Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?

108th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
 1st Session                                                    108-243

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



 
  DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND TREASURY AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES 
                       APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004

                                _______
                                

 July 30, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

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

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                        [To accompany H.R. 2989]

    The Committee on Appropriations submits the following 
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making 
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and 
Treasury and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending 
September 30, 2004.

                        INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT

_______________________________________________________________________


                                                            Page number

                                                            Bill Report
Summary and major recommendations of the bill..............
                                                                      3
The effect of guaranteed spending..........................
                                                                      3
Committee hearings.........................................
                                                                      4
Program, project, and activity.............................
                                                                      4
Reprogramming guidelines...................................
                                                                      5
Title I--Department of Transportation:
        Office of the Secretary............................     2
                                                                      6
        Federal Aviation Administration....................     5
                                                                     12
        Federal Highway Administration.....................    15
                                                                     48
        Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........    31
                                                                     75
        National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....    33
                                                                     82
        Federal Railroad Administration....................    37
                                                                     91
        Federal Transit Administration.....................    43
                                                                     99
        Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation......    54
                                                                    127
        Maritime Administration............................    55
                                                                    128
        Research and Special Program Administration........    57
                                                                    134
        Office of Inspector General........................    59
                                                                    140
        Surface Transportation Board.......................    60
                                                                    141
Title II--Department of the Treasury:
        Departmental Offices...............................    60
                                                                    142
        Financial Crimes Enforcement Network...............    63
                                                                    149
        Financial Management Service.......................    64
                                                                    150
        Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau...........    64
                                                                    151
        Bureau of Engraving and Printing...................
                                                                    151
        United States Mint.................................    65
                                                                    152
        Bureau of the Public Debt..........................    66
                                                                    153
        Internal Revenue Service...........................    66
                                                                    155
Title III--Postal Service:
        Payment to the Postal Service Fund.................    77
                                                                    160
Title IV--Executive Office of the President and Funds 
    Appropriated to the President:
        Compensation of the President......................    78
                                                                    162
        White House Office Salaries and Expenses...........    78
                                                                    162
        Executive Residence at the White House.............    79
                                                                    164
        Council of Economic Advisors.......................    82
                                                                    165
        Office of Policy Development.......................    82
                                                                    165
        National Security Council..........................    82
                                                                    166
        Office of Administration...........................    82
                                                                    166
        Office of Management and Budget....................    83
                                                                    167
        Office of National Drug Control Policy.............    84
                                                                    169
        Unanticipated Needs................................    87
                                                                    172
        Special Assistance to the President and the 
            Official Residence of the Vice President.......    88
                                                                    173
Title V--Independent Agencies:
        Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
            Compliance Board...............................    89
                                                                    173
        National Transportation Safety Board...............    89
                                                                    174
        Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or 
            Severely Disabled..............................    90
                                                                    176
        Federal Election Commission........................    90
                                                                    176
        Election Assistance Commission.....................    90
                                                                    176
        Federal Labor Relations Authority..................    91
                                                                    178
        Federal Maritime Commission........................    92
                                                                    178
        General Services Administration....................    92
                                                                    179
        Merit Systems Protection Board.....................   106
                                                                    191
        Morris K. Udall Foundation.........................   107
                                                                    192
        National Archives and Records Administration.......   108
                                                                    193
        Office of Government Ethics........................   109
                                                                    195
        Office of Personnel Management.....................   110
                                                                    196
        Office of Special Counsel..........................   114
                                                                    200
        United States Tax Court............................   115
                                                                    201
        White House Commission on the National Moment of 
            Remembrance....................................   115
                                                                    201
Title VI--General Provisions: This Act.....................   115
                                                                    201
Title VII--General Provisions: Departments, Agencies, and 
    Corporations...........................................   129
                                                                    204
House of Representatives Report Requirements:
        Constitutional authority...........................
                                                                    207
        Appropriations not authorized by law...............
                                                                    207
        Transfers of funds.................................
                                                                    209
        Statement of general performance goals and 
            objectives.....................................
                                                                    210
        Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e) (Ramseyer 
            rule)..........................................
                                                                    210
        Changes in the application of existing law.........
                                                                    217
        Comparison with the budget resolution..............
                                                                    234
        Five-year outlay projections.......................
                                                                    235
        Financial asistance to state and local governments.
                                                                    235
        Rescissions........................................
                                                                    236
        Full Committee votes...............................
                                                                    237
Tabular Summary of the Bill................................
                                                                    238

             Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill

    The accompanying bill would provide $89,593,846,000 in new 
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the 
departments of Transportation and Treasury and independent 
agencies, $3,542,806,000 (4 percent) more than requested in the 
budget and $2,756,814,000 (3.2 percent) more than the fiscal 
year 2003 enacted levels.
    Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill 
are:
           $45,000,000 for a new headquarters building 
        for the Department of Transportation in southeast 
        Washington, D.C.;
           $14,028,000,000 for the Federal Aviation 
        Administration, an increase of 3.8 percent above the 
        fiscal year 2003 enacted level, including 
        $3,425,000,000 for the Airport Improvement Program;
           $473,753,000 for the Federal Motor Carrier 
        Safety Administration;
           $900,000,000 for grants to the National 
        Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
           $7,231,000,000 for the Federal Transit 
        Administration, essentially the same as the fiscal year 
        2003 enacted level;
           $11,273,088,000 for the Department of the 
        Treasury, including $10,351,981,000 for the Internal 
        Revenue Service;
           $65,521,000 for payments to the Postal 
        Service Fund;
           $776,872,000 for the Executive Office of the 
        President, essentially the same as the fiscal year 2003 
        enacted level, including $525,140,000 for the Office of 
        National Drug Control Policy;
           $77,279,000 for the National Transportation 
        Safety Board;
           $299,753,000 for the National Archives and 
        Records Administration; and
           $17,505,777,000 for the Office of Personnel 
        Management, the majority of which is to make payments 
        for government-wide employee health benefits and 
        retirement obligation.

                   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. 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 
Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual 
appropriations process. As the Committee noted during 
deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created 
mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This 
undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally 
important programs not protected by funding guarantees.
    In past years, the Committee has done all in its power, 
considering this environment, to produce a balanced bill 
providing adequately for all modes of transportation. The 
reorganization of the Committee in the 108th Congress will pose 
additional challenges in this regard, because funding 
guarantees for selected transportation programs will compete in 
the budget process against funding for non-transportation 
agencies such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy, 
the Internal Revenue Service, and the General Services 
Administration.
    The funding guarantees of TEA-21 and AIR-21 expire on 
September 30, 2003, and the Committee's recommendations were 
developed with that in mind. However, as these bills are 
debated during the current session of Congress, the Committee 
wants to make clear that the continued use of spending 
guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts of the discretionary budget 
for particular constituencies will cause both transportation 
and non-transportation programs all across the government to be 
under more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall 
budget in balance. The effect of maintaining these guarantees 
will leave its mark on non-covered programs and activities in 
this bill, since they must compete for leftover funding. The 
Committee continues to believe that funding guarantees skew 
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a 
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending 
while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA and FRA, as 
well as critical non-transportation programs, to scramble for 
the remaining crumbs.

                            Tabular Summary

    A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 
2003 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 
2004 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 Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury, and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004. The Committee 
received testimony from officials of the executive branch, 
Members of Congress, officials of the General Accounting 
Office, and outside experts in areas under the bill's 
jurisdiction. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2004 
have been developed after careful consideration of all the 
information available to the Committee.

                     Program, Project, and Activity

    During fiscal year 2004, 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 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.

                        Reprogramming Guidelines

    The bill includes a provision (sec. 629) establishing 
standard reprogramming guidelines for the agencies funded in 
this Act. Previously, the Treasury and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Subcommittee had one set of guidelines, whereas 
the Transportation Subcommittee had a completely different set, 
due to the history and traditions of those subcommittees. 
Further, the procedures applying to transportation programs had 
not been revised for many years, and covered less than half of 
the funding contained in that bill. Considering the merger of 
these two subcommittees, the Committee believes it is essential 
to standardize the reprogramming guidelines and broaden them to 
all programs and activities covered by this bill. The Committee 
recommendation specifies that the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations must be notified 15 days in advance of any 
proposal to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program; 
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity (PPA); (3) 
increases funds for any PPA for which funds have been denied or 
restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds that 
were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a 
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of 
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (6) reduces 
existing PPAs by 10 percent. The determination of a PPA shall 
be based upon reports accompanying Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury and Independent Agencies 
Appropriations Acts, including tables in those reports. The 
Departments of Transportation and Treasury and the General 
Services Administration shall submit, not later than sixty days 
following enactment of this Act, a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations showing the base amounts 
for each appropriation and PPA against which the programming 
thresholds would apply. This report should also identify items 
of special Congressional interest. The guidelines proposed 
herein are similar to those recently passed by the House in the 
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2004.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $87,574,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       108,931,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        93,577,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +6,003,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -15,354,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill provides $93,577,000 for the salaries and expenses 
of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary. 
The following table compares the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
to the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee's 
recommendation by office:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004        House
                                                               enacted\1\         estimate         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary.........................        $2,196,629  ................        $2,212,000
Office of the deputy secretary............................           803,742  ................           841,000
Office of the executive secretariat.......................         1,381,959  ................         1,447,000
Immediate office of the secretary and deputy secretary....       [4,382,330]        $5,149,000       [4,500,000]
Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy        12,371,062        12,717,000        12,717,000
Board of contract appeals.................................           607,029           730,000           730,000
Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization..         1,295,524         1,268,000         1,268,000
Office of the chief information officer...................        13,101,285        23,369,000        16,565,000
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs         2,437,056         2,518,000         2,518,000
Office of the general counsel.............................        15,555,230        15,992,000        15,560,000
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs.         8,320,563         8,630,000         8,630,000
Office of the assistant secretary for administration......        28,882,039        34,351,000        28,882,000
Office of public affairs..................................         1,913,481         1,982,000         1,982,000
Transfer of functions to department of homeland security..        -1,291,595  ................  ................
Office of intelligence and security.......................  ................         2,225,000           225,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        87,574,000       108,931,000       93,577,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes across the board reduction of .65 percent.

    Immediate offices of the secretary and deputy secretary and 
the executive secretariat.--The recommendation provides a 2.7 
percent increase for these offices rather than the 17.5 percent 
proposed. The Committee directs that, within the funding 
provided, no more than $250,000 may be used for travel. The 
budget proposed $351,000. The Committee believes the request is 
excessive, considering that travel for these offices has 
averaged $228,000 annually over the past three years. The 
recommendation includes individual funding for these offices, 
as in past years, rather than consolidating them as the budget 
proposed.
    Office of the chief information officer.--The Committee 
recommends $16,565,000, which represents a 26.4 percent 
increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level instead of 
the 78.4 percent increase proposed. A table comparing fiscal 
year 2003 enacted funding to the fiscal year 2004 budget 
estimate and the Committee recommendation is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004        House
                         Activity                                enacted           estimate        recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information technology security...........................        $5,730,000        $9,650,000        $8,800,000
Information system and technology management..............         8,991,000         8,895,000         6,499,000
Electronic government.....................................         1,266,000         4,824,000         1,266,000
Congressional reduction...................................        -2,885,715  ................  ................
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        13,101,285        23,369,000        16,565,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Office of the general counsel.--The recommendation 
maintains funding for the ``accessibility for all America'' 
initiative at the fiscal year 2003 level of $2,101,000 instead 
of the $2,533,000 proposed, a reduction of $432,000. The budget 
proposal included $953,000 for outreach efforts, including the 
translation of publications related to the Air Carrier Access 
Act into other languages. It also included funding for cell 
phone contracts and other miscellaneous costs that the 
Committee believes can be deferred without impact on the 
overall program.
    Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--The 
recommendation holds these costs at the fiscal year 2003 
enacted level. The Committee believes the 18.9 percent increase 
requested for administrative costs is excessive. If this 
proposal were approved, funding for the office of 
administration would have nearly doubled in two years, despite 
the fact that approximately one-half of the department's 
staffing has been transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) in that timeframe. Given the smaller size of the 
Department of Transportation, the Committee believes these 
costs should not be increasing. The Committee recommendation 
includes denial of the 5 new staff years proposed.
    Office of intelligence and security.--The fiscal year 2004 
budget request included $2,250,000 to reconstitute this office, 
which was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security. 
Consistent with Congressional action in fiscal year 2003, the 
Committee does not object to the Secretary of Transportation 
making arrangements to have staff detailed from DHS, the 
Intelligence Community, or other federal entities to remain 
informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining to 
transportation. However, the Committee does not believe a 
permanent office of 15 staff is required, given the fact that 
office responsibilities have been transferred to another 
federal department. The recommendation of $225,000 is 
sufficient to allow the reimbursable detail of 2 staff from 
other agencies.
    Report on labor agreements for highway projects.--
Particularly in light of the declining estimates for highway 
trust fund revenues, it is critical to ensure that federal 
highway and transit dollars are being used to their maximum 
effective purpose. One important ingredient in controlling 
construction costs is to obtain as much competition as possible 
in contract bids. Since labor rates are major cost drivers in 
these types of contracts, the Committee directs the Office of 
the Secretary to submit a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, not later than April 1, 2004, 
showing the number and types of union only labor agreements on 
federally-funded transportation projects.
    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. Also, the department is 
directed to submit its fiscal year 2005 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 2004.
    Potential reimbursement for general aviation losses.--The 
Committee is concerned about the financial impact on general 
aviation ground support activities at Ronald Reagan Washington 
National Airport, and airports within fifteen miles of that 
airport, resulting from federal action after the terrorist 
attacks of September 11, 2001. To consider potential federal 
reimbursement for a portion of these unusual financial losses, 
the Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to 
submit, not later than December 31, 2003, a report detailing 
the documented financial losses by holders of real property 
leases at each such airport which are losses attributable to 
federal actions since September 11, 2001. The report shall also 
describe the likelihood of resuming general aviation activity 
at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, including a 
projected time for any such resumption, as well as any other 
plans to expand the scope of general aviation activity at this 
group of airports. This report should be submitted to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    Bill language.--Language prohibiting funding for the 
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs position has been 
retained from last year. Also, the bill continues language that 
permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office 
of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
    Report on seventh freedom petition.--In December 1944, the 
Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly called the 
``Chicago Convention'') established a framework for future 
bilateral and multilateral international aviation agreements. 
This framework, including revisions since the original 
convention, included the recognition of 8 ``freedoms'' that 
would govern international negotiations of specific air rights 
between and among countries. It was made clear that the 
freedoms were privileges, not rights, and were subject to 
international negotiations. The seventh freedom allows an 
airline registered in one country to carry traffic between two 
foreign countries without ever touching the airline's own 
country. While neither U.S. nor foreign nations have approved 
seventh freedom rights for scheduled passenger operations, such 
freedoms have been liberally authorized by the U.S. Department 
of Transportation for foreign air carrier charter operations. 
Despite repeated objections from the U.S. charter air carrier 
industry, this apparent inconsistency is the subject of an 
existing rulemaking petition which has been pending for some 
time before the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. H.R. 
2115, as recently passed the House of Representatives, 
expresses the sense of Congress that, in an effort to modernize 
its regulations, the Department of Transportation should 
formally define ``fifth freedom'' and ``seventh freedom'' 
consistently for both scheduled and charter passenger and cargo 
traffic. The Committee directs OST to submit a report 
explaining the advantages and disadvantages of its current 
regulations in this area. Furthermore, the Committee directs 
OST to submit a timetable for completing the current petition 
in this matter and for development of the formal definitions 
for both ``fifth freedom'' and ``seventh freedom.'' Both the 
report and the timetable should be submitted, not later than 
March 1, 2004, to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and the appropriate legislative committees of 
the Congress.
    Public-private partnerships.--The Committee includes a new 
provision (sec. 636) providing a sense of the House that public 
private partnerships (PPPs) could help eliminate some of the 
cost drivers behind complex, capital-intensive highway and 
transit projects. Using qualification-based selection and 
performance-based contracting, PPPs integrate risk sharing, 
streamline project development, engineering, and construction, 
and preserve the integrity of the EPA process, to result in 
significant schedule and cost advantages over traditional 
infrastructure development processes. To further demonstrate 
the effectiveness of PPPs, the provision encourages the 
Secretary of Transportation to apply available funds to select 
projects that are in the development phase, eligible under 
title 23 and title 49, except 23 U.S.C. 133(b)(8), and that 
employ a PPP strategy. The goal of this effort would be to 
evaluate how PPPs provide means to achieving cost savings. The 
Secretary is also directed to work with states and local 
entities to identify and eliminate existing impediments to 
successful implementation of PPPs and provide a status report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 
days of enactment of this Act.

                           GENERAL PROVISIONS

    Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The 
Committee includes a provision in the bill (sec. 604), 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 2004 is 110 
personnel, which is the same as requested and 3 more than 
approved in fiscal year 2003. Also, language is retained 
prohibiting any political or Presidential appointee from being 
detailed outside the Department of Transportation.
    Assessments.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 
614) 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 always 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 2003.......................        $8,643,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         8,569,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,569,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................           -74,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    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 
$8,569,000 for the office of civil rights, the same as the 
budget estimate and a decrease of $74,000 below the fiscal year 
2003 enacted level.

           Transportation Planning, Research, and Development


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $20,864,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        10,836,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         8,336,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -12,528,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -2,500,000


    This appropriation finances those research activities and 
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information 
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities 
in the formulation of national transportation policies. 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 $8,336,000 for 
transportation planning, research and development, a reduction 
of $2,500,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation 
would allow $1,500,000 for aviation and international policy 
studies instead of $4,000,000. Funding of $500,000 was provided 
for these studies in fiscal year 2003. These planned studies 
include the following: modernization of the aviation data 
system; aviation economic modeling enhancements; the impact of 
changing industry structure on airline regulation; airport 
financing and design; and the impact of changes in labor work 
rules and compensation on productivity and airline industry 
financial performance. The Committee believes studies such as 
these are of low priority and can proceed at a slower pace.

