House Report 107-108 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2002

[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:

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:

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 ¹ ². $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.