
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK...................  Pribilof Islands          Pave runways.
                        Airports.
AL...................  Andalusia/Opp Municipal   Runway/taxiway repairs.
                        Airport.
AL...................  Auburn-Opelika Municipal  Construct airport
                        Airport.                  access road.
AL...................  Bay Minette Municipal     Runway extension,
                        Airport.                  access road; aircraft
                                                  parking apron.
AL...................  Birmingham International  Purchase homes left
                        Airport.                  facing or isolated by
                                                  airport construction
                                                  or noise acquisition.
AL...................  Decator Pryor Field.....  Land acquisition; road
                                                  relocation; aircraft
                                                  parking apron
                                                  improvements; runway
                                                  extension.
AL...................  Dothan Regional Airport.  Runway resurfacing,
                                                  demolition of old
                                                  terminal, security
                                                  fencing.
AL...................  Eufaula Municipal         Construct parallel
                        Airport.                  taxiway.
AL...................  Fairhope Municipal        Runway replacement &
                        Airport.                  conversion of existing
                                                  runway to a taxiway.
AL...................  Greenville Municipal      Runway extension;
                        Airport.                  taxiway construction;
                                                  apron improvements.
AL...................  Huntsville International  Phase III of air cargo
                        Airport.                  apron expansion,
                                                  including the grade,
                                                  base, pave & drainage:
                                                  Extension of runway
                                                  18L-36R by 4,600 ft.
AL...................  Jack Edwards Municipal    Land acquisition;
                        Airport.                  taxiway widening;
                                                  drainage impovement.
AL...................  Madison County Executive  Land acquisition.
                        Airport.
AL...................  Monroe County Airport...  Construct parallel
                                                  taxiway, including
                                                  land acquisition &
                                                  AWOS system.
AL...................  Montgomery Regional       Widen taxiway, security
                        Airport.                  upgrades, widen/
                                                  strengthen runway,
                                                  terminal renovation.
AL...................  Northwest Alabama         Taxiway & aircraft
                        Regional Airport.         parking apron
                                                  rehabilitation.
AL...................  Pell City, St. Clair      Runway/taxiway
                        County Airport.           extension.
AL...................  Posey Field Airport.....  Engineering and
                                                  construction for
                                                  runway overlay.
AL...................  Prattville Municipal      Runway, aircraft
                        Airport.                  parking apron overlay,
                                                  airport access road.
AL...................  Rankin-Fite Airport.....  New full-length
                                                  parallel taxiway;
                                                  lighting system; land
                                                  acquisition; NEXWOS;
                                                  ILS.
AL...................  Richard Arthur-Fayette    Improve & extend
                        Field.                    runway; install ILS;
                                                  improve runway
                                                  markings & fencing.
AL...................  Russellville Airport....  Land acquisition;
                                                  runway extension.
AL...................  St. Elmo Airport........  Aircraft parking apron
                                                  expansion.
AL...................  Troy Municipal Airport..  Wildlife security
                                                  fencing; runway/
                                                  taxiway
                                                  rehabilitation.
AR...................  Benton Airport            Relocation of airport
                        relocation.               to new, donated site.
AR...................  Jonesboro Municipal       Runway extension.
                        Airport.
AR...................  Memphis International     Expansion of taxiway
                        Airport.                  Yankee.
AR...................  Saline County/Watts       Engineering and
                        Field.                    construction of
                                                  replacement airport.
CA...................  Meadows Field...........  Taxiway construction,
                                                  new terminal &
                                                  extension of runway
                                                  30L.
CA...................  Santa Barbara Airport...  Extend U.S. Forest
                                                  Service ramp and
                                                  construct new taxiway.
CA...................  Stockton Metropolitan     Replacement of runway
                        Airport.                  lighting circuits;
                                                  reconstruct GA apron;
                                                  reconstruct taxiway B
                                                  shoulders.
CA...................  Stockton Metropolitan     Construction of cargo
                        Airport East.             apron and connector
                                                  taxiways.
CO...................  Denver International      Construction of new
                        Airport.                  runway.
CO...................  Telluride Regional        Acquire land to widen
                        Airport.                  runway safety areas.
FL...................  Inverness Airport.......  Runway lengthening and
                                                  widening; construction
                                                  of new parallel
                                                  taxiway.
FL...................  Orlando International     Implement necessary
                        Airport.                  wildlife-attractant
                                                  mitigation.
FL...................  Panama City-Bay County    Master plan and site
                        Airport.                  preparation for
                                                  airport relocation.
FL...................  St. Petersburg-           Completion of runway
                        Clearwater                project.
                        International.
GA...................  Middle Georgia Regional   Extend taxiway;
                        Airport.                  construct new apron;
                                                  relocate perimeter
                                                  fencing.
GA...................  Atlanta Hartsfield        Construction of fifth
                        International.            runway.
IA...................  Eastern Iowa Airport....  Reconstruction of T
                                                  hanger taxiway and GA
                                                  aprons.
IL...................  DeKalb Taylor Municipal   Reconstruction of
                        Airport.                  taxiway; replace
                                                  lighting system;
                                                  acquire 6.5 acres for
                                                  ODAL system;
                                                  environmental
                                                  assessment for runway
                                                  extension.
IL...................  Lewis University Airport  New apron construction.
IL...................  Palwaukee Airport.......  Reconstruction &
                                                  widening of runway.
IL...................  South Suburban Airport..  Complete EIS.
IL...................  St. Louis Downtown        Acquisition of 40 acres
                        Airport.                  of land to improve
                                                  airfield clearance.
IL...................  Taylorville Municipal     Build crosswind runway
                        Airport.                  that meets federal
                                                  standards.
IN...................  Anderson Municipal        Taxiway extension;
                        Airport.                  various safety
                                                  improvements.
IN...................  Gary/Chicago Airport....  Expansion of the
                                                  general use apron.
KS...................  Ottawa Municipal Airport  Taxiway improvements--
                                                  widening/resurfacing.
KS...................  Wichita Mid-Continent     Construction of taxiway
                        Airport.                  AAAA.
KY...................  Ashland-Body Co. Airport  Taxiway lights, asphalt
                                                  replacement.
KY...................  Barkley Regional Airport  New taxiway.
KY...................  Blue Grass Field........  Expansion of air
                                                  carrier ramp.
KY...................  Bowman Field............  Construct air ambulance
                                                  facility.
KY...................  Capital City Airport....  Improve, extend, and
                                                  strengthen runway; add
                                                  apron.
KY...................  Cynthiana-Harrison        Runway improvement,
                        County Airport.           apron overlay, &
                                                  lighting.
KY...................  Elizabethtown Airport...  Runway extension.
KY...................  Georgetown-Scott County   Apron extension/
                        Airport.                  overlay, strengthen.
KY...................  Glasgow Airport.........  Construct helicopter
                                                  pad for air ambulance.
KY...................  Goodall Field...........  Widen runway; add
                                                  apron; extend runway.
KY...................  Harlan County Airport...  Runway extension.
KY...................  Louisville International  Reconstruction of
                        Airport.                  taxiway Lima; Acquire
                                                  properties surrounding
                                                  airport & relocate
                                                  residents.
KY...................  Madison County Airport..  Runway safety area &
                                                  taxiway.
KY...................  Madisonville Airport....  Runway extension.
KY...................  Morehead-Rowan County     Conduct environmental
                        Airport.                  assessment.
KY...................  Mt. Sterling-Montgomery   New taxiway; widen
                        Airport.                  runway.
KY...................  Owensboro-Daviess County  Emergency equipment.
                        Regional.
KY...................  Princeton/Caldwell        Runway extension.
                        County.
KY...................  Samuels Field...........  Construct new taxiway
                                                  and new fencing.
KY...................  Somerset Airport........  Grading, draining &
                                                  paving a partial
                                                  parallel taxiway,
                                                  apron, & access road.
KY...................  Williamsburg/Whitley      Grade & drain for 5,500
                        County Airport.           ft. runway.
LA...................  Ascension-St. James       Runway extension.
                        Airport-Lousiana
                        Regional Airport.
LA...................  Baton Rouge Airport.....  Update master plan;
                                                  completion of
                                                  perimeter road;
                                                  reconstruct runway 4L/
                                                  22R; noise mitigation.
LA...................  Hammond Municipal         Land acquisition for
                        Airport.                  runway extension.
LA...................  Houma-Terrebonne Airport  Runway upgrades.
LA...................  Lafayette Regional        Refurbish existing
                        Airport.                  terminal & adjacent
                                                  ramp, air cargo, &
                                                  maintenance facility;
                                                  non-revenue parking
                                                  areas; commuter
                                                  walkways; runway 11/29
                                                  subsidence.
LA...................  Louisiana Airport         Examine feasibility of
                        Authority.                new Southeast
                                                  Louisiana regional
                                                  airport; assist in EIS
                                                  funding & finalize
                                                  site selection.
MD...................  Baltimore-Washington      Runway and taxiway
                        International.            improvements.
ME...................  Northern Maine Regional.  Construction of new
                                                  hanger.
MI...................  Cherry Capital Airport..  New terminal.
MI...................  Detroit-Metropolitan      Terminal redevelopment,
                        Wayne County Airport.     construct taxiway,
                                                  runway rehabilitation;
                                                  equipment upgrade.
MI...................  Howell Livingston County  Construction of new
                        Airport.                  runway.
MI...................  Otsego Regional Airport.  Airway strengthening &
                                                  widening.
MN...................  Minneapolis-St. Paul      Noise mitigation.
                        International.
MO...................  Kennett Memorial........  Construction of new
                                                  runway.
MO...................  Lambert St. Louis         W-1W expansion project.
                        International.
MO...................  Lee's Summit Municipal    Runway extension.
                        Airport.
MS...................  Golden Triangle Regional  Runway/taxiway lighting
                        Airport.                  system; taxiway
                                                  overlay & crash fire
                                                  rescue roadway
                                                  construction; GA
                                                  access road.
MS...................  Gulfport-Biloxi Regional  Acquire land for runway
                        Airport.                  extension.
MS...................  Jackson International...  Air cargo center phase
                                                  I, including concrete
                                                  apron, taxiway, access
                                                  and tug road.
MS...................  Philadelphia Municipal    20,000 square yard
                        Airport.                  apron expansion.
NC...................  Andrews-Murphy Airport..  Runway extension;
                                                  taxiway & safety area
                                                  improvements; land
                                                  acquisitions for
                                                  approaches.
NC...................  Concord Regional Airport  Land acquisition,
                                                  design and
                                                  construction of runway
                                                  extension.
NC...................  Harnett County Airport..  Runway extension.
NC...................  Piedmont Triad            Construct new parallel
                        International Airport.    runway with connecting
                                                  taxiways.
NC...................  Stanly County Airport...  Apron improvements,
                                                  fuel farm relocation,
                                                  security fencing.
ND...................  Bismarck Municipal        Construct new terminal;
                        Airport.                  expand parking.
ND...................  Minot International       Reconstruction of
                        Airport.                  primary runway.
NE...................  Central Nebraska          Runway reconstruction;
                        Regional Airport.         reconstruction of 4
                                                  taxiways.
NM...................  Dona Ana County Airport.  Widening &
                                                  strengthening of
                                                  runway, taxiway, &
                                                  apron.
NM...................  Double Eagle II Aiport..  Runway extension and
                                                  strengthening.
NV...................  Henderson Executive       Reimbursement for land
                        Airport.                  acquisition-purchase
                                                  airport, construct
                                                  runways 17R/35L & 17L/
                                                  35R.
NV...................  McCarran International    Reconstruct/
                        Airport.                  rehabilitate apron
                                                  pavements at terminal
                                                  1; construct taxiway
                                                  Z; reconstruct/
                                                  rehabilitate apron
                                                  pavements at terminal
                                                  1.
NV...................  North Las Vegas Airport.  Terminal apron
                                                  rehabilitation;
                                                  pavement
                                                  reconstruction;
                                                  Construct runway 12L/
                                                  30R & taxiway; land
                                                  acquisition for
                                                  airport expansion.
NV...................  Reno Stead Airport......  Overlay taxiway E--
                                                  north end.
NV...................  Reno/Tahoe International  Airfield signage
                        Airport.                  improvements, phase
                                                  II; part 150 noise
                                                  insulation; part 150
                                                  property acquisition;
                                                  runway 16L/34R & 16R/
                                                  34L.
NY...................  Buffalo Niagara           Acquisition &
                        International Airport.    demolition of Buffalo
                                                  Airport Center; design
                                                  & construction of
                                                  runway safety
                                                  improvements; remain-
                                                  over-night apron
                                                  expansion and deicing
                                                  area.
NY...................  Columbia County Airport.  Rehabilitation of
                                                  access road & taxiway.
NY...................  Floyd Bennett Memorial    Rehabilitation of
                        Airport.                  taxiways B, D, & E.
NY...................  Greater Rochester         Terminal improvements;
                        International.            construction of new
                                                  parallel taxiway;
                                                  taxiway extension;
                                                  runway safety area
                                                  improvements.
NY...................  Lake Placid Airport.....  Rehabilitation of
                                                  taxiway.
NY...................  North Country Airport...  Assess access needs and
                                                  identify constraints
                                                  and improvements
                                                  needed.
NY...................  Saratoga County Airport.  Construction of runway
                                                  14-32.
NY...................  Schroon Lake Airport....  Construction of apron &
                                                  taxiway.
NY...................  Sullivan County           Runway safety area
                        International Airport.    improvements.
NY...................  Ticonderoga Municipal     Reconstruction of
                        Airport-13.               runway 2-20.
NY...................  Westchester County        Design & construction
                        Airport.                  of deicing facility.
OH...................  Akron-Canton Regional     Extension & safety
                        Airport.                  upgrade of runway 1/
                                                  19.
OH...................  Champaign County Airport  Runway extension &
                                                  power line relocation.
OH...................  Cleveland Hopkins         Noise mitigation--
                        International Airport.    regional
                                                  soundproofing.
OH...................  Pickaway County Memorial  Runway & taxiway
                        Airport.                  extension.
OH...................  Rickenbacker              Various projects.
                        International Airport.
OH...................  Toledo Express Airport..  Acquisition of quick
                                                  response fire vehicle
                                                  & snow removal
                                                  equipment;
                                                  construction of new
                                                  public aircraft
                                                  parking aprons.
OK...................  Bartlesville Municipal..  Various improvements.
OK...................  Stillwater Airport......  Runway extension.
OR...................  Redmond Airport.........  Terminal expansion.
PA...................  Bradford Regional         Construction of runway
                        Airport.                  safety area; deicing
                                                  facility & equipment.
PA...................  DuBois-Jefferson County   Rehabilitate 3
                        Airport.                  taxiways; improve
                                                  runway & apron;
                                                  acquire snow removal
                                                  equipment & ARFF
                                                  vehicle.
PA...................  Erie International        Runway extension.
                        Airport.
PA...................  Jimmy Stewart Airport...  Construct new runway.
PA...................  Punxsutawney Airport....  Construction of
                                                  parallel taxiway;
                                                  acquire aerial
                                                  easements on adjacent
                                                  private property;
                                                  purchase snow removal
                                                  equipment.
PA...................  Venango Regional Airport  Upgrade runway & safety
                                                  improvements.
SC...................  Anderson Regional         Runway extension.
                        Airport.
TN...................  Memphis International     Expansion of taxiway
                        Airport.                  Yankee.
TN...................  Upper Cumberland          Apron expansion,
                        Regional Airport.         taxiway.
TX...................  Abilene Regional Airport  Taxiway extension,
                                                  entrance boulevard,
                                                  aircraft parking ramp.
TX...................  Brownsville/South Padre   Extend taxiway G;
                        Island International      terminal ramp
                        Airport.                  extension--phase II;
                                                  flood control--phase
                                                  III; EIS;
                                                  reconstruction of
                                                  taxiway H; runway
                                                  extension planning.
TX...................  City of Laredo Airport..  Land acquisition, RPZ,
                                                  noise & development.
TX...................  Denton Municipal Airport  Taxiway realignment;
                                                  EIS for main runway
                                                  extension.
TX...................  Fort Worth Alliance       Extension of 2 runways.
                        Airport.
TX...................  Sugar Land Municipal      Construction of new
                        Airport.                  airport; phase I--
                                                  access taxiway to GA
                                                  development, apron &
                                                  taxiway.
TX...................  Terrell Municipal         Extend & overlay
                        Airport.                  runway; reconstruct &
                                                  expand aprons; install
                                                  approach aids.
TX...................  Valley International      Reconstruct & relocate
                        Airport.                  Rio Hondo Road south
                                                  of the airport;
                                                  purchase 176.5 acres;
                                                  improve drainage
                                                  around runway.
UT...................  Ogden-Hinckley Airport..  Runway rehabilitation.
VA...................  Breaks Interstate         Develop airport master
                        Regional Airport.         plan & completion of
                                                  environmental
                                                  assessment for new
                                                  airport.
VA...................  New Lee County Airport..  Construction of runway,
                                                  taxiway, apron, &
                                                  airport access road.
VA...................  Newport News/             Design & construction
                        Williamsburg              of concrete apron &
                        International Airport.    taxiway.
VA...................  Richmond International    Taxiway A extension.
                        Airport.
VA...................  Roanoke Regional Airport  Purchase 2 ARFF trucks
                                                  and 3 glycol vacuum
                                                  trucks; purchase
                                                  aviation easements
                                                  from homeowners in a
                                                  portion of the DNL 65-
                                                  69db noise impaced
                                                  area; rehabilitate GA
                                                  area, phase II;
                                                  relocate/rehabilitate
                                                  taxiway E;
                                                  rehabilitate runway 15/
                                                  33.
VA...................  Ronald Reagan Washington  Construction of storm
                        National Airport.         drainage improvements;
                                                  reconstruction of
                                                  terminal A apron and
                                                  southwest foundation.
VA...................  Twin County Airport.....  Rehabilitation &
                                                  expansion of runway &
                                                  apron.
VA...................  Washington Dulles         Apron paving,
                        International Airport.    construction of cargo
                                                  apron, taxiway
                                                  improvements &
                                                  construction of
                                                  crossfield taxiway.
VI...................  Rohlsen Airport.........  Runway extension.
WI...................  Chippewa Valley Regional  Construct 816 foot
                        Airport.                  runway safety area to
                                                  meet FAA requirements.
WI...................  La Crosse Municipal       Reconstruct taxiways B
                        Airport.                  and C; update airport
                                                  electrical system;
                                                  replace perimeter
                                                  fence.
WI...................  Rock County Airport.....  Runway extension.
WI...................  Wittman Regional........  Land acquisition for
                                                  safety improvements.
WV...................  Richwood City Airport...  Various improvements.
WV...................  Jackson County Airport..  Various improvements.
WV...................  Upshur County Airport...  Runway extension.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    San Jose International Airport, CA.--The Committee strongly 
commends FAA for the agency's efforts to date in assisting San 
Jose International Airport in its efforts to construct an 
additional air carrier runway and to address noise mitigation 
concerns. The Committee encourages the agency to give similar 
priority to assisting San Jose in constructing an automated 
people mover system linking the airport to the city's light 
rail system and in making other improvements to the terminal. 
The Committee encourages FAA to give high priority to 
expediting funding requests and environmental reviews related 
to these improvements.
    Southeast Louisiana regional airport.--The Committee 
encourages FAA to assist in efforts to examine the feasibility 
of building a new regional airport for southeast Lousiana, 
including the environmental impact statement and final site 
selection.
    Stewart International Airport.--The Committee recognizes 
the seriousness of air traffic congestion in the New York City 
metropolitan region and directs the Federal Aviation 
Administration to report on how Stewart International Airport 
in Newburgh, New York, can be better utilized to serve the 
region's growing air traffic needs. As part of this report, the 
Federal Aviation Administration should examine needed airport 
facility improvements at Stewart and options for increasing the 
availability of transportation from Stewart into New York City.

                             Administration

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $56,300,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2001, these 
expenses were included in the FAA's operating budget. The 
recommendation does not approve the proposal to transfer 
airport-related research to this appropriation. This activity 
remains funded under ``Facilities and equipment.'' Proposed 
contract increases have been reduced by one-half.

             Contribution to Essential Air Service Program

    For the second consecutive year, the Committee does not 
approve the proposal to earmark $10,000,000 of AIP funding for 
the ``Essential air service'' (EAS) program. Congress directed 
FAA to finance the EAS program out of collections from 
overflight fees, which the agency advocated. Since that time, 
however, the agency has been unsuccessful at collecting the 
full amount of anticipated overflight fees. The Committee does 
not believe that airports around the country should suffer due 
to FAA's inability to structure a viable overflight fee 
program. Further discussion of this topic is found under 
``Office of the Secretary''.

         Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program

    The bill includes a provision specifying that $10,000,000 
from the Small Airports fund shall be used for the Small 
Community Air Service Development Pilot Program authorized by 
section 203 of Public Law 106-181. This program, authorized at 
$27,500,000 in fiscal year 2002, is designed to stimulate new 
or expanded air service at underutilized airports in small and 
rural communities throughout the United States. Communities 
eligible for service include those which have insufficient air 
carrier service, unreasonably high air fares, or which have an 
airport no larger than a small hub. The Committee believes this 
program fits well within the overall scope and responsibility 
of the AIP program, whose mission includes development and 
promotion of a national system of integrated airports. The 
small airport fund is financed by AIP entitlements which, by 
law, are returned when a larger airport approves or raises 
additional funding through passenger facility charges (PFCs). 
In effect, as larger airports access other sources of financing 
available to them, their AIP entitlement funds are redirected 
to small airports which do not have the potential to raise 
funds from other sources. The Committee believes this new pilot 
program fits well within the purpose of the small airport fund.

                       Passenger Facility Charges

    Passenger facility charges (PFCs) are a significant, and 
growing, source of capital financing for larger airports. 
Public Law 106-181 allowed airports to raise their maximum PFC 
from $3.00 to $4.50, and these additional revenues are just 
beginning to be collected at many airports. By the end of 
fiscal year 2001, the FAA estimates that 85 to 297 PFC-
collecting airports around the country will have raised their 
PFC to the maximum level of $4.50, and 150 will have done so by 
the end of fiscal year 2002. PFC collections are estimated at 
$2.2 billion in fiscal year 2002, compared to an estimated 
$1.65 billion without the recent increase in the maximum tax 
rate. These funds are approved by the FAA and used for capital 
improvements at airports in addition to local bond financing 
and AIP grants provided in this bill.

                             Bill Language

    Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the 
DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2001, 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)

Rescission, fiscal year 2001..........................     -$579,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................      -331,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................      -301,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 2001......................      -278,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................       -30,000,000

    The bill includes a rescission of $301,000,000 in contract 
authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L. 
106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2002. 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 2002 funds cannot be used to address 
any shortfalls in those years.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 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 (TEA-21) 
amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional 
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway 
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid 
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants 
funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development 
funding. The highway category obligations are capped at 
$27,767,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. If appropriations action 
forces highway obligations to exceed this level, the resulting 
difference in outlays is charged to the non-defense 
discretionary spending category. In addition, if highway 
account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA-21, automatic 
adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and 
outlays for the highway category accordingly. Additional 
resources provided by this automatic spending machanism are 
called revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA).
    The Committee's recommendation does not exceed the levels 
guaranteed by TEA-21 as amended by the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). The following table summarizes 
the program levels within the Federal Highway Administration 
for fiscal year 2001 enacted, the fiscal year 2002 budget 
request and the Committee's recommendation:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Recommended  in
                        Program                            2001 enacted        2002 request         the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways..................................  \1\$26,603,806,000    $27,150,993,000    $27,197,693,000
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)...............       3,058,000,000      4,543,000,000      4,543,000,000
RABA transfer \2\.....................................  ..................        -22,837,000        -23,896,000
Obligation limitation adjustment......................  ..................       -107,999,000  .................
Exempt obligations....................................       1,068,926,000        954,592,000        954,592,000
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................      30,730,732,000     32,517,749,000     32,671,389,000
                                                       =========================================================
Emergency relief supplemental.........................      \3\720,000,000  .................  .................
                                                       =========================================================
Miscellaneous appropriations..........................      \4\606,000,000  .................  .................
Miscellaneous highway projects........................    \5\1,424,963,000  .................  .................
                                                       ---------------------------------------------------------
      Total...........................................       2,030,963,000  .................  .................
                                                       =========================================================
      Total...........................................      33,481,695,000     32,517,749,000    32,671,389,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $65,255,148 reduction pursuant to Public Law 106-554, section 1403, and transfer of $375,000 to the
  Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) pursuant to section 310 of Public Law 106-346.
\2\ Reflects amount of RABA to be distributed to FMCSA pursuant to section 110 of title 23, U.S.C. Amount is
  shown in the FMCSA portion of the budget for presentation purposes.
\3\ Excludes a reduction of $1,584,000 pursuant to Public Law 106-554, section 1403.
\4\ Excludes a reduction of $1,333,200 pursuant to Public Law 106-554, section 1403.
\5\ Excludes a reduction of $3,168,139 pursuant to Public Law 106-554, section 1403. Also excludes $15,100,000
  appropriated in Public Law 106-554, sections 1109, 1121 and 1128.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................    ($295,119,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................     (317,693,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (311,837,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2001......................     (+16,718,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................      (-5,856,000)

\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $649,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554 in across the board reductions.

    This limitation controls spending for the salaries and 
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to 
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and 
most other federal highway programs. In the past, this 
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as 
highway research, development and technology; however, the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) created 
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, 
in fiscal year 2002 costs related to highway research, 
development and technology are included under a separate 
limitation.
    The Committee recommends a limitation of $311,837,000. This 
level is sufficient to fund 2,422 FTEs.
    Legislated set-asides.--The budget request included a 
number of legislated set-asides within the administrative 
expenses limitation. The Committee has not included these items 
in the bill under specific set-asides, but has instead 
addressed them in this accompanying report.
    The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to 
the budget request:

Deny increases for employee development...............       -$4,330,000
Deny funding for five new FTE for the Transportation            -500,000
 Infrastructure and Innovative Financing Act office...
Deny increase for information technology equipment....        -2,529,000
Elimate funding for DOD trade collections data program        -1,616,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining.......        +1,419,000
Increase funding to reflect 4.6% pay raise............        +1,700,000

    Employee development.--Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000 
for workforce development activities. The committee has 
provided $2,500,000, the same level as provided in fiscal year 
2001.
    New positions.--The Committee has denied the request for 
five new FTE for the Transportation Infrastructure and 
Innovative Financing Act office. The Committee believes that 
FHWA can absorb these minor staffing adjustments.
    Information technology.--The Committee has deferred 
increases in information technology activities and equipment 
totaling $2,529,000 in fiscal year 2002 due to budget 
constraints. This action will not have a negative impact on the 
base program.
    Environmental streamlining.--The budget request included a 
total of $15,081,000 for environmental streamlining 
initiatives, of which $4,581,000 is proposed from the 
limitation on administrative expenses, and $10,500,000 is 
proposed as a set-aside from administrative balances. The 
Committee recommendation includes a total of $6,000,000 in 
fiscal year 2002 for environmental streamlining initiatives 
within the limitation on administrative expenses. In addition, 
a minimum of $2,000,000 has been provided under FHWA's surface 
transportation research program. The Committee directs FHWA to 
provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
report, not later than January 2, 2002, summarizing FHWA's 
streamlining efforts. The report should include specific 
examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the 
environmental process.
    Department of Defense trade collections data program.--The 
Committee has eliminated funds for the Department of Defense 
trade collections data program. DOT is no longer involved in 
this initiative.
    Pay Raise.--The Committee has provided funding consistent 
with a 4.6 percent pay raise.
    Border safety inspectors and safety audits.--The Committee 
recommendation provides a set aside of $13,911,000 from 
administrative expenses for U.S./Mexico border safety 
initiatives. Of this amount, $9,911,000 is for 80 new federal 
border inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, and 23 trailers to 
house border inspectors. An additional $4,000,000 will fund 
safety audits on Mexican motor carriers. The administration 
plans to meet the North American Free Trade Agreement 
requirements in January 2002 by fully opening the border to 
Mexican motor carriers. These funds will help ensure that 
foreign motor carriers entering into and operating within the 
U.S. are safe.
    Other proposals.--The budget request included several 
proposals which are not included in the Committee's 
recommendation. These proposals include a set-aside from 
administrative balances: (1) an additional $19,000,000 for 
various transportation research programs; (2) $6,000,000 for 
the nationwide global positioning system; and (3) an additional 
$30,000,000 for the national corridor planning and border 
infrastructure program. The Committee has not approved these 
proposals.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................              (--)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \1\..................              (--)
Recommended in the bill...............................    ($447,500,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2001......................    (+447,500,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................   (+447,500,000)

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

    This limitation controls spending for the transportation 
research and technology contract programs of the Federal 
Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract 
programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface 
transportation research, technology deployment, training and 
education, and university transportation research. In the past, 
funding under this limitation was provided in part from the 
limitation on general operating expenses and from contract 
authority provided in permanent law. The recommendation 
includes an obligation limitation for transportation research 
of $447,500,000. This limitation is consistent with the 
provisions of TEA-21 and mirrors the House-passed fiscal year 
2001 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
appropriations bill. The Committee does not provide an 
additional $25,000,000 for research and technology programs 
requested in the budget to be funded from set asides from 
administrative expenses.
    TEA-21 authorizes $447,500,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the 
following transportation research programs:

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

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

Environment, planning, and real estate..................     +$1,000,000
Research and technology program support.................      -1,500,000
International research..................................        -700,000
Structures..............................................      +3,200,000
Safety..................................................      +2,000,000
Operations and asset management.........................      -4,000,000

    Environment, planning, and real estate research.--The 
environment research and technology program develops improved 
tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment; 
techniques for the avoidance, detection, and mitigation of 
those impacts and for the enhancement of the environment; and 
expertise on environmental concerns within FHWA and state and 
local transportation agencies. The planning and real estate 
research and technology program advances cost effective methods 
to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; develops 
and disseminates improved planning methods; develops more 
effective planning and data collection techniques for 
intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; 
improves financial planning tools for use in developing 
transportation plans and programs; evaluates the 
characteristics of the National Highway System; and develops 
improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide 
planning and for information and data sharing with state and 
local governments. The Committee has provided $16,527,000 for 
environment, planning and real estate research. Within the 
funds provided for environmental research, the Committee 
directs that no less than $2,000,000 be directed towards 
environmental streamlining activities.
    Research and technology program support.--The Committee has 
reduced this program by $1,500,000, to a total of $7,760,000. 
Funds provided under this category support a variety of 
programs, including the Transportation Research Board core 
program; the small business innovative research program; and 
marketing, publication and communication activities. The 
Committee reduced funding to provide amounts to higher priority 
programs.
    International research.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international 
research activities. FHWA is directed to consult the Committee 
before any international agreements are consummated that are 
likely to require financial support.
    Structures.--The structures research and technology program 
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to 
efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation 
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, 
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery 
after major disasters. The committee has provided a total of 
$12,649,000 for structures research. Funds provided will help 
FHWA make progress towards its performance goal to reduce 
deficiencies on NHS bridges from 21.5% in 2000 to 21% in 2002, 
as well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding 
will ensure continued progress on high performance materials 
and engineering applications to efficiently design, repair, 
rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, 
the FHWA is encouraged to provide $1,000,000 to support 
research into advanced wood composites as well as research into 
the use of lithium technologies to mitigate damage from alkali 
silica reactions. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
directs FHWA to provide $500,000 for the Enser Bridge Project 
in Florida.
    Safety.--The safety research and technology program 
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, 
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information 
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway 
fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $16,619,000 
for safety research programs. Within the funds provided for 
safety research, the Committee directs FHWA to provide 
$1,000,000 to the National Transportation Research Center in 
Tennessee to conduct broad-based laboratory-to-roadside 
research into heavy vehicle safety issues.
    Operations and asset management.--The Committee has 
provided $10,582,000 for operations research. The highway 
operations research program is designed to develop, deliver, 
and deploy advanced technologies and administrative methods to 
provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce 
construction and maintenance-related user delays. Funds 
provided under this category support a variety of research 
projects seeking to improve highway operations, including work 
to improve the manual on uniform traffic control devices, work 
zone operations, technologies that facilitate operational 
responses to changes in weather conditions, and freight 
management operations. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to South Carolina State 
University for the Southern Rural Transportation Center. The 
Committee has not included any funds for statistical analysis 
of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA research 
program. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics.
    Pavements research.--The pavement research and technology 
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, 
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public 
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction 
of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on 
asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled 
materials. The Committee has provided $12,753,000 for pavement 
research. Pavement research amounts, along with the $10,000,000 
provided for long term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to 
undertake research projects to improve the nation's 
infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the Committee 
directs FHWA to provide $1,000,000 to the Center for Portland 
Cement Concrete Pavement Technology at Iowa State, and 
$1,000,000 to support the Institute for Aggregates Research, 
Michigan Technical University.
    Policy research.--The policy research and technology 
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, 
strategic planning, and technology development through research 
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway 
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; 
and enhancing highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The 
Committee has provided $8,330,000 for policy research. Within 
the funds provided for policy research, the Committee directs 
FHWA to provide the University of Kentucky $2,000,000 for 
transportation research activities. These funds can be used for 
the Academy for Community Transportation Innovation.
    In the fiscal year 2003 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 the fiscal year 2001 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 should include a separate discussion of how the 
technology deployment program funds will be integrated with the 
surface transportation R&D funds.
    The Committee is interested in ensuring the efficient and 
effective use of $447,500,000 in Federal Highway Administration 
transportation research funds provided in fiscal year 2002, and 
research funds provided in previous years. The Committee 
directs the General Accounting Office (GAO) to review the FHWA 
transportation research program, by evaluating program benefits 
and identifying successful programs and problems. GAO shall 
provide the study, including recommendations, to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriation by June 1, 2002.
    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 
research initiatives.
    ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
development.--The Committee recommends the $105,000,000 
provided in TEA-21 for ITS research be allocated in the 
following manner:

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

    CVO research.--The Committee's allowance includes 
$6,800,000 for commercial vehicle research. The additional 
funds provided above the request will be used to continue to 
develop and test advanced technology for roadside 
identification. This technology is needed to identify 
commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in 
advance of their approach to an inspection site. This 
technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN, 
Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and the ISS2 
systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote 
the transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers, 
including improved communications between the NLETS bridge and 
the PRISM target file and other information systems, should 
also be supported with the additional funds provided.
    Rural operations tests.--Within the funds provided for 
operational tests, the Committee has provided $9,450,000 to 
assist and address public safety needs in rural America.
    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 to be 
available are as follows:
                                                      Amount recommended
Alameda-Contra Costa, California........................      $1,000,000
Advanced traffic analysis center, North Dakota..........       1,000,000
Alexandria, Virginia....................................       1,500,000
Army trail road traffic signal coordination project, 
    Illinois............................................         300,000
Atlanta smart corridors, Georgia........................       1,000,000
Austin, Texas...........................................         250,000
Bay County area wide traffic signal system, Florida.....       1,000,000
Beaver County transit mobility manager, Pennsylvania....         800,000
Brownsville, Texas......................................         500,000
Carbondale technology transfer center, Pennsylvania.....       1,000,000
I-90 connector Testbed, New York........................       1,000,000
Cargo mate logistics and intermodal management, New York       3,674,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee..................................       1,000,000
Chinatown intermodal transportation center, California..       3,500,000
Cicero Avenue/Midway smart corridor, Illinois...........         300,000
Commercial vehicle information systems and networks, New 
    York................................................         900,000
Dayton, Ohio............................................       2,000,000
Genesee County, Michigan................................       2,000,000
Great Lakes, Michigan...................................       3,000,000
Guidestar, Minnesota....................................      12,000,000
Harris County 911 emergency network, Texas..............       1,000,000
Highway rail intersection visual technology, Wisconsin..       1,500,000
Hillsborough weigh station, North Carolina..............         500,000
Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana.................................       2,000,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................       1,550,000
Inglewood, California...................................       1,000,000
Integrated transportation management system, Delaware...       2,000,000
Iowa statewide..........................................       1,000,000
James Madison University, Virginia......................       1,500,000
Kansas City, Kansas.....................................       1,000,000
Kittitas County workzone traffic safety system, 
    Washington..........................................         900,000
Lansing, Michigan.......................................       1,500,000
Las Vegas regional transportation commission BRT, Nevada       1,000,000
Libertyville traffic management center, Illinois........         760,000
Long Island rail road grade crossing deployment, New 
    York................................................       2,000,000
Maryland statewide......................................       1,000,000
Metrolina traffic management center, North Carolina.....       2,000,000
Miami-Dade, Florida.....................................       3,500,000
Monterey-Salinas, California............................       1,500,000
Nebraska statewide......................................       1,976,000
New York statewide information exchange systems.........       1,000,000
Oklahoma statewide......................................       5,000,000
Oxford, Mississippi.....................................         500,000
Pharr bridge toll connector, Texas......................         830,000
Philadephia, Pennsylvania...............................       2,000,000
Pioneer Valley, Massachusetts...........................       3,000,000
Port of Long Beach, California..........................       1,000,000
Port of Tacoma trucker congestion notification system, 
    Washington..........................................         400,000
Roadside animal detection test-bed, Montana.............         500,000
Rochester-Genesse, New York.............................       1,000,000
Rose Bowl access mitigation, California.................         600,000
Sacramento, California..................................       3,000,000
San Diego joint transportation operations center, 
    California..........................................       3,000,000
San Francisco central control communications............         500,000
Seabrook traffic management control, Texas..............       1,200,000
Shreveport, Louisiana...................................       1,000,000
Silicon Valley transportation management center, 
    California..........................................       1,500,000
South Carolina statewide................................       1,000,000
South Com regional dispatch trauma center, Illinois.....         337,000
Spillway road incident management system, Mississippi...         600,000
St. Louis, Missouri.....................................       1,000,000
Statewide transportation operations center, Kentucky....       7,300,000
Superior I-39 corridor, Wisconsin.......................       5,000,000
University of Alabama at Birmingham Center for Injury 
    Sciences, Alabama...................................       2,500,000
University of Arizona, ATLAS Center, Arizona............       1,000,000
Utah statewide..........................................       1,123,000
Wayne County road information management system, 
    Michigan............................................       3,000,000
Wichita, Kansas.........................................       1,500,000
Yakima County adverse weather operations, Washington....         950,000
University of South Florida, University of Central 
    Florida, I-4 corridor project.......................       1,750,000

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001................          $28,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002...............           30,000,000,000
Recommended in the bill........................           30,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001............           +2,000,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002...........  .......................