                          Working Capital Fund

Limitation, fiscal year 2003\1\.......................    ($131,766,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004\2\...................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................     (116,715,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2003......................     (-15,051,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................   (+116,715,000)

\1\ Titled ``Transportation Administrative Service Center'' through
  fiscal year 2003. Program name was changed in the fiscal year 2004
  budget request.
\2\ Proposed without limitation.

    The working capital fund (WCF) was created many years ago 
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 
program was renamed ``transportation administrative service 
center'' (TASC) in fiscal year 1997, but the name and scope of 
activities were changed back to WCF during fiscal year 2003.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $116,715,000 on 
the working capital fund. This is the amount assumed in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate for charges to DOT agencies.
    Modal usage of WCF.--Consistent with past practice, the 
Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2005 
Congressional justifications for each of the modal 
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in WCF 
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the 
modes rather than anticipated by WCF managers.

               Minority Business Resource Center Program

                                                          Limitation on
                                         Appropriation      guaranteed
                                                              loans

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......         $894,000    ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......          900,000     (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill...............          900,000     (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...           +6,000     (..........)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..  ...............     (..........)


    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.

                       Minority Business Outreach

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $2,981,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         3,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................           +19,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    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, which is $19,000 above the level 
provided in fiscal year 2003 and the same level as requested in 
the budget.

                       New Headquarters Building

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       $45,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        45,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +45,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation finances fiscal year 2004 costs for the 
new Department of Transportation headquarters building, which 
would consolidate all of the department's headquarters 
operating administration functions (except the Federal Aviation 
Administration) from various locations around the Washington, 
D. C. metropolitan area into a leased building within the 
central employment area of the District of Columbia.
    The Committee is concerned that, according to GSA, the cost 
of leasing the new headquarters ($1,247,62,493 over 15 years) 
is much greater than the estimated cost to buy the building 
outright ($733,717,047). The Committee is also concerned that, 
as a privately-owned office building, the new facility is 
subject to zoning and permitting requirements of the District 
of Columbia. Therefore, DOT tenants requirements, such as 
building security, are subject to review and approval by the 
District of Columbia. Although DOT has clearly stated its 
security requirements to city officials, at the present time, 
the required approvals have not been received. The Committee 
encourages DOT and GSA to work diligently with city officials 
to ensure that critical security requirements in the building 
design are not compromised. Fiscal year 2004 funding will be 
used for completion of design; environmental remediation of the 
site in southeast Washington, D.C.; excavation and site 
preparation for initial foundation work; the initial phase of 
furniture acquisition; and information technology long lead 
equipment procurement.

                    FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible 
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the 
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal 
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the 
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of 
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act 
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce; 
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and 
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and 
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness 
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and 
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics 
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new, 
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. After 
further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined 
regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate 
agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics 
Board. When the Department of Transportation began its 
operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was 
renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became 
one of several modal administrations within the department. The 
Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of 
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at 
the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the 
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from 
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001 
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the 
new Transportation Security Administration.

                               Operations


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $7,023,070,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     7,590,648,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     7,532,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +508,930,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -58,648,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the operation, 
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air 
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers 
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, 
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) headquarters, administration and other staff 
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of 
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $7,532,000,000 for FAA operations, 
an increase of $508,930,000 (7.3 percent) above the level 
provided for fiscal year 2003 and $58,648,000 below the 
President's budget request. The Committee notes that the 
proposed rate of increase for this appropriation is far above 
the government-wide average of 4 percent.
    A breakdown of the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Fiscal year--
                      Budget activity                      -----------------------------------------------------
                                                            2003 enacted \1\    2004 estimate   2004 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services......................................    $5,678,891,700    $6,096,800,000    $6,076,724,000
Aviation regulation & certification.......................       830,572,950       873,374,000       870,505,000
Research and acquisition..................................       206,250,600       218,481,000       218,481,000
Commercial space transportation...........................        12,244,887        12,601,000        11,776,000
Financial services........................................        48,464,917        49,783,000        49,783,000
Human resources...........................................        68,856,504        82,029,000        75,367,000
Regional coordination.....................................        82,849,952        84,749,000        87,749,000
Staff offices.............................................        82,434,669       143,150,000       140,429,000
Office of information services............................        29,457,275        29,681,000        29,681,000
Account-wide adjustments..................................       -16,953,454  ................       -28,495,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................     7,023,070,000     7,590,648,000    7,532,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes across the board reduction of .65 percent.

                               USER FEES

    The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees 
in fiscal year 2004 that were not Congressionally authorized 
for collection during fiscal year 2003. The President's budget 
assumed that $37,000,000 in overflight user fees would be 
collected during fiscal year 2004. However, these funds would 
not be available to augment the FAA's budget, since under 
current law, the receipts must be transferred to the Office of 
the Secretary for the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports 
program. In addition, the collection of these fees was 
invalidated by a federal court earlier this year, so it is 
highly unlikely that any such fees will be collected.

                     TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET

    The bill derives $6,000,000,000 of the total appropriation 
from the airport and airway trust fund. This is the same as the 
budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation 
($1,532,000,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the 
Treasury. Under these provisions, 80 percent of the FAA's 
operating costs will be borne by air travelers and industries 
using those services. The remaining 20 percent will be borne by 
the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly 
utilize FAA services.

              STATUS OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND

    The Committee is concerned that recent changes in air 
travel demand combined with the deleterious effects of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have had a serious 
effect on the solvency of the airport and airway trust fund. 
Over the next four years, aviation trust fund revenues are now 
expected to be approximately $10 billion less than the 
projections made two years ago. In fiscal year 2004 alone, the 
drop in anticipated revenue is approximately $2.4 billion. The 
following chart, developed by the DOT OIG using FAA data, 
compares revenue estimates of April 2001 and February 2003 to 
the FAA's budget estimates:


    Under the administration's budget proposal for fiscal year 
2004, $1.7 billion more would be disbursed from the airport and 
airway trust fund than estimated receipts, drawing down the 
uncommitted balance to $3 billion. The uncommitted balance will 
have dropped by 37 percent in only two years, from $4.7 billion 
to $3 billion. Clearly, this spending trend is unsustainable, 
given current trust fund revenue projections.

                   CONTROLLING FAA'S OPERATING COSTS

    According to the DOT Inspector General, the FAA will be 
faced with increasing difficulty in coming years, as it seeks 
to fuel a rapidly-growing operations budget with declining 
aviation trust fund revenues. The Committee notes that the 
recently-passed Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization 
Bill (H.R. 2115) authorized meager percentage increases for 
FAA's operating account in the coming years, as shown below. 
This is a clear signal from the House that the agency must do 
more--and quickly--to rein in its costs:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Maximum %
              Fiscal year                    Maximum        authorized
                                           authorized        increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004..................................    $7,591,000,000             8.1
2005..................................     7,732,000,000             1.9
2006..................................     7,889,000,000             2.0
2007..................................     8,064,000,000             2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some specific indications of FAA's budget problem are as 
follows:
           The agency's average staff year cost in 
        fiscal year 2004 is estimated at $125,920, an increase 
        of 26.7 percent in the past four years. This high 
        salary structure accounts for DOT's number one status 
        among all cabinet agencies in per capita payroll cost;
           Special pays will cost the agency 
        $374,857,000 in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 11.7 
        percent over the previous year;
           FAA's health care cost increases under the 
        Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have averaged 
        9.7 percent over the past five years, a rate far 
        greater than the agency's operating budget is likely to 
        rise;
           Sick leave consumed by air traffic 
        controllers is almost 40 percent above the government-
        wide average, raising the agency's staffing costs;
           The current salary structure is such that 
        1,044 air traffic controllers are paid more than the 
        FAA Administrator, and 10,044 were paid more than 
        $100,000 during calendar year 2002. The highest paid 
        controller received $212,403, although this included 
        significant special pays such as overtime.
           Only about 8,500 of the agency's employees--
        approximately 17 percent--are covered by the pay for 
        performance system known as core compensation. The 
        balance have their pay negotiated in labor agreements.
    The Committee believes it is imperative that the FAA take 
significant and immediate action to lower its operating cost 
growth. This could include broader coverage of employees by 
core compensation, productivity improvements, process re-
engineering, or firm review of the agency's organizational 
structure and administrative activities.

                       MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING

    Last year the Committee requested the DOT Inspector General 
to review the number and scope of memoranda of understanding 
(MOUs) between the FAA and its labor unions. Preliminary 
findings from that work, which focused on the National Air 
Traffic Controllers Union, found approximately 1,150 MOUs, of 
which 63 percent were signed at the regional or local levels. 
The IG concluded that FAA would incur at least $26,800,000 in 
additional annual costs and $15,900,000 in one-time costs as a 
result of these agreements. The agreements include provisions 
for cash awards, time-off awards, and reassignment pay. The IG 
found that: (1) the agency had issued no standard guidance for 
negotiating, implementing, or signing MOUs; (2) no requirement 
had been issued specifying that a labor relations specialist 
participate in the negotiations on behalf of management; (3) 
there was no system for tracking the number and scope of signed 
MOUs; and (4) the agency had established no process for 
evaluating the cost implications of MOUs during the negotiation 
process. The Committee believes that this many MOUs undermines 
management's ability to provide executive direction for the 
agency in a way consistent and fair to all employee groups. In 
effect, they represent a set of ``shadow regulations'' which 
make a mockery of personnel reform and management flexibility. 
The Committee is encouraged by the FAA Administrator's recent 
actions to better manage the MOU process. In order to ensure 
that the agency follows through on its commitment to develop a 
comprehensive database of MOUs, the bill includes a prohibition 
on funding to execute or continue to implement any MOU, or 
revision to any MOU, that is not referenced in an automated, 
searchable database of national MOUs. The Committee intends to 
monitor this situation over the coming year to ensure that 
funds are not provided under an MOU that are excessive or 
wasteful.

                     EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION SYSTEM

    In April 2000, the FAA implemented a new pay system for its 
senior executives. The concept behind this change was to 
eliminate automatic pay raises and more effectively tie pay 
increases to documented performance. The agency estimated that 
15 percent of executives would receive the new superior 
contribution increase (SCI). However, the agency has not taken 
the difficult steps to implement this system. For example, the 
agency awarded an organization success increase (OSI) equal to 
the government-wide raise for the senior executive service, to 
all of its executives in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. In 
addition to the OSI raise, the agency granted SCIs not to 15 
percent of its executives, but to 65 percent of them. The 
Committee will continue to monitor these payments, and will not 
hesitate to reduce funding for them if the agency continues to 
award across-the-board increases not based upon individual 
performance.
    The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity 
are discussed below.

                          AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES

    The bill provides $6,076,724,000 for air traffic services. 
Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and 
described below:

        Adjustments to the budget estimate                        Amount
Delete additional controller staffing...................    -$14,095,000
Controller in charge payments...........................      -1,250,000
First line supervisory staffing.........................      +4,000,000
Contract tower cost-sharing.............................       7,500,000
NAS handoff--reduce growth..............................     -16,231,000

    Controller staffing.--The Committee recommendation deletes 
the proposed $14,095,000 to hire 328 additional air traffic 
controllers. The budget requested funding to hire 302 
controllers for FAA facilities assuming a surge (or ``bubble'') 
in retirements beginning in fiscal year 2007, and 26 ``liaison 
officers'' to serve Department of Defense facilities at the 
request of the North American Aerospace Defense Command 
(NORAD). The Committee is not convinced the additional FAA 
controllers are needed at the present time for the following 
reasons:
     FAA's baseline staffing does not reflect the most 
recent air traffic trends and forecasts. According to the 
Administrator, due to the drop in air traffic, FAA's staffing 
standard calculates that the agency needs 694 fewer controllers 
than are currently budgeted. Clearly if staffing is rebaselined 
to the most current traffic forecast, released in March 2003, 
there is flexibility to address any retirements without new 
hires. The Committee also notes that, according to hearing 
data, 75% of the FAA's en route centers--the largest air 
traffic facilities--are currently overstaffed.
     Attrition in the controller workforce has been 
very low for the past five years--between 1.77% and 2.27% 
annually. The number of retirees has ranged from 190 to 334, 
although the number has been rising over the past 2 years. This 
trend does not provide compelling evidence of an impending 
surge in retirements.
     Hiring today is not necessary to address 
retirements occurring three years from now. FAA's statement 
that it takes three years to create a certified professional 
controller (CPC) fails to acknowledge that many controllers 
working traffic today are not CPCs. FAA data indicates that new 
controllers are sent to an operational facility within four 
months of initial qualification training, not three years. 
FAA's staffing estimates do not take into consideration the 
thousands of operational hours performed by controllers 
certified to handle traffic, but not at the CPC level.
     FAA estimates that mandatory retirement, as 
currently structured, would account for a significant 
proportion of the surge in retirements (875 retirements over 
the next 5 years). The Committee notes that existing law 
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations 
allowing waivers of mandatory retirement on a case-by-case 
basis, but, thirty years after enactment of the provisions, the 
regulations still have not been issued. The Committee believes 
that, as a hedge against the possible retirement surge in 
future years, these regulations must be issued without further 
delay. For this reason, the bill includes language directing 
the Secretary of Transportation to issue such regulations no 
later than March 1, 2004. Implementation of this provision--
authorized by the Congress for three decades--would reduce the 
need for an estimated 110 new controllers over fiscal years 
2007 and 2008 if twenty percent of those affected by mandatory 
retirement were authorized to remain in the workforce.
    Regarding the need for controllers at defense facilities, 
the Committee would note that these new liaison positions were 
requested by NORAD as a temporary measure immediately following 
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although FAA 
states this has now ``evolved into a permanent requirement'', 
the agency does not state why. Further, even if the need were 
justified, such positions should be reimbursed by either the 
Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security, 
as the positions appear to relate more to national defense or 
homeland security than to FAA's day-to-day mission of 
controlling air traffic. The Committee would not oppose these 
being established as reimbursable positions.
    First line operational supervisors.--In 1998, FAA began a 
policy of replacing first line operational supervisors with air 
traffic controllers by significantly expanding a program known 
as ``controller in charge''. The agency reduced its supervisory 
workforce, and air traffic controllers received differential 
pay for those shifts they worked as a ``CIC''. The Committee 
approved this initiative reluctantly, and only after assurances 
from the FAA and the Office of Inspector General that adequate 
quality controls were in place so that aviation safety would 
not be affected. However, when the IG discovered weak quality 
controls in this program, and operational errors began to rise, 
the Committee froze the CIC program, restored funding for 
supervisory positions, and directed FAA to hire back up to the 
level of supervisors on board at the end of fiscal year 2001, 
which was 1,726. The Committee is disappointed that FAA has not 
followed this direction, and that stronger measures have become 
necessary. FAA data indicate that at the end of fiscal year 
2002, the agency had 1,609 supervisors, and the actual on board 
number as of March 21, 2003 was 1,606. Although FAA claims 
there is insufficient funding to honor the Committee's 
direction, this ignores the fact that funds were restored to 
the base budget for this purpose, and that the agency's costs 
to pay air traffic controllers to perform this function under 
the CIC program continue to rise. The Committee insists that 
FAA honor the previous direction--and funding--to build the 
supervisory level back up to 1,726. To ensure that this 
direction is implemented, the bill provides an additional 
$4,000,000 solely for the purpose of increasing the level of 
operational supervisors to the level of 1,726. This increase is 
partially offset by assuming a reduction in CIC payments of 
$1,250,000. This recommendation would freeze those costs at the 
estimated fiscal year 2003 level rather than provide an 
increase exceeding 11 percent. With the additional supervisors 
on board, fewer CIC hours will be required.
    The Committee believes this will enhance aviation safety as 
well. As shown below, recent analysis of the DOT Inspector 
General indicates that the number of operational errors when a 
CIC was on duty increased by 45.7 percent in calendar year 
2001, which was far greater than the 13.6 percent increase in 
total CIC hours. The IG concluded ``in our opinion, the 
statistics are an indicator that the CIC program may be 
adversely impacting operational errors, and these statistics 
warrant a more detailed review''.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                CY 2000      CY 2001       Change     % increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of CIC hours.........................................    2,044,222    2,321,485     +277,263        +13.6
Number of errors when CIC is on duty........................          138          201          +63        +45.7
Percentage of total errors..................................          12%          17%          +5%          N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Air traffic controller proficiency and development 
training.--The Committee continues to note the importance of 
controller training conducted under the existing air traffic 
instructional services (ATIS) contract. The FAA's budget 
request for 2004 included $21,087,000 for these services. In 
past years, the agency has reprogrammed funds for this account, 
to the detriment of controller training. Within the funds 
approved for controller training, the Committee directs FAA to 
utilize the planned amount of $21,087,000 under the ATIS 
contract. This is designated as an item of special 
Congressional interest. Any proposed adjustments from the 
amount recommended shall be subject to the Congressional 
reprogramming process.
    Air traffic controller training.--While the Committee does 
not oppose continuation of the Air Traffic Control Collegiate 
Training Initiative, the Committee does not believe it should 
be expanded, and directs the FAA not to expand these programs. 
Further, the Committee directs the FAA Administrator to submit 
a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
not later than December 31, 2003, describing the scope, 
locations, numbers, and size of the current Collegiate Training 
Initiative program.
    Contract tower program.--The bill includes $80,313,000, as 
requested, to continue the contract tower base program, and, in 
addition, $7,500,000 to continue the contract tower cost-
sharing program. The Committee continues to believe this is a 
valuable program that provides safety benefits to small 
communities. Currently there are 30 towers in this program. The 
federal investment leverages approximately $3,200,000 in local 
funding. Communities in this program during fiscal year 2003, 
as well as federal and local funding, are shown below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Location                   Federal share    Local share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westmoreland County Airport, Latrobe, PA        $164,223        $185,187
Oneida County, Utica, NY................         298,327         104,817
Lebanon, NH.............................         273,014          59,930
Williamsport, PA........................         160,045         173,383
Kinston Regional Jetport, Kinston, NC...         270,472          44,030
Grand Strand, Myrtle Beach, SC..........         299,337          22,530
Macon Airport, Macon, GA................         255,295          16,295
McKeller-Sipes Regional Airport,                 146,206          59,717
 Jackson, TN............................
Hickory Regional Airport, Hickory, NC...         289,228          32,136
Springdale Municipal, Springdale, AR....         241,837          84,970
Shreveport Downtown, Shreveport, LA.....         295,309          36,498
Concord Regional, Concord, NC...........         358,271          48,855
Stillwater, OK..........................         251,981          93,198
Merrill C. Meigs, Chicago, IL \1\.......          91,935          65,064
Central Nebraska Regional, Grand Island,         137,388          70,775
 NE.....................................
Bolton Field, Bolton, OH................         138,499          81,340
Manhattan Regional, Manhattan, KS.......         104,764         122,983
Muncie Airport, Muncie, IN..............         122,515         100,240
New Century Aircenter, New Century, KS..         183,721          98,926
Garden City, KS.........................         247,464          47,136
Monroe County Airport, Bloomington, IN..         112,807         117,412
Jefferson City Memorial, MO.............         280,826          17,925
Columbus, IN............................         136,784          99,051
Walla Walla Regional, Walla Walla, WA...         228,089          43,445
Elko Municipal, Elko, NV................         251,992          21,912
Laughlin International, Bullhead City,           231,258          17,406
 AZ.....................................
Henderson Field, Las Vegas, NV..........         307,219          19,609
Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe, CA........         166,629         111,086
Southern CA Logistics Airport,                   189,833         977,992
 Victorville, CA........................
King Salmon, AK.........................         190,602         252,659
                                         -------------------------------
      Total.............................       6,425,884       3,226,521
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This airport was closed during the year.