    The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation 
of $30,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over 
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and is needed to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at 
levels provided in TEA-21.

                          FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

    Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a 
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain 
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new 
construction of roads. State highway departments have the 
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA 
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The 
federal government provides financial support for construction 
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary 
with the type of road.
    There are almost four million miles of public roads in the 
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal 
Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the 
construction and preservation of about 958,000 miles (24 
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive 
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. 
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 84 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.
    The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) 
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other 
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA-
21 builds on programs and other initiatives established in the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 
1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface 
transportation programs.
    Under TEA-21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available 
through the following major programs:
    National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and 
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). 
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, 
international border crossings, intermodal transportation 
facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of 
years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, 
to identify routes of national significance. It includes all 
Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, 
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic 
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 76 percent 
of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicular 
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its 
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If 
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The 
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability 
period of 4 years.
    Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D. 
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways 
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program 
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and 
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, 
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate 
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity 
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
    Funds provided for the Interstate maintenance discretionary 
program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the 
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
I-10 Irvington interchange, Alabama.....................        $800,000
I-5 HOV/general purpose lanes, California...............       4,000,000
Tippecanoe/I-10 interchange, California.................       2,000,000
I-10 Riverside Ave interchange, California..............       1,000,000
I-5 corridor arteries, California.......................       1,000,000
I-84 flyover access, Connecticut........................       3,000,000
Port Everglades-Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport return 
    loop, Florida.......................................       2,500,000
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River bridges project, 
    Indiana.............................................       6,000,000
I-75 Exit 11, Kentucky..................................         375,000
I-12/Northshore Blvd. interchange, Louisiana............       2,000,000
I-12 Interchange at LA 1088, Louisiana..................       1,000,000
US 167/I-20 interchange, Louisiana......................       1,000,000
I-49 Southern extention from I-10, Louisiana............       2,000,000
I-295 connector, Commercial Street, Maine...............       1,000,000
I-96 Latson Road interchange, Michigan..................       3,000,000
I-44 relocation and improvements, Phelps County, 
    Missouri............................................       4,000,000
Montana/Wyoming joint port-of-entry facility............       1,000,000
I-85 widening completion from Orange County, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
I-85 in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
I-25 North of Raton, New Mexico.........................       3,000,000
I-40 Arizona state line east to milepost 30, New Mexico.      10,000,000
I-215 Southern beltway to Henderson, Nevada.............       1,000,000
I-70/I-75 interchange construction, Ohio................       2,000,000
Cleveland inner belt, Ohio..............................       1,000,000
I-40 Crosstown expressway realignment, Oklahoma.........       5,300,000
I-5 Medford interchange, Oregon.........................       2,000,000
I-80 Exit at Stoney Hollow Road, Pennsylvania...........       2,000,000
I-180 Lycoming Mall Road interchange, Pennsylvania......       1,500,000
State Route 0039 & I-81 interchange, Pennsylvania.......         750,000
I-79/Warrendale Technology Park interchange, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       2,000,000
I-79/SR 910 interchange, Pennsylvania...................         825,000
I-295 reconstruction, Rhode Island......................       2,000,000
I-195 Washington Bridge, Rhode Island...................       2,000,000
I-35 West/US 287 interchange, Texas.....................       4,000,000
I-10 Katy Freeway, Houston, Texas.......................       6,000,000
I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas......................       5,400,000
IH 610 bridge, Texas....................................       1,500,000
I-15 reconstruction 10800 S. to 600, Utah...............       1,000,000
I-15 Interchange at MP 10, Utah.........................       1,500,000
I-90 two-way transit operations, Washington.............       1,000,000
City of Renton/Port Quedall project, Washington.........       2,000,000
I-79 connector, West Virginia...........................       3,800,000
I-70 improvement project phase II, Frederick, Maryland..       1,250,000

    All remaining federal funding to complete the initial 
construction of the interstate system has been provided through 
previous highway legislation. TEA-21 provides flexibility to 
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of 
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no 
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer 
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate 
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on 
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish 
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and 
transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate 
maintenance program.
    Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation 
program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the 
states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are 
not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. 
These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-aid 
highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are not 
restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public 
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this 
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the 
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee 
funds under TEA-21, which may be used as if they were STP 
funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used 
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety 
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and 
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of 
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an 
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts 
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor 
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent 
with a 4-year availability period.
    Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This 
program provides assistance for bridges on public roads 
including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and 
for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a state's 
bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the 
amount of any such transfer is deducted from national bridge 
needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the 
following year.
    Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in 
fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Patton Island Bridge, Alabama...........................      $4,000,000
Great River Bridge, Arkansas............................       3,000,000
Gerald Desmond Bridge replacement, California...........       4,000,000
Atlantic Bridge, California.............................         300,000
Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge, Connecticut...............       4,000,000
Cross Road Bridge, Connecticut..........................       3,500,000
A. Max Brewer Causeway Bridge, Florida..................       3,000,000
Iowa/Nebraska Missouri River Bridge, Iowa...............       1,517,000
Rapid River Bridge, Idaho...............................       1,000,000
Topeka Boulevard Bridge, Kansas.........................       2,000,000
Leeville Bridge, Louisiana..............................       3,000,000
Kerner Bridge, Louisiana................................       2,000,000
Pennsylvania Avenue Bridge, Michigan....................       3,383,000
Ford Bridge, Minnesota..................................       7,000,000
Route 1 & 9/Production Way to east Lincoln Avenue, New 
    Jersey..............................................       3,000,000
145th Street Bridge over Harlem River, New York.........       5,800,000
I-84 over Delaware River Twin Bridges, New York.........       2,000,000
Route 17 over Wallkill River, New York..................       2,000,000
Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Rehabilitation, Ohio......       1,500,000
Cooper River bridges replacement, South Carolina........       7,000,000
Leon River Bridge, Texas................................       1,500,000
Hood Canal Bridge, Washington...........................       1,500,000
S.R. 240 Yakima Bridge Replacement, Washington..........       4,000,000
South Park Bridge, Washington,..........................       2,000,000
Shepherdstown Bridge, West Virginia.....................       3,000,000

    Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement 
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air 
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range 
of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after 
consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet 
national ambient air quality standards. TEA-21 provides greater 
flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands 
and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce 
extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter 
(PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no 
non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as 
if they were STP funds.
    On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be 
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both 
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ 
program, including reducing regional emissions and verifying 
new mobile source control techniques.
    Federal lands highways.--This program provides funding 
through four major categories--Indian reservation roads, 
parkways and park roads, public lands highways (which 
incorporates the previous forest highways category), and 
Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the 
National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA-21 also established a new 
program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation 
roads.
    Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 
2002 shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:
        Project                                                   Amount
Diamond Bar Road, Arizona...............................      $3,000,000
Belardo Bridge, California..............................       2,956,000
Pala Road improvement project, California...............       4,000,000
Death Valley Road reconstruction, California............       1,712,000
New Access to Bent's Old Fort National Historic Site, 
    Colorado............................................         500,000
State Highway 149 between South Fork and Creede, 
    Colorado............................................       4,000,000
Timucuan Preserve bike route, Florida...................       1,000,000
Clark Fork River bridge replacement, Idaho..............       3,800,000
Broughton Bridge, Kansas................................       1,000,000
Daniel Boone Parkway between mileposts 37 and 44, 
    Kentucky............................................       1,500,000
Craigs Creek Road, Kentucky.............................         995,000
Tunnel Ridge Road, Kentucky.............................       1,400,000
SR16 from Loop Road to SR15, Neshoba County, Mississippi       3,500,000
S-323 Alzada-Ekalaka, Montana...........................       2,000,000
Giant Springs Road, Great Falls, Montana................       1,200,000
Fort Peck Reservation, Montana..........................       1,000,000
Lewis & Clark Trail, Nebraska...........................         325,000
Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area, New Jersey.       1,000,000
Saratoga Monument Access, New York......................         280,000
Highway 26 between Zigzag and Rhododendron, Oregon......       1,000,000
Route 113 Heritage Corridor, Pennsylvania...............         170,000
Marshall County #10 & BIA #15, South Dakota.............         500,000
Wind Cave National Park Highway #10, South Dakota.......       1,000,000
Amistad National Recreation Area, Box Canyon Ramp Road, 
    Texas...............................................       6,000,000
Herbert H. Bateman Education & Administrative Center, 
    Virginia............................................       1,000,000
USMC Heritage Center access improvements, Virginia......       1,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass, Arizona..............................       4,000,000
Presidio Trust, California..............................       1,000,000
Lowell National Historical Park, Riverwalk Design, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         563,000
Arcadia National Park Trails & Road Projects, Maine.....       1,000,000
Confluence Trail linking Yellowstone, Missouri River to 
    Union Trading Post, North Dakota....................         499,000
Reconstruction of NM 537: CN2070, FLH-0537, New Mexico..       2,000,000
Complete design for CN3480, TPM-00401, New Mexico.......         300,000
Preliminary and final design to CN2357, FLH-666-11, New 
    Mexico..............................................       2,000,000
SR 146 St. Rose Parkway and I-15 Interchange, Nevada....       8,000,000
Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island..................       1,500,000
Woonsocket Depot Rehabilitation, Rhode Island...........       1,300,000
Ivy Mountain Road paving, Texas.........................       1,000,000
Arches National Park Main Entrance relocation, Utah.....       1,000,000
State Route 153, Beaver to Junction, Utah...............       1,000,000
Route 600 road restructuring, Virginia..................       1,500,000
Trail Extension at Mount Vernon Circle, Fairfax, 
    Virginia............................................         100,000
14th Street Bridge interim capacity and safety 
    improvements, Virginia..............................      11,000,000

    The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to 
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, 
and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service's 
regions.
    Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA-21, after the computation of 
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are 
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional 
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee 
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of 
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each 
fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States 
as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related 
to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-
State allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are 
distributed among core highway programs.
    Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and 
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned 
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of 
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA-21 restates the 
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds 
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential 
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting 
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect 
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds 
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds 
from other highway programs.
    High priority projects.--TEA-21 includes 1,850 high 
priority projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these 
projects totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a 
specified percentage of the project funds made available each 
year. Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for 
TEA-21 high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid 
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated 
with the projects does not expire.
    Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes 
funds available to construct highways and access roads under 
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 
1965. Under TEA-21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended; 
and distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete 
estimate.
    National corridor planning and border infrastructure 
programs.--TEA-21 established a new national corridor planning 
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated 
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national 
significance, economic growth, and international or 
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors 
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors 
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated 
border infrastructure program is established to improve the 
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
    Funds provided for the national corridor planning and 
border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2002 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Memphis-Huntsville-Atlanta Highway preliminary 
    engineering and construction, Alabama...............      $1,000,000
Phoenix Ave. improvements and airport access 
    construction, Arkansas..............................       1,750,000
I-69 Connector from I-530 in Pine Bluff, Arkansas.......       4,000,000
Highway 71 Texarkana South, Arkansas....................       7,000,000
Bristol/First Street intersection Santa Ana, California.         750,000
St. Rt. 905 phase I, California.........................       4,000,000
Arizona 95 to I-40 connector, California................       1,650,000
Alameda Corridor-East, ACE Project, California..........       1,000,000
I-84 Exit 6/Route 37 interchange, Connecticut...........       2,300,000
I-4 Crosstown Expressway Connector, Florida.............       1,000,000
US 19, Florida..........................................      20,000,000
New Boston Road (a segment of National Great River 
    Road), Illinois.....................................       1,000,000
Outer Belt Connector, Kendall & Kane Counties, Illinois.      14,955,000
Hoosier Heartland Industrial Corridor Lafayette to 
    Logansport, Indiana.................................       1,000,000
Railroad Avenue Underpass East Chicago, Indiana.........       2,500,000
Wichita South Area transportation study, Kansas.........       1,000,000
U.S. Highway 54, Kansas.................................       4,000,000
Heartland Parkway/Highway 55, Kentucky..................         500,000
Highway 61 Green County between Greensburg and Columbia, 
    Kentucky............................................         250,000
Highway 231 Glover Carey bridge and Owensboro 
    intersection, Kentucky..............................       1,000,000
KY 1848 from I-64 to U.S. 60, Kentucky..................         320,000
US 25 North to Renfro Valley, Kentucky..................       2,000,000
I-66, phase II design, Kentucky.........................       2,500,000
US 27 Burnside, Kentucky................................         800,000
Hwy 92 Whitley County, Kentucky.........................         300,000
I-175 feasibility and planning study, Kentucky..........       2,400,000
Clay/Leslie industrial park access, Kentucky............       4,000,000
Monticello Street underpass, Kentucky...................       1,000,000
US-41A, Kentucky........................................         100,000
Pennyrile Parkway, Kentucky.............................       1,000,000
Route 116 between Ashfield and Conway, Massachusetts....       2,500,000
Route 2 Bypass and safety improvements, Erving, 
    Massachusetts.......................................       3,000,000
U.S. Highway 212 Hennepin County, Minnesota.............       1,000,000
Falls to the Falls Corridor, Cook, Minnesota............       3,000,000
I-69 on SIU 11 along U.S. 61, Mississippi...............       1,000,000
MS Highway 44/Pearl River Bridge extension project, 
    Mississippi.........................................       2,000,000
North/South Corridor protection, North Carolina.........       1,000,000
I-87 Corridor study, New York...........................       2,000,000
Stewart Airport connector study, New York...............         350,000
New York Harbor rail freight tunnel, New York...........       2,000,000
U.S. 24 Corridor improvement study between Toledo, Ohio 
    and Indiana.........................................       2,500,000
Cleveland Trans-Erie Ferry service, Ohio................         300,000
US 412 overpass at 1-44, Oklahoma.......................       1,500,000
Continental 1, Pennsylvania and New York................       1,000,000
SC Route 38/I-95 interchange, South Carolina............       1,500,000
Ports-to-Plains corridor development management plan, 
    Texas...............................................       2,000,000
I-69 Corridors 18 and 20, Texas.........................       1,250,000
I-35 expansion, Hill County, Texas......................       2,000,000
Freeport Business Center off ramp, Texas................       1,000,000
FM 1016 from U.S. 83 to Madero, Texas...................       1,000,000
I-35 replacement bridge, Dallas County, Texas...........       1,000,000
Route 340/522 bridge replacement, Virginia..............         100,000
Route 669 bridge widening, Virginia.....................         500,000
FAST Corridor project, Washington.......................       1,000,000
41st Street overcrossing, Washington....................       1,425,000
US 395 Spokane Corridor project, Washington.............       1,650,000
USH 10 between Stevens Point & Waupaca, Wisconsin.......       4,000,000
STH 29 between 1-94 and CTH J, Wisconsin................      10,000,000
Route 10 in Logan County, West Virginia.................       2,000,000
US Route 15 (Future I-99), New York.....................       1,000,000
Exit 6 of I-95, Pennsylvania............................         350,000

    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of 
TEA-21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats 
and ferry terminal facilities. TEA-21 also included a new 
requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 
through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are 
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of 
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2002, TEA-21 
provides $38,000,000.
    Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities program in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for 
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Treasure Island ferry service, California...............        $800,000
Baylink ferry intermodal center, California.............       1,500,000
Fishers Island ferry district, Connecticut..............       2,109,000
City of Palatka, Florida................................         300,000
St. Johns River ferry terminal, Florida.................       1,000,000
Key West ferry terminal, Florida........................         500,000
Savannah water ferry, Georgia...........................       1,000,000
Plaquemines Parish ferry, Louisiana.....................       1,200,000
Sandy Hook ferry terminal, New Jersey...................       1,000,000
Battery Maritime Building, New York.....................         750,000
Port of Rochester Harbor & ferry terminal improvement, 
    New York............................................       2,000,000
Haverstraw-Ossining-Yonkers Ferry service terminals, New 
    York................................................       2,500,000
Cherry Grove ferry dock, New York.......................          91,000
Fire Island terminal infrastructure, New York...........         200,000
Jamaica Bay transportation hub, New York................         300,000
Whitehall Terminal, New York............................         600,000
Ferry Boat terminal building dock construction, Holland 
    Street Pier, Pennsylvania...........................       1,000,000
Sand Point dock, Rhode Island...........................         250,000
Corpus Christi ferry landings, Texas....................         200,000
Oak Harbor Municipal Pier terminal, Washington..........         200,000
St. George Ferry terminal, New York.....................         500,000

    Funds provided for the ferry boat and ferry terminal 
facilities designated for Alaska under section 1207(b)(3) of 
TEA-21 shall be available for the following activity in the 
corresponding amount:

Coffman Cove-Wrangell/Mitkof Island ferries, Alaska.....     $10,000,000

    National scenic byways program.--This program provides 
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of 
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic 
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic, 
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities. 
In fiscal year 2002, TEA-21 provides $25,500,000 for this 
program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program 
in fiscal year 2002 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Lewis & Clark Northwest Passage scenic byway passing 
    lanes, Idaho........................................      $2,700,000
Route 66 scenic byway livable communities and 
    transportation plan, New Mexico.....................         450,000
Warren County scenic byway, New York....................          30,000
Connecticut River scenic farm byway, Massachusetts......       1,200,000
High Street revitalization project, economic development 
    and historic preservation, Lawrenceberg, Indiana....         750,000
The Cape and Islands rural roads initiative (route 6A), 
    Massachusetts.......................................       1,000,000

    Transportation and community and system preservation pilot 
program.--TEA-21 established a new transportation and community 
and system preservation program that provides grants to states 
and local governments for planning, developing, and 
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and 
community and system preservation plans and practices. These 
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the 
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on 
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments 
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, 
services, and centers of trade.
    Funds provided for the transportation and community and 
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2002 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

        Project                                                   Amount
Hanceville downtown revitalization, Alabama.............        $400,000
U.S. 98 highway lighting, Alabama.......................         900,000
Mobile Greenways, Alabama...............................         600,000
Monroe Park Intermodal Center, Alabama..................       1,000,000
Lewis Avenue Bridge, California.........................         400,000
Ortega Street pedestrian overcrossing gateway, 
    California..........................................         245,000
Artesia Boulevard rehabilitation, California............         400,000
Stamford Waterside, Connecticut.........................         250,000
Route 710 connector improvements and traffic calming, 
    Riviera Beach, Florida..............................         300,000
State Route 46 expansion study, Florida.................         749,000
Macon redevelopment, Georgia............................         200,000
Stearns Road corridor, Multi-use trails, Illinois.......       1,000,000
Robbins Commuter Rail Station upgrade, Illinois.........         250,000
Central business district trail link Praire Duneland and 
    Iron Horse Heritage, Indiana........................         250,000
Wichita Riverwalk on Arkansas River, Kansas.............         500,000
Kentucky Transportation Cabinet for regional trail 
    improvements, Kentucky..............................       2,350,000
Fegenbush Lane bridge at Fern Creek, Kentucky...........         400,000
Estill County industrial park access road, Kentucky.....         300,000
Estill County bypass lighting around Irvine, Kentucky...          50,000
Park City sidewalks, Kentucky...........................          42,600
Vine Grove sidewalks, Kentucky..........................         125,000
I-79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement, Massachusetts...         350,000
City of Woburn, Massachusetts...........................         200,000
Metrowest Community Project, Massachusetts..............         200,000
West Springfield railyard revitalization study, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         400,000
South Capitol Gateway & improvement study, Dictrict of 
    Columbia............................................         250,000
Eastern Market pedestrian overpass park, Michigan.......         500,000
Phalen Blvd., Minnesota.................................         600,000
Lake Street access to I-35 West, Minnesota..............       2,000,000
Bicycle/Pedestrian Connections to Charlotte's trail 
    system, North Carolina..............................         200,000
West Windsor Township bicycle path, New Jersey..........         200,000
Manalapan Township Woodward Road reconstruction, New 
    Jersey..............................................         250,000
Hopewell Borough Street flooding project, New Jersey....         300,000
Oceanport Road flooding improvements, New Jersey........         300,000
Lambertville Street flooding improvements, New Jersey...         300,000
NFTA development plan, New York.........................         100,000
Shore Road, Lindenhurst, New York.......................         500,000
South 7th Street, Lindenhurst, New York.................         250,000
Wyandanch traffic signals, sidewalks and improvements, 
    New York............................................         400,000
Route 22/Mill Road pedestrian street improvements, New 
    York................................................         750,000
Mamaroneck pedestrian improvements, New York............         125,000
New Rochelle NY North Avenue pedestrian street 
    improvements, New York..............................       1,000,000
Bronx River Greenway, New York..........................         750,000
Alliance transportation congestion mitigation, Ohio.....       1,500,000
Huffman Prairie Flying Field pedestrian & multimodal 
    Gateway entrance, Ohio..............................         300,000
Navajoe Gateway, Oklahoma...............................         200,000
Midwest City downtown revitalization project, Oklahoma..         650,000
Great Lake recreation area traffic study, Oklahoma......         250,000
Marysville streetscape improvements, Tennessee..........       1,200,000
Pistol Creek pedestrian bridge, Maryville, Tennessee....         900,000
Trinity River visions, Texas............................         100,000
City of Frisco, Texas...................................         550,000
Houston Main Street corridor master plan, Texas.........         300,000
Waterford National Historic District, Virginia..........         900,000
Convening with communities, Washington..................         200,000
Southern Rural Transportation Center, South Carolina....         450,000

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                      (Limitation on Obligations)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Limitation, fiscal year 2001...................        ($29,661,806,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \1\...........         (31,563,157,000)
Recommended in the bill \2\....................         (31,716,797,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2001...............         (+2,054,991,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002...........          (+153,640,000)

\1\ The budget request includes new obligation of $4,520,163,000
  associated with revenue aligned budget authority. Excludes amounts
  provided to Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, as provided
  by law; reflects a $46,700,000 transfer to the Federal Motor Carrier
  Safety Administration; and reflects a reduction of $107,999,000
  associated with that transfer.
\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $27,197,693,000 in guaranteed
  obligations, and $4,519,140 in obligations resulting from revenue
  aligned budget authority (RABA), consistent with current law.

    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2002 federal-aid highways obligations to $31,716,797,000, 
an increase of $2,054,991,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted 
level and $153,640,000 over the budget request. The recommended 
level is the level assumed in TEA-21. 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 $4,519,104,000 in 
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. 
TEA-21 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 TEA-21 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. TEA-21 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 2002, is $4,519,104,000 for the 
federal-aid highway program.
    The budget request proposed to allocate this additional 
obligation authority in fiscal year 2002 to the new freedom 
initiative and the border infrastructure program. Consistent 
with the budget request, the accompanying bill allocates 
$56,300,000 in RABA for motor carrier inspection facilities at 
the U.S/Mexico border. These funds are to construct permanent 
facilities to house border inspectors and to construct parking 
facilities for out-of-service motor carriers. Due to budget 
constraints, the accompanying bill does not provide funds for 
the new freedom initiative. The Committee notes that up to 
$216,550,000 provided within three Federal Transit 
Administration programs can be used to support accessibility 
for the disabled.
    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 $31,716,797,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

               FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   FY 2000       FY 2001       FY 2002
           Programs                actual       estimate      estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface transportation        $6,360,000    $6,721,526    $7,256,517
     program..................
    National highway system...     5,009,000     5,751,509     6,177,138
    Interstate maintenance....     3,853,000     4,774,592     5,077,962
    Bridge program............     2,643,000     4,091,650     4,338,843
    Congestion mitigation and        860,000     1,634,860     1,770,363
     air quality improvement..
    Minimum guarantee.........     1,298,032     1,504,231     2,000,000
    Safety incentive grants           85,800       102,461       115,336
     for use of seat belts....
    ITS standards, research           75,014       111,707       108,128
     and development..........
    ITS deployment............       143,384       145,494       123,574
    Transportation research...       204,264       249,108       197,204
    Federal lands highways....       645,662       725,921       716,124
    National corridor planning        97,693       152,789       144,170
     and coordinated border
     infrastructure...........
    Administration............       304,355       294,470       325,748
    Other programs............       658,000       522,000       747,690
    High priority projects....       968,668     1,311,395     1,831,344
    Woodrow Wilson memorial           42,685       194,268       231,702
     bridge...................
    Transportation                    39,000       157,958       123,574
     infrastructure finance
     and innovation...........
    Appalachian development          372,769       389,617       398,976
     highway system...........
    U.S./Mexico border          ............  ............        56,300
     facility construction
     program..................
                               -----------------------------------------
        Total subject to          24,794,000    28,835,556    31,740,693
         obligation limitation
         \1\..................
                               =========================================
Emergency relief program......        97,945       113,206       100,000
Minimum allocation/guarantee..       710,650       659,373       647,149
Demonstration projects........       324,373       296,347       207,443
Reestimates of direct loan                 0        19,000             0
 subsidy/interest on subsidy..
                               -----------------------------------------
    Total exempt programs.....     1,132,968     1,087,926       954,592
                               =========================================
Emergency relief supplemental.         7,847       729,452  ............
                               =========================================
    Grand total, Federal-aid      25,934,815    30,652,934    32,695,285
     highways (direct)........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects estimated obligations which are less than the obligation
  limitation adjusted for RABA and enacted reductions.

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

                                          ESTIMATED FY 2002 OBLIGATIONS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Estimated
                                                   FY 2002      FY 2002    Appalachian               Change from
                     State                         Formula      Minimum    Development     Total       FY 2001
                                                  Limitation   Guarantee     Highways
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................     $460,289      $34,368      $43,930     $538,587      $48,583
Alaska.........................................      248,919       67,578  ...........      316,497       28,933
Arizona........................................      423,325       48,602  ...........      471,927       38,261
Arkansas.......................................      322,361       26,025  ...........      348,385       29,363
California.....................................    2,321,476      136,738  ...........    2,458,214      251,501
Colorado.......................................      310,882       13,594  ...........      324,477       29,229
Connecticut....................................      353,888       48,225  ...........      402,112       35,356
Delaware.......................................      115,768        8,055  ...........      123,823       12,404
Dist. of Col...................................      107,066          304  ...........      107,370        8,452
Florida........................................    1,123,568      160,665  ...........    1,284,234      100,860
Georgia........................................      838,892      100,834       17,556      957,282       90,224
Hawaii.........................................      126,591       10,169  ...........      136,760       10,347
Idaho..........................................      175,194       20,545  ...........      195,739       13,776
Illinois.......................................      842,685       46,513  ...........      889,198       73,937
Indiana........................................      588,422       68,278  ...........      656,700       56,211
Iowa...........................................      310,933       10,639  ...........      321,572       24,778
Kansas.........................................      303,537        9,199  ...........      312,736  ...........
Kentucky.......................................      410,631       31,543       40,299      482,473       37,083
Louisiana......................................      401,800       25,769  ...........      427,569       38,643
Maine..........................................      131,715       10,245  ...........      141,959       11,128
Maryland.......................................      402,418       24,522        6,870      433,809       40,324
Massachusetts..................................      455,596       34,604  ...........      490,200       43,716
Michigan.......................................      785,366       71,277  ...........      856,643       64,960
Minnesota......................................      371,719       19,911  ...........      391,631       32,849
Mississippi....................................      318,125       21,298        4,927      344,350       52,875
Missouri.......................................      605,615       33,864  ...........      639,479       58,807
Montana........................................      241,076       34,014  ...........      275,090       27,461
Nebraska.......................................      210,721        5,970  ...........      216,691       21,185
Nevada.........................................      177,301       19,422  ...........      196,723       15,605
New Hampshire..................................      124,323        9,743  ...........      134,066        9,837
New Jersey.....................................      665,803       38,488  ...........      704,290       52,823
New Mexico.....................................      242,549       21,606  ...........      264,155       25,586
New York.......................................    1,247,498       91,300        9,468    1,348,266      111,473
North Carolina.................................      662,229       68,260       25,864      756,352       58,353
North Dakota...................................      171,421       10,721  ...........      182,141       16,772
Ohio...........................................      837,326       51,038       19,810      908,174       76,512
Oklahoma.......................................      399,751       17,219  ...........      416,970       47,093
Oregon.........................................      303,218       15,458  ...........      318,676       26,507
Pennsylvania...................................    1,113,672       62,401      107,414    1,283,487       91,948
Rhode Island...................................      151,664       12,465  ...........      164,130       14,406
South Carolina.................................      409,289       47,488        2,152      458,929       40,534
South Dakota...................................      178,556       12,696  ...........      191,252       16,601
Tennessee......................................      526,731       37,579       49,251      613,560       56,634
Texas..........................................    1,867,887      203,694  ...........    2,071,581      200,008
Utah...........................................      198,699        8,624  ...........      207,323       15,702
Vermont........................................      118,714        7,119  ...........      125,833       12,249
Virginia.......................................      633,364       52,774       10,352      696,490       59,966
Washington.....................................      450,766       19,641  ...........      470,408       35,257
West Virginia..................................      217,089        9,527       61,083      287,700       23,288
Wisconsin......................................      478,935       51,445  ...........      530,380       45,654
Wyoming........................................      185,458        7,946  ...........      193,404       19,905
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
    Subtotal...................................   24,670,821    2,000,000      398,976   27,069,797    2,380,863
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
Special Limitation:
    High Priority Projects.....................  ...........  ...........  ...........    1,831,344      193,942
    Woodrow Wilson Bridge......................  ...........  ...........  ...........      231,702       37,434
    Allocation Reserves........................  ...........  ...........  ...........    2,607,850     -468,096
                                                ----------------------------------------------------------------
        Total Limitation.......................  ...........  ...........  ...........   31,740,693    2,144,143
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge.--The Woodrow Wilson 
Memorial Bridge Act does not allow bridge construction to begin 
until an ownership agreement is executed and finance plan is 
finalized. However, construction has begun without execution of 
an ownership agreement, an agreement on cost overrun 
responsiblity, and without a finalized and approved finance 
plan. The Committee is concerned about these outstanding 
requirements.
    TEA-21 provided a total of $900 million plus revenue 
aligned budget authority amounts, consistent with law, from the 
highway trust fund for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge. 
Public Law 106-240 allowed $170 million in contracts to go 
forward without a bridge financing plan, an ownership 
agreement, or even a final cost estimate. In fiscal year 2001, 
Public Law 106-346 provided the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge 
another $600 million from the general fund. It also capped the 
federal commitment at $1.5 billion. The bridge is estimated to 
cost $2.1 billion to $2.5 billion.
    The Committee directs DOT to ensure all costs and sources 
of funds for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, including 
improvements critical to the efficient and safe functioning of 
the bridge, are identified in the finance plan. In addition, 
the Committee expects these costs and funding sources to be 
consistent with both Virginia and Maryland's state 
transportation improvement plans. The Committee encourages DOT 
to implement the direction of the infrastructure task force 
recommendations including entering into a written agreement 
among participants defining federal participation. The 
Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriation regarding these requirements 
by February 1, 2002. The Committee directs the Inspector 
General (IG) to review the finance plan, and to provide summary 
information to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as expeditiously as possible, but no longer than 
60 days after the finance plan has been submitted to FHWA.
    Rural consultation in planning process.--The Committee is 
very concerned at the lack of progress the Department has made 
in issuing the rural consultation provisions of the statewide 
planning regulations. After three years and a clear 
Congressional mandate under TEA-21, rural local elected 
officials continue to be left out of state-wide planning 
discussions. This Committee fully expects this rule to be 
promulgated by no later than February 1, 2002.
    Seattle, Washington.--The FHWA shall consider the R-8A 
proposal for two-way transit operations on Interstate 90 as 
part of the environmental study process.
    South Capitol Gateway.--The Secretary, in cooperation with 
the District of Columbia Department of Planning, the District 
of Columbia National Capitol Revitalization Commission, and the 
Department of the Interior and in consultation with other 
interested persons, shall conduct a study of methods to make 
improvements to promote commercial, recreational and 
residential activities and to improve pedestrian and vehicular 
access on South Capitol Street and the Frederick Douglass 
Bridge between Independence Avenue and the Suitland Parkway, 
and on New Jersey Avenue between Independence Avenue and M 
Street Southeast.
    Not later than September 30, 2003, the Secretary shall 
transmit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a 
report containing the results of the study with an assessment 
of the impacts (including environmental, aesthetic, economic, 
and historical impacts) associated with the implementation of 
each of the methods examined under the study.
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana.--The Committee recognizes the 
impact of truck traffic to and from the Port of South Louisiana 
and I-10 through the towns of LaPlace and Reserve, Louisiana 
and urges the State of Louisiana to continue efforts initiated 
in TEA-21 to provide a north-south roadway from U.S. 61 to I-10 
in St. John Parish. The Committee is also aware of the City of 
Baton Rouge's new comprehensive plan to reduce traffic 
congestion for safety, economic, energy efficiency, and clean 
air non-attainment purposes. The I-12/Essen Lane west ramp 
project is a critical part of this plan and the Committee 
supports the project.