    National airspace system handoff.--The Committee 
recommendation provides $111,374,000, a reduction of 
$16,231,000 below the budget estimate due to budget 
constraints.
    Controllers on work groups.--According to the FAA, the 
agency has an estimated 400 work groups established by 
memoranda of understanding with the National Air Traffic 
Controllers Association. In addition, there are approximately 
400 controllers on detail, representing 55 staff years, 
providing support to modernization and routine operating 
activities. While the work of these groups and details may be 
important, it is not clear that all of them are worthwhile when 
there is a stated need to put more resources to the task of 
controlling air traffic. This year, the FAA stated ``it is 
possible that we can achieve this very important part of the 
procurement process with fewer individual employees involved''. 
The Committee encourages the agency in this regard, and directs 
FAA to submit a report, not later than December 31, 2003, on 
the number and type of work groups, the number and estimated 
staff years of controllers on detail, and its estimates of how 
those resources can be minimized without harming critical 
modernization activities.
    National airspace redesign.--The Committee directs that, of 
the funds provided for national airspace redesign, not less 
than $6,500,000 shall be allocated to airspace redesign 
activities in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. The 
Committee also directs FAA to submit, not later than April 1, 
2004 a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on the New York/New Jersey airspace redesign 
effort. This report should include details on all planned 
components and elements of the redesign project, including 
details on aircraft noise reduction and any ocean routing 
modeling that has been conducted.

                 AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION

    The Committee recommends $870,505,000 for aviation 
regulation and certification (AVR), a reduction of $2,869,000 
below the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the 
budget estimate are listed and described below:

                                                                  Amount
Alien species action plan...............................     -$3,000,000
Medallion program.......................................      -1,500,000
Transfer of staffing from Office of Policy..............      +1,321,000
Transfer from F&E; CFMSS and ASIS........................      +1,120,000
Drug and alcohol compliance testing.....................        -810,000

    Alien species action plan and medallion program.--The 
Committee defers these funds due to lack of justification.
    Transfer of staffing from Office of Policy.--The FAA 
currently has a Regulatory Analysis Division within the Office 
of Policy. This office currently has 17 positions, of which 15 
are designated as economists. The mission and title of this 
office suggest that it is more appropriately aligned with the 
agency's regulatory mission rather than general policy 
oversight. Hence the Committee recommendation transfers the 
requested funding of $1,321,000 to AVR.
    Transfer of funding from ``Facilities and equipment''.--The 
Committee believes that the Central Flight Monitoring and 
Scheduling System (CFMSS) and the Aviation Standards 
Information System (ASIS) projects are more appropriately 
funded in the agency's operating budget than under ``Facilities 
and equipment'' due to the nature of the work being performed, 
and funding is therefore transferred here, at the requested 
level, from that appropriation.
    Supplemental oxygen.--The Committee is concerned that air 
travelers who require supplemental oxygen during flight face 
significant barriers to accessing air travel. This situation is 
at odds with the goals of the Air Carrier Access Act, which 
prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in air 
travel and require accommodations that will make air travel 
accessible for passengers with disabilities. The Committee is 
aware the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Research 
and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) have entered into 
discussions with the National Council on Disabilities (NCD) to 
review, and where appropriate, revise policy to improve access 
to air travel for patrons requiring supplemental oxygen. The 
Committee encourages NCD, FAA, TSA and RSPA to work swiftly to 
review, and where appropriate, approve new technologies and 
procedures that will improve the ability of patients needing 
supplemental oxygen to use during air travel.
    Development of procedures at specified airports.--The 
Committee supports and encourages FAA to expeditiously develop 
procedures for: (1) land and hold short operations (LAHSO) and 
standard intersecting runway operations (SIRO) at Chicago 
O'Hare International Airport, runway 14R/27L; (2) standard 
offset instrument approaches (SOIA) at San Francisco 
International Airport; and (3) idle descent approaches at 
Denver International Airport and Chicago O'Hare International. 
The Committee believes each of the mentioned procedures at 
these airports will provide efficiency and capacity gains. 
Regarding SOIA procedures at San Francisco International, the 
Committee encourages FAA to set a deadline of December 2003 for 
full implementation if at all possible.
    Cabin air quality.--To the extent permitted by available 
funds and other priorities, the FAA is urged to undertake the 
projects and studies outlined in the FAA reauthorization bill 
regarding cabin air quality. The projects would include: 
analysis of samples of residue from aircraft ventilation ducts 
and filters after air quality incidents to identify 
contaminants; analysis and study of cabin air pressure and 
altitude; and establishment of an air quality incident 
reporting system.

                    COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

    The Committee recommends $11,776,000 for the Office of 
Commercial Space Transportation, a reduction of $825,000 below 
the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation reflects the 
59 actual staff on board at the end of fiscal year 2002 
compared to the budget assumption of 69; past recruitment and 
hiring problems which have led to obligation delays in past 
years; and a decline in commercial launches.

                        RESEARCH AND ACQUISITION

    The Committee recommends $218,481,000, the same as the 
budget estimate.

                           FINANCIAL SERVICES

    The Committee recommends $49,783,000, the same as the 
budget estimate.
    Cost accounting system.--The Committee notes that, after 
providing appropriations totaling $52,465,000, the promise of 
an effective cost accounting system (CAS) for the FAA remains 
unfulfilled. The administration has requested, and the bill 
includes, an additional $8,000,000 for this project in fiscal 
year 2004. The Committee expects that, over the coming year, 
the FAA will formalize the internal processes specifying how 
the cost accounting system is to be used by managers and senior 
executives within the agency, including the frequency and types 
of routine reports that are to be generated and analyzed. In 
addition, the Committee is disappointed that FAA has not 
resolved the issue of labor distribution reporting using Cru-X 
software. The Committee directs FAA to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than 
December 31, 2003, detailing the timeline for development of 
procedural requirements and use of CAS throughout the agency 
and explaining how the agency intends to resolve the Cru-X 
issue.

                            HUMAN RESOURCES

    The Committee recommends $75,367,000, a reduction of 
$6,662,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction reflects 
the elimination of five organizational development specialist 
positions during fiscal year 2003 that is not reflected in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and an additional reduction to 
provide a total increase of 10 percent instead of the 19.1 
percent proposed.
    Worker's compensation.--The Committee continues to be 
concerned over FAA's high payments under the worker's 
compensation program. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes 
$87,842,000 for these costs. Currently, the agency has 3,731 
former workers on the worker's compensation rolls, and many of 
these are long-term claimants. Most of these workers are air 
traffic controllers, who have an average annual payment of 
$46,163. This is well above the government-wide average payment 
of $28,864, and helps account for the agency's significant 
annual costs under the program. The Committee encourages FAA, 
working with the Department of Transportation and the 
Department of Labor, to find ways to reduce the costs in this 
program.
    The Committee is especially concerned over the findings of 
a January 17, 2003 OIG audit of traumatic injury claims. 
Traumatic injury cases involve claimants who experience a 
physical or stress-induced injury as a result of a traumatic 
event while working. Claimants may receive up to 45 days off 
with continuation of pay to recover from their injuries. The IG 
audit found that these costs had risen 39 percent over the past 
4 years, and there were indications of fraud and abuse. For 
example, one employee filed a stress-related claim in January, 
then sent a letter to his workplace asking that his mail be 
redirected to Florida during his time off. A second employee 
claimed to be traumatized when he observed a supervisor make an 
offensive gesture at another employee, and received three days 
off with pay. Another individual was found to have filed seven 
claims for stress-related injuries in just over six years, 
receiving 119 days off with pay. The OIG also found that many 
claimants were repeatedly diagnosed by the same doctors, some 
of whom distributed their business cards to employees at the 
facility. These findings raise serious doubts about the 
integrity of the program as currently managed. The Committee 
strongly encourages FAA to include more effective monitoring of 
traumatic injury claims as part of the agency's overall reform 
of its worker's compensation program.

                         REGIONAL COORDINATION

    The Committee recommends $87,749,000 for regional 
coordination activities, an increase of $3,000,000 above the 
budget estimate. The recommendation restores a base reduction 
which was originally made in fiscal year 2003, but reprogrammed 
to other activities by the agency and not restored in the 
fiscal year 2004 budget.
    National park overflight air tour management plans.--The 
Committee notes that, since issuance of the final rule on 
January 28, 2003, the FAA has received over 100 applications, 
which is more than double the amount assumed in the budget 
estimate. The Committee encourages the FAA to work with the 
Department of the Interior toward a cost-sharing arrangement 
for this work, to prevent unnecessary delay in approval of the 
plans. The Committee notes that most of the benefit from 
approval of the plans will accrue to park system users and not 
to aviation generally. The Committee is unlikely to approve 
higher funding for this item in future years without some 
progress on the cost-sharing issue.

                             STAFF OFFICES

    The Committee recommends $140,429,000 for staff offices, a 
reduction of $2,721,000 below the budget estimate. Recommended 
adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and described 
below:

        Adjustments to the budget estimate                        Amount
International office--staffing reduction................     -$1,000,000
Transfer of Policy staff to AVR.........................      -1,321,000
Public affairs office--staffing reduction...............        -200,000
Civil rights office--staffing reduction.................        -200,000

    International office, staffing reduction.--The 
comprehensive report on international aviation safety, directed 
by the Committee in fiscal year 2000, is now over three years 
late. The Committee's reduction in this office last year was, 
unfortunately, not significant enough to compel issuance of 
this important report. The Committee recommendation for fiscal 
year 2004 is intended to correct this problem.
    Transfer of policy staff to AVR.--This is previously 
described under ``Aviation regulation and certification''.
    Public affairs office, staffing reduction.--The 
recommendation allows 34 full-time positions in this office, a 
reduction of 3 below the budget estimate. The Committee notes 
that actual on board staffing at the end of fiscal year 2002 
was only 32. The President's budget assumed growth to a level 
of 37 during fiscal year 2004. This results in a reduction of 
$200,000 below the budget estimate.
    Civil rights office, staffing reduction.--The 
recommendation allows 85 full-time positions in this office, a 
reduction of 3 below the budget estimate. The Committee notes 
that actual on board staffing at the end of fiscal year 2002 
was only 77. The President's budget assumed growth to a level 
of 88 during fiscal year 2004. This results in a reduction of 
$200,000 below the budget estimate.

                        ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS

    The Committee recommends $28,495,000 in account-wide 
adjustments, as listed and described below:

                                                                  Amount
Official time productivity savings......................     -$6,500,000
Janitorial and guard services...........................      -2,504,000
WCF costs...............................................      -6,275,000
Cash awards.............................................      -3,228,000
Civil aviation security positions.......................        -500,000
Improved management of government credit cards..........        -500,000
Travel..................................................      -8,988,000

    Official time productivity savings.--Official time is 
defined by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as 
authorized, paid time off from assigned government duties to 
represent a union or its bargaining unit employees. Under 5 
U.S.C. 71, Congress has authorized official time in two broad 
categories: (1) time to negotiate collective bargaining 
agreements and participate in impasse proceedings; and (2) time 
in connection with other labor-management activities, provided 
such time is deemed reasonable, necessary, and in the public 
interest. Although time in this second category is somewhat 
subjective, it is restricted by the reasonableness standard 
established by law. A recent government-wide survey by OPM 
revealed that the Department of Transportation paid for 612,397 
hours of official time in fiscal year 2002 on behalf of 44,190 
bargaining unit employees. Approximately 98 percent of these 
hours are attributable to the FAA, which has 38,934 employees 
in 46 separate bargaining units. The OPM analysis showed that 
DOT allows 13.86 hours of official time per union employee--a 
figure three times higher than the government-wide average of 
4.21 hours. By comparison, the Department of Defense has ten 
times as many bargaining unit employees, but allows only twice 
as many total hours of official time, resulting in a ratio of 
2.72 hours per union employee. Equally disturbing is the fact 
that, at DOT, the official time per union employee has risen 
from 5.72 hours in 1998 (when the last OPM survey was 
conducted) to 13.86 in 2002--an increase of 142 percent. This 
compares to a government-wide increase of 5.5 percent over the 
same time period. FAA currently reports 1,424 employees using 
official time, including 90 employees on 100 percent official 
time. In transmitting the results of her report, the OPM 
Director stated ``I believe these are significant increases 
demanding new measures to ensure the level of accountability 
that the Administration and Congress insist upon and the 
American people expect when it comes to taxpayer dollars''. The 
Committee believes FAA can achieve savings through a review of 
its official time practices. The recommendation includes a 
reduction of $6,500,000, which represents 15 percent of the 
estimated cost of official time at the FAA.
    Janitorial and guard services.--The Committee 
recommendation holds these costs to 2 percent growth instead of 
the 6.3 percent proposed. Given the current estimates of 
inflation, the Committee believes this will be sufficient. The 
recommendation allows $58,906,000 versus $61,410,000 proposed, 
a reduction of $2,504,000 below the budget estimate.
    Working capital fund costs.--The budget for working capital 
fund (WCF) costs does not appear to reflect the substantial 
transfer of FAA employees to the Department of Homeland 
Security, as WCF administrative costs continue to rise. In 
fiscal year 2002, those costs were $32,658,000. In fiscal year 
2003, they rose to $35,476,000 even though 1,000 FAA employees 
transferred to the Transportation Security Administration of 
the Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year 2004, the 
budget proposes $36,736,000. The Committee recommendation 
allows $30,461,000, 14 percent below the level provided in 
fiscal year 2002.
    Cash awards.--Given the budget constraints facing Congress 
and the nation, the Committee cannot support a large increase 
in cash awards. The Committee recommendation freezes these 
awards at the fiscal year 2003 level, a reduction of $3,228,000 
below the budget estimate.
    Civil aviation security positions on detail.--The fiscal 
year 2004 budget includes funding for 4 SES-equivalent 
positions whose missions have been transferred to the 
Department of Homeland Security. These include the director and 
deputy director, office of civil aviation security operations; 
senior advisor to the deputy administrator for security; and 
program director, aviation security research and development 
division. These positions should either be transferred to the 
Department of Homeland Security or financed through 
reimbursable agreement. This results in a reduction of $500,000 
below the budget estimate.
    Improved management of government credit cards.--The 
Committee was disturbed to note the recent findings of the 
General Accounting Office concerning the misuse and abuse of 
government credit cards by FAA employees. This report 
discovered cases where improper and wasteful purchases were 
made totaling $5,400,000. For example, the IG identified 25 
purchases for 123 personal digital assistants (PDAs) costing as 
much as $558 each, complete with assessories such as high-cost 
leather PDA cases. They found instances where government credit 
cards were used to purchase internet services for FAA 
employees, even though the agency provides internet access for 
all its staff, and cases where store gift cards and gift 
certificates where purchased with little or no justification 
and no audit trail. They found almost 1,000 purchases that were 
deliberately split into two or more segments to avoid 
triggering single-purchase reporting requirements. Although FAA 
has responded to these findings in a positive way, according to 
hearing data this year no employee has yet been compelled to 
repay the government for improper charges. The Committee 
believes that more effective management will lead to base 
budget savings, and the recommended bill assumes savings of 
$500,000 in this regard. This reduction could also be mitigated 
through more aggressive collection of improper charges, which 
the Committee hopes the agency will pursue. The bill includes a 
limitation prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to 
purchase store gift cards or gift certificates. Although the 
FAA has made such a change in its internal policy documents, 
the Committee believes that, based upon the GAO's findings, 
such actions should be prohibited by law.
    Travel.--The recommendation allows $121,641,000 for travel, 
a reduction of $8,988,000 below the budget estimate and an 
increase of $12,313,000 (12.3 percent) over the fiscal year 
2003 estimated level.