                       State Infrastructure Banks

                               rescission

Rescission, fiscal year 2001..........................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       -$6,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Rescission, fiscal year 2001......................        -6,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................        -6,000,000

    The bill includes a rescission of $6,000,000 of funds 
provided for state infrastructure banks that is not allocated 
to a specific state in fiscal year 1997 under Public Law 104-
205.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the 
Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor 
carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal 
Highway Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement 
Act (MCSIA) formed a new administration that placed truck and 
bus safety on par with other modes of transportation.
    The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve the safety of 
commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To 
accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the 
number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources 
and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial 
vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of 
stronger enforcement measures against safety violators; 
expedited safety regulation; technology innovation; 
improvements in information systems; training; and improvements 
to commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and 
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely 
with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor 
carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual 
citizens.
    MCSIA and the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century (TEA-21) provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, 
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and 
technology, the national motor carrier safety assistance 
program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic 
safety initiatives (ISSSI).

                          Motor Carrier Safety

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

    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 deduct one third of one percent from specified 
Federal-aid program funds to administer motor carrier safety 
programs and motor carrier research. This mechanism is known as 
a ``takedown.'' The budget request proposed to amend TEA-21 and 
increase the takedown to two thirds of one percent. Although 
the Committee agrees that the amount resulting from the current 
takedown is limiting and has required reductions to important 
programs, the Committee has rejected the budget proposal. 
Instead the Committee provides the level in TEA-21, as ordered 
by MCSIA.

                                                          Limitation on
                                                         administrative
                                                            expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2001 \1\......................     ($92,194,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................     (139,007,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................      (92,307,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2001......................        (+113,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................    (-46,700,000)

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $202,827 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554 or $375,000 obligation limitation transfer from FHWA.

    The Committee has provided a total of $92,307,000 for the 
office of motor carrier safety. This is $46,700,000 below the 
requested level and is $113,000, or .1 percent, above the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level. Of this total, $86,430,000 is 
for administrative expenses and $5,477,000 is for safety 
programs. The following adjustments are recommended to the 
budget request:

Provide funding for border inspectors and safety            -$13,911,000
 audits in the Federal Highway Administration budget..
Deny funding for the motor carrier safety operation           -5,000,000
 program..............................................
Reduce funding for crash data collection..............        -2,032,000
Eliminate funding for research and technology.........       -14,128,000
Reduce funding for the commercial drivers license             -3,029,000
 program..............................................
Delete funding for the bureau of transportation               -9,000,000
 statistics safety data improvements..................
Increase funding to reflect a 4.6% pay raise..........          +400,000

    Border inspectors and safety audits.--Due to TEA-21 and 
MCSIA restrictions, the Committee was unable to provide funding 
for border inspectors and safety audits within FMCSA. Instead, 
the Committee has set aside, from the Federal Highway 
Administration's administrative balances, $13,911,000 for 
border safety programs. This will fund 80 new border 
inspectors, five bilingual lawyers, 23 trailers to house border 
inspectors, and will provide funds for foreign motor carrier 
safety audits.
    To ensure targeting of scarce resources, the Committee 
directs the Secretary to conduct an analysis on the assignment 
of federal safety personnel to ensure that resources are being 
assigned to areas where known safety needs exists. This 
analysis should be based on risk and FMCSA's ``safe stat'' 
data. The analysis shall include an evaluation of assignment of 
safety enforcement personnel along the U.S./Mexico border to 
determine if the resources are being assigned to the areas of 
greatest risk, workload needs, and other safety criteria. The 
Secretary shall submit the report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2002.
    Motor carrier safety operation program.--The Committee has 
deleted funding for this proposed new program due to budget 
constraints. The Committee also notes that a domestic new 
entrant safety audit notice of proposed rulemaking has not been 
issued, which raises questions about the need for funding next 
year.
    Crash data collection.--The Committee has held funding for 
crash data collection at the fiscal year 2001 enacted level 
($2,986,000) due to budget constraints. This is $2,032,000 
below the budget request.
    Motor carrier research.--The Committee has eliminated 
funding for motor carrier research in fiscal year 2002, due to 
budget constraints. The Committee continues to believe research 
is an important component of the motor carrier safety program. 
Therefore, the Committee directs FMCSA to apply any savings in 
administrative costs to the research program.
    Commercial drivers license program.--The budget request 
included $10,000,000 for this program from the office of motor 
carrier safety and revenue aligned budget authority. The 
Committee has provided a total of $2,134,000 for the commercial 
drivers license (CDL) program within the office of motor 
carrier safety. The Committee also provides $5,000,000 under 
the ISSSI commercial motor vehicle driver safety programs. The 
Committee believes more work needs to be done to address 
deficiencies in the CDL program, and strongly encourages the 
use of additional MCSAP funding for programs that enhance state 
driver record information systems, to speed the entry of 
convictions onto the driving record and ensure that records are 
complete.
    Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should 
continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle 
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead 
MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to improve all aspects of 
the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring 
another pilot project involving law enforcement and driver 
licensing agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure 
that drivers who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense 
do not operate during the period of suspension or revocation. 
Finally, FMCSA should continue to support the judicial and 
prosecutorial outreach effort.
    Bureau of transportation statistics safety data 
improvements.--The Committee has deleted funding for the bureau 
of transportation statistics safety data improvements, due to 
budget constraints and an absence of justification.
    Pay raise.--The Committee has provided funding consistent 
with a 4.6 percent pay raise.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program

                  (liquidation of contract authority)

                      (limitation on obligations)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                     (Liquidation of
                                        contract        (Limitation on
                                     authorization)      obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\      $177,000,000      ($177,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002..       204,837,000       (204,837,000)
Recommended in the bill...........       205,896,000       (205,896,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           +28,896,000       (+28,896,000)
 2001.............................
    Budget request, fiscal year           +1,059,000        (+1,059,000)
 2002.............................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $389,400 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554.

    The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP) 
was authorized by TEA-21 and amended by the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two 
major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program 
(MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety 
initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project 
funding to states to develop and implement national programs 
for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and 
regulations concerning motor carrier safety. The major 
objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity 
of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are 
made to qualified states for the development of programs to 
enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous 
materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety 
Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle 
safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial 
motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and 
enhance data-related motor carrier programs.
    The Committee recommends $205,896,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program. This is an increase of $28,896,000 above the 
level enacted in fiscal year 2001.

                       Limitation on Obligations

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations 
$205,896,000 for the national motor carrier safety program. 
This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety 
Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA-21. The limitation 
includes $23,896,000 from revenue aligned budget authority, 
consistent with law.
    The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as 
follows:

Motor carrier safety assistance program:..............      $188,896,000
    Basic motor carrier safety grants.................     (153,007,000)
    Performance-based incentive grant program.........       (9,000,000)
    Border assistance.................................      (10,000,000)
    High-priority activities..........................      (10,000,000)
    State training and administration.................       (1,889,000)
    Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA)...............       (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives:.        17,000,000
    Information systems...............................       (4,000,000)
    Motor carrier analysis............................       (3,000,000)
    Implementation of PRISM...........................       (5,000,000)
    Driver programs...................................       (5,000,000)

    Border Safety.--The North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA) was signed in 1992 and ratified by Congress in 1993. 
According to the agreement, Mexican trucks were to be able to 
drive in all 50 U.S. states by the end of 2000. Currently, 
Mexican trucks are allowed only at the commercial zones within 
the four states that border Mexico. On February 7, 2001, an 
independent dispute panel ruled that the United States was not 
in compliance with NAFTA. The administration has announced that 
the U.S. will meet NAFTA requirements and will fully open the 
U.S./Mexico border in January 2002.
    The Committee provides all necessary funding up to a total 
of $120,000,000 to implement the administration's decision to 
open the U.S./Mexico border to commercial motor vehicles in 
accordance with the North American Free Trade Agreement. 
Funding for border safety and enforcement totaled $11,576,000 
in fiscal year 2001. The Committee notes that all foreign and 
domestic motor carriers must comply with safety and operating 
regulations to enter or operate in the United States. Because 
the Committee agrees that safety on the U.S./Mexico border is 
of primary national importance, the Committee provides a 
significant increase in resources to ensure safety on the 
border.
    The Committee has provided a total of $20,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2002, which is $4,000,000 over the budget request 
and $4,000,000 over the fiscal year 2001 level for border and 
high priority initiatives under the MCSAP. These programs allow 
border states to monitor and enforce safety operations of 
foreign motor carriers in the U.S. The Committee directs the 
Secretary to consider border safety programs when allocating 
funding for high priority initiatives.
    Under Federal Highway Administration, administrative 
expenses balances, the Committee has provided $13,911,000 to 
fund an additional 80 federal inspectors for the U.S./Mexico 
border, five bilingual lawyers, 23 trailers, and safety audits 
on foreign motor carriers. The increase in inspectors will 
result in a total of 140 federal inspectors on the U.S./Mexico 
border. This level is consistent with the Inspector General's 
recommendation to ensure safety at the border in reports dated 
December 1998 and May 2001. In addition, the Committee also has 
provided another $56,300,000 under Federal Highway 
Administration, revenue aligned budget authority, for the 
construction of border inspection facilities and parking lots 
for the vehicles put out-of-service.
    The Committee has denied the proposed automatic diversion 
of $18,000,000 in revenue aligned budget authority to Arizona, 
California, New Mexico, and Texas that would otherwise be 
distributed to all states under the MCSAP program. The purpose 
of this diversion is to encourage the states on the Mexican 
border to hire state inspectors for border safety programs. 
However, significant historical evidence shows states are 
reluctant to hire inspectors if future funding is viewed as 
uncertain. Instead of the proposed automatic diversion, the 
Committee has allowed the Secretary to reserve up to 
$18,000,000 of FMCSA's revenue aligned budget authority to 
reimburse states that choose to hire state safety inspectors 
for the border. This funding is available on a first come, 
first served basis. If these four states do not chose to use 
this funding, or do not use the entire amount reserved by the 
Secretary, the remaining amount will be distributed to all 
states in the regular manner.
    Border safety oversight.--The Department of Transportation 
is directed to establish and conduct a safety oversight program 
to assess the operational safety of Mexican-domiciled 
commercial motor carriers seeking permanent authority to 
operate in the U.S. Before granting conditional U.S. operating 
authority to any Mexican-domiciled carrier, the Department 
shall require the carrier to certify its compliance with U.S. 
safety laws and regulations and provide a detailed explanation 
of how critical safety management controls will be performed. 
The Department shall carefully examine information and 
certifications provided by such carriers for accuracy, 
including a review of information in U.S. and Mexican safety 
databases.
    The Department shall place a high priority on conducting 
inspections of Mexican-domiciled carriers at the roadside to 
collect data on new entrant carriers and shall carefully 
monitor safety databases for evidence of safety performance 
problems. Further, the Department shall conduct a safety audit 
of each Mexican-domiciled carrier within the first eighteen 
months of conditional operation in the U.S. to assess the 
carrier's compliance with U.S. safety regulations, ensure 
safety management controls have been established and 
maintained, and evaluate the carrier's safety performance 
history. Any Mexican-domiciled carrier failing to 
satisfactorily demonstrate compliance with U.S. safety laws and 
regulations shall be denied authority to continue operating in 
the U.S.
    Upon successful completion of the safety audit and lack of 
evidence of any significant performance issues from roadside 
inspections at the end of the eighteen month conditional 
period, the carrier may receive permanent operating authority 
and will be subject to the same safety enforcement regime that 
applies to all current U.S. carriers.
    Border infrastructure funding.--The Committee directs the 
Secretary to evaluate relevant commercial motor carrier factors 
including the number of commercial vehicles, delays, traffic 
patterns, and safety at each commercial motor carrier crossing 
at the United States/Mexico border and submit a report by March 
31, 2002, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. 
The Committee further directs the Department to consider these 
factors, including commercial motor vehicle delays, when 
distributing among the four states on the United States/Mexico 
border funds for constructing motor carrier safety inspection 
facilities at the border.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 Program

    The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) 
was established as a separate organizational entity in the 
Department of Transportation in March 1970. 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 (MVICSA) Act, (Part C of 
subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.), and (4) the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
    The first law provides for the establishment and 
enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated 
equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the 
acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of 
the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations 
were subsequently established for the NDR under the National 
Driver Register Act of 1982.
    The second law provides for coordinated national highway 
safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states 
and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration 
programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public 
Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program 
(section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce 
drunk driving prevention programs.
    The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of 
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information 
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, 
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An 
amendment to this law established the Secretary's 
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the 
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. 
A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    The fourth law (TEA-21) reauthorizes the full range of 
NHTSA programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These 
include: safety incentives to prevent operation of motor 
vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 
U.S.C.); seat belt incentive grants (section 157 of title 23 
U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive grants (section 405); 
and highway safety data improvement incentive grant program 
(section 411). TEA-21 also reauthorized highway safety 
research, development and demonstration programs (section 403) 
to include research measures that may deter drugged driving, 
educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely 
with commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit 
training for police. Finally, TEA-21 adopts a number of new 
motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including 
rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection 
systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer 
requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the 
0Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile 
domestic content labeling requirements.
    In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the 
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous 
respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a 
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, 
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of 
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries 
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment 
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or 
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for 
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the 
law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking 
directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for 
light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling 
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and 
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer 
information program.

                         Traffic Safety Trends

    After dipping to a low of 39,250 in 1992, the nation over 
the past five years has experienced a fairly constant number of 
traffic related fatalities at or just below 42,000 per year. 
The latest NHTSA estimates indicate fatalities in 2000 were 
41,800, which is similar to the 41,611 traffic related deaths 
in 1999. However, motorcycle rider deaths continued to 
increase, with 2,680 riders killed in 2000 compared to 2,472 in 
1999. Additionally, passenger car fatalities were down, 20,455 
in 2000 compared to 20,818 in 1999, whereas fatalities in light 
trucks, vans and sport utility vehicles increased, 11,439 in 
2000 compared to 11,243 in 1999. In comparing 1999 to 2000, the 
number of police-reported crashes and number of injured persons 
remained about the same at 6,303,000 and 3,219,000, 
respectively, for 2000. The fatality rate has increased to 1.6 
deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) up from 1.5 
deaths in 1999. The following graphs show the safety trends for 
total fatalities and fatality rate for the past two decades.

                        Operations and Research

                     (including highway trust fund)

                                                         (Highway trust
                                       (General fund)         fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.      $116,876,000       $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....       122,000,000        74,000,000
Recommended in the bill.............       122,420,000        74,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.        +5,544,000  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002          +420,000  ................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $419,527 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    For fiscal year 2002, the Administration requested a total 
of $196,000,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. 
Funding was to be allocated from three different accounts. 
First, the Administration requested $72,000,000 of contract 
authority from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA's 
operations and research activities under 23 U.S.C. 403. This 
funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway 
spending. Second, the Administration is requesting $122,000,000 
from the general fund for operations and research activities 
under sections 30102 and 30104 of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the 
budget includes an authorization from the highway trust fund of 
$2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. This funding is 
subject to appropriations.
    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$196,420,000, a 3 percent increase above fiscal year 2001. Of 
this total, $122,420,000 is for operations and research from 
the general fund; $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 403 activities 
from the highway trust fund; and $2,000,000 is for the National 
Driver Register from the highway trust fund. This is 
essentially a current services budget. The funding shall be 
distributed as follows:

Salaries and benefits...................................     $61,141,000
Travel..................................................       1,297,000
Operating expenses......................................      23,113,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance..................................       7,341,000
    Safety assurance....................................      15,064,000
    Highway safety programs.............................      41,633,000
    Research and analysis...............................      57,338,000
    General administration..............................         643,000
Grant administration reimbursements.....................     -11,150,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     196,420,000

    Executive bonuses.--The Committee supports the use of 
executive bonuses as a method of rewarding strong achievement 
and honoring superior performance. However, in NHTSA, it is not 
clear whether the agency is linking the award of bonuses to the 
attainment of performance plans goals. For example, a 
Presidential initiative to increase national seat belt usage to 
85 percent by the end of 2000 failed. Preliminary data shows 
that seat belt usage was at 71 in 2000, only a slight increase 
from the 68 to 70 percent usage rates since the mid-1990s. Even 
though the seat belt goal was missed by 14 percent, NHTSA 
awarded executive bonuses to officials that were key to 
reaching this goal. The Committee intends to hold senior 
officials accountable in the agency, a result that cannot be 
achieved if bonuses are handed out indiscriminately. The 
Committee recommendation reduces the amount of funding 
available for bonuses by $20,000, about one-seventh of the 
budgeted amount.
    Seat belt usage.--Traffic safety experts agree that 
increasing seat belt use is the most effective short-term way 
to significantly reduce highway deaths and injuries. Achieving 
a belt use rate of 90 percent would save more than 5,000 lives 
each year. The task of increasing the national seat belt use 
rate to 80 percent or higher is complicated by state secondary 
enforcement belt use laws. Yet, eight states and the District 
of Columbia have usage rates above 80 percent. California is 
approaching 90 percent usage and Washington exceeds 80 percent 
even with a secondary enforcement provision in its law.
    Sufficient funds are available for NHTSA and the states to 
do a better job. These resources must be applied in the most 
effective manner. Public education messages alone have not 
proven to be effective in increasing seat belt use, and should 
be given a lower priority to new innovative programs. The 
Committee directs NHTSA to refocus its programs on those 
activities that are known to produce meaningful results and to 
assure that state grant funds are also used in the most 
productive ways. NHTSA is directed to provide the House and 
Senate's Committees on Appropriations with a report by December 
1, 2001 describing its plans to accelerate progress in raising 
seat belt use.
    Highway safety research.--In fiscal year 2002, NHTSA 
proposes to use highway safety research funds to test and 
evaluate promising technologies to increase seat belt use. 
Newly developed vehicle technologies may present opportunities 
for increasing seat belt use, without being overly intrusive. 
The Committee directs NHTSA to contract with the Transportation 
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences to conduct a 
study on the benefits and acceptability of these technologies, 
as well as any legislative or regulatory actions that may be 
necessary to enable installation of devices to encourage seat 
belt use in passenger vehicles. The results of this study shall 
be reported to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by January 15, 2003.
    Pay raise.--The Committee has included $440,000 to fund a 
4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent contained in 
the budget request.
    Computer support.--For the past two years, the Committee 
has been urging NHTSA to adopt a more cost effective approach 
to handling computer support expenses; however the 
Administration appears unable to do so. In a flat budget 
environment, coupled with extremely tight Congressional 
deadlines on tire, rollover, and child safety issues, it is 
imperative that NHTSA's computer office fully support the 
agency's needs, yet use restraint in its own expenditures. 
Because the office has been unable to do so for the past few 
years, funding for this office shall be held at last year's 
level.
    Bill language.--The Committee continues to carry 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.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (Liquidation of Contract Authorization)

                          (Highway Trust Fund)

                                       (Liquidation of
                                          contract       (Limitation on
                                       authorization)     obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.      $213,000,000    ($213,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....       223,000,000     (223,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.............       223,000,000     (223,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.       +10,000,000     (+10,000,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $468,600 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    TEA-21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway 
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures 
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, 
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. 
The Committee recommends $223,000,000 for liquidation of 
contract authorization, which is a 5 percent increase above the 
2001 enacted level.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

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

Highway safety programs...............................      $160,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants..................        15,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures..............        38,000,000
State highway safety data grants......................        10,000,000

    Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states 
for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and 
injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs 
to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed 
limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; 
reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes 
between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus 
crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency 
medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian 
and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger 
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide 
additional support for state data collection and reporting of 
traffic deaths and injuries.
    An obligation limitation of $160,000,000 is included in the 
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national 
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. 
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding 
available for federal grants administration from this program 
to $8,000,000.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at 
$15,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by 
implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law 
requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers, and 
beginning in fiscal year 2001, in any seat in the vehicle; (2) 
a safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3) 
minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat 
use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs 
for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection 
education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law 
which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is 
included in the bill that limits funding available for federal 
grants administration from this program to $750,000.
    In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant 
program, TEA-21 established a safety incentive grant program 
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. 
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years. 
Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) 
seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical 
cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States 
that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any 
purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway 
safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA 
are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the 
state data and determine the allocation of funds.
    Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--These grants 
will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward 
states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to 
attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic 
grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the 
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license 
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from 
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving 
law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime 
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high 
blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce 
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) 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 $38,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2002. 
Language is included in the bill that limits funding available 
for federal grants administration from this program to 
$1,900,000.
    In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant 
program, TEA-21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six 
years for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC 
law (section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this 
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which 
it receives section 402 funds. The states may use these funds 
for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. 
highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). 
This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce 
significant anti-drunk driving legislation.
    State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has 
provided $10,000,000 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) a state must 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 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 $500,000.
    Bill language.--The bill contains three pieces of bill 
language that pertain to NHTSA. First, language is continued 
that prohibits the use of funds for construction, 
rehabilitation, and remodeling costs or for office furnishings 
or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings or 
structures. Second, language is continued that limits the 
amount available for technical assistance to $500,000 under 
section 410. Third, a general provision (sec. 333), that was 
included for the first time in fiscal year 2001, is continued 
in fiscal year 2002. This provision allows section 402 funds to 
be used to produce and place highway safety public service 
messages in television, radio, cinema, print media, and on the 
Internet.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 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 2002 is $684,412,000, which is $33,154,000 more than 
requested. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2001 
program levels, the fiscal year 2002 program requests and the 
Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2001   Fiscal year 2002   Recommended  in
                        Program                           enacted level\2\       request            the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations..................................   \3\ $101,717,000       $111,357,000       $110,461,000
Safety and operations user fees........................  .................        -41,000,000  .................
Railroad research and development......................         25,325,000         28,325,000         27,375,000
Railroad research and development user fees............  .................        -14,000,000  .................
Rhode Island rail development..........................         17,000,000  .................  .................
Pennsylvania station redevelopment\1\..................         20,000,000         20,000,000                  0
Next generation high-speed rail........................         25,100,000         25,100,000         25,100,000
Alaska Railroad........................................         20,000,000  .................  .................
West Virginia rail.....................................         15,000,000  .................  .................
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation......        521,476,000        521,476,000        521,476,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Total..................................................       $745,618,000       $651,258,000      $684,412,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This is an advance appropriation provided in P.L. 106-113.
\2\ Excludes $1,640,000 in across-the-board reductions pursuant to P.L. 106-554.
\3\ Excludes $1,500,000 in maglev funds transferred from other accounts.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................      $101,717,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \2\..................       111,357,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       110,461,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +8,744,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................         -896,000

\1\ Excludes $223,777 in across-the-board reductions and $1,500,000 in
  maglev funds transferred for other accounts.
\2\ Of this total, $41,000,000 was to be offset from new railroad safety
  user fees.

    The safety and operations account provides support for 
FRA's rail safety and 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 $110,461,000 has been allocated to safety and 
operations, which is 8.5 percent above the 2001 enacted level. 
Of this total, $6,159,000 is available until expended. The 
following adjustments have been made to the budget request:

Decrease new funding for technical studies and                 -$500,000
 assessments..........................................
Fund portion of Operation Lifesaver in FTA............          -225,000
Deny 7 new positions..................................          -291,000
Deny continued funding for Operation Respond center...          -349,000
Provide for 4.6 percent pay raise.....................          +469,000

    Technical studies and assessments.--FRA requested $945,000 
in new funding for technical studies, assessments, and 
environmental impact statement support. Currently, the 
administration has approximately $500,000 in its base for these 
types of activities. Even with the reduction from the budget 
request (-$500,000), the Committee has doubled the amount of 
funding available for this work. This should be sufficient as 
the administration's most pressing environmental issue, the 
train horn rule, should be finalized this summer and enacted 
before the beginning of fiscal year 2002.
    Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee recommends a slight 
reduction in FRA funding for Operation Lifesaver (-$225,000). 
This reduction should not be interpreted as a decrease in 
support for this worthy organization but instead is a 
reallocation of support from FRA to the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA). A comparable amount of funding for 
Operation Lifesaver is contained in FTA's administrative 
expenses account. As more and more cities begin analyzing and 
building commuter and light rail projects, the Committee 
believes that transit should begin to play a larger role in 
supporting Operation Lifesaver's activities, because transit 
properties are also vulnerable to trespassers and grade 
crossing fatalities. Support across all rail system users would 
have the highest impact in reducing these types of accidents 
and fatalities.
    New positions.--The Committee has denied seven new 
positions requested by FRA because of a government-wide hiring 
freeze placed on GS-14s and above (-$291,000). The specific 
positions denied are an operating practices specialist, a 
motive power and equipment specialist, two operations research 
analysts, one economist, one industrial hygienist, and one 
train control specialist.
    Operation Respond.--Last year, the Committee provided 
$350,000 to establish an Operation Respond center. This was a 
one-time appropriation for equipment, vehicles, containers, and 
a hazardous materials training facility. However, FRA has not 
removed this one-time funding from its fiscal year 2002 budget. 
The Committee believes that contributions should now be derived 
from industry and other sources, as outlined in last year's 
Senate report, S. Rpt. 106-309 (-$349,000).
    Education and enforcement at grade crossings.--FRA should 
continue to work with affected communities, including those in 
the states of Illinois and Ohio, to promote highway-rail grade 
crossing safety through enhanced education and increased 
enforcements activities. This program should include public and 
media information campaigns, meetings with communities on 
specific crossings and the unique safety problems associated 
with these crossings, as well as support for increased 
enforcement at crossings. In addition, if states want to 
consider expanding photo enforcement pilot programs to high-
risk crossings, FRA should participate in this endeavor.
    Pay raise.--The Committee has included $469,000 to fund a 
4.6 percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent requested in 
the budget.
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $41,000,000 in user fees for railroad safety 
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such 
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund 
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
    Bill language.--The Committee has deleted bill language, 
carried for many years, relating to the payment of the first 
deed of trust for Union Station. This language is no longer 
necessary, as this deed will be paid in full in 2001.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $25,325,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \2\..................        28,325,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        27,375,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +2,050,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................         -950,000

\1\ Excludes $55,715 in across-the-board reductions.
\2\ Of this total, $14,000,000 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 $27,325,000, 
which is $950,000 less than requested. The following 
adjustments have been made to the budget request:

Hold Transportation Test Center to 2001 level.........         -$400,000
Reduce requested increase for security technology.....          -250,000
Provide half of new request for ride safely...........          -300,000

    Transportation Test Center.--Similar to last year, the 
Committee has held funding for the Transportation Test Center 
(TTC) to last year's level (-$400,000). This funding provides 
ample resources for refurbishment and replacement of facilities 
and equipment at the Transportation Test Center in Pueblo, 
Colorado.
    Security technology.--FRA is requesting $500,000 for 
security technology and has justified this new program based on 
incidents that happened in the mid 1990s. Few, if any, recent 
acts of cyber threats, biological or chemical threats have 
occurred in the railroad industry. Most security violations are 
acts of vandalism, which is difficult to control. As a result, 
the Committee is only providing half of the requested increase 
for security technology research and development activities 
(-$250,000).
    Ride safely.--FRA requested $600,000 for a new ride safely 
initiative. The justification states that this new research 
program analyzes high-speed train operations, including the 
impact of vibrations on the traveling public. An extensive body 
of research already exists on high-speed train ride quality, 
particularly in the international arena where high-speed train 
travel has been commonplace for a number of years. FRA should 
make use of this research more fully and integrate it with 
limited testing on the high-speed trains operating along the 
Northeast Corridor. Most of the funding should focus on ride 
quality outside of the Northeast Corridor (-$300,000).
    User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's 
request to collect $14,000,000 in user fees for railroad 
research and development activities. This request has not been 
authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will 
continue to fund railroad research and development activities 
in the traditional manner.

            Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program

    TEA-21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and 
improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The 
aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not 
exceed $3.5 billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion 
is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads 
other than Class I carriers. The funding may be used (1) to 
acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment 
or facilities, including track, components of track bridges, 
yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or 
(3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad 
facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non-
federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy 
amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of 
a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established 
investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals 
and necessary determinations and findings.
    The Committee has included bill language specifying that no 
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made 
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium 
amount during fiscal year 2002, as requested.

               Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $20,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        20,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................       -20,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................      -20,000,000

\1\ Excludes $44,000 in across-the-board reductions.

    Funds are being used to redevelop Pennsylvania Station in 
New York City, which involves renovating the James A. Farley 
Post Office building into a train station and commercial 
center, and basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station. In fiscal 
year 2000, an advance appropriation totaling $60,000,000 was 
provided, of which $20,000,000 was allocated to fiscal years 
2001, 2002, and 2003. In fiscal year 2001, the $20,000,000 was 
made available specifically for fire and life safety 
initiatives.
    The Administration is requesting $20,000,000 in fiscal year 
2002 to continue the redevelopment activities. The Committee 
has denied this request for a variety of reasons.
    First, the project may not be able to meet all the 
requirements for its Transportation Infrastructure Financing 
and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loan before the loan expires in 
September 2001. In September 1999, the Department of 
Transportation executed a TIFIA loan agreement for $140,000,000 
with the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC). 
The TIFIA loan agreement contains a number of funding 
requirements including: (1) the submission to the Department of 
a credit rating agency letter identifying the senior debt of 
the project as investment grade; (2) evidence that the senior 
debt has been issued; (3) a detailed plan of finance; (4) 
executed leases with the Port Authority of New York and New 
Jersey, Amtrak, and the U.S. Postal Service; (5) and executed 
developer and operating agreements and grant agreements, all in 
a form satisfactory to DOT. Until these agreements and funding 
requirements are met, there will be no TIFIA loan 
disbursements.
    As of May 2001, a number of significant actions are still 
required by PSRC. Not all of the project funding has been 
secured. Specifically, the Metropolitan Transportation 
Authority grant agreement for $35,000,000 has yet to be 
executed and the Urban Development Corporation senior bond 
funding for up to $155,000,000 still must be issued. PSRC has 
not completed negotiations of leases with the Port Authority of 
New York and New Jersey, Amtrak, or the U.S. Postal Service. 
Finally, the bond rating, plan of finance, and pre-construction 
work have not yet been completed. PSRC does not anticipate this 
work being completed until, at least, the fall of 2001, after 
the TIFIA loan expires.
    Second, PSRC has had a very ambitious development and 
construction schedule, which the corporation has been unable to 
meet. For example, PSRC anticipated early award of contracts to 
develop, build, operate, and maintain the facility. This 
approach did not generate sufficient interest from the 
construction community. As a result, PSRC had to pursue an 
alternative strategy of using a single developer, which has 
further delayed the project by at least one year. Opening is 
not scheduled until 2006.
    Lastly, costs for the Pennsylvania station redevelopment 
project continue to grow. At this time last year, the project 
was estimated to cost $788,000,000 to complete. Now the project 
is estimated to cost $815,000,000. When the Committee first 
began investing in this project, the total project was 
estimated to cost $315,000,000. Significant scope changes have 
led to a $500,000,000 cost increase over the past six years.
    Until PSRC is able to meet the criteria required by the 
TIFIA loan, gets firm control over the schedule slippage and 
cost growth, the Committee cannot continue supporting this 
project with additional appropriations.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $25,100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        25,100,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,100,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $55,220 in across-the-board reductions.