                             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 2004.
    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 2003.
    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 working capital fund (WCF). Public Law 
106-181 authorize the transfer of these activities from the 
Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee 
supported. The Committee believes this work should be conducted 
by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the WCF.

           General Provision--Federal Aviation Administration

    The bill (sections 101-105) continues general provisions 
enacted in fiscal year 2003 which: (1) provide the authority 
for airports to transfer certain instrument landing systems to 
the FAA; (2) limit technical staff years at the Center for 
Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 350 in 
fiscal year 2004; (3) prohibit funds for engineering work 
related to an additional runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans 
International Airport; (4) prohibit funds to require airport 
sponsors to provide space to the FAA without cost, subject to 
certain conditions; and (5) authorizes the FAA to accept funds 
from an airport for FAA to hire staff or consultants for the 
purpose of facilitating the timely processing, review, and 
completion of environmental activities associated with the 
project.

                        Payments to Air Carriers

                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................       $51,761,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\..................  ................
Recommended in the bill \1\...........................        63,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -11,239,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................      +63,000,000

\1\ Excludes $50,000,000 permanently appropriated in The Federal
  Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 from resources available to the
  Federal Aviation Administration.
\2\ The budget assumes $50,000,000 for the essential air service
  program: the collection of $37,000,000 in overflight fees and the
  balance of $13,000,000 to be paid from other resources available to
  the FAA.

    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.
    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $63,000,000 for the EAS program. 
The President's budget requested no funding for this program, 
but assumed the transfer of $50,000,000 from resources 
available to the Federal Aviation Administration.
    According to the General Accounting Office, there are 404 
nonhub airports in the United States that generally serve small 
and rural communities. Collectively, these airports carry 
approximately 3 percent of all airline passengers in the United 
States. The EAS program provides air service subsidies to a 
small number of these communities. Between 1995 and 2002, the 
average federal subsidy per community rose from $424,000 to 
$838,000, and the average subsidy per passenger rose from $79 
to $229--an increase of 190 percent in just seven years. At the 
same time that program costs have grown, the level of service 
has declined. Over the same time period discussed above, the 
number of subsidized communities has dropped from 75 to 68, and 
the median number of daily passengers enplaned in each 
community dropped from 11 to 8. For example, one community in 
fiscal year 2003 will receive $850,000 in federal funding to 
transport an average of 2 passengers per day to the nearest 
airport 200 miles away. This represents a subsidy of almost $3 
per passenger per mile, or $494 per passenger. Another 
community is paid $1,200,000 each year--$263 per passenger--
when the nearest airport is only 69 miles away. Clearly, the 
Department of Transportation is paying more for this program, 
and getting less, due largely to changing circumstances in the 
aviation industry.
    The Committee acknowledges that air service under this 
program is considered essential by many communities, and also 
acknowledges concerns with the subsidy levels. To improve 
understanding of all issues, the Committee directs the 
Secretary of Transportation to require each community 
participating in the EAS program to submit, not later than 
March 1, 2004, a statement explaining how federal, state, and 
local efforts could cooperate to improve how essential 
transportation needs can be met, including flexible options of 
how funds might best be obtained and applied to meet those 
needs. This information shall be compiled and submitted to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, along with the 
Secretary's recommendations, not later than April 15, 2004.

                        Facilities and Equipment


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $2,961,645,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     2,916,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     2,900,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -61,645,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -16,000,000


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

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,900,000,000 
for this program, a decrease of $61,645,000 (2 percent) below 
the level provided for fiscal year 2003 and $16,000,000 below 
the budget estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount 
recommended, $2,479,158,800 is available for obligation until 
September 30, 2006, and $420,841,200 (the amount for personnel 
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2004. 
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past 
appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request.
    The following table shows the fiscal year 2003 enacted 
level, the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this 
appropriation:

                                   FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2003   Fiscal year 2004      Committee
                                                              enacted            estimate         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1: Improve Aviation Safety....................       $468,623,000       $273,900,000       $274,180,000
    Terminal Business Unit.............................        151,183,000        137,600,000        135,600,000
    Aviation Weather Services Improvements.............         23,440,000         13,200,000         13,200,000
    Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)--Upgrade..          1,600,000          3,900,000          3,900,000
    Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS).............         15,000,000         13,900,000         12,100,000
    Integrated Flight Quality Assurance (IFQA).........            500,000          2,100,000  .................
    Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS).......          2,100,000  .................  .................
    Performance Enhancement Systems (PENS).............          2,600,000  .................  .................
    Safe Flight 21.....................................        40,000,0000         30,300,000         30,300,000
    Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping....         57,200,000         42,800,000         52,600,000
    Aircraft Related Equipment Program.................         16,000,000         13,700,000         12,580,000
    National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center                2,000,000          1,900,000          1,900,000
     (NASDAC)..........................................
    Louisville, KY technology demonstration............         10,000,000  .................          8,000,000
    Explosive Detection Technology.....................        144,000,000  .................  .................
    Volcano Monitoring.................................          3,000,000  .................  .................
    System Approach for Safety Oversight...............  .................         12,000,000          3,000,000
    Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment...  .................          2,500,000          1,000,000
Category 2: Improve Efficiency of the Air Traffic              816,780,300        934,128,300        926,773,300
 Control System........................................
    Terminal Business Unit.............................        490,030,300        458,128,300  .................
    Standard Terminal Automation System Replacement....  .................  .................        119,800,000
    ARTS/DBRITE Sustainment............................  .................  .................         30,000,000
    Terminal Interim Remote Tower Displays.............  .................  .................          2,500,000
    Tower Datalink Services (TDLS).....................  .................  .................          2,500,000
    ATCBI-6............................................  .................  .................         20,000,000
    ATC En Route Radar Facilities Improvements.........  .................  .................          2,700,000
    Terminal ATC Facilities Replacement................  .................  .................        151,245,000
    ATC/TRACON Facilities Improvement..................  .................  .................         38,478,300
    Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11)....................  .................  .................         80,000,000
    ASR-9 SLEP.........................................  .................  .................         21,950,000
    Terminal Applied Engineering.......................  .................  .................          3,400,000
    Precision Runway Monitors..........................  .................  .................          8,000,000
    Houston Area Air Traffic System....................  .................  .................         20,000,000
    PCS Moves..........................................  .................  .................            200,000
    New York Integrated Control Complex................  .................  .................          2,000,000
    Aeronautical Data Link (ADL).......................         29,700,000         23,150,000          6,550,000
    Free Flight Phase 2................................         70,000,000        113,100,000        100,000,000
    Air Traffic Management (ATM).......................         13,000,000         13,000,000         13,000,000
    Free Flight Phase 1................................         36,600,000         37,400,000         27,000,000
    Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS)..........         12,100,000         11,800,000         11,800,000
    Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications               66,100,000         85,850,000         85,850,000
     System (NEXCOM)...................................
    En Route Automation Program........................         71,050,000        173,900,000        165,000,000
    Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).................         13,600,000          8,500,000          8,500,000
    Long Range Radar Sustainment.......................          7,500,000  .................  .................
    ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network.................          1,100,000          1,100,000          1,100,000
    NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP).........          1,000,000          1,200,000          1,200,000
    New York Integrated Control Complex................          5,000,000  .................  .................
    IDS--Flight Service Stations.......................  .................          2,000,000          2,000,000
    IDS--Terminal Facilities...........................  .................          5,000,000          2,000,000
Category 3: Increase Capacity of the NAS...............        432,975,000        328,500,000        369,623,800
    Navigation and Landing Aids........................        329,275,000        222,700,000  .................
    Local Area Augmentation System.....................  .................  .................         28,100,000
    Wide Area Augmentation System......................  .................  .................        117,923,800
    VOR/DME............................................  .................  .................          8,600,000
    Approach Lighting System Improvement Program         .................  .................         19,200,000
     (ALSIP)...........................................
    Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establishment......  .................  .................         36,000,000
    Runway Visual Range................................  .................  .................          7,000,000
    DME Sustainment....................................  .................  .................          4,000,000
    NDB Sustainment....................................  .................  .................          1,100,000
    Visual Navaids (PAPI/REIL).........................  .................  .................          5,000,000
    VASI Replace With PAPI.............................  .................  .................          5,900,000
    Navigation and Landing Aids Service Life Extension   .................  .................  .................
     Program...........................................
    Loran-C............................................  .................  .................         25,000,000
    Transponder Landing System (TLS)...................  .................  .................          6,000,000
    Oceanic Automation System..........................         87,400,000         69,000,000         69,000,000
    Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program....................          2,300,000  .................  .................
    Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS)..........         14,000,000         32,800,000         32,800,000
    Instrument Approach Procedures Automation..........  .................          4,000,000          4,000,000
Category 4: Improve Reliability of the NAS.............        434,310,000        472,710,000        456,240,000
    Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)--                 5,000,000          2,600,000          2,600,000
     Relocate..........................................
    Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhanced TVS.....         14,200,000         12,000,000         14,200,000
    Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support......          5,500,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
    En Route Automation Program........................        150,000,000        173,800,000        163,800,000
    ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.....         35,000,000         34,200,000         34,200,000
    Air Traffic Management (ATM).......................         24,500,000         29,000,000         22,000,000
    Critical Telecommunication Support.................          1,000,000          1,500,000          1,500,000
    FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI)........         42,000,000         51,200,000         51,200,000
    Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure...........         22,800,000         24,100,000         24,100,000
    Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP)..........          5,000,000          3,300,000          3,300,000
    NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS)........         16,000,000         22,100,000         22,100,000
    Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization.........          5,700,000          5,800,000          5,800,000
    FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation          19,710,000         19,710,000         19,710,000
     System (OASIS)....................................
    Weather Message Switching Center Replacement.......          2,000,000          1,500,000          1,500,000
    Flight Service Station Switch Modernization........         13,200,000          5,400,000          5,400,000
    Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System              4,000,000            900,000            900,000
     (ANICS)...........................................
    Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support..........         45,000,000         51,000,000         51,000,000
    NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM).................          9,400,000         12,000,000         12,000,000
    Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization...         11,700,000         13,000,000         13,000,000
    Frequency and Spectrum Engineering.................          2,600,000          3,600,000          1,930,000
    NAS Interference, Detection, Location and            .................          1,000,000          1,000,000
     Mitigation........................................
Category 5: Improve the Efficiency of Mission Support..        413,678,510        458,221,700        452,341,700
    NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory.......          2,700,000          2,700,000          2,700,000
    Technical Center Facilities........................         12,000,000         14,000,000         11,000,000
    Technical Center Building and Plant Support........          3,000,000          3,500,000          3,500,000
    En Route Communications and Control Facilities               1,307,950          1,203,390          1,203,390
     Improvements......................................
    DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer........................          3,200,000          1,200,000          1,200,000
    Terminal Communications--Improve...................          1,249,300          1,012,000          1,012,000
    Flight Service Facilities Improvement..............          1,223,240          1,276,890          1,276,890
    Navigation and Landing Aids--Improve...............          5,034,020          5,929,420          5,929,420
    FAA Buildings and Equipment........................         11,000,000         11,200,000         11,200,000
    Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local              2,100,000          2,200,000          2,200,000
     Projects).........................................
    Computer Aided Eng and Graphics (CAEG)                       2,800,000          2,000,000          2,000,000
     Modernization.....................................
    Information Technology Integration.................          1,600,000          1,600,000  .................
    Operational Data Management System (ODMS)..........          3,000,000  .................  .................
    NAS Aeronautical Info Management Enterprise System.  .................         10,300,000         10,300,000
    Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF)....          5,000,000          5,000,000          5,000,000
    Test Equipment--Maintenance Support for Replacement          1,700,000          4,000,000          4,000,000
    Facility Security Risk Management..................         25,000,000         41,600,000         30,000,000
    Information Security...............................          8,000,000         11,500,000          8,000,000
    Distance Learning..................................          1,300,000          1,400,000          1,400,000
    National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities.          2,300,000          4,200,000          4,200,000
    System Engineering and Development Support.........         23,800,000         28,300,000         28,300,000
    Program Support Leases.............................         36,400,000         41,100,000         41,100,000
    Logistics Support Services (LSS)...................          7,500,000          7,900,000          7,900,000
    Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--Leases..........         14,600,000         14,600,000         14,600,000
    In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services.............          2,900,000          2,800,000          9,800,000
    Transition engineering Support.....................         35,000,000         39,800,000         39,800,000
    FAA Corporate Systems Architecture.................          1,000,000          1,000,000          1,000,000
    Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC).........         41,700,000         47,600,000         47,600,000
    Resource Tracking Program (RTP)....................          2,500,000          3,600,000          3,600,000
    Center for Advanced Aviation System Development....         81,364,000         90,800,000         84,620,000
    Operational Evolution Plan.........................          1,000,000          2,000,000  .................
    NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards             28,400,000         28,300,000         28,300,000
     Compliance........................................
    Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring.......          8,500,000          5,600,000          5,600,000
    Hazardous Materials Management.....................         20,500,000         19,000,000         19,000,000
    Research Aircraft Replacement......................         15,000,000  .................         15,000,000
Category 6: PCB&T; Only.................................        404,655,240        448,540,000        420,841,200
    Personnel and related Expenses.....................        404,655,240        448,540,000        420,841,200
Category 7: Accountwide Adjustments....................         10,000,000  .................  .................
    NAS Handoff--Transfer to Operating Expenses........         10,000,000  .................  .................
Totals.................................................      2,981,022,050      2,916,000,000      2,900,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY

    The bill includes $274,180,000 for programs to improve 
aviation safety.
    Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommendation 
reduces the medium-intensity airport weather system (MIAWS) 
from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000 due to excessive concurrency. A 
table comparing the fiscal year 2003 enacted level to the 
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee 
recommendation by project is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004        House
                                                                 enacted           estimate        recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXRAD upgrade............................................        $9,100,000       $10,600,000        $8,600,000
Terminal doppler weather radar............................         5,700,000         7,200,000         7,200,000
ASDE......................................................        10,000,000         5,000,000         5,000,000
AMASS.....................................................        14,583,000                 0                 0
Weather systems processor.................................         2,200,000                 0                 0
ASDE-X....................................................       109,600,000       114,800,000       114,800,000
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       151,183,000       137,600,000       135,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aviation safety analysis system.--The Committee 
recommendation deletes funding for several small projects due 
to low priority and lack of justification, including the 
covered position decision support subsystem (-$375,000), the 
clinic health awareness program system (-$175,000), the parts 
reporting system (-$50,000), and the FAA ID media system 
(-$900,000). In addition, the Committee reduces funding for 
infrastructure support by $300,000.
    Integrated flight quality assurance.--The bill defers 
funding for this project due to weak justification, a reduction 
of $2,100,000 below the budget estimate.
    Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $30,300,000, as 
requested, of which $6,900,000 is for the Ohio River project 
and $21,400,000 is for Project Capstone in Alaska.
    Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The 
Committee recommends $52,600,000, an increase of $9,800,000 
above the budget estimate. Most of the increase is attributable 
to retaining airport-related research in this budget line, as 
in past years. The budget proposed, once again this year, to 
transfer that activity to ``Grants in aid for airports''. This 
research is not authorized under the grants-in-aid program, and 
the Committee concurs that it would be an inappropriate use of 
funding provided to that program. A table comparing the fiscal 
year 2003 enacted level to the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate 
and the Committee recommendation by project is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004      Committee
                                                                 enacted           estimate        recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion..........................................        $6,700,000        $8,200,000        $8,200,000
Aviation system capacity improvement......................         5,150,000         6,500,000         6,500,000
Separation standards......................................         2,200,000         2,500,000         2,500,000
Airspace management laboratory............................         4,600,000         7,000,000         7,000,000
GA/vertical flight technology.............................         1,000,000         1,400,000         1,400,000
Operational concept validation............................         1,250,000         2,700,000         2,700,000
Software engineering......................................         1,000,000         1,500,000         1,500,000
NAS requirements development..............................             - - -         3,000,000         3,000,000
WAAS......................................................         3,100,000             - - -             - - -
LAAS......................................................         2,800,000             - - -             - - -
Domestic RVSM.............................................         4,200,000         1,900,000         1,900,000
Development system assurance..............................         2,700,000             - - -             - - -
Safer skies...............................................         2,000,000         3,400,000         3,400,000
Lithium technologies to mitigate ASR......................         1,000,000             - - -         1,000,000
ROWS--Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, MS.........................           500,000             - - -             - - -
Airfield improvement program..............................         2,000,000             - - -             - - -
Wind/weather research, Juneau, AK.........................         5,500,000             - - -             - - -
Phased array radar technology.............................         2,000,000             - - -         3,000,000
Airport research..........................................         7,500,000             - - -         7,500,000
Fogeye....................................................         2,000,000             - - -             - - -
Required navigation performance (RNP).....................             - - -         2,000,000         2,000,000
NAS safety assessment.....................................             - - -         1,000,000         1,000,000
Cyber security for NAS development........................             - - -         1,700,000             - - -
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................        57,200,000        42,800,000        52,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Phased array radar technology.--The bill includes 
$3,000,000 to continue the collaborative effort between FAA and 
NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research 
and testing of phased array radar technology and to incorporate 
airport/aircraft tracking and weather information. This is 
$1,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003.
    Aircraft related equipment.--The reduction of $1,120,000 in 
this program reflects the transfer of the CFMSS and ASIS 
projects to FAA ``Operations'', as previously discussed.
    Technology demonstration, Louisville International Airport, 
KY.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to continue this 
important initiative at the Louisville International Airport in 
Kentucky.
    System approach for safety oversight.--The Committee 
recommends $3,000,000 for this new program, a reduction of 
$9,000,000 below the budget estimate. FAA's description and 
justification of this program are both vague and overly 
general. Until the agency can more clearly explain the benefits 
of the program, the Committee believes a lower amount is 
justified.
    Aviation safety knowledge management environment.--The 
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this new program, a 
reduction of $1,500,000 below the budget estimate. FAA's 
description and justification of this program are both vague 
and overly general. Until the agency can more clearly explain 
the benefits of the program, the Committee believes a lower 
amount is justified.

          IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $926,773,200 for programs and 
activities designed to improve the efficiency of the air 
traffic control system.
    Terminal business unit.--The Committee is concerned that 
the consolidation of projects into this large, half-billion-
dollar program is reducing Congressional oversight into funding 
for the important projects contained within. Under the existing 
reprogramming guidelines, the agency could shift $73,500,000 of 
fiscal year 2003 funds in this program to other activities 
without even advising the Congress. Given the importance of 
these programs and the need for strong monitoring and 
oversight, the Committee recommends funding in individual 
budget lines, a practice maintained until a few years ago, when 
funds were consolidated.
    Standard termination automation replacement system 
(STARS).--The Committee recommends $119,800,000 for this 
program. The recommendation includes a transfer of $11,700,000 
budgeted under ``ATC/Tracon facilities improvement'' for 
facility modifications to accommodate the STARS system and a 
general reduction of $10,000,000. Although the STARS program 
has made some progress over the past year, the Committee sees 
no evidence that the program is ready for accelerated 
implementation. In fact, the FAA's past history would make one 
wary of moving too quickly in the deployment of new software 
and hardware technologies. The House-passed version of the 
aviation reauthorization bill (H. R. 2115) authorizes the 
Administrator to sign a contract, with a term of up to 20 
years, for accelerated field deployment of terminal automation 
systems including STARS. If the Administrator makes such a 
decision, the bill requires the use of $200,000,000 in this 
appropriation during fiscal year 2004 for the program, 
notwithstanding the fact that no funding has been budgeted for 
this purpose. The Committee will not allow its funding 
decisions and priorities to be rearranged after the 
appropriations Act is signed, particularly for an effort where 
no compelling justification has been submitted. Therefore, the 
bill includes a limitation prohibiting funds in this Act from 
implementing section 106 of H.R. 2115, as passed the House of 
Representatives on June 12, 2003. The Committee also directs 
the FAA not to obligate more than fifty percent of funds 
appropriated in this Act for STARS until the program has been 
completely baselined, including the estimate of all facility 
modification and implementation costs, and that baseline 
information has been submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    STARS implementation in Oklahoma City, OK.--The Committee 
understands that FAA intends to implement the STARS system in 
Oklahoma City air traffic control facilities no later than June 
2004. The Committee expects FAA to meet this schedule, and 
incur no further slippage in the schedule at this facility.
    ARTS/DBRITE sustainment.--The Committee recommends 
$29,000,000 for sustainment of the ARTS and DBRITE systems, an 
increase of $12,000,000 above the budget estimate. The 
Committee believes the current budget is insufficient to 
address software support and other critical needs of this 
program in fiscal year 2004. The Committee intends that these 
additional funds be used to fund replacements for aging DBRITE 
displays, to support safety function and ADS-B testing for 
demonstration activities at Louisville International Airport, 
to replace critical data recording devices, and for software 
upgrades. The Committee directs FAA not to reprogram any of the 
base or additional funding provided for this project except 
through the Congressional reprogramming process.
    Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The 
Committee recommends $151,245,000 for the replacement of aged 
air traffic control towers. Funds shall be distributed as 
follows:

        Location                                                  Amount
Atlanta, GA.............................................      $4,159,909
Cleveland, OH...........................................       2,000,000
Morristown, NJ..........................................       1,300,000
Dayton, OH..............................................       4,000,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................         920,000
Oshkosh, WI.............................................         385,000
Toledo, OH..............................................         975,000
Abilene, TX.............................................       1,760,000
Cahokia, IL.............................................         625,000
Memphis, TN.............................................       5,000,000
Baltimore, MD...........................................         600,000
Deer Valley, AZ.........................................       5,658,300
Oakland, CA.............................................      21,636,600
Manchester, NH..........................................       8,300,000
St. Louis, MO (Tracon)..................................       1,195,500
Addison Field, Dallas, TX...............................       2,005,000
Reno, NV................................................       2,000,000
Seattle, WA.............................................       2,000,000
Seattle, WA (Tracon)....................................       5,280,000
Fort Wayne, IN..........................................       1,220,000
Newark, NJ..............................................         500,000
Port Columbus, OH.......................................         700,000
Billings, MT............................................       3,000,000
Savannah, GA............................................       1,000,000
Newburgh, NY............................................       1,500,000
Richmond, VA............................................       1,000,000
Vero Beach, FL..........................................         750,000
Everett, WA.............................................       2,000,000
Roanoke, VA.............................................       1,500,000
Merrimack, NH (Tracon)..................................       3,217,700
Phoenix, AZ.............................................       3,027,000
Warrenton, VA...........................................       4,110,000
Dulles International, Chantilly, VA.....................       4,500,000
Topeka, KS..............................................       1,500,000
Newport News, VA........................................       2,000,000
Battle Creek, MI........................................       1,000,000
Mathis, CA..............................................       4,300,000
Huntsville International, AL............................       8,000,000
Front Range Airport, CO.................................       2,920,000
McCarran International, NV..............................       4,000,000
Cherry Capital, MI......................................       4,000,000
Spokane International, WA...............................      10,000,000
Boise Airport, ID.......................................       6,000,000
Phoenix Sky Harbor, AZ (parking structure)..............       2,000,000
Tulsa International, OK.................................       2,500,000
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International, MI................       4,000,000
Palm Beach International, FL............................       1,200,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     151,245,000

    Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends 
$80,000,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 below the budget 
estimate.
    ASR-9 service life extension program.--The Committee 
recommends $25,950,000 for the ASR-9 service life extension 
program (SLEP). The Committee continues to believe that this is 
a valuable program.
    Houston area air traffic system.--The Committee recommends 
$20,000,000, an increase of $14,000,000 above the budget 
estimate. The Committee notes that FAA has been reprogramming 
funds out of this important project, which has caused delays in 
the program. In order to prevent future diversion of funding, 
the bill includes a provision specifying that $20,000,000 is 
solely for this program. The Committee encourages FAA to convey 
the importance of this program to its terminal business unit, 
and expects the agency to include sufficient funds in future 
budgets to complete the project without further delay.
    New York integrated control complex.--The Committee 
recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the 
budget estimate. The Committee notes that the Houston area air 
traffic system was initiated before this similar project, and 
believes the first priority should be given to ensuring the 
Houston project remains on schedule. Further, the Committee has 
not seen a firm cost estimate for this very expensive project. 
The FAA is directed to provide a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, not later than December 31, 2003, 
on the projected cost, schedule, and benefits of the New York 
integrated control complex, including the degree to which 
airspace will be redesigned.
    Aeronautical datalink applications.--The recommended 
reduction of $16,600,000 would reduce funds for controller-
pilot datalink communications (CPDLC) build 1A from $20,600,000 
to $4,000,000. On April 15, 2003, FAA's Joint Resources Council 
terminated this project due to slow anticipated equipage rates 
by the commercial airlines; projected difficulty in certifying 
the system; and changes in the en route automation technology 
program which lowered system benefits. Although the agency 
requested that $8,000,000 of this funding be retained for 
future planning and system sustainment, the Committee believes 
this is excessive and instead recommends $4,000,000 for the 
effort.
    Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends 
$27,000,000, a reduction of $10,400,000 below the budget 
estimate. The Committee notes that prior year funding for this 
program has been excessive, and has been reprogrammed to other 
projects, indicating that lower rates of funding are required. 
In addition, the Committee believes it is time for many 
sustainment activities to transition to the operations budget.
    En route automation program.--The recommended reduction of 
$8,900,000 reflects the agency's tendency over the past few 
years to reprogram a large amount of the appropriation for this 
project to other activities.
    Information display system, terminal facilities.--The 
Committee believes that this effort is premature at the scale 
proposed in the budget, and recommends $2,000,000, a reduction 
of $3,000,000. This program is to design an integrated display 
to replace the various separate displays currently in air 
traffic control facilities. Funds would be used to procure and 
install ACE-IDS systems at a number of air traffic control 
facilities to initiate the program. The Committee believes that 
some computer-human interface and requirements development work 
will be needed before procurement begins. In addition, the 
Committee has not seen an overall plan for this effort, 
including the total estimated cost and the number of facilities 
to receive the system. While the Committee supports the general 
need for such a system, it is not clear that the project is 
ready to enter the procurement phase.
    Advanced surface observing system.--Of the funds provided 
for advanced surface observing system, the Committee directs 
the following allocations: Posey Field Airport, AL (install 
AWSS), $800,000; Newport Municipal Airport, AR (install AWSS), 
$520,000; and Wautoma Airport, WI (install ASOS), $250,000.

           INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $369,623,800 for programs to 
increase the capacity of the national airspace system.
    Navigation and landing aids.--The Committee is concerned 
that the consolidation of projects into this large program is 
reducing Congressional oversight of funding for the important 
projects contained within. Under the existing reprogramming 
guidelines, the agency could shift $49,391,000 of fiscal year 
2003 funds in this program to other activities without even 
advising the Congress. Given the importance of these programs 
and the need for strong monitoring and oversight, the Committee 
recommends funding in individual budget lines.
    Local area augmentation system.--The recommendation 
includes $28,100,000, a reduction of $6,300,000 below the 
budget estimate. The recommendation would reduce studies for 
category II/III capabilities by $5,000,000 and program 
management by $1,300,000. The local area augmentation system 
(LAAS) is a new precision landing system with the potential to 
provide great gains in landing system efficiency and safety. 
The program has enjoyed considerable support over the years 
from this Committee as well as industry. However, the DOT 
Inspector General recently reported that expectations for LAAS 
need to be reset with respect to how much the system will cost, 
when it will be delivered, and what benefits are realistic. 
LAAS was expected to be operational in 2004 but is now planned 
for late 2006, and system costs and benefits are now under 
review. FAA needs to take steps now to prevent a recurrence of 
the problems that plagued the wide area augmentation system, 
including huge cost overruns and performance problems. The 
Committee is disappointed that, despite improved management and 
planning tools, the FAA has not learned from past mistakes, and 
could repeat them. The Committee believes that this new landing 
system has potential for enhancing the capacity of the national 
airspace system. However, a much more disciplined approach is 
needed and is a prerequisite for future funding. The Committee 
directs FAA not to provide funds for production of category I 
LAAS systems beyond the limited number planned, or to exercise 
options for additional systems, until: (1) at least one system 
has been certified as safe for pilots to use; and (2) revised 
cost, schedule, and benefit baselines have been approved by the 
FAA Administrator and submitted to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations for review. In addition, in future 
budget requests FAA must clearly distinguish between funds for 
LAAS category I performance and the more demanding category II/
III performance, which is now clearly a research and 
development effort.
    Wide area augmentation system.--The recommendation includes 
$120,300,000 for further development, implementation, and 
sustainment of the wide area augmentation system, the same as 
the budget estimate.
    VOR/DME.--Of the funds provided for VOR/DME, the Committee 
directs the following allocations: Sarasota/Bradenton 
International Airport, FL (relocate VORTAC, including land 
acquisition), $4,500,000; John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport, WI 
(install VOR and DME), $400,000; and Rice Lake Regional 
Airport, WI (install VOR and DME), $400,000.
    Instrument landing system establishment.--The 
recommendation includes $36,000,000 for establishment of 
instrument landing systems (ILSs) nationwide. Funding is to be 
distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items in the budget estimate......  Various nationwide..     $19,560,000
Gadsden Airport, AL...............  Purchase and install       2,000,000
                                     ILS.
McCook Municipal, NE..............  Purchase and install         910,000
                                     ILS.
Leesburg Executive, VA............  Purchase and install       1,000,000
                                     ILS/Glideslope.
Baxter County Regional, AR........  Purchase and install       1,000,000
                                     ILS.
Logan Airport, UT.................  Purchase and install       1,500,000
                                     ILS with MALSR.
Lee Gilmer Memorial, GA...........  Purchase and install       1,000,000
                                     ILS.
Eugene Airport, OR................  Install category I           750,000
                                     ILS with ALS, PAPI,
                                     REILs.
Harnett County Airport, NC........  Purchase and install         700,000
                                     ILS.
Eagle River Union Airport, WI.....  Install localizer,           625,000
                                     ALS, and DME.
Anson County Airport, NC..........  ILS and AWOS........       1,500,000
Freeman Municipal Airport, IN.....  Glideslope and AWOS.         355,000
Bishop Airport, CA................  Purchase and install         800,000
                                     ILS.
Stevens Point Municipal, WI.......  Install ILS, DME,          1,500,000
                                     glideslope,
                                     localizer, MALSR,
                                     and outer marker.
Cleveland Hopkins International,    Purchase and install       1,500,000
 OH.                                 ILS on runway 10; 2
                                     PAPIs.
Big Sandy Airport, KY.............  Purchase and install         300,000
                                     ILS.
Williamsburg/Whitley County, KY...  Purchase and install       1,000,000
                                     ILS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Visual navaids.--The bill includes $10,000,000 for visual 
navaids such as the precision approach path indicator (PAPI) 
and runway end identification lights (REIL). The increase of 
$5,000,000 above the budget estimate is for acquisition of 
additional PAPI systems.
    Navigation and landing aid service life extension 
program.--The Committee recommends no funding for this program, 
as it appears to duplicate the $5,929,400 provided under 
``Navigation and landing aids--improve'' for the upgrading and 
improvement of various navigational aids such as localizers, 
approach lighting and runway end lighting, distance measuring 
equipment, and non-directional beacons. Also, the Committee 
recommendation includes additional funding for the acquisition 
of new systems, which will allow retirement of older systems 
rather than service life extension. The Committee 
recommendation results in a reduction of $6,800,000 to the 
budget estimate.
    Approach lighting system improvement program.--The 
Committee recommends $19,200,000 for the approach lighting 
system improvement program (ALSIP). Funds shall be distributed 
as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items in the budget estimate......  Various nationwide..      $8,600,000
Max Westheimer Airport, OK........  Install MALSR with           800,000
                                     REIL and ILS.
Gary/Chicago Airport, IN..........  Replace navaids;           1,200,000
                                     upgrade RVR.
Baton Rouge Metro, LA.............  Category II runway         1,000,000
                                     lighting.
North Las Vegas and Henderson       REILs...............         500,000
 Executive, NV.
Lambert St. Louis Intl, MO........  Navaids; ALSF-2            2,000,000
                                     relocate.
Hartsfield International, GA......  Install ALSF-2 on          2,000,000
                                     runway 26R and 27L.
Cincinnati International, OH......  Navaids for new            2,000,000
                                     north-south runway,
                                     17/35.
Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS.  Instrument approach          500,000
                                     lighting, runway
                                     19L.
Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS..  Instrument approach          600,000
                                     lighting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Loran-C.--The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000 
for continued modernization of the Loran-C navigation system, 
the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 2003. The Committee 
directs that none of these funds be reprogrammed except through 
the Congressional reprogramming process.
    Transponder landing system.--The recommendation includes 
$6,000,000 for the transponder landing system (TLS).
    The recommendation includes $2,100,000 to install TLS 
systems at each of the following locations: Glasgow Airport, 
KY, and Palm Springs International, CA.

          IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM

    The Committee recommends $456,240,000 for programs to 
increase the reliability of the national airspace system.
    Terminal voice switch replacement.--The recommendation of 
$14,200,000 provides the same level of funding as enacted for 
fiscal year 2003. This results in an increase of $2,200,000 
above the budget estimate.
    En route automation program.--The Committee recommends 
$163,800,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 below the budget 
estimate. The recommendation defers $10,000,000 of the 
$16,000,000 budgeted for en route system enhancements due to 
lack of justification. Within the total amount provided for 
this program, $2,100,000 is continued funding for the initial 
academy training system at the FAA Academy.
    Air traffic management.--The recommendation reduces the 
departure spacing program (DSP) from $11,000,000 to $4,000,000 
due to budget constraints and lack of justification.
    Frequency and spectrum engineering.--The Committee believes 
that some of these studies are more appropriately performed 
under the operations appropriation. The recommendation of 
$1,930,000 represents a reduction of $1,670,000 below the 
budget estimate.

               IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT

    The Committee recommends $452,341,700 for programs to 
improve mission support activities of the FAA.
    Technical center facilities.--The recommendation of 
$11,000,000 is $1,000,000 below the amount enacted for fiscal 
year 2003 and $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. This 
program provides operations and maintenance funding for FAA 
facilities at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Pomona, 
New Jersey. The Committee believes these costs should be 
declining since a significant portion of the facilities was 
used to support civil aviation security activities that have 
now been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
    Information technology integration.--The Committee deletes 
funding for this low priority program, a reduction of 
$1,600,000 below the budget estimate. This project would 
finance four items that study potential improvements to FAA's 
regulatory, information technology, performance management, and 
acquisition processes. Such management analyses are an 
important function of any large organization's activities, but 
they are inappropriate for capital funding through ``Facilities 
and equipment''. At the small levels proposed (between $200,000 
and $550,000), these studies should be absorbed within existing 
funding levels for those operating activities. The Committee 
recommendation results in savings of $1,600,000 below the 
budget estimate.
    Facility security risk management.--The recommendation of 
$30,000,000 provides a 20 percent increase above the level 
enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead of the proposed increase 
of 66 percent. Within the funds provided, $6,500,000 is for a 
security command center at the FAA Aeronautical Center.
    Information security.--The recommendation of $8,000,000 
provides the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead 
of the proposed increase of 43.7 percent.
    In-plant NAS contract support services.--The recommendation 
includes an additional $7,000,000 for contract audit services 
to be provided through the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
(DCAA). Despite the Committee's encouragement in past years, 
the agency has not followed through in obtaining DCAA's 
independent review of contractor proposals and payment 
requests. In testimony this year, the DOT Inspector General 
said ``we have consistently found a lack of basic contract 
administration at every stage of contract management from 
contract award to contract closeout. For example, we found that 
government cost estimates were: prepared by FAA engineers, then 
ignored; prepared using unreliable resource and cost data; or, 
worst of all, prepared by the contractor (a conflict of 
interest). FAA is in the process of following through on its 
commitments to address this issue''. The Committee questions 
the pace of FAA's follow through, as some of these problems 
were noted in Committee reports many years ago. The Committee 
believes that an essential element of contracting oversight is 
to obtain expert, independent reviews by DCAA. To ensure these 
funds are utilized as Congress intends, the bill includes a 
provision making such funds available only for this purpose.
    Center for advanced aviation system development.--The 
recommendation of $84,620,000 provides an increase of 4 percent 
above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead of the 
proposed increase of 11.6 percent. The Committee believes it 
appropriate for this work to proceed at the same overall growth 
rate as discretionary programs across the Federal Government.
    Operational evolution plan.--The Committee does not believe 
this is a valid expense for ``Facilities and equipment'' and 
should be absorbed within existing resources for 
``Operations''. For example, items in the budget estimate 
include: web page development and maintenance; briefings, 
testimony, and marketing; operational evolution plan 
development; seminars, conferences, and industry forums; 
performance measurement; monitoring of regional implementation; 
and contractor support to assess program risk and develop 
program schedules. The recommendation results in a reduction of 
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate.
    Research aircraft replacement.--The Committee recommends 
$15,000,000 to continue the program initiated in fiscal year 
2003 to acquire a replacement for the agency's current B-727 
research aircraft. The Committee anticipates that this funding 
is sufficient to complete the acquisition.

                  PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS

    The Committee recommends $420,841,200, an increase of 4 
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2003. This 
recommended level represents a reduction of $27,698,800 below 
the budget estimate, which included an increase of 10.8 
percent.

                             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 2003.......................      $147,485,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       100,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       108,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -39,485,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +8,000,000


    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 $108,000,000, a decrease of 
$39,485,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and 
$8,000,000 above the President's budget request.
    A table showing the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the 
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate, and the Committee 
recommendation follows:

                             RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal year     Fiscal year        House
                             Program                               2003 enacted    2004 estimate    recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
    Reduce commercial aviation fatalities:
        Fire research and safety................................      $6,429,000      $7,725,000      $8,458,000
        Propulsion and fuel systems.............................       5,998,000         802,000         802,000
        Advanced materials/structural safety....................       1,374,000       1,244,000       1,244,000
        Flight safety/atmospheric hazards.......................       5,000,000       3,217,000       3,217,000
        Aging aircraft..........................................      20,974,000      14,336,000      18,336,000
        Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention................       1,920,000         762,000         762,000
        Flightdeck safety/systems integration...................       8,411,000       6,782,000       6,782,000
    Reduce general aviation fatalities:
        Propulsion and fuel systems.............................       1,713,000         344,000         344,000
        Advanced materials/structural safety....................       1,679,000       1,522,000       1,522,000
        Flight safety/atmospheric hazards.......................       1,329,000       1,378,000       1,378,000
        Aging aircraft..........................................       9,243,000       3,584,000       3,584,000
        Flightdeck safety/systems integration...................       2,000,000       1,612,000       1,612,000
    Aviation System Safety:
        Aviation safety risk analysis...........................       6,926,000       7,898,000       6,926,000
        ATC/AF human factors....................................       8,035,000       8,899,000       8,899,000
        Aeromedical research....................................       6,603,000       6,382,000       6,382,000
        Weather research........................................      21,906,000      20,852,000      20,852,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System: Weather research                12,099,000  ..............       5,000,000
 efficiency.....................................................
Reduce Environmental Impacts: Environment and energy............      22,100,000       7,975,000       7,975,000
Improve Mission Efficiency:
    System planning and resource mgmt...........................       1,000,000       1,261,000         500,000
    Technical laboratory facilities.............................       6,455,000       3,425,000       3,425,000
Accountwide Adjustments: CSRS/FEHBP accruals....................      -2,744,000  ..............  ..............
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................................     148,450,000     100,000,000     108,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Aeromedical research.--The Committee is aware of attempts 
to channel certain categories of aeromedical and aviation 
safety research through academic institutions. The Committee is 
concerned that this could duplicate existing capabilities at 
the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute. The FAA is directed to 
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
prior to the obligation of funds under a solicitation for cabin 
air quality instrument sensor suite development and 
implementation, or for any other aeromedical research, 
explaining why in-house skills and capabilities cannot be 
utilized for such work.
    Advanced cargo monitoring.--The funding for ``fire research 
and safety'' includes $1,000,000 to develop an advanced cargo 
monitoring system, which would employ an intelligent network of 
miniature, low-cost, lightweight chemical/fire detector 
sensors, wirelessly linking them to an alarm and notification 
system, to provide chemical security and safety coverage for 
passengers, transportation personnel, and equipment.
    Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$4,000,000 for new flight safety research equipment at the 
National Institute for Aviation Research.

                       Grants-in-Aid for Airports


                    (AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)


                                    Liquidation of
                                       contract          Limitation on
                                     authorization        obligations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003       $3,100,000,000    ($3,377,900,000)
 \1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004       3,400,000,000     (3,400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.........       3,500,000,000     (3,425,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year          +400,000,000       (+47,100,000)
 2003...........................
    Budget request, fiscal year         +100,000,000      (+25,000,000)
 2004...........................

\1\ Excludes $325,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and a
  $301,720,000 rescission of contract authority.

    The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of 
$3,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by 
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. 
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred 
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on 
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and 
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military 
airport program, reliever airports, airport program 
administration, and other authorized activities. This is 
$100,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's 
budget and $400,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 
2003.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The bill includes a limitation on obligations of 
$3,425,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. This is $25,000,000 above 
the President's budget request and $47,100,000 above the fiscal 
year 2003 level.
    A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to 
the fiscal year 2003 levels and the President's budget request 
is shown below. The table assumes the formulas and provisions 
of current law, given the pending reauthorization of this 
program.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal year 2003   Fiscal year 2004   Fiscal year 2004
                                                              enacted            estimate         recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation Limitation..................................     $3,400,000,000     $3,400,000,000     $3,500,000,000
    Across the board reduction (.65 percent)...........        -22,100,000                  0                  0
    Administrative & Related Expenses..................        -63,207,000        -69,737,000        -64,904,000
    Airport Technology Research........................                  0        -17,417,000                  0
    Essential Air Service..............................                  0                  0                  0
    Small Community Air Service........................                  0                  0        -20,000,000
    Grants-in-Aid for Airports.........................      3,314,693,000      3,312,846,000      3,415,096,000
                                                        ========================================================
Formula Grants:
    Primary Airports...................................        961,721,388        770,413,521        961,721,388
    Cargo Service Airports.............................         99,385,380         99,385,380        102,385,380
    Alaska Supplemental (Sec. 4714(e)).................         21,345,114         21,345,114         21,345,114
    States (General Aviation):
        Non-Primary Entitlement........................        341,036,416        341,121,749        341,036,416
        State Apportionment by Formula.................        321,532,784        321,447,451        341,532,784
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
        Subtotal.......................................        662,569,200        662,569,200        682,569,200
    Carryover Entitlement..............................        354,986,941        354,986,941        354,986,941
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Formula Grants..........................      2,100,008,023      1,908,700,156      2,123,008,023
                                                        ========================================================
Small Airport Fund:
    Non Hub Airports...................................        220,122,611                  0        220,122,611
    Non Commercial Service.............................        110,061,305                  0        110,061,305
    Small Hub..........................................         55,030,653                  0         55,030,653
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Small Airport Fund......................        385,214,569                  0        385,214,569
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
Fund for Small Airports................................                  0        410,292,044                  0
      Subtotal Non Discretionary.......................      2,485,222,592      2,318,992,200      2,508,222,592
                                                        ========================================================
Discretionary Grants:
    Discretionary Set-Aside: Noise.....................        281,391,959        278,156,140        307,571,949
    Discretionary Set-Aside: Environmental Research,                     0         20,000,000                  0
     Engineering and Development (from Noise)..........
    Discretionary Set-Aside: Reliever..................          5,462,314                  0          5,970,514
    Discretionary Set-Aside: Military Airport Program..         33,104,936                  0         36,184,936
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal Discretionary Set-asides................        319,959,210        298,156,140        349,727,410
                                                        --------------------------------------------------------
    C/S/S/N............................................        380,748,149                  0        416,171,999
Remaining Discretionary................................        126,916,050         33,128,460        138,724,000
National Significant Projects..........................                  0        662,569,200                  0
      Subtotal Other Discretionary.....................        507,664,198        695,697,660        554,895,998
      Subtotal Discretionary...........................        827,623,408        993,853,800        904,623,408
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          DISCRETIONARY GRANTS

    Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, 
$904,623,408 is available for discretionary grants to airports. 
Within this obligation limitation, the Committee directs that 
priority be given to grant applications involving further 
development of the following airports:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
     State             Project name             Project description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK               Anchorage International.  Various improvements.
AK               Chandalar Maintenance     Funds to replace temporary
                  Station.                  tent.
AK               Fairbanks International.  Terminal facility assessment
                                            and master plan to address
                                            facility deficiencies
                                            including seismic and
                                            security issues.
AK               Seward Airport..........  Various improvements.
AL               Atmore Airport..........  Upgrade safety zones, acquire
                                            land for approaches; acquire
                                            additional apron space for
                                            aircraft parking.
AL               Fort Deposit Municipal..  Repair slope failure along
                                            access road and runway
                                            embankment; install roadside
                                            drainage system.
AL               Sonny Callahan Airport,   Continue runway improvements.
                  Fairhope.
AL               Montgomery Regional       Terminal renovation.
                  (Dannelly Field).
AL               Huntsville International  Connecting taxiway and ramp.
AR               Arkansas Aeroplex.......  Runway, taxiway and ramp
                                            renovation.
AR               Batesville Municipal      Land acquisition for 32 acres
                  Airport.                  for runway protection zone.
AR               Baxter County Regional..  New primary cross wind
                                            runway.
AR               Northwest Arkansas        Construction of cargo apron
                  Regional.                 and taxiway.
AR               West Helena Municipal...  Install lighting, REIL, and
                                            ramps along runway and
                                            construct new hanger.
AR               Jonesboro Municipal.....  Airport rescue and
                                            firefighting truck and
                                            building to comply with part
                                            139 requirements.
AR               Newport Municipal.......  Automated weather observation
                                            system.
AR               Paragould Municipal.....  Airport master plan;
                                            construction of parallel
                                            taxiway; land acquisition
                                            for future extension of
                                            runway 8-26.
AR               Walnut Ridge Regional...  Add taxiway lights to
                                            taxiways AA, D and F to
                                            light main runway to new
                                            terminal.
AR               West Memphis Municipal..  Purchase vacuum sweeper;
                                            rehabilitate taxiway and
                                            runway shoulders; sealcoat
                                            and mark taxiways and north
                                            ramp.
AZ               Phoenix Sky Harbor        Community noise reduction
                  International.            program; residential sound
                                            assistance; voluntary land
                                            acquisition.
AZ               Williams Gateway Airport  Construct safety area
                                            shoulders along entire
                                            lenghth of runway 12C/30C
                                            and reconstruct/repair
                                            taxiways A and P, including
                                            shoulders, from runway 12C/
                                            30C to taxiway N.
CA               Crows Landing Airport...  Improve runway and auxiliary
                                            devices.
CA               San Diego International   Air Transportation Action
                  Airport.                  Program (ATAP).
CA               Lampson Airport.........  Construct low pressure
                                            watewaster collection system
                                            and central pump station.
CA               Meadows Field Airport...  Improvements to existing
                                            apron and taxiway; signal
                                            and road improvements to
                                            ease access to site for
                                            future development; runway
                                            extension.
CA               Round Valley Airport....  Land acquisition.
CA               San Bernardino            Infrastructure improvements,
                  International.            including ongoing hangar
                                            repair and electrical supply
                                            delivery.
CA               San Luis Obispo Airport.  Extend Runway 11/29 by 700
                                            feet; extend parallel
                                            Taxiway ``A''; realign Santa
                                            Fe Road; underpass of runway
                                            safety area.
CA               Southern California       ``Engine run-up'' runway
                  Logistics Airport.        infrastructure improvements.
CA               Stockton Airport Air      Infrastructure construction;
                  Cargo Center.             upgrade of ILS.
DE               New Castle County         Taxiway M restoration; runway
                  Airport.                  1-19 rehabilitation.
FL               Pensacola Regional......  Runway 17/35 Reconstruction.
FL               Kay Larkin Municipal....  Extension of runway 9-27 from
                                            5,500 feet to 7,500 feet.
FL               Orlando Sanford           Extend runway 9R/27L.
                  International.
FL               Sarasota Bradenton        Various improvements.
                  International.
FL               St. Petersburg/           Runway extension.
                  Cleanwater
                  International Airport.
GA               Brunswick Golden Isles    Terminal renovation, to
                  Airport.                  include demolition,
                                            renovation and expansion of
                                            existing space and entrance
                                            roadway improvements.
GA               Cherokee County Airport.  Runway extension.
GA               Richard B. Russell        Extension of Runway 1/19 from
                  Airport, Floyd County     6,000 feet to 8,500 feet.
GA               Greene County Airport...  Runway and approach lighting
                                            systems (MALSR) improvement.
GA               Paulding County Airport.  Runway construction.
GA               Wright Army Airfield....  Rehabilitation of runway 624.
IA               Fort Dodge Airport......  Extension of runway 12/30.
IA               Mason City Airport......  Runway rehabilitation.
IL               Aurora Municipal........  Construct taxiway A (west
                                            section); rehabilitate
                                            terminal apron (west
                                            section); improve runway 9/
                                            27 safety area; and install
                                            PAPI.
IL               Chicago/Romeoville/LOT,   Continued construction of
                  Lewis University          primary runway, including
                  Airport                   ILS installation and
                                            associated land acquisition.
IL               DeKalb Taylor Municipal.  Complete construction and
                                            upgrades to several
                                            projects, including a MALSR,
                                            easements north of Barber
                                            Greene Road, slideslope, and
                                            land purchases.
IL               Lawrenceville-Vincennes   Reconstruction of terminal
                  International.            and hanger.
IL               Palwaukee Municipal.....  Phase III of taxiway K
                                            project.
IL               Waukegan Regional.......  Replacement of concrete
                                            apron.
IN               Goshen Municipal........  Runway extension.
IN               Gary/Chicago Airport....  Centerline lights,
                                            replacements of navigational
                                            aids, and RVR upgrade.
KS               Kansas State University   Apron repair and hangar door
                  Airport.                  repair/replacement.
KS               Lawrence Municipal......  Construct two parallel
                                            taxiways, install lighting
                                            and precision approach path
                                            indicator, and rehabilitate
                                            runway.
KS               Forbes Field............  Taxiway rehabilitation.
KS               Wichita Airport.........  Airfield safety improvements/
                                            taxiway improvements.
KY               Stuart Powell Field,      Runway and taxiway overlay
                  Boyle County.             and fencing.
KY               Big Sandy Airport.......  Runway Extension.
KY               Capitol City Airport....  Runway and taxiway overlay
                                            and apron rehabilitation.
KY               Louisville International  Remote-control CCTV cameras
                                            to police public areas of
                                            the terminal and adjacent
                                            grounds; emergency
                                            operations center
                                            construction; improvements
                                            to east and west security
                                            perimeter roads; runway
                                            safety area upgrades; west
                                            runway extension; noise
                                            mitigation program including
                                            residential housing
                                            relocation.
KY               Madison Richmond Airport  Runway safety area and runway
                                            extension.
KY               Marshall Field, Scott     Extend runway and taxiway,
                  County Airport.           apron overlay.
KY               Monticello Airport......  Parallel taxiway extension.
KY               Rowan County Airport....  Runway extension to 5500 feet
                                            with 100 feet of safety
                                            zone.
KY               Somerset Airport........  Design and build passenger
                                            terminal building; construct
                                            maintenance hanger.
KY               Williamsburg/Whitley      Land acquisition and
                  County Airport.           clearing.
LA               Bastrop-Morehouse         Extend the airport runway to
                  Memorial Aviation Park.   5,000 feet; purchase and
                                            install instrument landing
                                            system, medium-intensity
                                            approach lighting system,
                                            runway indicator lights and
                                            navigational aids; acquire
                                            additional acreage needed
                                            for runway expansion; and
                                            erect aircraft hanger
                                            facilities.
LA               Baton Rouge Metropolitan  Address environmental and
                                            safety concerns for the air
                                            carrier apron; extend runway
                                            4L/22R; address runway
                                            safety area deficiencies;
                                            enclose canals at end of
                                            runway 4L.
LA               Greater St. Tammany       Runway extension and various
                  Airport.                  other improvements.
LA               Houma-Terrebonne Airport  Upgrade runways and other
                                            improvements.
LA               Lafayette Regional......  Taxiway bravo rehabilitation,
                                            widening and strengthening;
                                            runway 4R/22L safety zone
                                            improvements; extension of
                                            Runway 4R-22L.
LA               Monroe Regional.........  Renovate/expand terminal
                                            building.
MI               Alpena County Regional..  Extension of service road and
                                            utility extension.
MI               Chippewa County           Completion of new airport
                  International.            terminal.
MI               Detroit Metropolitan      Construction of new parking
                  Wayne County Airport.     aprons at North and McNamara
                                            terminals; reconstruction of
                                            runway 3R/21L and ramp at
                                            Berry terminal; part 150
                                            study update; evaluation of
                                            airfield pavement; extension
                                            of runway 3L/21R; grading of
                                            runway safety areas at
                                            runway ends 22L and 3L;
                                            reconstruct taxiways, F, H,
                                            V, W, Y-8, and K-16;
                                            construct new taxiway G in
                                            the vicinity of the end of
                                            concourse C at Smith
                                            terminal.
MI               Manistee County Blacker   Terminal expansion.
                  Airport.
MI               Mt. Pleasant Municipal    Refurbish crack sealing
                  Airport.                  pavement; terminal building
                                            expansion; parking lot
                                            expansion; snow removal
                                            blower; future planning for
                                            security fencing, sewer, and
                                            water projects.
MI               Oakland County            Relocate, lengthen and widen
                  International.            north-south (crosswind)
                                            runway; upgrade lighting;
                                            complete acquisition of
                                            homes in accordance with
                                            noise program.
MI               Pellston Regional         New terminal.
                  Airport.
MN               Minneapolis/St. Paul      De-icing pad; pavement
                  International.            rehabilitation between
                                            taxiway Q and courses D and
                                            E.
MN               Willmar Municipal         Runway paving, electrical;
                  Airport.                  fencing; and runway
                                            lighting.
MO               Kennett Airport.........  Construct new runway.
MO               Springfield/Branson       Midfield terminal design;
                  Regional.                 ramps and access taxiways to
                                            the new midfield terminal.
MS               Tunica Airport..........  Airfield construction and
                                            expansion.
MS               Gulfport-Biloxi           General aviation apron,
                  International.            lighting, taxiway, utilities
                                            and building pad
                                            construction; expansion of
                                            main terminal apron; land
                                            acquisition for future
                                            parallel runway; phase 3 of
                                            perimeter road.
MS               Jackson International...  Replace existing 40-year old
                                            apron and connecting
                                            taxiways.
MS               Greenwood-Leflore County  Restore runway 5/23.
                  Airport.
MT               Helena Regional.........  Terminal remodeling and
                                            expansion project.
NC               Ashe County Airport.....  Removal of obstruction on
                                            runway 10 and associated
                                            improvements to provide
                                            required clearance;
                                            environmental assessment for
                                            runway extension.
NC               Brunswick County Airport  Repair and strengthen
                                            existing runway and
                                            taxiways.
NC               Burlington-Alamance       Runway extension, including
                  Airport.                  paving and lighting the
                                            extension and strengthening
                                            adjoining surfaces.
NC               Statesville Municipal...  Land acquisition, relocation
                                            of roads for runway
                                            extension.
NC               Clinton-Sampson Airfield  Airfield pavement
                                            rehabilitation.
NC               Columbus County Airport.  Runway rehabilitation.
NC               Concord Regional........  Runway extension and related
                                            construction.
NC               Curritiuck County.......  Rehabilitate, overlay, and
                                            extend existing runway.
NC               Duplin County Airport...  Extend runway and build
                                            parallel taxiway.
NC               Elizabethtown Airport...  Construct parallel taxiway.
NC               Halifax-Northampton       Complete construction of new
                  Regional.                 airport.
NC               Harnett County Airport..  Phase 2 of runway and taxiway
                                            extension project.
NC               Hickory Regional........  Apron pavement overlay;
                                            runway lighting
                                            rehabilitation; and
                                            extension of runway safety
                                            area for runway 6.
NC               Johnston County Airport.  Construction of runway safety
                                            area and wetlands mitigation
                                            on airport property.
NC               Lumberton Municipal.....  Rehabilitate primary runway.
NC               Morganton-Lenoir Airport  Reconstruct pavements 3-21;
                                            connector taxiways; existing
                                            apron.
NC               Richmond County Airport.  Runway extension; ILS
                                            installation; expand and
                                            improve ramp and taxiway.
NC               Stanly County Airport...  Runway extension; land
                                            acquisition; installation of
                                            perimeter fencing; and
                                            associated construction.
NC               Statesville Municipal...  Extension of runway 10/28 and
                                            installation of ILS.
NC               The Andrews-Murphy        Various improvements.
                  Airport.
NC               Wilmington International  Repair existing runway and
                                            improve drainage system.
ND               Grand Forks Airport.....  Construction of new general
                                            aviation runway and parallel
                                            taxiway.
NE               McCook Municipal........  Purchase ILS.
NE               Central Nebraska          Rehabilitate runway 17-35 and
                  Regional.                 connecting taxiway; purchase
                                            new crash and rescue
                                            vehicle.
NJ               Cape May Airport........  Drainage system
                                            rehabilitation and
                                            reconstruction and safety-
                                            related obstruction removal.
NJ               Hammonton Airport,        Security fencing;
                  Atlantic County.          construction of a new
                                            aircraft parking apron and
                                            safety related obstruction
                                            removal.
NJ               Millville Airport,        Land acquisition in the
                  Cumberland County.        runway subzone; snow removal
                                            equipment and safety related
                                            obstruction removal.
NJ               Teterboro Airport.......  Noise mitigation and
                                            soundproofing of schools.
NJ               Solberg-Hunterdon         Acquisition of airport.
                  Airport.
NM               Santa Teresa Airport....  Extension of eastern runway
                                            and taxiway.
NY               Niagara Falls             Access road improvements;
                  International.            expansion of general
                                            aviation west ramp apron
                                            area and taxiway
                                            realignment.
NY               Albany International....  Runway 1-19 extension, phase
                                            II.
NY               Buffalo Niagara           Rehabilitation of primary
                  International.            runway 5/23 and taxiway.
NY               Hancock International...  Various improvements,
                                            including the purchase of
                                            two jetways.
NY               Long Island Islip         Perimeter fencing; stronger
                  MacArthur Airport.        access control systems;
                                            improved surveillance.
NY               Plattsburgh               Continued construction of
                  International.            airport terminal and other
                                            facilities.
NY               Albany International....  Runway extension to primary
                                            runway 19.
OH               Cincinnati Lunken         Design of four maintenance
                  Airport.                  improvements: airport road
                                            improvements, which include
                                            drainage and resurfacing of
                                            the roadway from Wilmer
                                            Avenue east to the Lunken
                                            Airport terminus; Wilmer
                                            Avenue roadway improvements,
                                            which includes design of
                                            roadway widening, drainage
                                            system with airport pump
                                            upgrade, sidewalk
                                            installation, and
                                            reconstruction of the bike
                                            trail on Wilmer Avenue;
                                            terminal parking
                                            improvements, which includes
                                            design of the terminal
                                            parking adjacent to Wilmer
                                            Avenue, and the installation
                                            of curbs and gutters on
                                            Airport Road west; and ramp
                                            improvements, which includes
                                            design for reconstruction of
                                            ramp areas at the terminal
                                            and hangers for aircraft and
                                            vehicle public parking.
OH               Dayton International....  Terminal access road
                                            improvements.
OH               Cleveland Hopkins         Major airport expansion and
                  International.            noise mitigation.
OH               Erie-Ottawa Regional      Taxiway expansion; security
                  Airport.                  improvements; and hanger
                                            construction.
OH               Springfield Municipal...  Acquisition of 96 acres of
                                            land currently extending
                                            into the Instrument Lighting
                                            Systems (ILS) critical area.
OH               Wayne County Airport....  Relocation of terminal
                                            building and planning study
                                            for runway extension.
OK               Altus/Quartz Mountain     Repair of main runway;
                  Regional Airport.         taxiway improvements;
                                            additional lengthening of
                                            runway; drainage
                                            improvements; perimeter
                                            fencing; and controlled
                                            access improvements.
OK               Chickasha Municipal.....  Runway extension project.
OK               Max Westheimer--          Secure airport perimeter and
                  University of Oklahoma    establish modular dual
                  Airport.                  identification verification
                                            procedures.
OK               Tulsa International.....  New taxiway; security
                                            improvements.
OR               Madras/Jefferson County   Construct new flight services
                  Airport.                  building.
OR               Roberts Field...........  Design and construction of
                                            terminal expansion.
PA               Pittsburgh International  Relocation of maintenance
                                            facilities from runway 28R
                                            and runway 14 runway
                                            protection zone areas to new
                                            site.
PA               Arnold Palmer Regional..  Extend runway 5-25 by 1225
                                            feet.
PA               Clarion County Airport..  Runway extension project.
PA               Erie International--Tom   Runway extension.
                  Ridge Field.
PA               Indiana County--Jimmy     Complete next phase of
                  Stewart Airport.          construction of new runway
                                            10-28.
PA               Philadelphia              Develop safety area for
                  International.            runway 9R; design and
                                            environmental study to
                                            enhance airfield capacity;
                                            reconstruct aircraft parking
                                            apron between terminal D-E.
SC               Andrews Municipal         Airport pavement
                  Airport, Georgetown       reconstruction.
                  County.
SC               Fairfield County Airport  Runway extension.
SC               Spartanburg Downtown      Extend runway 5/23 to 5,500
                  Airport.                  feet and construct required
                                            safety runway area.
SD               Pierre Airport..........  Rehabilitate runway.
TN               McMinn County Airport...  Lengthen and widen runway;
                                            extend parallel taxiway to
                                            the north; land acquisition
                                            for clearances and safety.
TN               Nashville International.  Pavement reconstruction and
                                            rehabilitation; reconstruct
                                            and widen taxiway fillets at
                                            L2, K2, intersection of
                                            taxiway L and A, and T3 at
                                            taxiway L and T3 at taxiway
                                            K.
TN               Chattanooga Metropolitan  Rehabilitate runway 15/33.
                  Airport.
TX               A.L. Mangham, Jr.         Improving and widening Runway
                  Regional.                 18-36; planning for
                                            installation of MALSR.
TX               Denton Municipal Airport  Various improvements.
TX               Galveston Scholes         Reconstruction of taxiways
                  International.            ``D'' and ``A'' and
                                            associated aprons;
                                            rehabilitation of runway 17/
                                            35 and overlaying of runway
                                            13/31.
TX               Abilene Regional Airport  General aviation ramp
                                            reconstruction; runway and
                                            taxiway lighting
                                            rehabilitation; terminal
                                            renovation; and taxiway
                                            ``D'' extension.
TX               McKinney Municipal        Repair of runway and taxiway.
                  Airport.
TX               Killeen/Ft. Hood Joint    Safety improvements.
                  Use Airport.
TX               Sugar Land Regional       Construct apron and taxiway.
                  Airport.
VA               Breaks Interstate         Land acquisition, design and
                  Regional.                 engineering for new airport
                                            to serve Buchanan and
                                            Dickenson Counties.
VA               Culpeper Regional         Terminal construction.
                  Airport.
VA               Twin County Airport.....  Design and pavement
                                            construction of parallel
                                            back taxiway; relocation of
                                            access road; rehabilitation
                                            of runway and upgrade of
                                            lighting.
VA               Virginia Highlands        Construction of west apron,
                  Airport.                  taxiway and access road.
WA               Bremerton National        Strengthen the center part of
                  Airport.                  the runway.
WI               Central Wisconsin         Complete reconstruction of
                  Airport.                  the primary air carrier
                                            runway (08/26) and parallel
                                            taxiway.
WI               Dane County Regional      Runway 14 safety area
                  Airport.                  construction.
WI               Sawyer County Airport...  Security fencing.
WI               Eagle River Union.......  Pave and extend existing turf
                                            crosswind runway to 3400
                                            feet; light runway;
                                            reconstruct and expand
                                            existing aprons and
                                            taxiways; and reimburse for
                                            land acquisition for runway
                                            extension.
WI               General Mitchell          Outer taxiway B construction
                  International.            around concourse C; various
                                            other improvements including
                                            taxiway B pavement
WI               La Crosse Munipal         Reconstruct connecting
                  Airport.                  taxiways.
WI               Waukwsha County Airport.  Replace storm sewer
                                            underlying runway 18/36 at
                                            Crites Field.
WV               Jackson County Airport..  Runway extension.
WV               Upshur County Airport...  Runway extension and apron
                                            construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    San Diego metropolitan area airport study, CA.--The 
Committee requests FAA, in concert with the San Diego Airport 
Authority, to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, no later than May 15, 2006, reviewing increased 
airport capacity for the San Diego metropolitan area.

                             ADMINISTRATION

    The bill provides that, within the overall obligation 
limitation, $64,904,000 is available for administration of the 
airports program by the FAA. The recommended amount is 
$1,697,000 (2.7 percent) above the level provided for fiscal 
year 2003. For the third year in a row, the recommendation does 
not approve the proposal to transfer airport-related research 
to this appropriation. This activity remains funded under 
``Facilities and equipment.'' A table comparing the fiscal year 
2003 enacted obligation limitation to the budget estimate and 
the Committee recommendation is shown below. As the table 
indicates, the reductions delete one-time fiscal year 2003 
costs that were not reflected in fiscal year 2004 base 
adjustments, as well as a reduction to inflationary costs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004  Fiscal year 2004
                                                                 enacted           estimate        recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base funding..............................................       $57,050,000       $64,620,000       $63,207,000
Inflationary adjustments..................................         2,647,000         4,177,000         2,907,000
Discretionary adjustments:
    Advisory circular contract............................         1,350,000                 0        -1,350,000
    Airport financial reporting system....................           500,000                 0          -500,000
    PFC program analysis..................................           300,000                 0          -300,000
    Environmental streamlining............................         1,773,000           225,000           225,000
    Automated airport data system modification............                 0           400,000           400,000
    Wildlife hazard management at airports................                 0           315,000           315,000
    Across the board reduction (.65%).....................          -403,000                 0                 0
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total...............................................       $63,207,000       $69,737,000       $64,904,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Corrected base and inflationary adjustments.--The Committee 
recommendation corrects the fiscal year 2003 base to reflect 
the .65 percent across the board reduction, and maintains the 
same ratio of inflationary adjustments to base funding (4.6 
percent) as was experienced in fiscal year 2003.

                             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, 2003, 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.
    Small community air service pilot program.--The bill 
specifies that $20,000,000 under the obligation limitation for 
the Small Airports Fund is only to continue the Small Community 
Air Service Pilot Program authorized by AIR-21. This is the 
same amount as provided in each of the past two fiscal years.

                     FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

    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.

                 Limitation on Administrative Expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\......................    ($314,071,181)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     (338,834,000)
Recommended in the bill...............................     (359,458,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2003......................     (+45,386,819)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................    (+20,624,000)

\1\ Reflects the 0.65 percent reduction contained in Division N, section
  601 of Public Law 108-7.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $359,458,000. This 
level is sufficient to fund 2,412 FTEs. The recommended level 
assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:

Deny funding for employee development...................     -$4,106,000
Increase funding for employee multidisciplinary 
    development program.................................      +4,106,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining.........      +7,000,000
Deny FECA administrative costs..........................         -84,000
Deny funding for additional Federal staff...............      -1,292,000
Increase funding for Pennsylvania Avenue project........     +15,000,000

    Employee development programs.--The Committee has denied 
funding for employee workforce development. The Inspector 
General has testified that FHWA staff is predominately 
engineers and continues to reflect its historic engineering 
focus that was vital during construction of the interstate 
system. The IG states that because of this, staff is overly 
focused on engineering and contract issues, rather than on 
oversight, management, and financial processes. Staff must have 
multidisciplinary skills to meet the needs of today's program 
and perform higher level functions, such as conducting reviews 
to ensure effectiveness of the states' processes in areas that 
are major project drivers, such as financing, project level 
cost estimates, schedule performance and accountability over 
funds.
    In a hearing before the Committee earlier this year, the 
FHWA estimated that it will take a full five years to realign 
its staff. The Committee believes the need is too pressing to 
wait that long and provides a total of $4,106,000 to advance 
this effort. Funding shall be available for activities and 
programs that promote the skill sets necessary to meet FHWA 
goals as they relate to staff realignment. The Committee 
directs FHWA to report back on the details of this new program, 
including the goal of the program, what activities it will 
support, how many employees are expected to participate, how 
employees are selected for the program, and how it is different 
from the employee development program funded in prior years.
    Environmental streamlining.--The Committee recommendation 
includes $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 for environmental 
streamlining initiatives within the limitation on 
administrative expenses. The Committee directs FHWA to provide 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report, not 
later than March 1, 2004, updating the Committees on FHWA's 
streamlining efforts. The report should include specific 
examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the 
environmental process.
    Deny FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced 
funding by $84,000 from the budget request for workers 
compensation administrative costs. This amount was not charged 
to FHWA in fiscal year 2003.
    Reduce funding for oversight of major projects staff.--The 
Committee denies funding for 12 full time equivalents (FTE), a 
reduction of $1,292,000 below the budget estimate. Although the 
Committee agrees that stronger oversight is necessary, it is 
not convinced that hiring additional staff is the only way to 
increase oversight of major projects.
    Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.--The Committee 
provides $15,000,000 to continue a project initially funded in 
the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2003. This level was included in the 
President's budget request under the Department of Interior 
(DOI) budget, to be transferred to the FHWA. This method 
provides the funds directly to FHWA, which is managing the 
project in consultation with DOI, the National Capital Planning 
Commission, and the Executive Office of the President.
    Correspondence mismanagement.--The Committee notes with 
concern the recent mismanagement and unprofessional conduct of 
the Federal Highway Administration in the treatment of 
Congressional hearing preparation instructions and official 
correspondence. Mischaracterization of Committee instructions 
and the distribution of such distorted information are simply 
unacceptable. The Committee relies upon professional and 
trustworthy relations with the agencies it oversees and expects 
considerable improvement by the FHWA in this regard.
    Intelligent bridge systems.--The Committee is aware of an 
infrastructure control system, known as the Intelligent Bridge 
System (IBS), conducted by the Center for Structural Control at 
the University of Oklahoma and would like an analysis of IBS' 
potential contribution to the nation's highway network. The 
Committee was advised that IBS would monitor the structural 
health of bridges, individually characterize each bridge and 
the vehicles using the bridge, and provide logistics 
streamlining for efficient and safe movement of goods along an 
economic corridor. The Committee directs that the Federal 
Highway Administration provide the Committee a report on IBS, 
no later than March 1, 2004 that analyzes and discusses the 
costs, benefits, and rigorous nature of IBS technology, and its 
application and viability for contributing to the nation's 
highway system. Additionally, the report should include cost 
and benefit comparisons and rankings between IBS and similar 
technologies, especially in regards to IBS' ability to deliver 
a competitive product versus that of the other technologies.