    The next generation high-speed rail program funds the 
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed 
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the 
program authorized in TEA-21.
    The Committee recommends $25,100,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program, which is the amount 
requested. Total program funding is allocated as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Committee
                                                            2001 enacted       2002 request      recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems..................................        $11,000,000        $11,000,000        $11,000,000
    Illinois project...................................        (7,000,000)        (7,000,000)        (7,000,000)
    Michigan project...................................        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)
    Digital radio network vehicle tracking system......          (500,000)  .................  .................
    Transportation safety research alliance............          (500,000)  .................  .................
    Train control--TTC.................................  .................        (1,000,000)        (1,000,000)
Non-electric locomotives...............................          6,800,000          6,800,000          6,800,000
    ALPS...............................................        (3,800,000)        (3,800,000)        (3,800,000)
    Prototype locomotive...............................        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)        (3,000,000)
Grade crossings & Innovative technologies..............          4,300,000          4,300,000          4,300,000
    N.C. sealed corridor...............................          (700,000)          (700,000)          (700,000)
    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...................................          1,300,000          1,300,000          1,300,000
Corridor planning......................................          1,700,000          1,700,000          1,700,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................         25,100,000         25,100,000         25,100,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.--Under section 
1103 of TEA-21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is 
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing 
hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for 
these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,800,000 shall be used 
to mitigate grade crossings hazards between Mobile, Alabama and 
New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,750,000 shall be used to mitigate 
grade crossing hazards between Stuyvesant and Rennselaer, New 
York; $1,000,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing 
hazards along the high-speed rail corridor in Richland County, 
South Carolina; $250,000 shall be used to mitigate grade 
crossing hazards between Richmond and Centralia, Virginia; 
$200,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards in 
Van Nuys, California; and $250,000 shall be used on the high-
speed rail corridor between Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota and 
Chicago, Illinois.
    Corridor planning.--Of the $1,700,000 provided for corridor 
planning activities, FRA shall provide $600,000 for corridor 
planning activities along the Gulf Coast corridor between 
Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana and $50,000 for 
corridor planning activities along the Southeast corridor 
between Richmond, Virginia and the North Carolina border.

     Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................      $521,476,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................       521,476,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       521,476,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $1,147,247 in across-the-board reductions.

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

                            Status of Amtrak

    In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and 
Accountability Act, which among other things, sought to improve 
Amtrak's financial performance by setting a specific time frame 
for Amtrak to become operationally self-sufficient. The 
deadline of December 2, 2002, gives Amtrak about one and a half 
years to eliminate its operating budget shortfall and become 
self-sufficient. It is a daunting challenge, but one that the 
Committee expects Amtrak to meet.
    Four years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some 
savings, but it still has a long way to go. Amtrak has 
developed and modified a business plan that gradually reduces 
the railroad's need for federal operating assistance; however, 
this plan isn't coming close to meeting its goals. For example, 
in 2000, Amtrak planned to reduce the ``budget gap'' (the gap 
between revenues and expenses that Amtrak must close to obtain 
operational self-sufficiency) by $114,000,000, yet the 
corporation only closed the gap by $5,000,000. Similarly, 
Amtrak estimated that it would earn $260,000,000 from its mail 
and express services; however, actual revenues were less than 
half that contained in the plan ($122,000,000). Also, the plan 
anticipated $180,000,000 in revenues from new high-speed rail 
service, but the onset of this service was delayed by over one 
year, resulting in an $83,000,000 loss in ticket revenues. 
Finally, in one year alone (1999 to 2000), Amtrak's long-term 
debt and lease obligations grew by $1 billion. Amtrak stayed on 
its business plan (``glidepath'') by drawing down on cash, 
selling assets, and by increasing its borrowings. It appears 
that Amtrak is furiously treading water, instead of learning 
how to swim on its own.
    For the past few years, Amtrak has been overly optimistic 
about its ability to meet the self-sufficiency deadline. The 
railroad has repeatedly testified that it will be able to meet 
the self-sufficiency goal mandated by the Amtrak Reform Act, 
and has stated that it can do so one year ahead of schedule. 
However, at this year's hearing, Amtrak testified that meeting 
the operational self-sufficiency deadline would be a difficult 
task, but one that the railroad was still planning to meet. In 
comparison, the General Accounting Office and the Inspector 
General have been increasingly pessimistic about Amtrak's 
ability to reach operational self-sufficiency. Earlier this 
year, the Inspector General testified that Amtrak's ability to 
reach operational self-sufficiency was in jeopardy because 
increased revenues have not kept ahead of growing expenses.
    While it is still too early to say definitively whether or 
not Amtrak will achieve operating self-sufficiency by December 
2, 2002, the railroad's ability to meet this mandate depends 
heavily on success in three areas: the implementation of high-
speed rail along the Northeast Corridor; higher mail and 
express revenues; and significantly reducing the corporations 
recurring expenses.
    First, Amtrak must fully implement high-speed rail in the 
Northeast Corridor. This remains an elusive challenge, as the 
program has been repeatedly delayed. Currently only 3 of the 20 
Acela Express trainsets have been put into revenue service, and 
Amtrak has only accepted 8 of the 15 high-speed locomotives for 
its Acela regional service. In February, Amtrak was informed 
that it would not receive delivery of all the trainsets until 
the end of 2001, instead of September 2001 as predicted. This 
additional three-month delay will cost Amtrak about $40,000,000 
in revenue that it was planning to use to help reach 
operational self-sufficiency.
    Second, Amtrak must fully ramp up its mail and express 
business. In its 2001 business plan, Amtrak projected total 
revenues from mail and express to exceed $400,000,000 in 2003. 
To accomplish this, Amtrak will have to more than triple the 
business volume it achieved in 2000. Amtrak currently does not 
have the equipment or shipping contracts in place to generate 
that level of business. Another major obstacle is getting 
approval from the freight railroads for the level of services 
Amtrak proposes. Amtrak has been in negotiations for years with 
the freight railroads to move more mail and express cars over 
freight-owned lines. So far, Amtrak has not had much success in 
obtaining the necessary agreements. These agreements are 
essential for Amtrak to grow its mail and express business to 
the levels projected in its business plan.
    Third, Amtrak must reduce its business expenses 
substantially. Amtrak's cash operating expenses grew by 8.6 
percent in 2000 and by 11.7 percent for the first four months 
of 2001. Yet Amtrak's business plan projects annual growth in 
cash operating expenses between 2000 and 2003 of only about 6 
percent. Funds for needed capital are being increasingly 
diverted to pay long-term debts, not improving the long-term 
health of the Corporation, and are adding to the recurring lose 
base. For example, in 1996, Amtrak's total debt service payment 
was approximately $60,000,000. For 2001, Amtrak anticipates a 
debt service payment (principal and interest) of $186,000,000. 
By 2005, Amtrak is projecting a total debt service payment of 
$277,000,000. This payment may be underestimated, as Amtrak is 
in the process of refinancing Pennsylvania Station in New York 
City, so that the Corporation has sufficient revenue (about 
$300,000,000) to operate for the remainder of 2001. Restricting 
expense growth will be exceedingly difficult to do in view of 
Amtrak's plans to expand passenger services and its mail and 
express business as well as to refinance key assets.
    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 estimated that 
approximately $12.5 billion 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. Further, Amtrak 
will need to undertake significant fire and life safety repairs 
to the six river tunnels leading into Pennsylvania Station. The 
cost of this work, to be shared among Amtrak, Long Island Rail 
Road, and New Jersey Transit, is estimated at $655,000,000 if 
the work is done over a 15-year period, or $898,000,000 if the 
work is to be completed by 2008. Finally, Amtrak may incur 
sizable capital expenses if it expands high-speed rail 
operations to other locations throughout the United States.
    Amtrak's current business plan states that the railroad 
will need about $1.5 billion per year to ensure the current 
level of service on the national network and to expand the U.S. 
passenger rail system. At the moment, Amtrak is hoping that the 
majority of this funding will be provided through new bonding 
authority. Under a bill currently introduced in the Senate, 
Amtrak would be able to sell $12 billion in high-speed rail 
bonds over the next 10 years. The funds would be invested in 
designated corridors: (1) to upgrade routes to high-speed rail; 
(2) to construct dedicated high-speed rail tracks; and (3) to 
purchase high-speed rail equipment. States must match 20 
percent of the funds. The matching requirement is designed to 
ensure that Amtrak works in partnership with the states and 
invests these funds in only the most economically viable 
projects. If this bill is not enacted into law, Amtrak may seek 
up to $1.5 billion in annual appropriations. Based upon 
history, this is well above any realistic funding level for the 
appropriations process to sustain.

                        committee recommendation

    The budget request sought $521,476,000 in capital funds and 
continued authority to use the capital appropriations for 
preventive maintenance. This is the fifth, and final, 
installment of a five-year, $5 billion plan to re-energize and 
recapitalize Amtrak. In addition, the budget requests that 
Amtrak be able to use all of the federal funding immediately 
rather than being held to a 40 percent spend out rate in the 
first year. The Committee is fully funding this request, 
without a limitation on obligations.
    Maintenance activities.--The Committee expects that Amtrak 
shall not use its capital grants after 2002 for maintenance of 
way, facilities, and equipment. Beginning in 2003, the Amtrak 
Reform and Accountability Act required the railroad to be 
operationally self-sufficient. At that point, Amtrak must cover 
all of its operating expenses, except for excess railroad 
retirement payments, from non-federal sources, and federal 
capital grants must no longer be used for operating purposes, 
according to current law. While the Committee has to this 
point, given Amtrak maximum flexibility in defining a 
``capital'' expense, after fiscal year 2002 the Committee will 
insist that any capital appropriation be reserved for more 
traditional and narrowly defined capital needs.
    Alliance, OH Station relocation/construction.--Amtrak 
currently utilizes a rail platform in Alliance, Ohio to provide 
service for the Pennsylvania and Capitol Limited trains with 
additional service planned for the future. The current platform 
does not adequately meet the needs of the community and its 
location adversely impacts freight operations. In conjunction 
with the city of Alliance, Amtrak has developed a plan to 
improve accessibility, visibility, safety and information. This 
work is not currently included within Amtrak's capital plan; 
however, Amtrak has funding set-aside for leveraging state and 
local partnerships. Amtrak is strongly encouraged to consider 
funding relocation and construction for the Alliance, Ohio 
station when selecting projects for state and local 
partnerships in fiscal year 2002.
    General provision.--The Committee has continued language 
(sec. 336) that authorizes Amtrak to obtain motor pool services 
from the General Services Administration until Amtrak operates 
without a federal operating grant. The Committee anticipates 
that this will be the last year that this language is necessary 
as Amtrak is required to be operationally self-sufficient by 
December 2, 2002.

                         Amtrak Reform Council

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................          $750,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \2\..................           785,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           785,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................           +35,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes $2,000 in across-the-board reductions.
\2\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent entity. Funding for the
  Council is provided through a general provision (Sec. 326), and is not
  part of FRA's budget. Funding is presented here only for display
  purposes.

    The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 
established the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC). The Council 
consists of 11 members who are tasked with evaluating Amtrak's 
performance annually and reporting their recommendations to 
Congress and Amtrak on ways the railroad can contain costs, 
improve productivity, and implement financial reforms. In 
addition, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 1999 expanded the Council's statutory 
responsibilities to include recommendations on any routes or 
services that Amtrak's data indicate should be closed or 
realigned.
    As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary council. By 
the end of fiscal year 2002, the Council must make a 
determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial 
goals outlined in the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act. If 
the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they must submit 
a restructuring plan to Congress, and Amtrak must submit a 
liquidation plan.
    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $785,000 for 
the Amtrak Reform Council, which is the same level as 
requested. This funding is provided through a general provision 
(sec. 326) and is only shown here for display purposes.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

                  Summary of Fiscal Year 2002 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 (TEA-21). TEA-21 
also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two 
additional discretionary spending categories, the highway 
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit 
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit 
capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative 
expenses, transit planning and research and university 
transportation center funding. The mass transit category 
obligations are capped at $6,747,000,000 and outlays are capped 
at $5,664,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Any additional 
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed 
for each transit program in TEA-21 (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary 
category.
    The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2002 is 
$6,747,000,000, including $1,349,300,000 in direct 
appropriations and $5,397,800,000 in limitations on contract 
authority. The total recommended is $476,000,000 over the 
fiscal year 2001 enacted level, and the same level as 
guaranteed in TEA-21. The following table summarizes the fiscal 
year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 2002 budget request, 
and the fiscal year 2002 program levels:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Recommended  in
                        Program                             2001 enacted       2002 request         the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses \1\............................        $64,000,000        $67,000,000        $67,000,000
Formula grants \2\.....................................      3,345,000,000      3,592,000,000      3,592,000,000
University transportation research.....................          6,000,000          6,000,000          6,000,000
Transit planning and research..........................        110,000,000        116,000,000        116,000,000
Capital investment grants \3\..........................      2,646,000,000      2,841,000,000      2,841,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants..................        100,000,000        125,000,000        125,000,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................      6,271,000,000      6,747,000,000     6,747,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect rescission totaling $13,803,900 from section 1403 of P.L. 106-554 and $1,646,816,709 in
  potential FHWA flex funding.
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 does not reflect transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital investment grants
  and $1,000,000 from formula grants transferred to the Office of the Inspector General.
\3\ Excludes $4,500,000 in direct appropriations pursuant to sections 1005, 1007, and 1123 of P.L. 106-554.

                        Administrative Expenses

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.       $12,800,000     ($51,200,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....        13,400,000      (53,600,000)
Recommended in the bill.............        13,400,000      (53,600,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.          +600,000      (+2,400,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $140,800 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    The bill provides a total appropriation of $67,000,000 for 
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $3,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and the same level as 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
transit funding category. The recommendation of $67,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $13,400,000 from the general 
fund and $53,600,000 from limitations on obligations from the 
mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has 
approved the 10 new positions requested; however, funding has 
been reduced for these positions by $431,000. This reduction 
reflects half-year funding for these new positions, which is 
consistent with staffing requests in other modal 
administrations. Also, the Committee is aware of FTA's high 
attrition rate (7.6 percent) and 32 vacancies currently within 
the administration. It is likely to take a substantial amount 
of time to fill these vacancies, which may delay filling the 
ten new positions until well into fiscal year 2002.
    Pay raise.--The Committee has provided $344,000 for a 4.6 
percent pay raise instead of the 3.6 percent raise reflected in 
the budget.
    Operation Lifesaver.--Within the amounts provided to FTA, 
$225,000 shall be provided to Operation Lifesaver for grade 
crossing safety and trespasser prevention activities. With the 
growth in commuter rail and light rail activities across the 
United States and the increase in deaths attributable to these 
types of operations, the Committee believes that Operation 
Lifesaver should no longer be funded exclusively by the Federal 
Railroad Administration and the Federal Highway Administration. 
All modal administrations within DOT that have a stake in 
preventing grade crossing accidents and fatalities should 
contribute to this worthy organization.
    Project management oversight activities.--The Committee 
directs that funding made available for the project management 
oversight function, section 23, shall include at least 
$28,564,000 for project management oversight reviews and 
$4,600,000 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 TEA-21 before entering into full funding grant 
agreements and to identify critical engineering risks, funding 
deficiencies or inadequate financing plans before 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. A recent example 
is Seattle's light rail project, where an FFGA was approved in 
January 2001, yet funding for this project was denied in this 
year's budget request (FY 2002) because of serious cost 
overruns, schedule delays, and community dissatisfaction. The 
Committee expects the FTA to continue to submit to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General 
and the General Accounting Office the quarterly FMO and PMO 
reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    The Committee has included bill language that requires FTA 
to reimburse the Department of Transportation Office of 
Inspector General for $2,000,000 in costs associated with 
audits and investigations of transit related issues, including 
reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This reimbursement must 
come from funds available for the execution of contracts. Over 
the past several years, the IG has provided critical oversight 
of several major transit projects, which the Committee has 
found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that the Inspector 
General will continue such oversight activities in fiscal year 
2002.
    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended, 
requires that the FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation 
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking 60 days 
before executing a full funding grant agreement. In its 
notification to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, the conferees direct the FTA to include therein 
the following: (1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant 
agreement; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations 
required for that project; (3) yearly and total federal 
appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated 
for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; (4) a 
detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and 
anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization; and (5) a 
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability 
to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner 
and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost 
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all 
public- and private-sector financial instruments, the project's 
operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue 
and ridership forecasts, and planned contingencies and risks 
associated with the project.
    The conferees also direct the FTA to inform the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations before approving scope 
changes in any full funding grant agreement. Correspondence 
relating to scope changes shall include any budget revisions or 
program changes that materially alter the project as originally 
stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, and shall 
include any proposed change in rail car procurements.

                             Formula Grants

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.      $669,000,000  ($2,676,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....       718,400,000   (2,873,600,000)
Recommended in the bill.............       718,400,000   (2,873,600,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.       +49,400,000    (+197,600,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $7,246,800 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554 and a transfer of $1,000,000 to the Office of Inspector
  General.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,592,000,000 
for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above 
the 2001 enacted level of $3,345,000,000 and is guaranteed 
under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $3,592,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $718,400,000 from the general 
fund and $2,873,600,000 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 $3,592,000,000, the 
Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307)...........................  $3,199,959,806
Oversight...............................................      17,202,976
Clean fuels (sec. 5308).................................      50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      84,604,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).........................     223,432,467
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.................       6,950,000
Alaska Railroad.........................................       4,849,950
Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program...............       5,000,000

    Section 3007 of TEA-21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized 
formula grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these 
funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision 
allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized 
areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these 
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance 
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and 
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All 
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are 
statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula 
grants on enhancements, which can include landscaping, public 
art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
    Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design.--The accompanying bill provides 
appreciable increases in formula funds allocated to transit 
authorities. These funds can be used, among other activities, 
for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and 
design (PE&D) of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee 
asserts that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or 
busways should use these funds for alternatives analysis and 
PE&D activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary 
set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when 
evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, 
to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have 
used the appreciable increases in the formula grants 
apportionments for alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 requires that $50,000,000 be 
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants 
program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels 
program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the 
major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for 
the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible 
recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality 
attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated 
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the 
bus program of the capital investment grants account.
    Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has 
provided $6,950,000 in fiscal year 2002 for the over-the-road 
accessibility program. This program is designed to assist 
operator of over-the-road buses to finance the incremental 
capital and training costs of complying with the department's 
final rule on accessibility required by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act. Of this total, $5,200,000 shall be available 
for operators of over-the-road buses in intercity fixed route 
service. In addition, $1,700,000 shall be available for 
operators for other over-the-road bus service, including local 
commuter service and charter or tour service.
    Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program.--The Committee 
recommends that $5,000,000 be set-aside from the formula grants 
program to fund the Salt Lake City Olympic loaned bus program. 
Funds are to be allocated to the Utah Department of 
Transportation and are to 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 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.
    The following table displays the state-by-state 
distribution of the formula funds within each of the program 
categories:

                   University Transportation Research

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.        $1,200,000      ($4,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....         1,200,000       (4,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.............         1,200,000       (4,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.  ................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $13,200 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    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 2001. This appropriation 
is guaranteed under the transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of 
an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and 
$4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.

                     Transit Planning and Research

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\.       $22,200,000     ($87,800,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....        23,000,000      (93,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.............        23,000,000      (93,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.          +800,000      (+5,200,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002  ................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $242,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $116,000,000 for 
transit planning and research. The recommendation is $6,000,000 
more than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the same level as in 
the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the 
transit funding category.
    The recommended program level of $116,000,000 is comprised
of an appropriation of $23,000,000 from the general fund and 
$93,000,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.
    The bill contains language specifying that $55,422,400 
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $11,577,600 shall 
be available for state planning; $31,500,000 shall be available 
for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be 
available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be 
available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000 
shall be available for rural transportation assistance.
    TEA-21 earmarks the following projects within the funds 
provided for the national program in fiscal year 2002:

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

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

CALSTART/WESTART (including BRT evaluation).............      $3,500,000
Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute.........         500,000
Electric Vehicle Institute, Tennessee...................         500,000
Hennepin County community transportation, Minnesota.....       1,000,000
University of South Florida, rapid bus initiative.......         250,000
Southeast Michigan transportation feasibility study.....         500,000
Long Island, New York City links study..................         250,000
Crystal City-Potomac yard transit alternatives analysis.         250,000

    The following reductions were made to the budget request 
for national planning and research program:

Deny funding for Garrett Morgan program.................       -$200,000
Hold international mass transportation to fiscal year 
    2001 level..........................................        -200,000

    Joblinks.--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for 
Joblinks, as requested.

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses

                (liquidation of contract authorization)

                          (highway trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.....................    ($5,016,600,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002....................     (5,397,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.............................     (5,397,800,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.................      (+381,200,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002................                (--)

    For fiscal year 2002, the Committee has provided 
$5,397,800,000 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 TEA-21.

                       Capital Investment Grants

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001         $529,200,000    ($2,116,800,000)
 \1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2002         568,200,000     (2,272,800,000)
Recommended in the bill.........         568,200,000     (2,272,800,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year           +39,000,000        +156,000,000
 2001...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year   ..................  ..................
 2002...........................

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $5,941,100 pursuant to section 1403
  of P.L. 106-554 or $4,500,000 in direct appropriations pursuant to
  sections 1105, 1107, and 1123 of P.L. 106-554.

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $2,841,000,000 to 
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation 
is $195,000,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2001 and the 
same level as the budget request. This appropriation is 
guaranteed under the transit category.
    The recommended program level of $2,841,000,000 is 
comprised of an appropriation of $568,200,000 from the general 
fund and $2,272,800,000 from limitations on obligations from 
the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
    Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be 
distributed as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Recommended  in
                                                         2001 enacted        2002 request          the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway modernization........................      $1,058,400,000      $1,136,400,000      $1,136,400,000
New starts..........................................       1,058,400,000       1,136,400,000       1,136,400,000
Bus and bus facilities..............................         529,200,000         568,200,000         568,200,000
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
      Total.........................................       2,646,000,000       2,841,000,000       2,841,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--The 
Committee has included bill language that permits the 
administrator to reallocate discretionary new start and buses 
and bus facilities funds from projects which remain unobligated 
after three years. Funds made available in the fiscal year 1999 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act and previous Acts are available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 2002 as availability for these 
discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee 
directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous 
appropriations that remain available after three years and are 
available for reallocation to only those new starts that have 
full funding grant agreements in place on the date of enactment 
of this Act, and with respect to bus and bus facilities, only 
to those bus and bus facilities projects identified in the 
accompanying reports of the fiscal year 2002 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 1999 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or 
previous Acts for the following new start projects:

Riverside County--San Jacinto, CA branch line project.          $496,280
Savannah, GA water taxi...............................           496,280

    The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA 
information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2001 or soon thereafter.
    In addition, the Committee directs the FTA not to 
reallocate funds provided in the fiscal year 1999 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or 
previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities 
projects:

Buffalo Auditorium International Center...............        $3,473,750
Cotati/Santa Rosa Intermodal Facility.................           750,000
Cotati/Santa Rosa/Rohnert Park Intermodal Facilities..           744,375
Fayette County, PA buses..............................           225,475
Red Rose, PA transit bus terminal.....................           992,500
Somerset County, PA bus facilities and buses..........           173,668
Ulster County, NY bus facilities and equipment........           992,500

    For those projects where Congress extends the availability 
of funds that remain unobligated after three years and would 
otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of 
the administrator, such funds are extended only for one 
additional year, absent further congressional direction.

                        BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

    The accompanying bill provides $568,200,000 for bus 
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and 
intermodal facilities. Bus systems are expected to play a vital 
role in the mass transportation systems of virtually all 
cities. FTA estimates that 95 percent of the areas that provide 
mass transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60 
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.
    TEA-21 requires that funding of $100,000,000 be made 
available for a new clean fuels grant program. This funding is 
derived from $50,000,000 from the formula grants account and 
$50,000,000 from funds allocated for buses under this account. 
Designated recipients of the clean fuels grant program--funding 
for which is derived in part from the formula grants program--
are identified in the lists below (to the extent funding is 
allocated for the purchase of eligible alternative-fuel 
vehicles, related facilities and other eligible activities).
    Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be 
supplemented with $24,312,304 from projects included in 
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these 
funds may not be needed due to changing local circumstances or 
are in excess of the project requirements. The following 
unexpended sums from previous appropriations Acts are 
reallocated:

North Slope Borough, AK buses...........................        $496,250
Birmingham--Jefferson County, AL buses..................         899,853
Pritchard, AL bus and bus facilities....................         496,250
Ukiah, CA Transit Center................................         496,250
Denver, CO, Stapleton intermodal center.................       1,240,625
Washington, D.C. intermodal transportation center.......       2,481,250
Gary, IN transit consortium buses.......................         310,157
Jefferson Parish, LA buses and bus-related facilities...         347,375
Louisiana state infrastructure bank transit account.....         347,375
Albuquerque, NM buses, paratransit, and bus facility....       3,721,875
Northern NM park and ride facilities....................       1,985,000
Minneola/Hicksville, NY Long Island railroad intermodal 
    centers.............................................       1,240,625
Rome, NY intermodal center..............................         397,000
Lane County, OR bus rapid transit.......................       4,367,000
Wilkes-Barre, PA intermodal facility....................       2,706,419
Chambersburg, PA transit authority buses................         297,750
Chambersburg, PA transit authority intermodal center....         992,500
Towamencin township, PA intermodal bus transportation 
    center..............................................       1,488,750

    Fuel cell bus program.--The Committee directs that none of 
the funds available under this heading shall be available for 
section 3015(b) of TEA-21 for the fuel cell bus and bus 
facilities program. The Committee is aware of several private 
manufacturers that are in the process of producing fuel cell 
buses, including one that will be on the commercial market by 
2004. Furthermore, the Committee is aware of no transit 
agencies that have expressed an interest in procuring the fuel 
cell bus technology being developed by Georgetown University. 
Consequently, the Committee believes that continuing this 
federal investment is not a wise use of taxpayer money.
    King County Metro.--Funds contained in the fiscal year 2001 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act for the King County Metro Eastgate park and 
ride facility shall also be made available for the Issaquah 
Highlands park and ride facility.
    Lowell, Massachusetts transit hub.--Funds contained in the 
fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act under ``Bus and bus facilities'' 
for the Lowell transit hub shall also be made available for the 
Hale Street bus maintenance/operations center.
    Municipal Transit Operators Coalition, CA.--Funds contained 
in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act under ``Bus and bus 
facilities'' for the Municipal Transit Operators Coalition 
buses shall also be made available for bus facilities.
    Bill language on bus formula proposal.--The Committee has 
denied bill language that would allocate funding to states for 
bus and bus facilities by formula. In the past, formula 
programs have largely benefited older, urban cities and two 
states in particular, New York and California. Based on the 
formula developed by the department for bus and bus facilities, 
this inequity remains intact. The Committee cannot agree to a 
proposal that disproportionately favors older, urban cities and 
a few states at the expense of all other needy communities.
    The Committee recommendation assumes the following 
distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

State of Alabama:
    Gadsden Transportation Services.....................        $250,000
    Huntsville Intermodal Transit Facility..............       1,000,000
    Mobile Waterfront Terminal..........................       5,000,000
    Montgomery Union Station/Molston St. intermodal 
      facility and parking..............................       3,000,000
    University of South Alabama.........................       2,500,000
State of Alaska:
    City of Wasilla bus facility........................       1,200,000
    Mat-su Community Transit buses and facilities.......       2,800,000
    Seward transit terminal facility and trolley........         200,000
State of Arkansas:
    State of Arkansas bus and bus facilities............       3,000,000
State of Arizona:
    City of Glendale buses..............................         300,000
    RPTA of Phoenix alternatively fueled buses and 
      facilities........................................       6,000,000
    Sun Tran CNG replacement buses......................       3,500,000
    Tucson Intermodal Center............................       3,600,000
State of California:
    Anaheim Resort Transit Project......................       1,000,000
    Antelope Valley Transit Authority bus facilities....       1,000,000
    Belle Vista park and ride...........................         500,000
    Boyle Heights bus facility..........................         700,000
    City of Burbank shuttle buses.......................         900,000
    City of Calabasas CNG smart shuttle.................         500,000
    City of Carpinteria electric-gasoline hybrid bus....         750,000
    Chinatown Intermodal Transportation Center..........       3,500,000
    City of Commerce CNG bus and bus facilities.........       2,000,000
    City of Fresno buses................................       1,500,000
    City of Monrovia natural gas vehicle fueling 
      facility..........................................         270,000
    City of Sierra Madre bus replacement................         150,000
    City of Visalia transit center......................       5,000,000
    County of Amador bus replacement....................         119,000
    County of Calaveras bus fleet replacement...........         105,000
    County of El Dorado bus fleet expansion.............         672,000
    Davis, Sacramento hydrogen bus technology...........       1,800,000
    El Garces train/intermodal station..................       3,000,000
    Foothill Transit, CNG bus and bus facilities........       2,000,000
    Glendale Beeline CNG buses..........................         700,000
    Imperial Valley CNG bus maintenance facility........         500,000
    Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus 
      facility; park and ride...........................       1,500,000
    Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority 
      buses.............................................       3,350,000
    Merced County Transit CNG buses.....................         750,000
    City of Modesto, bus facilities.....................         250,000
    Monterey-Salinas Transit buses and bus facility.....       3,000,000
    Morongo Basin Transit maintenance and administration 
      facility..........................................       1,000,000
    MUNI Central Control Facility.......................       2,000,000
    Municipal Transit Operators Coalition...............       4,000,000
    North Ukiah Transit Center..........................         600,000
    Pasadena Area Rapid Transit System..................       1,100,000
    Placer County, CNG bus project......................       1,500,000
    Sacramento Regional bus and bus facilities..........       2,000,000
    San Bernardino CNG/LNG buses........................         750,000
    San Francisco MUNI CNG bus and facilities...........       2,250,000
    San Mateo County Transit Districts clean fuel buses.       3,000,000
    Sam Trans zero-emissions fuel cell buses............       2,000,000
    San Dieguito Transportation Cooperative.............         500,000
    Santa Ana bus base..................................       2,500,000
    Santa Barbara Hybrid Bus rapid transit project......       4,000,000
    Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority clean 
      fuel bus program..................................         500,000
    Santa Fe Springs CNG bus replacement................         500,000
    Sierra Madre Villa intermodal transportation center.         750,000
    Solana Beach intermodal transit station.............       1,000,000
    Sonoma County landfill gas conversion facility......       1,000,000
    South Pasadena circulator bus.......................         600,000
    Sun Line Transit hydrogen refueling station.........       1,000,000
    Transportation Hub at the Village of Indian Hills...       3,000,000
    Yolo County, CNG buses..............................       2,000,000
State of Colorado:
    Colorado Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities...       7,000,000
State of Connecticut:
    Bridgeport intermodal transportation center.........       5,000,000
    East Haddam transit vehicles........................         420,000
    Greater New Haven Transit District CNG vehicle 
      project...........................................       1,134,000
    New Haven bus facility..............................       1,000,000
District of Columbia:
    WMATA buses.........................................       8,000,000
State of Delaware:
    Delaware Transit Corporation buses..................       1,600,000
    Wrangle Hill buses and maintenance facility.........       2,000,000
State of Florida:
    Broward County Alternative Vehicle Mass Transit bus 
      and bus facilities................................       3,000,000
    DeLand intermodal center............................       2,000,000
    Duval County/JTA community transportation 
      coordinator program, paratransit vehicles and 
      equipment.........................................       2,000,000
    Gainesville Regional Transit System, buses..........       1,000,000
    Hillsborough Area Regional Transit buses............       1,500,000
    Jacksonville Transit Authority buses................       1,500,000
    LYNX bus & bus facilities...........................       2,400,000
    Miami Beach, electrowave shuttle service............       5,000,000
    Miami-Dade bus fleet................................       4,000,000
    Northeast Miami-Dade passenger center...............         750,000
    Palm Tran buses.....................................       1,000,000
    Pinellas Suncoast Transit buses, trolleys, and 
      information technology............................       5,500,000
    South Miami intermodal pedestrian access project....       2,000,000
    Tallahassee bus facilities..........................         400,000
    TALTRAN intermodal center...........................       1,200,000
    Tri-Rail Cypress Creek intermodal facilities........       1,000,000
    VOTRAN buses........................................       3,500,000
    Winter Haven Area Transit bus and bus facilities....       3,000,000
State of Georgia:
    Chatham Area Transit bus and bus facilities.........       4,600,000
    Cobb County Community Transit bus facilities........       2,200,000
    Georgia Department of Transportation replacement 
      buses.............................................       2,000,000
    Georgia Regional Transit Authority buses and bus 
      facilities........................................       1,500,000
    Gwinnett County operations and maintenance facility.       1,000,000
    Macon Terminal Station..............................       1,500,000
    Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, clean 
      fuel buses........................................       5,500,000
State of Hawaii:
    Middle Street Transit Center........................       1,500,000
State of Iowa:
    State of Iowa bus and bus facilities................      10,000,000
State of Idaho:
    Idaho Transit Coalition bus and bus facilities......       3,526,000
State of Illinois:
    Illinois Statewide bus and bus facilities...........      23,000,000
State of Indiana:
    Cherry Street Project multi-modal facility..........       1,400,000
    Indiana Transit Consortium bus and bus facilities...       3,800,000
    Indianapolis downtown transit facility..............       1,000,000
    South Bend Public Transportation Corporation buses..       1,000,000
    West Lafayette Transit Project bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       2,100,000
State of Kansas:
    Fort Scott Public Transit bus and bus facilities....         300,000
    Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses.....       2,000,000
    Kansas DOT, buses...................................       3,000,000
    Topeka Quincy Street Station........................         600,000
    Wichita Transit Authority buses.....................       1,760,000
Commonwealth of Kentucky:
    Audubon Area Community Services cutaways............         200,000
    Bluegrass Community Action Services vans............         852,000
    Central Kentucky Community Action Council vans......         272,000
    City of Frankfort Transit Program, buses............          96,000
    City of Maysville buses.............................         136,000
    Community Action Council of Fayette/Lexington Vans..          46,000
    Community Action of Southern Kentucky cutaways......         200,000
    Kentucky Rivers Foothills vans......................         136,000
    Lake Cumberland Community Services vans.............          80,000
    Leslie County parking structure.....................       4,000,000
    Pikeville parking and transit facility..............      10,000,000
    Southern & Eastern Kentucky Transit vehicles........       4,300,000
    Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky buses........       3,000,000
    Transit Authority of River City bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       4,000,000
State of Louisiana:
    Louisiana Public Transit Association bus and bus 
      facilities........................................      13,400,000
Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
    Attleboro intermodal facilities.....................       1,000,000
    Berkshire Regional Transit Authority buses..........       2,000,000
    Brockton intermodal transit center..................       1,000,000
    Gallagher Intermodal Transportation bus hub and CNG
      trolleys..........................................       1,000,000
    Holyoke Pulse Center................................       2,000,000
    Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority 
      (Amesbury) bus and bus facilities.................         500,000
    Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority 
      (Lawrence) bus and bus facilities.................         500,000
    MetroWest bus and bus facilities....................       1,000,000
    Montachusett intermodal facilities and parking in 
      Fitchburg/N. Leominster...........................       5,000,000
    Montachusett Regional Transit Authority bus 
      facilities........................................         100,000
    Salem/Beverly Intermodal Center.....................         500,000
    Union Station Intermodal redevelopment project......       2,000,000
State of Maryland:
    Maryland Statewide bus and bus facilities...........       6,000,000
State of Maine:
    Maine Statewide bus and bus facilities..............       1,000,000
State of Michigan:
    Alger County Public Transit.........................         474,000
    Antrium County Transportation buses.................          86,000
    Barry County Transit buses..........................          74,000
    Bay Area Transit Authority..........................         783,000
    Berrien County Dept. of Planning & Public Works 
      buses.............................................         359,000
    Blue Water Area Transportation Commission bus 
      facilities........................................       3,000,000
    Capital Area Transit Authority bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       1,000,000
    Charlevoix County Public Transit....................         242,000
    City of Niles bus and bus facilities................          42,000
    Crawford County Transportation Authority buses......         358,000
    Delta Co. Transit Authority.........................         138,000
    Detroit Department of Transportation buses..........       7,000,000
    Eastern UP Transportation Authority.................         132,000
    Flint Mass Transportation Authority buses...........         500,000
    Greater Lapeer Transportation Authority bus and bus 
      facilities........................................         791,000
    Harbor Transit bus and bus facilities...............         378,000
    Interurban Transit Authority buses..................          82,000
    Interurban Transit Partnership surface 
      transportation center.............................       4,000,000
    Ionia Area Transportation Dial-a-Ride...............         284,000
    Isabella County facilities and equipment............         227,000
    Kalamazoo County Care-A-Van buses and equipment.....         130,000
    Kalkaska Public Transit buses.......................         506,000
    Livingston Essential Transportation Service buses 
      and
      equipment.........................................         247,000
    Ludington Transit Facility..........................       1,000,000
    Midland County buses................................         628,000
    Milan Public Transit buses..........................         130,800
    Muskegon Area Transit facility......................       1,600,000
    Northern Oakland Transportation Authority...........         173,000
    Otsego County Public Transit........................       1,073,000
    Sault Ste. Marie dial-a-ride........................          88,000
    Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional 
      Transportation buses..............................       4,000,000
    Van Buren County Public Transit buses...............         201,000
State of Minnesota:
    Duluth Transit Authority bus and bus facilities.....       1,000,000
    Grand Rapids/Gilbert bus and bus facilities.........         210,000
    Metro transit bus and bus facilities................      21,000,000
    Moorhead bus and bus facilities.....................         100,000
    Mower County Public Transit Initiative facility.....       1,000,000
    Rush Line Corridor bus and bus facilities...........       1,000,000
    St. Cloud bus and bus facilities....................       2,760,000
State of Missouri:
    Cab Care paratransit facility.......................         500,000
    Kansas City Area Transportation Authority buses.....       1,000,000
    Missouri Pacific Depot..............................         736,000
    Southwest Missouri State University intermodal 
      transfer facility.................................       1,000,000
    Southeast Missouri State, Dunklin, Mississippi, 
      Scott, Stoddard, and Cape Giradeau Counties bus 
      and facilities....................................       3,000,000
    St. Louis Bi-State Development Agency bus 
      replacement.......................................       5,000,000
State of Mississippi:
    Harrison county multimodal center...................       2,000,000
    Jackson Downtown Multi-Modal Transportation Center..       2,000,000
State of Montana
    Montana statewide bus and bus facilities............       2,100,000
State of North Carolina:
    North Carolina bus and bus facilities...............       8,000,000
State of North Dakota:
    NDSU Transit Center for Small Urban Areas...........         662,000
    North Dakota Statewide Capital Transit bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       3,000,000
State of Nevada:
    Las Vegas Boulevard North Corridor BRT, clean 
      diesel-electric buses.............................       3,500,000
    Reno and Sparks intermodal centers..................       2,000,000
    Reno Suburban transit coaches.......................       1,000,000
State of New Hampshire:
    Town of Ossipee multimodal visitor center...........       1,600,000
State of New Jersey:
    Bergen intermodal stations, park and ride and 
      shuttle service...................................       5,000,000
    Middlesex County jitney transit buses...............         500,000
    Trenton Rail Station rehabilitation.................       5,000,000
State of New Mexico:
    Albuquerque buses and paratransit vehicles..........       1,000,000
    Las Cruces transit transfer facility................       2,000,000
    Village of Taos Ski Valley bus and bus facilities...         500,000
    West Side Transit facility..........................       2,000,000
State of New York:
    Binghamton intermodal terminal......................       2,400,000
    Greater Glens Falls Transit bus and bus facilities..         500,000
    Jamaica intermodal facility.........................       1,000,000
    Martin Street Station...............................         650,000
    MTA Long Island buses...............................       4,000,000
    Nassau University Medical Center buses..............       1,000,000
    New Rochelle Intermodal Center......................       1,500,000
    New York City Dept of Transportation, CNG buses and
      facilities........................................       5,000,000
    Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses.....       2,560,000
    Pelham trolley......................................         260,000
    Poughkeepsie intermodal project.....................       2,000,000
    Rochester bus and facilities........................       2,000,000
    Saratoga Springs intermodal station.................       2,500,000
    Station Plaza commuter parking lot..................       1,000,000
    Sullivan County Coordinated Public Transportation 
      Service bus facility..............................       1,000,000
    Tompkins Consolidated Area transit center...........         624,000
    Union Station--Oneida County facilities.............       2,500,000
    Westchester County Bee-Line low emission buses......       3,000,000
State of Ohio:
    Ohio Public Transit Association bus and bus 
      facilities........................................      20,000,000
State of Oklahoma:
    Oklahoma Department of Transportation Transit 
      Program bus and bus facilities....................       6,000,000
State of Oregon:
    Canby Transit buses.................................         250,000
    Clackamas Regional Transit Center...................       1,000,000
    Lincoln County transportation service district bus 
      garage............................................          75,000
    Milwaukee Transit Center............................         350,000
    Rogue Valley Transit District, CNG buses............       1,680,000
    Salem Area Mass Transit, CNG buses..................       2,000,000
    Tillamook County Transportation District bus 
      facilities........................................         720,000
    Wasco County buses..................................         105,000
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:
    Altoona bus facility (TEA-21).......................       3,000,000
    Allentown intermodal transportation center..........       1,000,000
    Area Transit Authority of North Central PA..........       2,000,000
    Berks Area Reading Transportation Authority buses 
      and bus facilities................................       5,600,000
    Bucks County intermodal facility improvements.......       1,500,000
    Butler Township multi-modal transfer center.........       1,000,000
    Callowhill bus garage replacement project...........       2,500,000
    Cambria County operations and maintenance facility..       1,000,000
    Centre Area Transportation Authority CNG buses......       1,600,000
    County of Lackawanna Transit bus facility...........       1,000,000
    Doylestown Area Regional Transit buses..............         100,000
    Endless Mountain Transportation Authority bus and 
      bus
      facilities........................................         350,000
    Fayette County Transit facility.....................       2,000,000
    Indiana County Transit Authority bus facilities.....         900,000
    Lehigh & Northampton Transportation Authority bus 
      facility..........................................       1,000,000
    Luzerne County Transit Authority buses..............         500,000
    Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority buses..............         500,000
    Mid-County Transit Authority bus and bus facilities.         490,000
    Monroe County Transit Authority park and ride.......       1,200,000
    Montgomery County intermodal facility...............       2,000,000
    Port Authority of Allegheny County buses............       2,500,000
    Red Rose transit transfer center....................       1,000,000
    Schuylkill Transportation System buses..............         600,000
    Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority 
      trackless trolleys................................       2,000,000
    Somerset County Transportation System buses.........         250,000
    York County bus replacement.........................       2,400,000
State of Rhode Island:
    Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses and CNG 
      buses.............................................       4,500,000
State of South Carolina:
    South Carolina Statewide bus and bus facilities.....      11,000,000
State of Tennessee:
    Tennessee Statewide bus replacements and bus 
      facilities........................................      12,000,000
State of Texas:
    Abilene bus replacement.............................       1,000,000
    Brownsville multimodal facility study...............         100,000
    Capital Metro park and ride.........................         500,000
    City of Huntsville buses............................         750,000
    Connection Capital Project for Community Transit 
      Facilities........................................         500,000
    Fort Worth Transportation Authority CNG buses.......       2,500,000
    Fort Worth intermodal center park and ride facility.         500,000
    Fort Worth 9th Street Transfer Station..............       1,600,000
    Houston Barker Cypress park and ride................      10,100,000
    Houston Main Street Corridor Master Plan............       1,000,000
    Liberty County buses................................         750,000
    North East Transportation System....................         260,000
    San Antonio VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority buses         750,000
    Sun Metro bus and bus facilities....................       1,000,000
    Texas Tech University park and ride; buses..........       2,000,000
    Waco Transit maintenance and administration facility       2,500,000
    Woodlands District park and ride....................       1,000,000
State of Utah:
    Utah Transit Authority and Park City Transit buses..       2,000,000
    Utah Transit Authority intermodal terminals.........       2,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia:
    Colonial Williamsburg CNG buses.....................       2,000,000
    Greater Richmond Transit Downtown Transit Center....       2,000,000
    Hampton Roads Regional buses........................       1,000,000
    Main Street Multimodal Center.......................       1,000,000
    Potomac & Rappahannock Transportation Commission 
      buses.............................................       3,000,000
    Roanoke Area Dial-A-Ride bus facility...............       2,000,000
Virgin Islands:
    Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) buses...............       1,000,000
State of Vermont:
    State of Vermont bus and bus facilities.............       1,500,000
State of Washington:
    Bellevue Transportation Center......................       3,100,000
    City of Kent, Second Avenue extension...............         900,000
    Clallam Transit buses...............................         440,000
    Everett Transit buses...............................       1,000,000
    Grays Harbor Transit buses..........................         928,000
    I-5 Trade Corridor/99th St. park and ride facility..       1,000,000
    Link Transit, Chelan and Douglas Counties buses.....         336,000
    Mason County Transportation Authority buses.........         385,000
    Pierce Transit CNG buses............................       2,000,000
    Snohomish County Community Transit park and ride....       2,000,000
    Valley Transit CNG buses............................         748,000
State of Wisconsin:
    Wisconsin Area Transit bus and bus facilities.......      21,000,000
State of West Virginia:
    Huntington Tri-State Transit Authority bus facility.       1,500,000
    Morgantown Intermodal parking facility..............       4,000,000
State of Wyoming:
    Southern Teton Area Rapid Transit bus facility......       1,000,000
    Wyoming Department of Transportation bus and bus 
      facilities........................................       1,200,000
Section 5327 oversight..................................       5,682,000

                      FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

    The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 from the 
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail 
transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed, 
consistent with the provisions of TEA-21, as follows:

                            SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Fiscal year--             Change from
                            State                             ----------------------------------   fiscal year
                                                                     2001             2002             2001
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.......................................................  ...............       $7,047,502      +$7,047,502
Arizona......................................................       $1,439,247        1,644,697         +205,450
California...................................................      114,341,490      126,085,672      +11,744,182
Colorado.....................................................        1,495,770        1,685,042         +189,272
Connecticut..................................................       37,684,635       38,882,061       +1,197,426
Delaware.....................................................          800,223          925,702         +125,479
District of Columbia.........................................       48,455,476       56,905,623       +8,450,147
Florida......................................................       14,946,701       17,442,156       +2,495,455
Georgia......................................................       21,119,647       24,732,420       +3,612,773
Hawaii.......................................................          926,871        1,104,095         +177,224
Illinois.....................................................      119,004,248      123,714,778       +4,710,530
Indiana......................................................        8,587,379        9,066,393         +479,014
Louisiana....................................................        2,824,580        2,904,984          +80,404
Maryland.....................................................       24,900,136       27,174,472       +2,274,336
Massachusetts................................................       66,280,739       69,275,018       +2,994,279
Michigan.....................................................          337,140          390,401          +53,261
Minnesota....................................................        3,698,909        4,169,386         +470,477
Missouri.....................................................        3,453,467        4,019,407         +565,940
New Jersey...................................................       89,314,154       92,768,993       +3,454,839
New York.....................................................      334,354,119      350,286,663      +15,932,544
Ohio.........................................................       16,758,504       17,728,816         +970,312
Oregon.......................................................        3,483,792        4,104,767         +620,975
Pennsylvania.................................................      100,278,339      103,484,030       +3,205,691
Puerto Rico..................................................        2,042,249        2,401,851         +359,602
Rhode Island.................................................        1,589,962       1,843,732,         +253,770
Tennessee....................................................          250,065          309,837          +59,772
Texas........................................................        6,972,957        8,110,941       +1,137,984
Virginia.....................................................        5,245,133        6,133,234         +888,101
Washington...................................................       17,162,880       19,883,930       +2,721,050
Wisconsin....................................................          691,930          809,397         +117,467
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total..................................................    1,048,440,742    1,125,036,000       76,595,258
1 percent oversight..........................................        7,920,536       11,364,000       +3,443,464
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total appropriation....................................    1,056,361,278    1,136,400,000      +80,038,722
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               NEW STARTS

    The accompanying bill provides $1,136,400,000 for new 
starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, 
right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and 
construction of new systems and extensions. TEA-21 requires 
that no more than eight percent of the funding provided for new 
starts be available for preliminary engineering and design 
activities. Funds made available in this Act for new starts are 
to be supplemented with $30,151,779 from projects included in 
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these 
funds are not needed due to changing local circumstances or are 
in excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore, 
reallocates the following unexpended sums from previous 
appropriations Acts, the fiscal years of which are noted in 
parentheses:

Birmingham, AL alternatives analysis and preliminary 
    engineering work (1999).............................        $992,550
Orange County, CA transitway project (1999).............       2,481,380
San Diego, CA Mid Coast corridor project (1999).........       1,985,100
Roaring Fork valley, CO project (1998)..................         793,530
North front range, CO corridor feasibility study (1999).         496,280
Hartford, CT bus circulator (1999)......................         888,830
Hartford, CT Old Saybrook project (1999)................         496,280
Baltimore, MD central downtown transit alternatives MIS 
    (1999)..............................................         496,280
Jackson, MS intermodal corridor (1998)..................       2,990,300
Omaha, NE trolley system (1999).........................         992,550
Albuquerque, NM light rail project (1999)...............       2,954,765
Cleveland, OH Berea red line extension to Hopkins 
    airport (1999)......................................         992,550
Harrisburg, PA capital area transit/corridor one project 
    (1999)..............................................         992,550
Philadelphia-Reading, PA SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro 
    (1999)..............................................       2,977,660
Philadelphia, PA SEPTA cross county metro project (1999)         352,550
Nashville, TN regional commuter rail project (1999).....         680,550
Galveston, TX rail trolley extension project (1998).....       1,460,730
Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1998).......       2,883,828
Burlington-Essex, VT commuter rail project (1999).......          25,166
King County, WA Elliot Bay water taxi (1999)............         248,140
Morgantown, WV fixed guideway modernization project 
    (1999)..............................................       3,970,210

    New starts report.--The Committee was displeased with the 
untimely submission of FTA's annual report on new starts 
projects. TEA-21 required this report to be submitted in 
conjunction with the budget, not two months later. Without a 
timely submission of this information the Committee cannot make 
well informed decisions about new starts projects.
    Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before 
passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), which was the precursor to TEA-21, 
there were less than 10 new starts projects that had full 
funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 1993, a total of 41 
FFGAs have been signed or recommended in Presidential budgets. 
Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs. The total capital cost 
for these projects is $18.9 billion and the federal commitment 
is $9 billion.
    The number of potential new starts projects is expanding 
rapidly. As of February 2001, FTA is: (1) tracking over 110 
current transit capital investment planning studies that are 
estimated to cost over $60 billion, if funded to their 
completion; (2) working with 28 projects in the preliminary 
engineering (PE) phase of project development, that have a 
total capital cost of $16.4 billion; and (3) working with 13 
projects in the final design phase of project development, that 
have an estimated capital cost of $3.6 billion. Many of the 
projects in final design and preliminary engineering will be 
seeking an FFGA in the next two years. Currently, federal 
resources are not available to fund even a fraction of these 
projects.
    In fiscal year 2002, of the $1.136 billion guaranteed for 
new starts projects, approximately $990,000,000 is allocated to 
projects that currently have an FFGA. In addition, 
approximately $20,000,000 is reserved for Alaska and Hawaii 
ferries and project management oversight activities (required 
by TEA-21). This leaves approximately $126,000,000 in truly 
discretionary funds that can be allocated to new starts 
projects without FFGAs.
    Since demand has too quickly outstripped available 
resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in 
this area. The Committee recommendation adhers to the following 
guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund every 
project that has a current FFGA at its schedule 6 level unless 
the project was experiencing financial or construction 
problems. Second, the Committee has tried to complete as many 
current FFGA commitments as possible so that additional 
resources will be freed up for fiscal year 2003. Third, because 
of the limited dollars available for final design and 
preliminary engineering activities, no funding has been 
provided for projects currently in the alternatives analysis 
phase. As noted earlier, local project sponsors of new rail 
extensions or busways can use formula funds for alternatives 
analysis activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary 
set-asides. Fourth, for projects in final design or preliminary 
engineering, significant appropriations have been provided for 
those that have a federal share of no more than 60 percent. 
Less funding has been provided for those projects that have a 
federal share above 60 percent. The Committee strongly 
encourages the impacted projects to revisit the amount of local 
funding they plan to contribute and find ways to increase their 
local share. Fifth, the Committee has not made any new 
commitments this year to projects that have not previously 
received section 5309 new starts funding, or for any projects 
that may be eligible for fixed guideway modernization funding.
    While the Committee has funded worthy new starts projects 
under the section 5309 program, communities are strongly 
encouraged to provide higher non-federal financial 
participation to these projects, particularly in the early 
developmental phases. Further, although the maximum federal 
contribution remains at 80 percent, existing demand requires 
that federal dollars be leveraged to a greater extent than 
current projections, for that reason, the Committee is very 
supportive of requiring local sponsors to increase their 
contributions to projects so that the federal share is no 
greater than 60 percent. This would allow a more equitable 
disbursement of federal funds across communities seeking new 
starts funding. The Committee intends to base its future budget 
decisions on whether or not communities have raised their 
financial commitment to cover at least forty percent of a 
project's total capital costs.
    In total, the $1,166,551,779 provided in this Act together 
with, previous appropriations, are to be distributed as 
follows:

                                                                  Amount
Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects.........................     $10,296,000
Atlanta, Georgia, North line extension project..........      25,000,000
Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit double 
    track project.......................................      10,867,000
Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway 
    project.............................................      11,203,169
Charlotte, North Carolina, South corridor light rail 
    transit project.....................................       5,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project      35,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Metra North central corridor commuter 
    project.............................................      23,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Metra South West corridor commuter 
    rail project........................................      19,118,735
Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific West line 
    extension project...................................      20,000,000
Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project....       2,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.       5,000,000
Dallas, Texas, North central light rail transit 
    extension project...................................      70,000,000
Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit 
    project.............................................      60,000,000
Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit 
    project.............................................         192,492
Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project....      25,000,000
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail 
    upgrades project....................................      30,000,000
Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, I-35 
    commuter rail project...............................       3,000,000
Largo, Maryland, metrorail extension project............      60,000,000
Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project...............       1,800,000
Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access 
    project.............................................      10,000,000
Los Angeles, California, East Side corridor light rail 
    transit project.....................................       5,500,000
Los Angeles North Hollywood, California, extension 
    project.............................................      49,686,469
Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter 
    rail extension project..............................       3,000,000
Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project......      12,000,000
Memphis, Tennessee, Medical center rail extension 
    project.............................................      19,170,000
Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension 
    project.............................................       5,000,000
Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter 
    rail project........................................      10,000,000
Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor 
    project.............................................      50,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail 
    project.............................................       4,000,000
Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.........      20,000,000
New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project.......       4,000,000
New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project.....     141,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal Street car line project...      13,800,000
New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar 
    project.............................................       3,100,000
Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension 
    project.............................................      13,000,000
Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/East valley corridor 
    project.............................................      16,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light 
    rail transit project................................       6,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit 
    reconstruction project..............................      20,000,000
Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit 
    extension project...................................      70,000,000
Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail 
    project.............................................       5,600,000
Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project.......      14,000,000
Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension 
    project.............................................         328,810
Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University light rail 
    transit project.....................................      15,000,000
Salt Lake City, Utah, North-South light rail transit 
    project.............................................         718,006
San Diego, California, Mid Coast corridor project.......       2,000,000
San Diego Mission Valley East, California, light rail 
    transit extension project...........................      65,000,000
San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport 
    project.............................................      80,605,331
San Jose, California, Tasman West, light rail transit 
    project.............................................         113,336
San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project..............      40,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri, Metrolink St. Clair extension 
    project.............................................      31,088,422
Stamford, Connecticut, urban transitway project.........       8,000,000
Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton 
    commuter rail project...............................       1,000,000
Section 5327 set-aside..................................      11,364,000

    Atlanta, Georgia, north line extension project.--The 
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is 
constructing a 2.3-mile, 2-station extension of the north line 
from the Dunwoody station to North Springs. This extension will 
serve the rapidly-growing area north of Atlanta, which includes 
Perimeter Center and north Fulton County, and will connect this 
area with the rest of the region by providing better transit 
service for both commuters and inner-city residents traveling 
to expanding job opportunities. On December 20, 1994, FTA 
issued an FFGA committing a total of $305,010,000 in new starts 
funding to this project. In the conference report to the fiscal 
year 2000 appropriations act, FTA was instructed to amend the 
FFGA for this project to incorporate a change in scope as 
authorized under Section 3030(d)(2) of TEA-21. 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. Including the prior years funds, a 
total of $329,590,000 has been appropriated for this project in 
fiscal year 2001 and prior years. This leaves $40,950,000 
million remaining in the amended FFGA for this project. The 
Committee has recommended $25,000,000 in new starts funding for 
this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Baltimore, Maryland, central light rail transit 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 $8,620,000 in section 5309 new starts funds has been 
appropriated for this project through fiscal year 2001. For 
fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $10,867,000. Due to 
the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot 
fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal 
share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly 
encourages Baltimore to revisit the amount of local funding 
they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to 
increase the local share.
    Boston, Massachusetts, South Boston Piers transitway 
project.--The Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) 
is developing an underground transitway to connect the existing 
transit system with the South Boston Piers area. The Piers 
area, which is connected to the central business district (CBD) 
by three local bridges, is undergoing significant development. 
A 1.5-mile tunnel, which is planned to be constructed in two 
phases, will extend from the existing Boylston Station to the 
World Trade Center; five underground stations will provide 
connections to the MBTA's red, orange and green lines. Dual-
mode trackless trolleys will operate in the transitway tunnel 
and on surface routes in the eastern end of the Piers area. 
Phase 1 of this project consists of a 1-mile, three-station bus 
tunnel between South Station and the World Trade Center, with 
an intermediate stop at Fan Pier. Part of the construction is 
being coordinated with the Central Artery highway project. 
South Station serves the existing MBTA red line, as well as 
Amtrak and commuter rail and bus service. The total estimated 
cost of phase I is $601,000,000. Phase II would extend the 
transitway to Boylston Station on the green line and the 
Chinatown Station on the orange line. Section 3035(j) of ISTEA 
directed FTA to enter into an FFGA for this project. On 
November 5, 1994, an FFGA was issued for phase 1, committing a 
total of $330,730,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. 
Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $319,530,000 has been 
provided for this project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee 
has provided $11,203,169, which will fulfill the federal 
commitment to this project.
    Charlotte, North Carolina, south corridor light rail 
transit project.--The Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS), in 
cooperation with the City of Charlotte, is proposing to design 
and construct an 11-mile light rail transit (LRT) line 
extending from Uptown Charlotte to the Town of Pineville, North 
Carolina, near the South Carolina border. The proposed project 
is currently planned to operate within portions of existing 
Norfolk-Southern (NS) railroad rights-of-way (ROW), including 
sharing ROW with the city's existing downtown trolley system. 
The South corridor is an area generally paralleling Interstate 
77 along NS railroad ROW in the City of Charlotte and 
Mecklenburg County. A 3.7-mile portion of the proposed system--
between Uptown and Scaleybark Road--would operate on abandoned 
NS ROW owned by the City of Charlotte. The remainder of the 
planned system (7.3 miles) would operate on separate tracks 
generally paralleling NS ROW. The proposed project also 
includes construction of 19 stations, purchase of up to twelve 
light rail vehicles and the construction of a light rail 
vehicle maintenance and storage facility. The stations at the 
southern terminus of the line would include park-and-ride lots 
and serve as transfer points for local and feeder bus service. 
An additional station will serve as an intermodal transfer 
point for feeder buses, while a station at the Charlotte 
Transportation Center in uptown Charlotte will provide 
connections to the downtown trolley and local bus service. 
Total capital costs for the south corridor project are 
estimated at $331,000,000 million. The federal share is 
estimated to be $166,800,000 (50 percent). Through fiscal year 
2001, Congress has appropriated $12,840,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill 
includes $5,000,000 for this project.
    Chicago, Illinois, Douglas branch reconstruction project.--
The Chicago Transit Authority (CTA) is proposing a complete 
reconstruction of the Douglas Branch heavy rail line. Part of 
CTA's blue line, the 11-station Douglas Branch extends 6.6 
miles from Cermack Avenue to a point just west of downtown 
Chicago. Dating to the 19th century, the oldest segment on the 
line opened in 1896 and the ``newest'' in 1910, though numerous 
improvements and upgrades were made through the mid-1980s. Age-
related deterioration has resulted in high maintenance and 
operating costs on the line, as well as declining service. The 
Douglas Branch is authorized by section 3030(a)(106) of TEA-21. 
The total capital cost of the Douglas branch reconstruction 
project is estimated at $482,600,000. In January 2001, FTA and 
CTA entered into an FFGA that commits a total of $320,100,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. A total of 
$19,780,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2001. 
This leaves $300,320,000 to fulfill the FFGA. The Committee has 
included $35,000,000 for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Metra North Central corridor commuter 
rail.--The North Central corridor extends from downtown Chicago 
to Antioch on the Illinois-Wisconsin border, and traverses 
suburban Lake County. Metra, the commuter rail division of the 
Regional Transportation Authority of northeastern Illinois, is 
seeking to add a second mainline track along 12 miles of the 
53-mile North Central Service commuter rail line. The proposed 
project also includes track and signal upgrades, construction 
of five new stations, parking facilities, rail yard expansion 
and purchase of one new diesel locomotive and eight bi-level 
passenger cars. Section 3030(a)(10) of TEA-21 authorized the 
North Central project. The major investment study for this 
project was completed in August 1998, and a locally preferred 
alternative was selected shortly thereafter. FTA approved the 
North Central corridor to initiate preliminary engineering and 
the environmental review process in December 1998. FTA issued a 
finding of no significant impact on the environmental 
assessment in May 2000 and allowed the project to enter into 
final design in October 2000. The total capital cost of this 
project is estimated at $235,532,216, of which Metra is 
expected to seek $135,319,330 in new starts funding (60 
percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $33,850,000 has 
been appropriated for this project. The Committee recommends 
$23,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Metra Southwest corridor commuter 
rail.--Metra is planning an extension and various improvements 
to the existing Southwest commuter rail line. The 29-mile 
Southwest line provides service from Orland Park, Illinois, to 
downtown Chicago. This project would extend the line 11 miles 
from the existing 179th street station in Orland Park, 
southwest to Manhattan, Illinois. Also included in this project 
are the construction of three miles of a second mainline track, 
two additional stations and parking facilities, and multiple 
track, signal, and station improvements. The project also 
includes expansion of two existing rail yards, construction of 
a third rail yard, rehabilitation of several railroad bridges, 
and the purchase of two diesel locomotives and 13 bi-level 
passenger cars. Finally, the downtown Chicago terminal would be 
relocated from Union Station to the LaSalle street station as 
part of this project. Section 3030(a)(12) of TEA-21 authorized 
the ``Southwest extension''. The total cost of this project is 
estimated at $218,700,000, of which Metra is expected to seek 
$36,970,000 (17 percent) in section 5309 new starts funding. To 
date, Congress has appropriated $17,860,000 to the project. The 
Committee has provided $19,118,735 in fiscal year 2002 for 
final design and construction.
    Chicago, Illinois, Metra Union Pacific West line extension 
project.--Chicago's Metra commuter rail division is planning 
additional extensions and improvements on its Union Pacific 
west commuter rail line. The Union Pacific west project, also 
known as the Central Kane corridor, is an extension of the 
existing 36-mile Union Pacific west line, which currently 
provides service between Geneva and downtown Chicago. This 
project would extend the line eight miles west to Elburn, with 
two new stations serving Elburn and La Fox. The extension 
itself will use existing railroad track and right-of-way 
currently used by both Metra and the Union Pacific freight 
railroad. The scope of the project includes multiple track and 
signal improvements, construction of two new stations and 
associated parking facilities, a new train yard, and the 
purchase of one diesel locomotive and eight bi-level passenger 
cars. This project will link rapidly growing communities to the 
west of Chicago with the major employment centers in Chicago. 
Section 3030(a)(13) of TEA-21 authorizes this project as the 
Chicago ``west line expansion''. The total capital costs of the 
Union Pacific west extension and improvements project is 
estimated at $134,603,334. Of this total, Metra is expected to 
seek $80,728,000 in federal new starts funding (60 percent). 
Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $16,450,000 has been 
appropriated. A total of $20,000,000 has been recommended for 
fiscal year 2002.
    Chicago, Illinois, Ravenswood reconstruction project.--The 
Chicago Transit Authority is proposing to lengthen existing 
platforms and expand stations on the existing Ravenswood 
(brown) line to accommodate eight-car trains. The brown line 
extends 9.3 miles from the north side of Chicago to the ``Loop 
elevated'' in downtown Chicago and includes 19 stations. The 
majority of the brown line is operated on an elevated structure 
(8.1 miles) except one portion near the north end of the line, 
which operates at grade (1.2 miles). The brown line was built 
between 1900 and 1907. The line currently carries approximately 
104,000 average weekday boardings; however, current station and 
platform size prohibit CTA from increasing capacity on the line 
to handle increased demand. The proposed project would expand 
stations and platforms and straighten curves to allow CTA to 
operate longer trains, which would increase the capacity of the 
line. Section 3030(a)(11) of TEA-21 authorized the project. In 
November 1997, CTA included the Ravenswood line expansion 
project in the region's financially constrained long-range 
transportation plan. CTA is currently completing an examination 
of the environmental impacts and benefits related to the 
proposed project, including a historical preservation issue 
associated with one of the stations that is scheduled for 
rehabilitation. The environmental review process is scheduled 
for completion in 2001. Total capital costs are currently 
estimated at $327,000,000. To date, Congress has appropriated 
$4,920,000 in section 5309 new starts funds for the project. 
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2002. Due to 
the volume of projects seeking an FFGA and a longstanding 
problem with a historic building, the Committee cannot fully 
support those projects that are seeking a high federal share 
from the new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages 
CTA to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to 
contribute to this project, and find ways to increase the local 
share.
    Cleveland, Ohio, Euclid corridor transportation project.--
The Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority (GCRTA) is 
proposing to design and construct a 9.8-mile transit corridor 
incorporating exclusive bus rapid transit lanes and related 
capital improvements on Euclid Avenue from Public Square in 
downtown Cleveland east to University Circle. The proposed 
project is known as the Euclid corridor transportation project 
(ECTP). The ECTP incorporates a series of transit improvements 
including an exclusive center median busway along Euclid Avenue 
from Public Square to University Circle, improvements to East 
17th/East 18th 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. GCRTA estimates that 
29,500 average weekday boardings will use the ECTP in the 
forecast year (2025).
    Section 3035 of ISTEA authorized FTA to enter into a 
multiyear grant agreement for development of the Dual Hub 
Corridor, originally considered as a rail link between downtown 
and University Circle. In November 1995, the GCRTA Board of 
Trustees selected the ECTP as the locally preferred alternative 
(LPA) which included a busway and the rehabilitation and 
relocation of several existing rapid rail stations. In December 
1995, the Northeast Ohio areawide coordinating agency (local 
metropolitan planning organization) adopted a resolution 
supporting the ECTP. In mid-1999, GCRTA reconfigured the scope 
of the ECTP to incorporate only the construction of a busway 
along Euclid Avenue. The rapid rail elements have been 
eliminated from the ECTP proposal for Section 5309 New Starts 
funding. The environmental review process is scheduled for 
completion in summer 2001. Total capital costs for the ECTP are 
estimated at $228,600,000 (escalated dollars), of which 
Cleveland is expected to seek $135,000,000 in new starts 
funding for the project (59 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, 
Congress has appropriated $13,440,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for the Euclid corridor transportation project. Of 
this amount, $4,720,000 was rescinded or reprogrammed by 
Congress because of project delays. For fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for preliminary engineering, 
final design and construction activities.
    Dallas, Texas, north central light rail transit extension 
project.--Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has initiated 
construction of the north central corridor light rail transit 
(LRT) extension to the region's 20.5 mile starter system. 
DART's starter system opened in three phases from June 1996 to 
May 1997 (one underground station was opened in 2000). This 
extension, part of a 20-year, $4,800,000,000 transit capital 
program adopted in fiscal year 1998, measures 12.5 miles long 
from the current northern terminus at Park Lane station to the 
new terminal in Plano. The extension has nine stations. 
Although some single track sections were originally planned, 
the DART Board of Directors in 1997 approved the double 
tracking of the entire extension. DART estimates that over 
17,000 daily riders, of which 6,800 will be new riders, are 
expected to use the extension in the year 2010. The project is 
estimated to cost $517,200,000. FTA entered into an FFGA with 
DART for the north central extension project on October 6, 1999 
with a section 5309 new starts commitment of $333,000,000. The 
project is currently in the construction phase. An associated 
northeast LRT extension is being built solely with local funds. 
The project has been included in the regionally adopted 
metropolitan transportation plan and transportation improvement 
program that conforms with the state implementation plan for 
air quality. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $162,320,000 in section 5309 new start funds to 
this project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes 
$70,000,000 for this project.
    Denver, Colorado, Southeast corridor light rail transit 
project.--The Regional Transportation District (RTD) and 
Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) are implementing a 
19.12-mile, 14-station light rail line 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 in operation. The total capital 
cost of this project is estimated at $879,300,000. Revenue 
service is projected to begin by June 30, 2008. Section 
3030(a)(23) of TEA-21 authorized this project. FTA issued an 
FFGA for this project on November 17, 2000, which will provide 
a total of $525,000,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. A 
total of $6,410,000 has been appropriated to this project 
through fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends $60,000,000 
for this project in fiscal year 2002.
    Denver, Colorado, Southwest corridor light rail transit 
project.--The Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) 
light rail extension opened for revenue service in July 2000. 
The 8.7-mile, five station line between Denver and Littleton 
extends from the I-25/Broadway interchange in Denver parallel 
to Santa Fe Drive to Mineral Avenue in Littleton. The LRT line 
operates over an exclusive, grade-separated right-of-way and 
connects with the existing 5.3-mile central corridor light rail 
line, which was constructed entirely with local funds and 
opened in October 1994. Ridership in the opening year has 
exceed not only the original opening year forecast of 8,400 
daily passengers, but also the projections of 22,000 daily 
riders by 2015. The line currently serves 30,000 passengers per 
day. The capital cost of the project was $176,320,000 
(escalated dollars), of which an FFGA was issued for 
$120,000,000 in new starts funding. Through fiscal year 2001, a 
total of $119,807,510 has been appropriated to this project. 
This leaves $192,492 required to complete the federal funding 
commitment, which is the amount the Committee has provided in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Dulles corridor, Virginia, bus rapid transit project.--The 
Virginia Department of Rail and Public Transportation (VDRPT) 
proposes to construct, under the technical guidance of the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA), an 
approximately 23 mile bus rapid transit (BRT) system as an 
interim step to rail in the Dulles Corridor. The Dulles 
corridor, a rapidly growing suburban area west of Washington, 
DC, contains major regional employment and residential centers, 
including Tysons Corner, Reston Town Center, Dulles 
International Airport, the town of Herndon, the Smithsonian Air 
and Space Museum annex, and new commercial and residential 
development in eastern Loudoun County. The BRT project is 
proposed as a minimum operating segment (MOS) of the Dulles 
Corridor rapid transit project, which will phase in 
implementation of rapid transit technologies throughout the 
corridor. The proposed BRT system will be developed as an 
interim step to rail, using the reserved lanes of the Dulles 
airport access road (DAAR) as a fixed guideway for advanced 
technology buses. BRT service will be provided between the 
Metrorail orange line and the western regional park and ride 
lot located at Route 606 in Loudoun County. The proposed BRT 
system will include construction of at least three transit 
stations convertible to rail stations located in the median of 
the DAAR, stations at major park and ride lots within the 
corridor and Tysons Corner, and interface with Metrorail at 
Falls Church. BRT service is scheduled for operation in 2003 at 
an estimated cost of $287,300,000 (escalated). The fully built 
rail project is scheduled for operation in 2010 at an estimated 
cost of $2,200,000,000 (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 
2001, Congress has appropriated $90,930,000 for this project in 
section 5309 new starts funds. For fiscal year 2002, the bill 
provides $25,000,000 for preliminary engineering, final design 
and construction activities. Due to the volume of projects 
seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those 
projects that are seeking a high federal share (76 percent for 
this project) from the new starts account. The Committee 
strongly encourages Dulles to revisit the amount of local 
funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways 
to increase the local share.
    Fort Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail commuter rail upgrades 
project.--The Tri-County Commuter Rail Authority (Tri-Rail) 
operates a 71.7-mile regional transportation system connecting 
Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties in south Florida. 
This area has a population of over four million, nearly one-
third of the total population of Florida. Tri-Rail is proposing 
improvements to enhance significantly the service reliability 
of commuter rail in the rail corridor owned by the Florida 
Department of Transportation (FDOT). Tri-Rail intends to 
construct a second mainline track, rehabilitate the signal 
system, and provide station and parking improvements. In 
addition, project costs include acquisition of new rolling 
stock, improvements to the Hialeah maintenance yard facility, 
and construction of a new, northern maintenance and layover 
facility. The proposed project will allow Tri-Rail to operate 
20-minute headways during peak commuter hours, as opposed to 
the one-hour headways that now exist. On May 16, 2000, FTA 
issued an FFGA for segment 5 of the double track corridor 
improvement program, which includes construction of 44.31 miles 
of the second mainline track and upgrades to the existing grade 
crossing system along the entire 71.7-mile south Florida rail 
corridor. It is expected to open for revenue service on March 
21, 2005. The first four segments, upgrading the Hialeah 
maintenance yard and replacing the New River bridge, while part 
of the overall double track corridor improvement program, are 
not included in the scope of this project. Total capital costs 
for the segment 5 project are estimated at $327,000,000. The 
FFGA will provide a total of $110,500,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funding. A total of $25,670,000 has been appropriated to 
this project through fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends 
$30,000,000 in fiscal year 2002.
    Houston regional bus plan.--The bill includes a provision 
(Sec. 329) 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. This is 
the same language as carried in the fiscal year 2001 
Appropriations bill. The Committee reminds sponsors of light 
rail in Houston that elements of the approved Houston regional 
bus plan, which are explicit components of the existing full 
funding grant agreement, cannot be replaced with light rail 
elements. This policy is consistent with last year's report and 
current policy, which dictates that such scope changes must be 
approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Johnson County, Kansas-Kansas City, Missouri, 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 (80 percent). Because the proposed 
new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is 
exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to 
FTA's evaluation and rating. 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 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 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$2,950,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee 
has provided $3,000,000 for final design and construction 
activities. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the 
Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking 
a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee 
strongly encourages Johnson County to revisit the amount of 
local funding they plan to contribute to this project, and find 
ways to increase the local share.
    Largo, Maryland, Metrorail extension project.--The Maryland 
Mass Transit Administration (MTA) and the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) are joint lead 
local agencies planning a proposed 3.1 mile heavy rail 
extension of the Metrorail blue line. The proposed Largo 
Metrorail Extension will be from the existing Addison Road 
Station to Largo town center, located just beyond the Capital 
beltway in Prince George's County, Maryland. The project 
follows an alignment that has been preserved as a rail transit 
corridor in the Prince George's County master plan. The 3.1 
mile alignment, containing at-, above- and below-grade 
segments, has been modified to be underground or covered 
between Central Avenue and the Capital beltway to address 
concerns raised during public review of the DEIS. Two new 
stations will be provided at Summerfield and at the Largo town 
center station. The stations will provide 500 and 2,200 park-
and-ride spaces, respectively, plus a hundred or more kiss-and-
ride spaces and 11 bus bays each. A number of WMATA and Prince 
George's County bus routes will connect to the two new 
stations; shuttle bus service is proposed between both stations 
and the FedEx Field (formerly known as the Redskins Stadium). 
The project will also directly serve the USAir Arena, a former 
major sports complex planned for entertainment and retail uses. 
MTA will manage the project through preliminary engineering, 
with WMATA undertaking final design and construction. The 
project is anticipated to open for service by September 2004, 
with a total capital cost estimated at $433,900,000. Average 
weekday boardings are estimated to be 28,500 in 2020 with 
16,400 daily new riders. The proposed Largo extension was 
approved by the WMATA Board as an addition to the 103-mile 
Metrorail adopted regional system in February 1997, applying 
WMATA compact funding arrangements, contingent upon requisite 
FTA approvals. The project is included in the national capital 
region's constrained long range plan. Preliminary engineering 
was initiated in February 1996. The draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) was completed and approved by FTA in October 
1996. The draft final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was 
completed in September 1999. On December 15, 2000, FTA entered 
into an FFGA with WMATA that commits a total of $260,300,000 in 
section 5309 new starts funds to this project. This does not 
include $5,650,000 in prior year funds that were provided to 
the MTA for planning activities associated with the project, 
which would bring the total amount of new starts funding to 
$265,690,000. To date, Congress has appropriated $13,080,000 to 
this project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes 
$60,000,000.
    Little Rock, Arkansas, river rail project.--The Central 
Arkansas Transit Authority (CATA) is planning the 
implementation of a vintage streetcar circulator system on 
existing right-of-way connecting the Alltel Arena, the River 
Market, and the Convention Center in downtown Little Rock to 
the communities of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. CATA 
proposes that service be provided by 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 (65 
percent). Because the proposed new starts share is less than 
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts 
criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and 
rating. A feasibility study was completed in 1997. No formal 
major investment study (MIS) was completed due to the limited 
scale of the proposed investment, the use of existing rail and 
street rights-of-way, and the estimated low cost. FTA approval 
to enter the preliminary engineering phase of project 
development was granted in May 1998. FTA approved project 
entrance into final design in September 1999. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $5,940,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds to this project. For fiscal year 2002, 
$1,800,000 is provided for final design and construction. Due 
to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot 
fully support those projects that are seeking a high federal 
share from the new starts account. The Committee strongly 
encourages Little Rock to revisit the amount of local funding 
they plan to contribute to this project, and find ways to 
increase the local share.
    Long Island Rail Road, New York, East Side access 
project.--The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is 
the lead agency for the proposed Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) 
East Side access project. The project would provide increased 
capacity for the commuter rail lines of the Long Island Rail 
Road and direct access between suburban Long Island and Queens 
and a new passenger terminal in Grand Central Terminal (GCT) in 
east Midtown Manhattan, in addition to the current connection 
to Penn Station in Manhattan. The East Side Access (ESA) 
connection and increased LIRR capacity would be achieved by 
constructing a 4,600-foot tunnel from the LIRR Main Line in 
Sunnyside, Queens to the existing tunnel under the East River 
at 63rd Street. LIRR trains would use the lower level of this 
bi-level structure. A second 5,000-foot tunnel would carry LIRR 
trains from the 63rd Street Tunnel under Park Avenue and into a 
new LIRR terminal in the lower level of GCT. ESA will provide 
the LIRR with additional tunnel capacity across the East River. 
Increased capacity and headways would be introduced at most 
LIRR stations. For example, an additional 24 peak hour trains 
would operate through the existing 63rd Street Tunnel to GCT. 
Ten new tracks and five platforms will be constructed for LIRR 
trains at GCT. In addition, a new LIRR station would be 
constructed at Sunnyside Yard to provide access between Long 
Island City and Penn Station in Manhattan. The East River 
tunnels in Manhattan are at capacity. ESA is anticipated to 
improve LIRR tunnel capacity constraints and enable the growth 
of the overall system. Total capital costs are approximately 
$4,340,000,000 (escalated dollars), including $3,560,000,000 
for project management, design, construction and right-of-way, 
and $790,000,000 for rolling stock (over 225 new vehicles). MTA 
is expected to seek $2,172,000,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funding for this project (50 percent). Overall, more than 
351,000 average weekday boardings to both Penn Station and GCT 
would benefit directly from the LIRR ESA project by the year 
2020. These include approximately 162,000 daily boardings 
serving GCT, 161,000 daily boardings serving Penn Station and 
5,500 daily boardings at the proposed Sunnyside Station.
    A major investment study (MIS) on the Long Island Rail Road 
East Side access was completed in April 1998. In June 1998, the 
New York Metropolitan Transportation Council (NYMTC), the 
metropolitan planning organization, passed a resolution 
endorsing the recommended extension of the LIRR into Grand 
Central station. In September 1998, FTA approved preliminary 
engineering and preparation of an environmental impact 
statement (EIS) for the project. A DEIS for the LIRR ESA was 
completed in May 2000. MTA completed the final EIS in March 
2001. A record of decision is anticipated in mid-2001. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $53,630,000 in 
Section 5309 New Start funds for this project. For fiscal year 
2002, the Committee recommends $10,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, final design and construction.
    Los Angeles, California, Eastside corridor light rail 
transit project.--The Los Angeles County Metropolitan 
Transportation Authority is proposing to implement a 5.9 mile 
light rail transit (LRT) line in the Eastside Corridor, 
connecting downtown Los Angeles with low-to moderate-income 
communities in east Los Angeles. The proposed system would 
include 8 stations and will traverse eastward from Union 
Station along Alameda street through the City of Terrace, 
Belvedere, and East Los Angeles communities of unincorporated 
Los Angeles County. The project would terminate at Beverly and 
Atlantic boulevards, where a 500 space park-and-ride facility 
is planned. The project is primarily at grade, with a 1.8-mile 
mid-section underground in tunnel. The project is intended to 
improve mobility for residents and employees in the corridor, 
and provide improved access to employment opportunities 
throughout the MTA service area. By 2020, 15,000 average 
weekday boardings are forecasted.
    On May 14, 1993, an FFGA was issued to the Los Angeles 
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) for the 
third construction phase, MOS-3. MOS-3 was defined under ISTEA 
(Section 3034) to include three segments: the North Hollywood 
segment, a 6.3-mile, three-station subway extension of the 
Hollywood branch of MOS-2 to North Hollywood through the Santa 
Monica mountains; the Mid-City segment, a 2.3-mile, two-station 
western extension of the Wilshire Boulevard branch; and an 
undefined segment of the Eastside project, to the east from the 
existing red line terminus at Union Station. LACMTA later 
defined this eastern segment as a 3.7-mile, four-station 
extension under the Los Angeles River to First and Leona in 
East Los Angeles. On December 28, 1994, the FFGA for MOS-3 was 
amended to include this definition of the eastern segment, 
bringing the total commitment of Federal new starts funds for 
MOS-3 to $1,416,490,000. In January 1997, FTA requested that 
the MTA submit a recovery plan to demonstrate its ability to 
complete MOS-2 and MOS-3, while maintaining and operating the 
existing bus system. On January 14, 1998, the LACMTA Board of 
Directors voted to suspend and demobilize construction on all 
rail projects other than MOS-2 and MOS-3 North Hollywood 
extension. The MTA submitted a recovery plan to FTA on May 15, 
1998, which was approved by FTA on July 2, 1998. In 1998, the 
MTA undertook a regional transportation alternatives analysis 
(RTAA) to analyze and evaluate feasible alternatives for the 
Eastside and Mid-City corridors. The RTAA addressed system 
investment priorities, allocation of resources to operate 
existing transit services at a reliable standard, assessment 
and management of financial risk, countywide bus service 
expansion, and a process for finalizing corridor investments. 
On November 9, 1998, the LACMTA Board reviewed the RTAA and 
directed staff to reprogram resources previously allocated to 
the Eastside and Mid-City extensions to the implementation of 
RTAA recommendations. In June 1999, the MTA initiated a re-
evaluation/major investment study on the Eastside corridor, and 
began a draft environmental impact statement on the corridor in 
March 2000. In June 2000, the MTA board formally selected a 
light rail transit technology in the Eastside corridor as the 
locally preferred alternative. FTA approved the initiation of 
preliminary engineering in August 2000. The total capital cost 
of this project is estimated to be $759,500,000, of which MTA 
will seek $402,300,000 (53 percent) in section 5309 new starts 
funding. Through fiscal year 2000, Congress has appropriated 
$76,480,000 for the Eastside and Mid-City projects. In fiscal 
year 2001, Congress appropriated $990,000 for the Eastside 
project. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$5,500,000.
    Los Angeles, North Hollywood, California, extension 
project.--Continuing the discussion noted above under the 
Eastside corridors, on June 9, 1997, FTA and LACMTA negotiated 
a revised FFGA covering the North Hollywood segment (phase 1-A) 
of MOS-3 opened in May 2000. The total capital cost of the 
North Hollywood project was estimated at $1,310,820,000, of 
which the revised FFGA commits $681,040,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $631,350,000 
has been appropriated for the North Hollywood segment of MOS-3. 
The Committee recommends $49,686,469 to complete the commitment 
under the revised FFGA for this project.
    Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire, commuter rail 
extension project.--The New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation (NHDOT) is proposing to design and construct a 
12-mile extension of an existing commuter rail line from 
Lowell, Massachusetts to Nashua, New Hampshire. The proposed 
project would extend existing commuter rail service provided by 
the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) on an 
anticipated schedule of six round trips per weekday and three 
roundtrips on Saturday. The proposed service extension would 
provide an alternative to a highly congested highway corridor 
and is also anticipated to provide traffic mitigation during 
the planned expansion of Route 3 in Massachusetts. The proposed 
project also includes the purchase of commuter rail equipment 
for use by the MBTA, rehabilitation of existing track and the 
construction of new trackage (where necessary), and a park-and-
ride lot with a boarding platform near Everett Turnpike (exit 
2) in Nashua. MBTA anticipates 900 weekday boardings in fiscal 
year 2003. In 1999, the Nashua Regional Planning Commission 
(NRPC) completed a major investment study that analyzed the 
passenger rail market, required capital investments, 
operational issues, and several alternatives to the commuter 
rail extension option. In June 1999, NRPC and NHDOT selected 
the extension as the locally preferred alternative. FTA 
approved NHDOT's request to initiate preliminary engineering on 
the project in May 2000. NHDOT is currently undergoing the 
environmental review phase of the proposed project. The total 
capital cost for the commuter rail extension is estimated at 
$41,000,000 (escalated dollars), with a proposed section 5309 
new starts share of $18,000,000 (44 percent). Since the 
proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project 
is exempt from the new starts criteria. Through fiscal year 
2001, Congress has appropriated $2,950,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill 
includes $3,000,000 for this project.
    Maryland (MARC) commuter rail improvements project.--The 
Maryland Mass Transit Administration is proposing three 
projects for the Maryland Commuter Rail (MARC) system serving 
the Baltimore, MD and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. These 
projects are: (1) Mid-day storage facility, (2) Penn-Camden 
connection, and (3) Silver Springs intermodal transit center. 
The proposed Mid-Day storage facility would be used for daytime 
equipment layover, minor repair, daily servicing and 
inspections of commuter rail trains sets within the Amtrak yard 
at Washington D.C.'s Union Station. Platforms that are 
currently used to store these trains at Union Station will no 
longer be available following the introduction of high-speed 
Amtrak service, and the new facility will avoid the operating 
cost of sending trains back to Baltimore for mid-day storage. 
MTA will lease the five-acre site owned by Amtrak. The 
estimated capital costs for the project total $21,000,000. The 
Penn-Camden connection is a six-mile connection between the 
MARC Camden line and MARC Penn line/Amtrak Northeast corridor 
in southwest Baltimore. The connection of these two commuter 
rail lines is designed to achieve many benefits: the 
opportunity to remove trains from the congested Camden line for 
reverse peak movements; access to the planned MARC maintenance 
facility to be located along the connection; and increased 
operating flexibility on both commuter rail lines. Estimated 
capital costs for the project total $30,800,000. The proposal 
Silver Spring intermodal transit center, will relocate a 
transit center from the Silver Spring MARC station to the 
Silver Spring metrorail station. The transit center would allow 
convenient passenger transfers between several modes of travel. 
The center will also accommodate the proposed Georgetown branch 
trolley to operate between Silver Spring and Bethesda, 
Maryland. Estimated capital costs for the project total 
$33,300,000. The proposed MARC commuter rail improvements are 
in varying stages of planning and project development--the Mid-
day storage facility is in final design, a finding of no 
significant impact was issued in November 1999 for the MARC 
Penn-Camden connection, and an environmental assessment for the 
MARC Silver Spring intermodal center has been completed. The 
total cost of the project is estimated at $85,100,000, with 
$40,900,000 (48 percent) to be derived from section 5309 new 
starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, $14,360,000 has been 
appropriated for these improvements. The Committee recommends 
$12,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
    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 $74,580,000. On December 12, 2000, FTA issued 
an FFGA committing a total of $59,670,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds to the Medical Center extension. Through fiscal 
year 2001, a total of $15,830,000 has been appropriated. For 
fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $19,170,000.
    Miami, Florida, South Miami-Dade busway extension.--The 
Miami-Dade Transit Authority (MDTA) is planning an 11.5-mile, 
12-station busway extension along U.S. Route 1, between Cutler 
Ridge mall near SW 200 Street and Florida City. The project is 
an extension of the existing 8.3-mile South Busway, which 
opened in February 1997 and serves Miami and the rapidly 
growing area to the south. The extension is expected to serve 
an average of 8,800 weekday boardings and 3,000 daily new 
riders and will improve travel time and transit access in the 
corridor along Route 1 in south Florida, which now has only 
limited service. In August 1999, the South Miami-Dade busway 
extension was selected as one of FTA's ten bus rapid transit 
(BRT) demonstration projects. FTA approved entry into final 
design in October 2000, and construction is expected to begin 
on the first five-mile segment in January 2002. The total 
capital cost of the extension is estimated at $88,800,000, of 
which MDTA is seeking $23,400,00 in section 5309 new starts 
funding (26 percent). Because this project has a proposed new 
starts level below $25,000,000, the project is exempt from 
project evaluation and rating processes. A total of $2,700,000 
has been provided from FHWA's national highway system program. 
In fiscal year 2001, $16,900,000 that was previously 
appropriated for the North corridor and East-West corridor was 
reprogrammed to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee recommends $5,000,000, which will complete the 
federal commitment to this project.
    Minneapolis-Rice, Minnesota, Northstar corridor commuter 
rail.--The Northstar Corridor Development Authority (NCDA) and 
the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) are 
proposing to design and construct an 80-mile commuter rail line 
within the Northstar corridor connecting the Minneapolis-
St.Paul metropolitan area and Rice, Minnesota. The proposed 
project also includes a 0.3-mile extension of the proposed 
Hiawatha Corridor LRT project from its currently planned 
terminus in downtown Minneapolis to provide a direct link to 
the proposed commuter rail service. The proposed commuter rail 
line would operate along existing Burlington-Northern Santa Fe 
(BNSF) railroad track. The commuter rail project also includes 
the purchase of five locomotives, 17 passenger rail cars, and 
construction of layover and vehicle storage facilities. In May 
1998, NCDA undertook a major investment study and draft 
environmental impact statement to examine the transportation 
options in the Northstar Corridor. The MIS was completed in 
December 1999 with the selection of a locally preferred 
alternative. FTA approved NCDA and MnDOT's request to intitate 
preliminary engineering in June 2000 on the commuter rail and 
light rail extension. A final EIS is scheduled for completion 
in the summer of 2001. Total capital costs for the project are 
$244,800,000, of which, $21,800,000 is for the Hiawatha light 
rail extension and $223,000,000 for the Northstar commuter rail 
segment. The anticipated federal share will be $112,000,000 (50 
percent). Through fiscal year 2001, a total of $3,810,000 has 
been appropriated to this project. For fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee recommends $10,000,000.
    Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minnesota, Hiawatha corridor 
project.-- Metro Transit and the Metropolitan Council (local 
metropolitan planning organization), in cooperation with the 
Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT), Hennepin County 
and the Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), plan to 
implement a 11.6-mile, 17 station light rail line linking 
downtown Minneapolis, the Minneapolis-St. Paul international 
airport, and the Mall of America in Bloomington. The line will 
operate on the Hiawatha Avenue/Trunk Highway 55. The LRT is the 
transit component of a locally preferred alternative, which 
includes reconstruction of TH-55 as a four lane, at-grade 
arterial between Franklin Avenue and 59th Street and 
construction of an interchange between TH-55 and TH-63 
(Crosstown Highway). Current plans call for the north end of 
the LRT to begin in the Minneapolis central business district 
(CBD) and operate on the existing transit mall along 5th 
Street. The LRT is planned to exit the CBD near the Hubert H. 
Humphrey Metrodome, following the former Soo Line Railroad to 
Franklin 
Avenue, then parallel Hiawatha Avenue. The project will include 
a 1.8-mile tunnel to be constructed under the MSP airport 
runways and taxiways with the construction of one station. The 
line is then planned to emerge from the tunnel on the West side 
of the airport with a station located at the HHH Terminal. It 
then would continue south with three proposed stations in 
Bloomington, including a station near the Mall of America. The 
project is expected to serve 24,600 average weekday boardings 
by the year 2020; 19,300 average weekday boardings are 
projected in the opening year. The estimated capital cost for 
the 11.6-mile Hiawatha Avenue LRT, including 17 proposed 
stations, totals $675,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued an 
FFGA that commits a total of $334,030,000 in section 5309 new 
starts funds to the Hiawatha Corridor LRT. Of this, 
$118,850,000 has been appropriated through fiscal year 2001. 
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $50,000,000.
    Nashville, Tennessee, East corridor commuter rail 
project.--The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) and the 
Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) of Nashville, Tennessee 
are proposing the implementation of a 31.1-mile, 5 station 
commuter rail line between downtown Nashville and the city of 
Lebanon in Wilson County. The east corridor commuter rail 
project is proposed to operate on an existing rail line owned 
by the Nashville and Eastern Railroad Authority (N&E), a 
governmental entity comprised of the Tennessee Department of 
Transportation (TDOT), Wilson County, Lebanon, Mt. Juliet, and 
the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County. 
Rolling stock and maintenance facilities will be leased from 
the N&E. In 1996, the MTA and RTA initiated a study to explore 
the potential of commuter rail in the Nashville region. From 
this study, six corridors were considered for further 
evaluation. A 1998 study analyzed the capital costs for the 
three most promising corridors. As the result of these studies 
and efforts of the Nashville area commuter rail task force--
which includes the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, area business 
leaders, the MPO, MTA, RTA, the Tennessee Department of 
Transportation (TDOT), CSX Railroad and the Nashville and 
Eastern Rail Authority, and the Nashville congressional 
delegation--the east corridor was selected as the first 
corridor to be implemented in the Nashville area commuter rail 
system. The Nashville MPO included the east corridor commuter 
rail project in its fiscally constrained long range 
transportation plan in September 1999. FTA approved the project 
to advance into preliminary engineering (during which time 
environmental assessment will be undertaken) on November 30, 
1999. The RTA completed an environmental assessment and 
received a finding of no significant impact for the project in 
May 2000. The MTA and RTA estimate 1,400 average weekday 
boardings on the proposed project in 2006, including 700 daily 
new riders. The project is estimated to cost $33,200,000 in 
escalated dollars, with a proposed section 5309 new starts 
share of $22,900,000 (69 percent). Because the proposed new 
starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt 
from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject to FTA's 
evaluation and rating. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $7,900,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, 
the Committee recommends $4,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, final design and construction. Due to the volume 
of projects seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support 
those projects that are seeking a high federal share from the 
new starts account. The Committee strongly encourages Nashville 
to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute 
to this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
    Newark-Elizabeth, New Jersey, rail link project.--The New 
Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is 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. In August 2000, 
FTA and New Jersey Transit executed an FFGA for MOS-1, 
committing $141,950,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 
construct the project. Environmental work on the other segments 
of the rail line awaits completion of ongoing planning efforts. 
Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $39,600,000 
in section 5309 new starts funds for the Newark rail link MOS-1 
project, including funds from the Omnibus Consolidated 
Appropriations Act. For fiscal year 2002, the Committee 
recommends $20,000,000.
    New Britain-Hartford, Connecticut, busway project.--The 
Connecticut Department of Transportation (ConnDOT) is proposing 
the New Britain-Hartford busway, a 9.6-mile, 12-station busway 
to operate on existing and abandoned right-of-way between 
downtown New Britain and Union Station in Hartford. The 
proposed New Britain-Hartford busway is intended to relieve 
congestion in the I-84 corridor and improve access to suburban 
employment and educational opportunities for inner city 
residents. In 1996, ConnDOT initiated a major investment study 
for the Hartford west corridor; the study was completed in July 
1999. In March of 1999, the locally preferred alternative was 
selected by the Capitol Regional Council of Governments and 
included in the long-range plan. FTA approved the busway 
project's entrance into preliminary engineering in January 
2000. The capital cost estimate for the proposed project is 
$82,000,000 in escalated dollars, of which $51,600,000 is the 
estimated federal share (63 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, 
$1,490,000 has been appropriated to this project. For fiscal 
year 2002, the Committee recommends $4,000,000 in section 5309 
new starts funds. Due to the volume of projects seeking an 
FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those projects that 
are seeking a high federal share from the new starts account. 
The Committee strongly encourages New Britain-Hartford to 
revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute to 
this project, and find ways to increase the local share.
    New Jersey Hudson Bergen light rail transit project.--The 
New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJ Transit) is constructing a 
9.6-mile, 16-station light rail project along the Hudson River 
waterfront in Hudson County, from the Hoboken terminal to 34th 
Street Bayonne and Westside Avenue in Jersey City. The line is 
intended as the initial minimum operating segment (MOS-1) of an 
eventual 21-mile, 30-station light rail line extending from the 
Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot in Bergen County to Bayonne, 
passing through Port Imperial in Weehauken, Hoboken, and Jersey 
City. The core of the system will serve the high density 
commercial and residential centers in Jersey City and Hoboken 
and connect to ferries, PATH, and NJ Transit commuter rail 
lines. MOS-1 is expected to cost $992,140,000 (escalated 
dollars) and to carry 31,300 riders per day. The full 21-mile 
system is expected to cost $2,000,000,000 (escalated dollars) 
and to carry 94,500 riders per day. A portion of the MOS-1 
line, between 34th Street and Exchange Place, opened in April 
2000, and the New Jersey Transit began revenue service from 
Exchange Place north to the Pavonia-Newport Station in November 
2000.
    In February 1993, NJ Transit initially selected, as its 
locally preferred alternative, a 26-station at-grade LRT line 
from the Vince Lombardi park-and-ride lot through Hoboken and 
Jersey City to Route 440 in Southwest Jersey City. A final 
environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the full project was 
completed in the summer of 1996. In October 1996, the FTA 
issued a record of decision (ROD) for the full project. In that 
same month, FTA signed a FFGA committing $604,090,000 of 
Section 5309 new start funds to support the 9.6-mile MOS-1. In 
January 1997, the governor of New Jersey, in conjunction with 
the mayor and the City Council of Hoboken, agreed to shift the 
alignment in Hoboken to the west side of the city. An 
environmental assessment (EA) was completed on the impacts 
resulting from this proposed change and submitted to the FTA in 
August 1998. Public review of the EA has been completed. The 
shift from the east side alignment to the west side alignment 
in Hoboken places the station south and adjacent to the Hoboken 
terminal and raises the number of stations for the full project 
from 6 to 30 stations. The Hudson-Bergen LRT project is one of 
eight elements eligible for funding as part of the New Jersey 
Urban Core project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $445,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to 
the Hudson-Bergen MOS-1. For fiscal year 2001, the bill 
provides $141,000,000. This funding level is less than the 
$151,327,655 requested in the budget request because the major 
contractor for this project has entered into bankruptcy and the 
Committee has concerns that this project will not be able to 
complete work in time for full service to begin from the 
Hoboken terminal in the spring of 2002.
    New Orleans, Louisiana, Canal carline project.--The New 
Orleans Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is developing a 5.5-
mile streetcar project in the downtown area, along the median 
of Canal Street. The Canal Streetcar spine will extend from the 
Canal ferry at the Mississippi River in the central business 
district, through the Mid-City neighborhood to Carrolton 
Avenue, where one branch will continue on Canal street to the 
cemeteries and another will follow Carrolton Avenue to City 
Park/Beauregard Circle. The corridor is located in an existing, 
built-up area that was originally developed in the streetcar 
era. Much of the corridor lies within the central business 
district and the historic district. RTA completed a major 
investment study for this project in March 1995, fulfilling the 
requirement for an alternative analysis. FTA approved entry 
into preliminary engineering in September 1995, and RTA 
initiated final design in September 1997. Final design is 
essentially complete, contracts for vehicle assembly have been 
awarded, and construction contracts will be awarded in early to 
mid-2001. Sufficient local funds are now committed to the 
project due to an extension of the RTA sales tax. RTA expects 
to open this line in April 2004. The total capital cost of this 
project is estimated at $156,600,000, of which RTA is expected 
to seek $125,300,000 in section 5309 new starts funding (80 
percent). To date, Congress has appropriated $55,180,000 for 
this project). For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends 
$13,800,000. Due to the volume of projects seeking an FFGA, the 
Committee cannot fully support those projects that are seeking 
a high federal share from the new starts account. The Committee 
strongly encourages New Orleans to revisit the amount of local 
funding they plan to contribute to the Canal Street project, 
and find ways to increase the local share.
    New Orleans, Louisiana, Desire corridor streetcar 
project.--The Regional Transit Authority (RTA) is restoring a 
2.9-mile traditional streetcar line in downtown New Orleans, as 
part of the locally preferred alternative for the Desire 
Corridor. The Desire Corridor streetcar project will operate 
along North Rampart Street and St. Claude Avenue between Canal 
Street and Poland Avenue. The proposed streetcar alignment will 
loop at Canal Street and use exclusive right-of-way in the 
median of city streets, as much as possible. The single-track 
loop will operate in the median of North Rampart and Canal 
Streets and in the traffic lanes of Basin and Toulouse Streets. 
The double track section will operate in the left traffic lanes 
of North Rampart Street, McShane Place, and St. Claude Avenue 
between Elysian Fields and Poland Avenues. The project will 
serve the communities of Iberville, Treme, Faubourg, Marigny, 
St. Roch, and Bywater. Six major bus transfer points with 
construction of center platforms, canopies, passenger benches, 
and landscaping will be provided: 16 intermediate stops with 
less elaborate center platforms are also planned. The project 
also includes the purchase of 13 new vehicles. RTA completed a 
major investment study for the Desire Corridor in September 
1999. FTA approved initiation of preliminary engineering in 
August 2000. The capital cost estimate of the streetcar project 
is $93,500,000, of which RTA will be seeking an FFGA for 
$65,500,000 (70 percent). To date, $5,960,000 has been 
appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the 
Committee recommends $3,100,000. Due to the volume of projects 
seeking an FFGA, the Committee cannot fully support those 
projects that are seeking a high federal share from the new 
starts account. The Committee strongly encourages New Orleans 
to revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute 
to the Desire corridor project, and find ways to increase the 
local share.
    Oceanside-Escondido, California, light rail extension 
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. FTA approved the NCTD's 
request to enter into final design in February 2000. The total 
capital cost for this project is estimated at $332,300,000; of 
which NCTD is expected to seek $152,500,000 (46 percent) in FTA 
new starts funds. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $17,840,000 to this project. For fiscal year 2002, 
the Committee recommends $13,000,000 for final design and 
construction.
    Phoenix, Arizona, Central Phoenix/east valley corridor 
project.--The Regional Public Transportation Authority (RPTA) 
is proposed to implement a 25-mile at-grade light rail system 
to connect the cities of Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa. As a first 
step, the RPTA is undertaking preliminary engineering on an 
20.3-mile segment from the Christ-Town Mall area, through 
downtown Phoenix and downtown Tempe, to Mesa. The proposed 
project would have 28 stations and serve major activity centers 
including downtown Phoenix, the Sky Harbor airport, Papago Park 
Center, and downtown Tempe. The RPTA completed the Central 
Phoenix/East Valley (CP/EV) major investment study (MIS) in the 
spring of 1998. In September 1998, FTA granted RPTA permission 
to enter the preliminary engineering/environmental impact 
statement (PE/EIS) phase on 13 miles of the corridor. FTA has 
subsequently approved preliminary engineering on 20.3 miles of 
the proposed system. Since the original approval, the size and 
scope of the proposed MOS and issues related to the regional 
travel demand model have been identified that remain to be 
resolved. As a result, the anticipated completion of PE/EIS 
cannot be determined. The proposed 20.3-mile LRT system is 
estimated to cost approximately $1,076,000,000 (escalated), of 
which the RPTA intends to seek $533,400,000 in new starts 
funding (50 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $23,740,000 for the project. For fiscal year 2002, 
the Committee recommends $16,000,000 for preliminary 
engineering, final design and construction.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore connector light rail 
transit project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County 
(PAAC), proposes to construct a 1.6-mile light rail transit 
system extension connecting the Golden Triangle and the North 
Shore wholly within downtown Pittsburgh. The project would 
extend the existing LRT service from the Gateway center LRT 
station in Golden Triangle to the vicinity of the West End 
Bridge on the North Shore via a tunnel below the Allegheny 
River. On the North Shore, the project would be a mix of at-
grade and elevated alignment. The project would also include a 
Convention Center connection, linking the existing Steel Plaza 
LRT station and the Convention Center. The North Shore 
connector LRT project would include the construction of four 
new LRT stations and modifications of the Gateway Center and 
Steel Plaza stations, and the acquisition of 10 new light rail 
vehicles. The alternatives analysis was completed in early 1999 
and the ``gateway LRT alternative'' was selected as the locally 
preferred alternative for the North Shore connector LRT project 
on August 16, 2000 by PAAC. FTA approval to initiate 
preliminary engineering was granted in January 2001. Project 
capital costs are estimated at $389,900,000 (escalated); 
revenue service start-up is planned in 2004. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $15,750,000 in section 
5309 new starts funds (50 percent) for this effort. For fiscal 
year 2002, the Committee has provided $6,000,000 for 
preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, stage II light rail transit 
reconstruction project.--The Port Authority of Allegheny County 
(PAAC) has undertaken reconstruction of the 25-mile Pittsburgh 
rail system to modern light rail standards. The stage I light 
rail transit (LRT) project resulted in the reconstruction of a 
13-mile system to light rail standards during the 1980s. The 
stage II LRT project proposes reconstruction and double-
tracking of the remaining 12 miles of the system consisting of 
the Overbrook, Library, and Drake trolley lines. The stage II 
LRT project would reconstruct these three lines to modern LRT 
standards, double track the single track segments, reopen the 
closed Overbrook and Drake Lines, add approximately 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 2,400 park and ride spaces and 28 
vehicles. The remainder of the stage II LRT program would be 
built as funds become available. The estimated cost of the 
priority program is $386,400,000. In January 2001, FTA issued 
an FFGA for this project that would commit a total of 
$100,200,000 in section 5309 new starts funding. Through fiscal 
year 2001, a total of $23,710,000 has been appropriated. The 
bill includes $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
    Portland, Oregon, Interstate MAX light rail transit 
extension project.--The Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation 
District of Oregon (Tri-Met) is planning a 5.8-mile, 10-station 
extension of its light rail transit (LRT) system known locally 
as the Metropolitan Area Express. The proposed Interstate 
Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) line will extend existing LRT 
service northward from the Rose Quarter Arena and the Oregon 
Convention Center, to North Portland neighborhoods, medical 
facilities, the Portland International Raceway, and the 
Metropolitan Exposition Center. Riders will be able to transfer 
between the Interstate MAX extension and the existing 33-mile 
East/West MAX line at Rose Quarter station. This line will 
complement regional land use plans by connecting established 
residential, commercial, entertainment, and other major 
activity centers, and providing a key transportation link in 
the region's welfare to work programs. The LRT extension is 
estimated to cost $350,000,000 (escalated dollars) and carry 
18,100 average weekday boardings (8,400 new riders) by 2020. On 
September 30, 2002, FTA and Tri-Met entered into an FFGA that 
commits a total of $257,500,000 in section 5309 new starts 
funds to the Interstate MAX project. This does not include 
funding appropriated in prior years that was allocated to 
Portland Metro for the 12-mile South-North light rail line 
originally proposed for this corridor. The fiscal year 2001 
appropriation provided $7,430,000 for the Interstate MAX 
extension. The Committee recommends $70,000,000 in fiscal year 
2002.
    Puget Sound, Washington, RTA Sounder commuter rail 
project.--The Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority 
(Sound Transit) is proposing to implement peak-hour commuter 
rail service for an eight-mile segment linking Tacoma and 
Lakewood, Washington. This service will be part of the overall 
82-mile Sounder commuter rail corridor serving 14 stations from 
Lakewood, through the downtowns of Tacoma and Seattle, and 
terminating in Everett, Washington. The Lakewood to Tacoma 
commuter rail service is scheduled to begin operations in 2001. 
The final EIS was published in May 2000 and a record of 
decision was signed in June 2000. Sound Transit will be seeking 
final design authorization for this project in 2001. The total 
budget for this segment, including vehicle purchase, track and 
signal improvements, and station construction is $86,000,000 in 
escalated dollars. Sound Transit is proposing a section 5309 
new starts share of $24,900,000 (29 percent). Because the 
proposed new starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project 
is exempt from the new starts criteria, and is thus not subject 
to FTA's evaluations and ratings. To date, $59,930,000 has been 
appropriated to the 82-mile Sounder commuter rail system, but 
none specifically to this segment. For fiscal year 2002, the 
bill includes $5,600,000 for final design and construction 
activities.
    Raleigh, North Carolina, Triangle transit project, phase 
I.--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 for 
Phase I is $754,700,000 (escalated dollars). The cost estimate 
includes final design, acquisition of right-of-way (ROW) and 
rail vehicles, station construction, park and ride lots, and 
construction of storage and maintenance facilities. The ROW 
proposed to be used by TTA for the project is shared among a 
number of operating railroads, thus TTA is considering a number 
of track realignments to accommodate inter-city and high-speed 
rail improvements. In 1995, TTA completed the Triangle Fixed 
Guideway Study. The Authority's Board of Trustees has adopted 
the study's recommendations to put into 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 North Carolina Railroad (NCRR), CSX Railroad, NCDOT Rail, 
and the Federal Railroad Administration. The draft EIS was 
signed in April 2001, and a record of decision on the final EIS 
is expected in December 2001. TTA is expected to request an 
FFGA for $377,300,000, or 50 percent, of the costs of this 
project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$41,600,000 in Section 5309 New Starts funds for this project. 
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $14,000,000 for 
preliminary engineering, final design and construction.
    Sacramento, California, light rail transit extension 
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. This excludes $1,980,000 in 
prior year funds before the FFGA was issued. 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 2001, 
Congress has appropriated $113,180,000 in Section 5309 new 
start funds for the project. For fiscal year 2002, the bill 
includes $328,810 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, CBD to University LRT.--The Utah 
Transit Authority (UTA) is implementing a 2.5-mile, four-
station light rail line in eastern Salt Lake City, from the 
downtown area to Rice-Eccles Stadium on the University of Utah 
campus. The line would connect with the existing North/South 
line at Main Street and 
travel east along 400 South and 500 South to the stadium. Light 
rail vehicles would operate on city streets and property owned 
by Salt Lake City, the Utah Department of Transportation, and 
the University. The CBD to University line was scaled back from 
the originally proposed 10.9-mile West/East line from the 
airport to the university. FTA issued an FFGA for the CBD to 
University LRT project on August 17, 2000, committing a total 
of $84,600,000 in section 5309 new starts funds. This does not 
include $4,960,000 in fiscal year 2000 and prior year funding, 
which brings the total amount of new starts funding for this 
project to $89,560,000. An additional $1,980,000 was 
appropriated in 2001. The bill provides $15,000,000 for this 
project in fiscal year 2002.
    Salt Lake City, Utah, North South light rail transit 
extension project.--The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has 
completed construction of a 15-mile LRT line from downtown Salt 
Lake City to the southern suburbs. The line opened for regular 
weekday service on December 6, 1999. The system operates on 
city streets downtown (2 miles) then follows a lightly used 
railroad alignment owned by UTA to the suburban community of 
Sandy (13 miles). The project is one component of the 
Interstate 15 corridor improvement initiative, which includes 
reconstruction of a parallel segment of I-15. Though original 
ridership projections for the South LRT were estimated at 
14,000 daily passengers in 2000 and 23,000 passengers in 2010, 
current ridership has already exceeded 26,000 weekday 
passengers. Total cost for this project was $312,490,000, of 
which the FFGA committed $237,390,000 in new starts funding, 
not including $6,600,000 in prior year funds that were provided 
before the FFGA was issued. To date, a total of $243,280,000 
has been appropriated to the project. For fiscal year 2002, the 
bill includes $718,006 to fulfill the terms of the FFGA for 
this project.
    San Diego, California, Mid-Coast corridor project.--The 
Metropolitan Transit Development Board (MTDB) is proposing to 
implement a 10.7-mile, 9-station LRT line and improve commuter 
rail stations in the San Diego Mid Coast Corridor. Proposed 
investments in the corridor are intended to alleviate 
congestion on Interstate 5 by extending light rail service 
north from downtown San Diego to the vicinity of the University 
of California at San Diego and the growing University City and 
Carmel Valley areas of the region, and to enhance connectivity 
between the region's LRT and Coaster commuter rail systems. The 
MTDB has proposed a phase I of the project, a 3.4-mile, 3 
station Balboa extension from the Old Town transit center to 
Balboa Avenue. FTA approved the MTDB's request to enter 
preliminary engineering for the initial phase of the LRT 
extension in September 1996. Work is continuing on a final EIS 
for the Balboa extension. A record of decision is expected in 
spring 2001. The estimated cost of phase I is $116,700,000 
(escalated), with a section 5309 new starts share of 
$42,200,000 (36 percent). Through fiscal year 2001, $11,330,000 
has been appropriated. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for 
fiscal year 2002.
    San Diego, California, Mission Valley East light rail 
transit 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. 
The line would serve four new stations at Grantville, San Diego 
State University (SDSU), Alvarado Medical Center and 70th 
Street, as well as two existing stations at Mission San Diego 
and Grossmont Center. The proposed project would include 
elevated, at-grade, and tunnel portions and provide two park-
and-ride lots and a new access road between Waring Road and the 
Grantville Station. The project is expected to serve 
approximately 10,800 average weekday boardings in the corridor 
by 2015. The major investment study/draft environmental impact 
statement (DEIS) was completed in May 1997. The locally 
preferred alternative was selected by the Metropolitan Transit 
Development Board in October 1997 with concurrence from the San 
Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG, the local 
metropolitan planning organization). FTA approval to enter the 
preliminary engineering (PE) phase of project development was 
granted in March 1998. Preliminary engineering was completed in 
July 1998. This abbreviated schedule for PE was possible due to 
the extensive public involvement and detailed analyses 
undertaken during the planning stages, streamlining much of the 
work that would traditionally be undertaken in the PE phase. 
The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was completed 
and the record of decision (ROD) was issued in August 1998. FTA 
approval to enter final design was granted in October 1998. The 
total project capital cost is $431,000,000 (escalated dollars). 
On June 22, 2000, FTA issued an FFGA committing a total of 
$329,960,000 in section 5309 new starts funding for the 
project. Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$53,320,000 in section 5309 new starts funds to this project. 
The Committee recommends $65,000,000 for fiscal year 2002.
    San Francisco, California, BART extension to the airport 
project.--The Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) and San Mateo 
County Transit District (SamTrans) are constructing an 8.7-
mile, 4-station, BART extension which proceeds southeast from 
the Colma BART Station through the cities of Colma, South San 
Francisco and San Bruno, and then continues south along the 
Caltrain right-of-way to the city of Millbrae. Approximately, 
1.5 miles north of the Millbrae Avenue intermodal terminal, an 
east-west aerial ``wye'' (Y) stub will service the San 
Francisco International Airport (SFIA). Originally, this 
project was estimated to cost $1,054,000,000; however, total 
capital costs have risen to $1,510,200,000 (escalated dollars) 
due to higher than estimated construction costs. FTA's 
commitment of $750,000,000 to the project remains unchanged. 
Ridership is projected to be 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 Federal 
section 5309 new start funds. Through fiscal year 2001, 
$296,440,000 has been appropriated to the BART-SFO Extension. 
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $80,605,331.
    San Jose, California, Tasman West light rail transit 
project.--The Santa Clara County Transit District (SCCTD) is 
implementing a 12.4-mile light rail system from northeast San 
Jose to downtown Mountain View, connecting with both the 
Guadalupe LRT in northern Santa Clara County and the Caltrain 
commuter rail system. The project is proceeding in two phases. 
The phase 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 future phase 2 east extension will 
complete the remaining 4.8 miles. 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 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$182,640,000 of section 5309 new start funds to the project. 
For fiscal year 2002, the Committee recommends $113,336 to 
fulfill the federal commitment to this project.
    San Juan, Puerto Rico, Tren Urbano project.--The Puerto 
Rico Department of Transportation and Public Works (DTPW), 
through its Highway and Transportation Authority (PRHTA), is 
constructing a 10.7-mile (17.2 km) double-track guideway 
between Bayamon Centro and the Sagrado Corazon area of Santurce 
in San Juan. Approximately 40 percent of the alignment is at or 
near grade. The remainder, aside from a short below-grade 
segment in the Centro Medico area as well as an underground 
segment through Rio Piedras, is generally elevated above 
roadway rights-of-way. The project includes 16 stations and a 
vehicle and right of way maintenance/storage facility. The 
original capital cost for the project as specified in the FFGA 
totals $1,250,000,000 (escalated dollars). The cost of the 
project is now estimated at $1,653,600,000. The Tren Urbano 
project is expected to carry 113,300 riders per day in 2010. 
The Tren Urbano phase 1 environmental review process was 
completed in November 1995 and included 14 stations. The 
alignment design allowed for the future addition of two 
stations, one in Rio Piedras and one in Hato Rey. A record of 
decision (ROD) was issued in February 1996. In March 1996, FTA 
entered into an FFGA for the Tren Urbano project providing a 
Federal commitment of $307,400,000 in section 5309 new start 
funds out of a total project cost of $1,250,000,000. The cost 
of the project is now estimated at $1,653,000,000. Subsequent 
to the FFGA, three environmental assessments were prepared 
which revised the alignment at the Villa Nevarez station and 
added new stations, in Rio Piedras at the University of Puerto 
Rico, and in Hato Rey at Domenech Street. Findings of no 
significant impact (FONSI) by the FTA were issued for these 
three environmental assessments in November 1996, February 
1997, and July 1997, respectively. An amendment to the FFGA 
signed in July 1999, added the two stations identified in the 
environmental process as well as 10 additional railcars. The 
amendment also added $141,000,000 in section 5307 funds and 
$259,900,000 in flexible funding. The new cost estimate for the 
project encompasses the cost for extended project management 
and construction management services, for advance design 
development activities and for anticipated costs for claims and 
contingencies. The local share funding for the project is being 
provided by local revenues from the Puerto Rico Highway and 
Transportation Authority (PRHTA). All operating costs, as well 
as debt service on PRHTA bonds, are included as part of the 
PRHTA annual budget, established in accordance with standard 
PRHTA budget procedures. The project was also awarded a TIFIA 
(Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act of 
1998) loan of $300,000,000. The project is well into the 
construction phase of development. During 1996 and 1997, seven 
design-build contracts were awarded for different segments of 
the Tren Urbano phase 1 system. The systems test track and 
turnkey contract, awarded in August 1996, provided for the 
purchase of rolling stock, design and installation of all 
systemwide components, construction of one of the civil 
segments, and operation and maintenance of Tren Urbano phase 1 
for an initial period of five years. Contractors for this 
project have had problems meeting construction milestones and 
quality standards. Significant problems include tunnel 
misalignments, inadequate protection of steel reinforcements, 
cracking in guideways, and Buy America issues. Because of the 
serious, and unresolved, nature of these problems, FTA has 
withheld $105,700,000 in appropriations from the project and 
the project is now expected to enter revenue service in 2003, a 
slip from May 2002. The Committee expects the Inspector General 
to continue monitoring the status of this project, in light of 
these unresolved problems, as well as possible debt repayment 
concerns, and report back to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on these issues no later than October 1, 2001. 
Through fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated 
$158,930,000 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 2002, 
the Committee recommends $40,000,000.
    Southern Nevada regional transportation commission.--The 
Committee directs that the unexpended balance of funds 
appropriated in prior years for the Regional Transportation 
Commission (RTC) of southern Nevada for preliminary engineering 
activities on the resort corridor fixed guideway project may be 
used by RTC for final design activities on that project, 
subject to any necessary FTA approvals to enter the final 
design phase of project development.
    St. Louis, Missouri, MetroLink St. Clair 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 5309 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 2001, Congress has 
appropriated $221,320,000 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 2002, the bill provides $31,088,422 to 
complete the federal commitment to this project.
    Stamford, Connecticut, urban transit project--The Stamford 
corridor project involves the construction of a one-mile urban 
transitway to improve access to the Stamford intermodal 
transportation center, which is currently being rehabilitated 
to accommodate high-speed rail service and to provide 
additional commuter parking. A brownfield 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. FTA approved the City of 
Stamford's request to initiate preliminary engineering on the 
urban transitway in February 2000. The city plans to complete 
the environmental review in 2001. The estimated cost of the 
project is $44,000,000, of which $24,000,000 is for the one-
mile access road (including bus and high occupancy vehicle 
lanes) and $18,000,000 is for the parking facility. Of this 
total, $18,000,000 is proposed for the federal share (41 
percent). Because the proposed new start share is less than 
$25,000,000, the project is exempt from the new starts criteria 
and is thus not subject to FTA's evaluation and rating. Through 
fiscal year 2001, Congress has appropriated $9,890,000 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 2002.
    Washington County, Oregon, Wilsonville to Beaverton 
commuter rail project.--Washington County, Oregon, in 
conjunction with the Oregon Department of Transportation, Tri-
County Metropolitan District of Oregon, Portland Metro, 
Clackamas County, and the cities of Wilsonville, Tualatin, 
Tigard, and Beaverton, are proposing to design and construct a 
15-mile commuter rail line in the Wilsonville-Beaverton 
Corridor. The proposed project would operate along portions of 
existing Union Pacific railroad tracks and connect to Metro's 
existing Westside light rail system at the Beaverton Transit 
Center (BTC). As part of the proposed project, approximately 
2,000 feet of new railroad trackage will be constructed at the 
northern terminus of the alignment near BTC. The proposed 
project also includes the purchase of eight passenger rail 
cars, the construction of vehicle maintenance and dispatch 
facilities, and multiple capital improvements. The proposed 
commuter rail project is estimated to have 4,650 weekday 
boardings. In June 2000, the Washington County Board of 
Commissions unanimously adopted commuter rail as the locally 
preferred alternative (LPA) for the corridor. The affected 
local governments also passed resolutions adopting the LPA. FTA 
approved Washington county's request to enter preliminary 
engineering on the project in July 2000 and authorized a draft 
environmental assessment. In August 2000, the Metro Council 
adopted the financially constrained regional transportation 
plan, which includes the Wilsonville-Beaverton commuter rail 
project. Total capital costs for the commuter rail alternative 
are currently estimated at $82,800,000, with a proposed federal 
share of $24,900,000 (30 percent). Since the proposed new 
starts share is less than $25,000,000, the project is exempt 
from evaluation under the new starts criteria. Through fiscal 
year 2001, Congress has appropriated $1,470,000 in new starts 
fund for this effort. For fiscal year 2002, the bill includes 
an appropriation of $1,000,000.
    Project and financial management oversight.--Both the 
Inspector General and the General Accounting Office have 
repeatedly reported on problem transit projects in San 
Francisco, Los Angeles, Boston, Puerto Rico, and Seattle. They 
found that transit projects that have experienced significant 
cost overruns, lengthy delays, substantial scope changes or 
other noteworthy problems have typically entered into a full 
funding grant too early in the process, before adequate design 
parameters had been established. One way to identify these 
problems before a full funding grant agreement is entered into 
is through increased project and financial oversight. Over the 
past few years, FTA have increased their oversight activities, 
largely through a provision in TEA-21 that allows the 
Administration to draw down a percent of formula and capital 
investment grant funding to pay for these activities. For 
fiscal year 2002, FTA has estimated that a shortfall of about 
$5,000,000 will occur. To rectify this situation, the budget 
proposed to increase the capital investment program set aside 
from \3/4\ percent to 1 percent to cover the growth of project 
and financial management oversight necessary on the growing 
number of projects in the new starts pipeline. The Committee 
has approved this request (sec. 335). If this increase were not 
approved, FTA would need to limit the number of projects to 
which oversight contractors are assigned or scale back the 
level of oversight currently being provided by doing a risk-
based ranking of projects. Either of these options would expose 
FTA, the Federal government, and Congress to criticism if one 
of the projects not fully monitored develops serious problems.
    Project and financial management oversight is particularly 
important this year, following the Seattle Sound Transit 
debacle. In January 2001, FTA entered into a $500,000,000 full 
funding grant agreement with Seattle Sound Transit for the 
first phase of a 23.5-mile light rail project. The first phase, 
or MOS-1, was to build a 7.4-mile long double-track light rail 
system located entirely within the City of Seattle. From the 
time that FTA sent this project forward for Congressional 
review until the time FTA signed the FFGA (a four-month 
period), the project costs increased by $1 billion, the 
schedule slipped by three years, and certain aspects of the 
community began expressing serious reservations about this 
project. Even after this project received an FFGA, problems 
continued to plague it. The Inspector General reported in April 
2001 that:
     ``FTA did not perform satisfactory due diligence 
in the grant application process. Both FTA and Sound Transit 
had information that the $1.674 billion cost estimate and 
revenue operation date of June 2007 contained in the grant 
agreement submitted to the Congress in September 2000, were 
materially understated and consideration of the grant agreement 
should have been suspended or withdrawn.''
     FTA's review of the project, including its 
examination of the new $2.6 billion estimate (in December 2000) 
was not thorough enough to serve as a predicate for approval of 
the project on January 19, 2001. Several items, such as revised 
agreements for station locations and the use of a needed bus 
tunnel, incomplete design refinements and engineering options, 
and uncertain contracting methods all should have been resolved 
prior to the signing of the FFGA.''
    As a result of these findings, the Administration did not 
recommend any funding for this project in fiscal year 2002 and 
is holding the fiscal year 2001 funding in abeyance. 
Independent, and increased, project and financial oversight is 
critical to ensure that the Federal government does not 
continue to enter into FFGAs prematurely. Earlier and better 
oversight on this project may have flagged these problems prior 
to FTA agreeing to a $500,000,000 FFGA.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\....      $20,000,000    ($80,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......       25,000,000    (100,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............       25,000,000    (100,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...       +5,000,000    (+20,000,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..  ...............              ()

\1\ Does not reflect rescission of $220,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    Section 3037 of TEA-21 established the job access and 
reverse commute (JARC) grants program. For fiscal year 2002, 
the program is funded at a total level of $125,000,000, with no 
more than $25,000,000 derived from the general fund and 
$100,000,000 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.
    Formula proposal for job access and reverse commute 
grants.--The Committee has denied bill language that would 
allocate funding to states for job access and reverse commute 
grant programs by a formula. The administration requested a 
formula allocation so that states and localities will have a 
greater level of predictability and stability in funding. The 
Committee sees no need to change this grant program into a 
formula-based program. Instead, the Committee has tried to 
continue funding meritorious projects that have received 
appropriations in the past to assure that those areas have 
ongoing service, as well as to fund new projects worthy of 
support.
    The Committee recommends the following allocations of job 
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year 
2002:

        Project name                                              Amount
Abilene, Texas Citilink Program.........................        $150,000
AC Transit, California..................................       2,000,000
Austin, Texas...........................................         500,000
Avondale, Arizona.......................................       1,200,000
Broome County, New York Transit.........................         500,000
Burlington Community Land Trust/Good News Garage........         850,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority..........................       1,000,000
Charlotte Area Transit, North Carolina..................         500,000
Chatham, Georgia........................................       1,000,000
Chattanooga, Tennessee..................................         500,000
City of Charlottesville, Virginia.......................         375,000
City of Santa Fe, New Mexico............................         630,000
Columbia County, New York...............................         100,000
Community Transportation Association of America.........         625,000
Corpus Christi, Texas...................................         550,000
Del Norte County, California............................         700,000
Delaware Department of Transportation...................         750,000
Flint, Michigan Mass Transportation Authority...........       1,000,000
Galveston, Texas........................................         480,000
Genesee County, Michigan................................       1,000,000
Genesee Regional Transportation Authority, New York.....         400,000
Georgetown Metro Connection, Washington, DC.............       1,000,000
Hillsbourgh Area Regional Transit, Tampa, Florida.......         900,000
IndyFlex Service, Indiana...............................       1,000,000
Jacksonville Transportation Authority's Choice Ride, 
    Florida.............................................       1,000,000
Jefferson County, Alabama...............................       2,000,000
Los Angeles, California.................................       2,000,000
Metropolitan Kansas City, Missouri......................       1,000,000
Metropolitan Transportation Commission, LIFT program, 
    California..........................................       3,000,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department..       2,000,000
New York Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority.....       1,000,000
Northern Tier Dial-A-Ride, Massachusetts................         400,000
Ohio Ways to Work.......................................       1,500,000
Oklahoma Transit Association............................       5,000,000
Pace, Illinois suburban buses...........................         561,000
Palm Beach County, Florida..............................         500,000
Pennsylvania Ways to Work program.......................       1,500,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania reverse commute buses..........       2,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania........       2,000,000
Portland, Oregon........................................       1,800,000
Red Rose, Transit, Pennsylvania.........................         200,000
Sacramento, California..................................       2,000,000
Salem Area Transit, Oregon..............................         700,000
Santa Clara County, California..........................         500,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, 
    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..........................       6,000,000
Southeastern, Massachusetts Regional Transit Authority..         100,000
State of Arkansas.......................................         500,000
State of Connecticut....................................       3,500,000
State of Iowa...........................................       1,695,000
State of Maryland.......................................       4,000,000
State of Nevada.........................................         300,000
State of New Jersey.....................................       3,000,000
State of Rhode Island...................................       1,000,000
State of Tennessee......................................       3,000,000
State of Wisconsin......................................       5,200,000
Sullivan County, New York...............................         400,000
Tennessee small rural systems...........................       1,000,000
Topeka, Kansas Metropolitan Transit Authority...........         600,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority..........       2,500,000
Westchester County, New York............................       1,000,000
Wichita Transit, Kansas.................................       1,450,000
Winchester, Virginia....................................       1,000,000
Worcester, Massachusetts................................         400,000
WorkFirst Transportation Initiative, State of Washington       3,000,000
Workforce Investment Board of Southeast Missouri........         800,000

             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 2001\1\....................       $13,004,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002.....................        13,345,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        13,426,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +422,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002.................          +81,000

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $28,609 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 109-554.

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$13,426,000, a slight increase above the amount requested. This 
increase ($81,000) will fund a 4.6 percent pay raise instead of 
the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget request. Appropriations 
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and revenues from non-
federal sources finance the operations and maintenance of the 
Seaway for which the corporation is responsible.
    Employee retirements.--The Seaway faces a serious problem 
with employees eligible for retirement over the next ten years. 
By 2010, 53 percent of all Seaway employees will be eligible 
for retirement, with the operations offices facing the greatest 
loss. While the Committee commends the Seaway for taking steps 
to address the problem, such as conducting a workforce analysis 
project to evaluate available resources, the Committee does not 
believe this will be adequate. Therefore, the Seaway is 
directed to provide to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations no later than April 1, 2002, a report detailing 
any plans to address recruiting and retention of employees, a 
process to retain the key skills of retiring employees, and the 
impact of technological advances on future workforce needs.

              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 2002 Program

    The Committee recommends $85,162,000 in new budget 
authority to continue the operations, research and development, 
and grants-in-aid administered by the Research and Special 
Programs Administration. This is an increase of $4,545,000 from 
the fiscal year 2001 enacted level. The following table 
summarizes fiscal year 2001 program levels, the fiscal year 
2002 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2001   Fiscal year 2002   Recommended  in
                        Program                              enacted\2\          estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special programs..........................        $36,373,000        $41,993,000        $36,487,000
Hazardous materials user fees..........................  .................        -12,000,000  .................
Pipeline safety........................................      \1\44,044,000         53,758,000         48,475,000
Emergency preparedness grants..........................            200,000            200,000            200,000
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total............................................         80,617,000         83,951,000         85,162,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect $3,000,000 derived from the reserve fund because it is not directly appropriated.
\2\ Does not reflect reductions pursuant to Section 1403 of Public Law 106-534 in across the board reductions.

                     Research and Special Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $36,373,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        41,993,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        36,487,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +114,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................       -5,506,000

\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $80,021 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554.

    RSPA's research and special programs administers a 
comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the 
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) 
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's 
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation 
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the 
department's research and development policy, planning, 
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 
legal, financial, management and administrative support for 
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation. The 
total recommended program level for research and special 
programs is $36,487,000, essentially the same level as fiscal 
year 2001. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are 
as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2001   Fiscal year 2002   Recommended  in
                                                              enacted            estimate           the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety.............................        $18,750,000        $21,217,000        $21,348,000
    (Positions)........................................              (129)              (135)              (135)
Hazardous materials safety user fees...................  .................        -12,000,000  .................
Research and technology................................          4,816,000          4,759,000          1,784,000
    (Positions)........................................                (9)                (9)                (9)
Emergency transportation...............................          1,831,000          1,897,000          1,897,000
    (Positions)........................................                (9)                (9)                (9)
Program support........................................         10,976,000         14,059,000         11,458,000
    (Positions)........................................               (53)               (67)               (53)
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs.............         36,373,000         41,993,000         36,487,000
      (Positions)......................................              (200)              (220)              (206)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding for 14 new positions.....................       -$690,000
Reduce funding for research and development planning....      -1,675,000
Reduce funding for transportation infrastructure 
    assurance...........................................      -1,000,000
Discontinue funding for human-centered research.........        -300,000
Reduce funding for business modernization...............      -1,911,000
Reduce funding for unjustified amounts..................         -60,000
Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise        +130,000

    New positions.--The budget included a request for six new 
personnel for the office of hazardous materials. Of these, two 
would evaluate incidents in the field and four would be 
researchers/engineers. The Committee has provided funding 
associated with these new positions.
    The budget also requested 14 new positions in program 
support for business modernization. These new personnel would 
work in the areas of information resources, administrative 
support, and financial management. The Committee is concerned 
that RSPA has not developed a strategic plan that assesses 
realistic needs or provides realistic cost estimates, plans, 
and goals associated with the large increases requested. 
Therefore, the Committee has denied funding for these 
positions. The Committee directs RSPA to develop a strategic 
plan for business modernization by October 1, 2002.
    Research and development planning.--The Committee has 
reduced research and development planning by $1,675,000. The 
Committee is concerned with the recent increases in research 
accounts and believes some of the programs to be duplicative. 
The Committee also questions RSPA's tangible value to DOT 
research programs. The Committee encourages RSPA to streamline 
its research programs, to efficiently use available resources 
on the most effective programs, and to eliminate duplicative 
programs within RSPA and among other modal administrations in 
DOT.
    Transportation infrastructure assurance program.--The 
Committee has deleted amounts for the transportation 
infrastructure assurance program. This program was begun in 
fiscal year 2001 to address vulnerabilities of key national 
transportation infrastructure. However, it is unclear what 
value RSPA provides in this effort. The Federal Aviation 
Administration has been actively developing ways to protect its 
infrastructure that could be vulnerable to a variety of 
security threats. As the Committee noted in 2001, DOT has 
stated, ``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 program has been deleted.
    Human centered research.--The Committee has deleted 
$300,000 for the human centered research effort begun by RSPA 
in 2001. Efforts within the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Federal 
Highway Administration, National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and 
universities have been on-going for several years. Although the 
Committee agrees it is important to understand the role of 
fatigue in the transportation industry, the Committee is not 
convinced of the compelling need for RSPA to join many other 
entities already working in this area.
    Business modernization.--The Committee has deleted funding 
for business modernization. As noted earlier, RSPA has not 
developed a strategic plan for the efficient and effective use 
of the large funding increases it requests.
    Unjustified amounts.--Since submission of the budget, RSPA 
has advised the Committee that $60,000 is not needed. The 
Committee has deleted funding to reflect this.
    User fees.--The Committee disagrees with the budget request 
to begin funding the hazardous materials safety program from 
user fees. On February 14, 2001, RSPA finalized a rule that 
changed the agency's registration and fee assessment program 
for persons who transport, or offer for transport, certain 
categories and quantities of hazardous materials. The rule 
increased the number of persons required to register and 
increased the annual registration fee for shippers and carriers 
which are not small businesses. These fees have raised 
additional funds to enhance support for the national hazardous 
materials emergency preparedness grant program.
    To begin funding the hazardous materials safety program 
would require RSPA to initiate a rule to collect $12,000,000 in 
user fees in fiscal year 2002 and fully fund the office of 
hazardous materials beginning in fiscal year 2003. These fees 
would be above those for emergency preparedness grants. 
Currently, this new fee is not authorized. Further, the 
Committee is concerned about raising fees twice on a small 
segment of the transportation industry. While the Committee 
supported fees to increase funding available for emergency 
preparedness training and grants, it is unwilling to have the 
same segment of the industry fully fund the Federal 
Government's entire hazardous materials safety program.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (Pipeline Safety Fund)

                    (Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)

                                                           (Oil spill
                                      (Pipeline safety   liability trust
                                            fund)             fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 12.       $36,556,000        $7,488,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2002...        46,286,000         7,472,000
Recommended in the bill.............        41,003,000         7,472,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001.         4,447,000           -16,000
    Budget estimate, fiscal year            -5,283,000  ................
 2002...............................

\1\ Excludes reduction of $87,023 in pipeline safety and $16,474 in
  trust fund share of pipeline safety pursuant to public law 106-54,
  section 1403.
\2\ Does not reflect $3,000,000 derived from the reserve fund, because
  it is not directly appropriated.

    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 $48,475,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 2002. This is 3 percent above the level enacted 
for fiscal year 2001. The bill specifies that of the total 
appropriation, $7,472,000 shall be derived from the oil spill 
liability trust fund and $41,003,000 shall be from the pipeline 
safety fund.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding for six new positions..................         -$405,300
Reduce funding for integrity management program.......        -4,943,000
Increase funding consistent with a 4.6 percent pay               +65,000
 raise................................................

    New positions.--The budget requested 26 new positions to 
support a new community based program and to support the new 
integrity management program. The Committee has provided 
funding for 20 new personnel. The Committee remains concerned 
that none of the four new pipeline positions approved last year 
have been filled and encourages RSPA to fill these vacancies as 
well as the new positions expeditiously.
    Interstate oversight grant program and damage prevention 
and public education.--RSPA has included in its base $5,000,000 
from the damage prevention grants program, which expires at the 
end of fiscal year 2001. RSPA has allocated this funding to a 
new grant program and a new community outreach program. The 
Committee has provided funding for these two programs.
    Integrity management program.--RSPA requested $4,943,000 
for a new integrity management program to ensure that pipeline 
operators are complying with new integrity management 
requirements. This request would fund the development of 
protocols for the integrity management review process, train 
inspectors, and develop information systems for integrity 
management compliance reviews. Due to budget constraints, the 
Committee has denied funding for this program. However, the 
Committee allows RSPA to use up to $1,000,000 of the $3,413,000 
(in non-grant funds) provided to the damage prevention 
community assistance program for activities related to the 
integrity management program. The Committee believes that since 
both the damage prevention community assistance program and the 
integrity management program of these initiatives are new or 
expanded, this funding level will be sufficient in 2002. The 
Committee directs RSPA to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriation a concise report by Feb. 1, 2002 on 
how the $3,413,000 for damage prevention and community 
assistance, and the $2,000,000 for interstate oversight grants 
were used and how these programs contributed to safety. The 
report should include specific examples.
    Pay raise.--The Committee has provided funding consistent 
with a 4.6 percent pay raise.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................          $200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................           200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           200,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Excludes reduction of $440 pursuant to public law 106-554, section
  1403.

    The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act 
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a 
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor 
public sector emergency response training and planning and 
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions 
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a 
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
    The bill includes $200,000, the same amount as requested, 
for activities related to emergency response training 
curriculum development and updates, as authorized by section 
117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided an 
obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency 
preparedness grant program.

                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $48,450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        50,614,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,614,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +2,164,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $106,000 pursuant to section 1403 of
  P.L. 106-554.

    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 $50,614,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG), an 
increase of $2,164,000 (4.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2001 
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 $5,524,000 from 
other agencies in this bill for audits of the highway trust 
fund. The OIG's total funding of $56,138,000 represents an 
increase of 6 percent above the fiscal year 2001 level.
    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.
    Amtrak oversight.--The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act 
of 1997 required the Inspector General to annually review 
Amtrak's financial health. These reports have been extremely 
helpful in pointing out areas that Amtrak is making 
improvements as well as problems with Amtrak's financial 
stability. Fiscal year 2002 is a crucial year for Amtrak. By 
December 2, 2002, Amtrak must be free of federal operating 
subsidies. If this does not occur, Amtrak must develop a plan 
to liquidate. The fiscal year 2001 annual report will be 
critical to help decision makers determine whether or not 
Amtrak will be able to meet the self-sufficiency test. The 
Committee expects the Inspector General to issue this report in 
a timely fashion so that it may be adequately considered prior 
to the self-sufficiency deadline.
    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.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $17,954,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002 \2\..................        18,457,000
Recommended in the bill \3\...........................        18,563,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +609,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................         +106,000

\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $37,519 pursuant to section 1403 of
  Public Law 106-554. Of this total, $900,000 is offset through the
  collection of user fees.
\2\ Assumes collection of $950,000 in user fees, to offset the
  appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.
\3\ Of this total, $950,000 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 (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration). The Board is specifically responsible for 
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The 
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 made by the 
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$18,563,000, or $106,000 over the Board's requested amount. The 
increase from the request provides additional funding 
consistent with a 4.6 percent pay raise. Included in the 
recommended amount is an estimated $950,000 in fees, which will 
offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, the 
Board will be able to accommodate 143 full-time equivalent 
positions.
    User fees.--Current statutory authority, under the 
Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C. 9701), grants 
the Board the authority to collect user fees. The Committee 
agrees with the budget request that $950,000 in user fees is 
reasonable. Currently, the Board is revising its merger 
guidelines and, as a result, will not consider any new merger 
applications until the final rules are published on June 11, 
2001.
    Language is included in the bill allowing the fees to be 
credited to the appropriation as offsetting collections, and 
reducing the general fund appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as the fees are received and credited. This language, 
continued from last year, simplifies the tracking of the 
collections and provides the Board with more flexibility in 
spending its appropriated funds.
    Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12, 
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific 
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County, 
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study 
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated 
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue 
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
    By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP 
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly 
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of 
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated 
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a 
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated 
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or 
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the 
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental 
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance 
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe 
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if 
shown to be appropriate.

                                TITLE II

                            RELATED AGENCIES

       ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001\1\....................        $4,795,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................         5,015,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,046,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................          +251,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................           +31,000

\1\ Excludes $11,000 in across-the-board reductions pursuant to P.L. 106-
  554.

    The Committee recommends $5,046,000 for operations of the 
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an 
increase of $251,000 over the fiscal year 2001 enacted level, 
and a slight increase above the amount requested. The Committee 
has included additional funding for a 4.6 percent employee pay 
raise instead of the 3.6 percent pay raise in the budget.
    The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance 
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers 
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock, 
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped 
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to 
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication 
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being 
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum 
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and 
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by 
title V of the Rehabilitation Act.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................       $62,942,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2002......................        64,480,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        66,400,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2001...................        +3,458,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2002..................       +1,920,000

\1\ Excludes $139,000 in across the board reductions pursuant to P.L.
  106-554.

    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 $66,400,000 for 
salaries and expenses, an increase of $3,458,000 (5.7 percent) 
above the fiscal year 2001 enacted level and $1,910,000 above 
the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, up to $2,000 may be 
used for official reception and representation expenses as 
requested. The Committee expects to be advised if the Board 
proposes to deviate in any way from the staff year allocations 
or by more than five percent from the funding allocations 
described in the budget justifications.
    The recommendation includes the following adjustments to 
the budget estimate:
                                                        Change to budget
Civilian pay raise parity...............................       +$304,000
True overtime...........................................        +699,000
Financial management/audit improvements.................        +917,000

    Civilian pay raise parity.--Consistent with other sections 
of the bill, the recommendation includes funds sufficient to 
finance a 4.6 percent general pay raise, which is the same 
level as proposed for the military workforce.
    True overtime.--The bill includes $699,000 for NTSB to pay 
``true'' overtime to its employees. Without such funding, many 
NTSB investigators are being paid less, on an hourly basis, for 
working overtime than they are paid during normal business 
hours. The bill helps to address that disparity.
    Financial management and audit improvements.--The bill 
includes $917,000 for NTSB to continue the necessary 
improvements in its financial management and internal audit 
systems. These funds are necessary to address recommendations 
stemming from fraudulent misuse of the now-defunct Rapid Draft 
system and inadequate system-level oversight of financial 
activities. The Committee remains strongly supportive of these 
efforts, and encourages the administration to include funds to 
restore the integrity of NTSB's financial management systems in 
future budget requests.

                             Bill Language

    Bill language is continued 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.

                               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 2001 Department of Transportation and Related 
Agencies Appropriations Act (section numbers are different):
    Section 302 requires pay raises to be funded within 
appropriated levels in this Act or previous appropriations 
Acts.
    Section 308 limits consulting service expenditures of 
public record in procurement contracts.
    Section 316 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 335 
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 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 325 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
allow issuers of any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase 
preferred stock sold to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making grants 
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 329 prohibits funds for planning, design, or 
construction of a light rail system in Houston, Texas.
    Section 330 prohibits funds in this Act for engineering 
work related to an additional runway at New Orleans 
International Airport.
    Section 332 prohibits funds in this Act to be used to adopt 
guidelines or regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide 
the Federal Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings, 
maintenance, or space for FAA services. The prohibition does 
not apply to negotiations between FAA and airport sponsors 
concerning ``below market'' rates for such services or to grant 
assurances that require airport sponsors to provide land 
without cost to the FAA for air traffic control facilities.
    The Committee included the following general provisions as 
requested with modifications:
    Section 304 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and 
expenses of more than 105 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 310 provides for the distribution of the Federal-
aid highways program under title 23, United States Code, and 
includes $56,300,000 of the funds authorized under section 110 
for the state and Federal border infrastructure construction 
program. The Committee did not include the modifications to 
section 310 proposed in the budget regarding transportation 
research programs, a pilot program to promote innovation 
transportation solutions for people with disabilities, and a 
matching grant program to promote access to alternative methods 
of transportation.
    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, 2002.
    Section 326 provides the budget request of $785,000 for the 
Amtrak Reform Council, and includes provisions regarding 
section 203 of Public Law 105-134 on the Amtrak Reform 
Council's recommendations on Amtrak routes identified for 
closure or realignment.
    Also, the Committee included the provision that allows 
$2,500,000 of user fees to be credited to the Office of the 
Secretary, Salaries and expenses under title I instead of 
$5,000,000 of user fees proposed in the budget under title III.
    The Committee included the following new provisions:
    Section 307 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to 
make expenditures and investments related to aviation insurance 
activities under chapter 443 of title 49, United States Code. 
This provision was included under Title I, Federal Aviation 
Administration, in previous Appropriations Acts.
    Section 323 reserves up to $18,000,000 of funds provided 
for the motor carrier safety grants program for Arizona, 
California, New Mexico, and Texas to hire state border 
inspectors.
    Section 328 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 337 amends item number 1348 in section 1602 of 
Public Law 105-178 pertaining to the Gastineau Channel second 
crossing to Douglas Island project.
    Section 338 prohibits funds for the Office of the Secretary 
of Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable 
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal 
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or 
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for 
Congressional notification.
    Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration 
to use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional 
staff or for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose 
of facilitating environmental activities related to airport 
projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air 
transportation system.
    Section 340 amends item number 642 in section 1602 of 
Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap 
County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.
    Section 341 amends item number 1793 in section 1602 of 
Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as the Kitsap 
County-Seattle passenger only ferry project.
    Section 342 amends item number 576 in section 1602 of 
Public Law 105-178 to redesignate such project as construction 
for the Missouri Center for Advanced Highway Safety.
    Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station 
known as the National Airport Station as the ``Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport Station'', and requires WMATA to 
modify signs, maps, directories, documents, and other records 
published by WMATA to reflect the redesignation.
    The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the 
budget: (1) restricting eligibility for essential air service 
subsidies; (2) increasing fees charged for hazardous material 
registration and inspection and crediting such fees to the 
research and special programs account; (3) authorizing new 
railroad safety fees; (4) apportioning buses and bus facilities 
funding by formula; (5) allowing funds for rail state safety 
oversight activities; (6) apportioning job access and reverse 
commute grants by formula; and (7) limiting federal funds for 
new fixed guideway projects to not more than 50 percent 
beginning in 2004.

              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 $25,800,000 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, Formula grants: 
Provided further, That notwithstanding section 3008 of Public 
Law 105-178, the $50,000,000 to carry out 49 U.S.C. 5308 shall 
be transferred to and merged with funding provided for the 
replacement, rehabilitation, and purchase of buses and related 
equipment and the construction of bus-related facilities under 
``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment grants''.
    Under the general provisions:
    Sec. 314. 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, 2004, and other recoveries, shall be available 
for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Sec. 315. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any 
funds appropriated before October 1, 2001, under any section of 
chapter 53 of title 49, United States Code, that remain 
available for expenditure may be transferred to and 
administered under the most recent appropriation heading for 
any such section.

         Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives

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

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

    In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is 
proposed is shown in roman):

                        SECTION 232 OF H.R. 3425

      (As enacted into law by section 1000(a)(5) of P.L. 106-113)

    [Sec. 232. In addition to amounts provided to the Federal 
Railroad Administration in Public Law 106-69, for necessary 
expenses for engineering, design and construction activities to 
enable the James A. Farley Post Office in New York City to be 
used as a train station and commercial center, to become 
available on October 1 of the fiscal year specified and to 
remain available until expended: fiscal year 2001, $20,000,000; 
fiscal year 2002, $20,000,000; fiscal year 2003, $20,000,000.]
                              ----------                              

   SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

    Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the 
amount listed for each high priority project in the following 
table shall be available (from amounts made available by 
section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the 
21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out 
each such project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                (Dollars
  No.             State               Project description          in
                                                               millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      1  Georgia................  I-75 advanced                      1.7
                                   transportation management
                                   system in Cobb County.
         * * *                    * * *
    576  Missouri...............  [Bull Shoals Lake Ferry in     0.69275
                                   Taney County] Construct
                                   the Missouri Center for
                                   Advanced Highway Safety
                                   (MOCAHS).
         * * *                    * * *
    642  Washington.............  [Construct passenger ferry        3.75
                                   facility to serve
                                   Southworth, Seattle]
                                   Passenger only ferry to
                                   serve Kitsap County,
                                   Seattle.
         * * *                    * * *
   1348  Alaska.................  [Extend West Douglas Road]       2.475
                                   Construct Gastineau
                                   Channel Second Crossing to
                                   Douglas Island.
         * * *                    * * *
   1793  Washington.............  [Southworth Seattle Ferry]       0.962
                                   Passenger only ferry to
                                   serve Kitsap County,
                                   Seattle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                               

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *
               Changes in the Application of Existing Law

    Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, the following statements are 
submitted describing the effect of provisions in the 
accompanying bill which directly or indirectly change the 
application of existing law.
    The bill provides that appropriations shall remain 
available for more than one year for a number of programs for 
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly 
authorize such extended availability.
    The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, 
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of 
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board. 
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous 
appropriations Acts.
    The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase 
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar 
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
    Language is included in several instances permitting 
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses,'' which would allow crediting the 
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees.
    Language is included 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, ``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 includes language 
that requires a certification by the Secretary and the OMB 
Director regarding the Integrated Deepwater Systems program 
prior to the obligation of funds for the system integration 
contract.
    Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, 
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received 
from state and local governments and other entities for 
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and 
evaluation.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' limiting funds for certain 
aviation program activities.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan, 
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new 
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the 
date of enactment of this Act.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from 
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other 
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred 
in the provision of agency services.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' that provides $6,000,000 for 
the contract tower cost-sharing program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations,'' permitting the use of funds to 
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting 
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for new applicants of the second career training program.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds 
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed 
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds from being 
used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in 
the contiguous United States.
    Language is included under the Federal Aviation 
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for 
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting 
and cartography through the Transportation Administrative 
Service Center.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that allows certain funds received 
for expenses incurred in the establishment and modernization of 
air navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment 
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Research, engineering, and development'', that allows certain 
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering 
and development to be credited to the account.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'', that provides for procurement, 
installation, and commissioning of runway incursion prevention 
devices and systems at airports.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'', that provides $10,000,000 of 
the funds for small airports due to returned entitlements to be 
utilized only for the small community air service development 
pilot program.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'', that provides not more than 
$56,300,000 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, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' authorizing 
the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay 
obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad 
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that 
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using 
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the 
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that reimburses $2,000,000 to the 
Department of Transportation's Inspector General for costs 
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway 
systems.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Administrative expenses'' that allows funds to remain 
available until expended for the National transit database.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Formula grants'' that provides no more than $5,000,000 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, 
``Formula grants'' that transfers $50,000,000 to be transferred 
to ``Federal Transit Administration, Capital investment 
grants''.
    Language is included under Federal Transit Administration, 
``Capital Investment Grants,'' that prohibits funds for section 
3015(b) of Public Law 105-178.
    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 funds received for expenses incurred for training and 
other activities.
    Language is included under Research and Special Programs 
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying 
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate 
funds provided under this head.
    Language is included under Office of Inspector General, 
``Salaries and expenses'', that provides the Inspector General 
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of 
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by 
the Department of Transportation.
    Language is also included under Office of Inspector 
General, ``Salaries and expenses'', that authorizes the office 
of Inspector General to investigate unfair or deceptive 
practices and unfair methods of competition by domestic and 
foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
    Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, 
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $950,000 
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface 
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated 
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar 
basis as such fees are received.
    Language is included under ``Architectural and 
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Salaries and 
expenses'', that provides that funds received for publications 
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that place 
limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the 
bill and which might, under some circumstances, be construed as 
changing the application of existing law.
    The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow 
for the redistribution of previously appropriated funds.
    Section 304 prohibits political and Presidential appointees 
in the Department of Transportation and independent agencies 
funded in this Act from being assigned on temporary detail 
outside the Department or such independent agency.
    Section 310 allows $56,300,000 of funds authorized under 
section 110 of title 23, United States Code, to carry out a 
program for state and Federal border infrastructure 
construction.
    Section 313 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 allows funds made available for Alaska or 
Hawaii ferry boats or ferry terminal facilities to be used for 
other purposes.
    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 allows $18,000,000 of the funds provided under 
the motor carrier safety grant program to be reserved for 
grants to Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas for the 
hiring of new State motor carrier safety inspectors at the 
United States/Mexico border and includes provisions pertaining 
to the distribution of such funds.
    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 326 specifies duties of the Amtrak Reform Council.
    Section 327 prohibits funds in this Act for making a grant 
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 328 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 333 allows States to use funds provided in this Act 
under section 402 of title 23, United States Code, to produce 
and place highway safety public service messages in accordance 
with guidance issued by the Secretary of Transportation, and 
requires such States to submit a report describing and 
assessing the effectiveness of the messages.
    Section 334 allows provides that the Mohall Railroad, Inc. 
may abandon track from Granville to Landsford, North Dakota, 
and that such abandoned track will not count against the 
limitation contained in section 402 of Public Law 97-102.
    Section 335 allows the Secretary of Transportation to use 
up to 1 percent of the amounts made available under 49 U.S.C. 
5309 for oversight activities under 49 U.S.C. 5327.
    Section 336 authorizes Amtrak to obtain services from the 
General Services Administration under the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 for fiscal year 2001 and 
each fiscal year thereafter until the fiscal year Amtrak 
operates without federal operating grant funds.
    Section 337 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to 
allow funds for the Gastineau Channel second crossing to 
Douglas Island in Alaska.
    Section 339 authorizes the Federal Aviation Administration 
to use funds from airport sponsors for the hiring of additional 
staff or for obtaining services of consultants for the purpose 
of facilitating environmental activities related to airport 
projects that add critical airport capacity to the national air 
transportation system.
    Sections 340 and 341 amend section 1602 of Public Law 105-
178 to allow funds for the Kitsap County-Seattle passenger only 
ferry project in Washington.
    Section 342 amends section 1602 of Public Law 105-178 to 
allow funds for the Missouri center for advanced highway safety
    Section 343 requires the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority (WMATA) to redesignate the transit station 
known as National Airport Station as the ``Ronald Reagan 
Washington National Airport Station'', and to modify all 
relative signs, maps, directories, and documents published by 
WMATA.

                  Appropriations Not Authorized by Law

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

                                      APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Appropriations    Appropriations
        Agency and Appropriation            Last Year of      Authorization    in Last Year of   Recommended In
                                            Authorization         Level         Authorization       This Bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Payments to air carriers (Airport                  N/A       \1\ $50,000               N/A       \2\ $13,000
     and airway trust fund).............
Coast Guard:
    Operating Expenses..................              1999     \3\ 3,006,200        $3,013,506         3,382,588
    Acquisition, construction, and                    1999     \4\ 1,140,600           625,465           600,000
     improvements.......................
    Environmental compliance and                      1999            26,000            21,000            16,927
     restoration........................
    Alteration of bridges...............              1999            26,000            37,575            15,466
    Retired pay.........................              1999           691,493           684,000           876,346
    Research, development, test, and                  1999            18,300            17,000            21,722
     evaluation.........................
National Highway Traffic Safety
 Administration:
    Operations and Research.............              2001           116,976           116,615           122,420
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and Operations \5\...........              1998            90,739            77,311           110,461
    Next generation high-speed rail.....              2001            35,000            25,100            25,100
Federal Transit Administration:
    Capital investment grants (Highway                2003         2,841,000               N/A     \6\ 2,871,152
     trust fund)........................
Research and Special Programs
 Administration:
    Hazardous materials safety..........              1997            19,670            15,472            21,348
    Pipeline Safety.....................              2000            37,718            30,447            48,475
Surface Transportation Board:
    Salaries and Expenses...............              1998            12,000            13,850            13,850
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Current law permanently authorizes and provides this level, derived from overflight user fees or other FAA
  resources.
\2\ New budget authority.
\3\ Includes $151,500 authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through fiscal year 2001.
\4\ Includes $630,300 authorized in the Western Hemisphere Drug Elimination Act through fiscal year 1999.
\5\ Past appropriations provided as two separate accounts: Office of the Administrator and Railroad safety. The
  authorized level shown is the Railroad safety appropriation. The Office of the Administrator had general
  authority under 49 U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount was authorized.
\6\ Includes approximately $30,152 of previously provided funds available for reallocation.

                 Comparison With the Budget Resolution

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

                                            [In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  302(b) allocation             This bill
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
                     Full committee data                         Budget                    Budget
                                                               authority     Outlays     authority     Outlays
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison with Budget Resolution:
    Discretionary...........................................      $14,893      $53,840      $14,893      $53,816
    Mandatory...............................................         -915          801         -915          801
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................       13,978       54,641       13,978       54,617
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Five-Year Outlay Projections

    In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the 
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains 
five-year projections associated with the budget authority 
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee 
by the Congressional Budget Office:

                                                [In millions of dollars]
Budget Authority........................................         $17,098
Outlays:
    2002................................................      \1\ 21,932
    2003................................................          19,926
    2004................................................           8,849
    2005................................................           4,034
    2006 and beyond.....................................           4,261
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

          Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments

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

                                                  In millions of dollars
Budget authority........................................          $1,043
Fiscal year 2002 outlays................................           9,908

                              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...............................   -$301,000,000
Federal Highway Administration, State infrastructure 
    banks...............................................      -6,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration, James A. Farley Post 
    Office (rescission of advanced appropriations, 
    fiscal years 2002 and 2003).........................     -40,000,000

                          Full Committee Votes

    Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of 
the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call 
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:

                          roll call number: 1

    Date: June 20, 2001.
    Measure: Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Bill, FY 2002.
    Motion by: Mr. Rogers.
    Description of Motion: To direct the Department of 
Transportation to ensure safety by establishing and conducting 
an oversight program to assess the operational safety of 
Mexican motor carriers seeking authority to operate in the 
United States.
    Results: Adopted 37 yeas to 27 nays.
Mr. Aderholt                        Mr. Boyd
Mr. Bonilla                         Mr. Clyburn
Mr. Callahan                        Mr. Cramer
Mr. Cunningham                      Ms. DeLauro
Mr. DeLay                           Mr. Edwards
Mr. Doolittle                       Mr. Farr
Mrs. Emerson                        Mr. Fattah
Mr. Frelinghuysen                   Mr. Goode
Ms. Granger                         Mr. Hinchey
Mr. Hobson                          Mr. Hoyer
Mr. Istook                          Mr. Jackson
Mr. Kingston                        Ms. Kaptur
Mr. Knollenberg                     Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Kolbe                           Ms. Kilpatrick
Mr. LaHood                          Mrs. Lowey
Mr. Latham                          Mrs. Meek
Mr. Lewis                           Mr. Moran
Mr. Miller                          Mr. Murtha
Mr. Mollohan                        Mr. Obey
Mr. Nethercutt                      Mr. Olver
Mrs. Northup                        Ms. Pelosi
Mr. Pastor                          Mr. Price
Mr. Peterson                        Mr. Rothman
Mr. Regula                          Ms. Roybal-Allard
Mr. Rogers                          Mr. Sabo
Mr. Serrano                         Mr. Visclosky
Mr. Sherwood                        Mr. Wolf
Mr. Skeen
Mr. Sununu
Mr. Sweeney
Mr. Taylor
Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Vitter
Mr. Walsh
Mr. Wamp
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Young

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. DAVID R. OBEY, HON. MARTIN OLAV SABO, HON. 
              JAMES CLYBURN AND HON. CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK

    The Administration has announced its intention to open the 
border to allow Mexican motor carriers to operate throughout 
the United States beginning on January 1, 2002.
    We have serious concerns that the Administration 
underestimates the threat to the public of unsafe motor carrier 
operations, and believe that it has the obligation to conduct 
meaningful safety reviews up front to ensure that individual 
Mexican motor carriers will operate safely in the United 
States.
    The Mexican motor carrier safety oversight system is 
substantially different from those in the U.S. and Canada. In 
fact, Mexican motor carriers operate with virtually no safety 
oversight today. Mexico has no motor carrier hours of service 
regulations. Even though the Mexican government is now 
implementing a driver record database, there is currently no 
way to check the driving history of Mexican motor carrier 
drivers. In addition, Mexico has no roadside inspection program 
now and will not finalize its proposed roadside inspection 
program until October, 2001.
    Mexican motor carrier out-of-service rates in Texas and 
Arizona--which currently account for over 76 percent of border 
crossings--were 40 percent in the year 2000. This means that 
when an inspector stops a truck to examine its safety condition 
and records, two out of five trucks cannot go back on the road 
because the equipment is faulty or the carrier does not have 
the correct authority to operate. This out-of-service rate is 
fifty percent higher than that for U.S. motor carriers. In 
testimony last year, the Department of Transportation (DOT) 
Inspector General said, ``I don't think there is any reasonable 
person who can say that it is safe when you have an out of 
service rate, for safety reasons, in the neighborhood of 40 to 
50 percent.''
    The DOT currently plans to conduct a paper review of 
applications for Mexican motor carriers to operate beyond the 
commercial zones, and a safety compliance review within 18 
months. This does not go far enough to ensure the safety of the 
American public. A safety review should be done first--before 
granting conditional operating authority, and DOT should 
continue to monitor these carriers closely after they receive 
this authority. DOT has estimated that a safety review will 
take less than one day per carrier. This is not too much to ask 
to help ensure safety on our roads.
    In committee, an amendment was offered, but not adopted, 
that would have required such up-front safety reviews. That 
amendment would have restricted funding to process conditional 
operating authority applications of Mexican motor carriers, 
contingent on the Administration's implementation of a 
procedure to determine that these carriers are safe before they 
are allowed to travel beyond the 20-mile commercial zones.
    Opponents of the amendment alleged that it would have 
resulted in a NAFTA violation. One need only read the NAFTA 
Panel's February 6, 2001 determination to realize that this is 
not so. The Panel concluded that ``compliance by the United 
States with its NAFTA obligations would not necessarily require 
providing favorable consideration to all or to any specific 
number of applications from Mexican-owned trucking firms, when 
it is evident that a particular applicant or applicants may be 
unable to comply with U.S. trucking regulation when operating 
in the United States.''
    It was also alleged that there is no way for DOT to conduct 
a safety review before issuing condition operating authority 
because, quoting DOT, ``A reliable safety audit can only be 
accomplished when meaningful data on safety performance and 
compliance with U.S. safety standards are available for 
evaluation.''
    This is a circular argument--we can't evaluate them because 
they are not operating, so we must allow them to operate before 
we can evaluate them. We strongly disagree. A number of Mexican 
motor carriers that will seek to operate throughout the U.S. 
have experience in the commercial zone. DOT certainly should be 
able to evaluate them based on their operations within the U.S. 
commercial zones over the past years. If DOT does not have 
safety data on these carriers, we should be worried about its 
ability to monitor any new motor carrier.
    For those Mexican motor carriers that have no experience 
operating in the commercial zones and want access to operate 
throughout the United States, DOT contends that--with a total 
of five staff--it can ensure public safety with what is 
basically a paper review of applications. No reasonably person 
should be convinced by this argument.
    It is difficult to believe that there is no value in 
sending U.S. motor carrier safety inspectors to the 
headquarters of a Mexican carrier seeking authority to operate 
beyond the commercial zones. Our inspectors can make sure that 
the carrier understands our laws and has policies in place to 
ensure that its drivers are qualified and its vehicles are 
maintained properly.
    It is a shame that this bill contains no meaningful 
guidance to the Administration so that necessary steps will be 
taken to ensure that Mexican motor carriers will operate safely 
throughout the U.S. when the border opens in six months. We 
sincerely hope that this inaction will not result in needless 
injuries and deaths.

                                   David R. Obey.
                                   Martin Olav Sabo.
                                   Carolyn C. Kilpatrick.
                                   James Clyburn.

              ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HON. JAMES P. MORAN

    The committee adopted an amendment mandating that the 
Washington (DC) Metropolitan Area Transit Authority change all 
of its maps and signs so that the National Airport station is 
designated as the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport 
station. WMATA is a local authority and is governed by a local, 
not federal, board. No other transit station in this country 
has been named by the Congress and that is for good reason--the 
Congress has no business dictating the names of local transit 
stations. When he was President, Ronald Reagan was a staunch 
believer in the rights of states and localities to determine 
what is best for them--this proposal, done in his name makes a 
mockery of his beliefs. It also places an unfunded mandate on a 
local entity.

                                                    James P. Moran.

                                  

```