                 Limitation on Transportation Research

Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\.....................              (---)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................              (---)
Recommended in the bill..............................     ($462,500,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2003.....................     (+462,500,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................    (+462,500,000)

\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2003 and requested in fiscal year
  2004 are assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for 
transportation research of $462,500,000 for the following 
transportation research programs.

        Program                                      Recommended in bill
Surface transportation research, development and 
    deployment program..................................    $103,000,000
Technology deployment program...........................      50,000,000
Training and education..................................      20,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics.....................      31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests and 
    development.........................................     110,000,000
ITS deployment..........................................     122,000,000
University transportation research......................      26,500,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     462,500,000

                    SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH

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

                                                                  Amount
Environment, planning, and real estate..................     $17,000,000
Research and technology program support.................       8,000,000
International research..................................         500,000
Structures..............................................      13,500,000
Safety..................................................      12,000,000
Operations..............................................      12,500,000
Asset management........................................       3,000,000
Pavements research......................................      15,500,000
Policy research.........................................       9,000,000
Long-term pavement project..............................      10,000,000
Advanced research.......................................       1,000,000
R&T; strategic planning/performance measures.............       1,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................     103,000,000

    Environment, planning, and real estate research.--The 
environment research and technology program develops improved 
tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment; 
techniques for 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 $17,000,000.
    Research and technology program support.--The Committee has 
provided $8,000,000. 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. Within the funds provided the Committee directs 
FHWA to provide $750,000 to the University of Illinois 
Transportation Center.
    International research.--The Committee has provided 
$500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international 
research activities. FHWA is directed to consult with 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 $13,500,000 
for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make 
progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on 
NHS bridges from 21.5 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2004, 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, 
FHWA shall provide $750,000 for the deployment of lithium 
technologies to prevent and mitigate alkali-silica reactivity. 
The Committee notes that funding has been provided to the FHWA 
for several years, yet little progress has been made in the 
deployment of these promising technologies. Also within the 
funds provided, the FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the New 
York City Bridges Corrosion Monitoring Project.
    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 $12,000,000 
for safety research programs.
    Operations and asset management.--The Committee has 
provided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset 
management. The highway operations research program is designed 
to develop, deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and 
administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge 
durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related 
user delays. 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 the FHWA to provide $750,000 
for the National Steel Bridge Alliance, $2,000,000 to the 
Oklahoma Transportation Center, $200,000 for Northwestern 
University Highways 2008, and $100,000 for Critical 
Vunerability Assessment and Countermeasure Plan.
    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 pavements research and technology 
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, 
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public 
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction 
of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on 
asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled 
materials. The Committee has provided $15,500,000 for pavements 
research. Pavements 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 $350,000 to Florida Atlantic 
University for the material integrity project.
    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 enhancement of highway program contributions to economic 
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The 
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for policy research. Within 
the funds provided, the Committee directs FHWA to provide 
$500,000 to the Kentucky Transportation Center, $300,000 to 
Boston University Infrastructure Investment Research 
Initiative, and $300,000 to City College of San Francisco 
Transportation Academy.

       ITS STANDARDS, RESEARCH, OPERATIONAL TESTS AND DEVELOPMENT

    The Committee recommends the $110,000,000 provided for ITS 
research be allocated in the following manner:

                                                                  Amount
Research and development................................     $50,000,000
Operational tests.......................................      11,000,000
Evaluation..............................................       7,000,000
Architecture and standards..............................      18,000,000
Integration.............................................      12,000,000
Program support.........................................      12,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................     110,000,000

                             ITS DEPLOYMENT

    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 TEA-21 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 is as follows:

511 Traveler Information Program, North Carolina........        $500,000
Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to America Project Phase 
    II, Los Angeles, California.........................       1,250,000
Alexandria ITS Real-Time Transit Enhancement Pilot 
    Project, Virginia...................................         500,000
Altarum Restricted Use Technology Study, Michigan.......       2,000,000
Altoona, Pennsylvania, ITS..............................       1,000,000
Amber Alert Multi-Regional Strategic Plan, Michigan.....         400,000
Area Wide Traffic Signal Synchronization System, Phase 
    III, Florida........................................       2,500,000
ATMS, Montgomery County, Maryland.......................         500,000
Bay County Area Wide Traffic Signal System..............       1,000,000
Cargo*Watch, New York...................................       2,000,000
Carson Passenger Information System, California.........         300,000
Center for Integrated Transportation & Traffic Systems, 
    University of Arizona...............................         250,000
Chattanooga (CARTA) ITS, Tennessee......................       2,500,000
City of Asheville Traffic Signal System Upgrades, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
City of Baltimore, Maryland Traffic Congestion 
    Management..........................................         300,000
City of New Rochelle, NY Traffic Signal Replacement 
    Program.............................................       1,000,000
City of Santa Rosa: Intelligent Transportation System, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Computerization of traffic signals in Ashtabula, OH.....          14,000
Corona City-wide automated traffic management system, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
DelTrac Statewide Integration, Delaware.................       1,500,000
Demonstration project to deploy Geospatial Emergency & 
    Response System (GEARS) for transportation, 
    Pennsylvania........................................         300,000
Detroit Metro Airport ITS...............................         700,000
DuPage County Signal Interconnection Project, Illinois..         300,000
East Bay Incident & Emergency Management System, 
    California..........................................         300,000
Elk Grove Traffic Operations Center, California.........       1,000,000
Fairfax County Route 1 Traffic Synchronization ITS Pilot 
    Project, Virginia...................................         500,000
FAST Las Vegas (ITS-Phase 2)--Construction..............         500,000
Germantown Parkway ITS project, Tennessee...............       3,000,000
GMU ITS Research, Virginia..............................         450,000
Great Lakes ITS, Michigan...............................       5,000,000
Harbor Boulevard Intelligent Transportation, California.       1,000,000
Hawthorne Street Public Access Improvements, New 
    Bedford, MA.........................................         600,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................       1,650,000
Houston, Texas ITS......................................       1,700,000
I-70 Incident Management Plan Implementation, Colorado..         750,000
I-87 Highway Speed E-Z Pass at the Woodbury Toll 
    Barrier, New York...................................       2,000,000
I-87 Smart Corridor, New York...........................       1,000,000
I-90 Phase 2 Connector ITS Testbed--Town of North 
    Greenbush--Rensselaer County, NY....................         250,000
Illinois Statewide ITS..................................       1,500,000
Implementation of Wisconsin DOT's Fiber Optics Network..       1,000,000
Integration and Implementation of DYNASMART-X, RHODES 
    and CLAIRE in Houston, TX...........................         500,000
Intelligent Transportation System (KC metro area).......         250,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Project, 
    Inglewood, CA.......................................         750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, City of Wichita 
    Transit Authority, Kansas...........................         750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Statewide and 
    Commerical Vehicle Information Systems Network, 
    Maryland............................................         750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Washington, DC 
    Region..............................................       1,000,000
Intersection Signalization Project for the City of 
    Virginia Beach, Virginia............................         500,000
ITS--City of East Peoria, Illinois......................         200,000
ITS--I 74 in Peoria, IL.................................         750,000
ITS Baton Rouge, LA.....................................       1,750,000
ITS Expansion in Davis and Utah Counties, Utah..........       1,250,000
ITS Logistics and Systems Management for the Gateway 
    Cities, California..................................         500,000
ITS Technologies, San Antonio, Texas....................         323,000
ITS--Initial Implementation, Cache Valley, Utah.........       1,000,000
Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Intelligent 
    Transportation Initiative, Florida..................         500,000
King County, County-wide Signal Program, Washington.....         500,000
Laredo Signal Integration Project, Texas................       1,750,000
Lincoln, Nebraska StarTran Automatic Vehicle Locator 
    System..............................................       1,120,000
Los Angeles MTA Regional Universal Fare System..........       1,000,000
Macomb County ITS Integration, Michigan.................         750,000
Maine Statewide ITS.....................................       1,000,000
Market Street Signalization Improvements, Mississippi...         162,000
MARTA Automated Fare Collection/Smart Card System, 
    Georgia.............................................         500,000
Metrolina Transportation Management Center, North 
    Carolina............................................       2,000,000
Minnesota Guidestar.....................................       2,000,000
Mobile Data Computer Network--Phase II (MDCN), Wisconsin       2,200,000
Monroe County ATMS ITS Deployment Project, New York.....       1,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) AVLS, MA......         240,000
Multi Region Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS) 
    for the IH-20 Corridor--Phase 1 in Texas............       1,000,000
Nebraska Statewide Intelligent Transportation System 
    Deployment..........................................       1,000,000
New York State Thruway Authority Traffic Operation 
    Package for 1-95 and 1-87...........................       2,700,000
North Bergen, New Jersey Traffic Signalization 
    Replacement.........................................       1,000,000
Oklahoma County I-40 ITS................................       3,266,000
Palm Tran, Palm Beach County, FL--Automated Vehicle 
    Location and Mobile Data Terminals..................       1,600,000
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) ITS, MA.........       4,000,000
Port of Rochester Transportation Security/Intelligent 
    Transportation (ITS) Project, New York..............       1,500,000
Portland State University Intelligent Transportation 
    Research Initiative, Oregon.........................         750,000
Project Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana.........................       2,000,000
Real Time Transit Passenger Information System for the 
    Prince George's County Dept. of Public Works, 
    Maryland............................................       1,500,000
Regional Intelligent Transportation System, Springfield, 
    MO..................................................       2,500,000
Regional ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan for the 
    Eagle Pass Region and Integrate with Laredo, Texas..         300,000
Regional Traffic Signal Interconnect Project, Washington         500,000
Roosevelt Boulevard ITS Enhancement Pilot Program, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       1,000,000
Rural Freeway Management System Implementation for the 
    IH-20 Corridor in the Tyler Region--Phase 1, Texas..         300,000
Rural Highway Information System, KY....................       2,000,000
San Diego Joint Transportation Operations Center........         500,000
San Francisco Muni Transportation Communications System.       1,500,000
Seacoast Intelligent Transportation System Congestion 
    Relief Project, New Hampshire.......................       1,000,000
Shreveport ITS Project, Louisiana.......................       1,000,000
South Carolina DoT Statewide ITS........................       3,250,000
Spotswood Township, NJ; Expand and improve traffic flow 
    with road improvements..............................         375,000
SR 874 ITS Integration Project, Florida.................       2,000,000
SR 924 ITS Integration Project, Florida.................       1,000,000
SR 112 ITS Integration Project, Florida.................         500,000
State Route 164 Signal Synchronization Muckleshoot, 
    Washington..........................................       1,250,000
Swatara Township, Pennsylvania--Traffic Signalization 
    Improvements........................................         100,000
TalTran ITS Smartbus Program, Florida...................       2,500,000
Texas Medical Center EMS Early Warning System...........       1,000,000
Town of Cary Computerized Traffic Signal Project, North 
    Carolina............................................         750,000
Traffic Signal Controllers & Cabinets, District of 
    Columbia............................................         750,000
TRANSCOM Regional Architecture & TRANSMIT project, NJ, 
    NY, & CT............................................         750,000
Tucson Fiber Optic Signal Interconnect System, Arizona..         400,000
Twin Cities, MN Redundant Communications Pilot..........         750,000
Tysons Transportation Association--ITS, Virginia........         250,000
Ventura County Intelligent Transportation System, 
    California..........................................       1,500,000
West Baton Rouge Parish Joint Operations Emergency 
    Communications Center...............................       1,000,000
Wisconsin CVISN Level One Deployment....................         950,000
Wyoming Statewide ITS Initiative........................       2,500,000

    Joint Program Office.--In the early 1990s, the 
Appropriations Committees expressed strong support for the 
formulation of a Joint Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to 
oversee the federal role in the national Intelligent 
Transportation System (ITS) effort. This office, which is 
located within the Federal Highway Administration, now provides 
overall program direction and budget coordination among the 
multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The Committee 
believes the JPO has successfully managed the ITS program. For 
example, the JPO's close association with FHWA's research, 
headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified 
approach to providing training, implementation and testing of 
standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture. 
The Committee maintains that the JPO's positive working 
relationship with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in 
advancement of technologies and the deployment of systems.
    The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on 
the continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified 
previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained 
by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO 
within the FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy 
Secretary. If there is any change in the administrative 
structure or responsibilities of the JPO, the Secretary is 
directed to inform the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and to justify in detail such changes.

                  BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS

    Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill 
provides $31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation 
Statistics (BTS), the amount authorized in TEA-21. The 
Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from 
the airport and airway trust fund. The Committee notes that BTS 
has undergone significant increases in staffing since 1993, the 
year BTS was established. In fiscal year 1993, on-board 
positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101, and BTS 
was limited to 136 in 2003. Concern about the rate of growth in 
general, but particularly when staffing exceeded the 
Administration's request to Congress, led the Committee to 
limit BTS staff in fiscal year 2003. The Committee continues to 
limit BTS full time positions to 136 for fiscal year 2004.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)


                                   Liquidation of
                                      contract          Limitation on
                                   authorization         obligations

Appropriation, fiscal year          $32,000,000,000    ($31,593,300,000)
 2003 \1\.....................
Budget request, fiscal year          30,000,000,000     (29,293,948,000)
 2004.........................
Recommended in the bill.......       34,000,000,000     (33,385,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year       +2,000,000,000     (+1,791,700,000)
 2003.........................
    Budget request, fiscal           +4,000,000,000    (+4,091,052,000)
 year 2004....................

\1\ Limitation on obligation reflects the across the board reduction
  pursuant to Division N section 601 of Public Law 108-7.

    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 85 percent of 
total U.S. highway traffic.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends liquidating cash appropriation of 
$34,000,000,000. This level is the required amount to pay the 
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at 
levels provided in past Appropriation Acts.
    The current authorization, the Transportation Equity Act 
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) expires on September 30, 2003. 
Since no reauthorization bill has been passed by Congress, the 
Committee bill assumes the account structure and funding levels 
contained in the final year of TEA-21.
    TEA-21 aligned highway spending with receipts into the 
highway account of the highway trust fund. The obligation 
limitation is $5,091,052,000 over the Office of Management and 
Budget's estimate of receipt deposits into the highway account 
of the highway trust fund in fiscal year 2004. Following the 
TEA-21 model that aligned receipts to obligation limitation, 
fiscal year 2004 funding level would be $28,293,948,000. 
However, this does not take into account the downward 
adjustment of about $4 billion required due to overestimation 
of receipts in prior years.
    The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal 
year 2004 federal-aid highways obligations to $33,385,000,000, 
an increase of $1,791,700,000 from the fiscal year 2003 enacted 
level and $4,091,052,000 over the budget request. This 
obligation limitation level is $5,091,052,000 more than the 
estimates of receipts into the highway trust fund in fiscal 
year 2004.

               Federal-Aid Highways Estimated Obligations

    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 $33,385,000,000 provided by 
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent 
law:

                        FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAMS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   FY 2002          FY 2003        FY 2004 est.
                           Programs                               limitation       limitation       limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
    Surface Transportation Program...........................       $6,007,633       $6,926,475       $7,698,954
    National Highway System..................................        5,113,998        5,919,346        6,579,941
    Interstate Maintenance...................................        4,203,960        4,847,211        5,390,114
    Bridge Program...........................................        3,592,045        4,141,741        4,606,035
    Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement........        1,465,679        1,689,817        1,878,109
    Minimum Guarantee........................................        2,000,000        2,000,000        2,000,000
    Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts............          101,248          100,145          112,000
    ITS Standards, Research and Development..................           94,920           98,357          110,000
    ITS Deployment...........................................          108,480          109,086          122,000
    Transportation Research..................................          214,116          208,880          230,500
    Federal Lands Highways...................................          855,323          772,919          690,115
    National Corridor Planning and Coordinated Border                  509,419          377,313          140,000
     Infrastructure..........................................
    Administration...........................................          310,548      \1\ 314,071          359,458
    Other Programs...........................................        4,872,239        1,538,748          908,794
    High Priority Projects Program...........................        1,607,648        1,821,583        1,947,317
    Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Special).................          232,942          230,467                0
    Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation.....          108,480           50,496          130,000
    Appalachian Development Highway System...................          400,427          446,645          481,663
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Obligation Limitation \2\........................       31,799,105       31,593,300       33,385,000
                                                              ==================================================
Emergency Relief Program.....................................           87,198          138,089          100,000
Minimum Allocation/Guarantee.................................          655,276          581,569          616,028
Demonstration Projects.......................................          264,359          164,671          115,269
                                                              --------------------------------------------------
      Total Estimated Obligation of Exempt Programs..........        1,006,833          884,329          831,297
                                                              ==================================================
Emergency Relief Supplemental................................          115,619          285,248                0
                                                              ==================================================
      Grand Total, Federal-Aid Highways (Direct).............       32,921,557       32,762,877       34,216,297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net of the .65% across-the-board reduction contained in Div. N, Sec. 601 of P.L. 108-7. Does not reflect
  FHWA's share of the WCF reduction.
\2\ Please note that distribution of the obligation limitation for the core programs are estimated.

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

                                     ESTIMATED FY 2004 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Estimated  FY       FY 2004        Appalachian
                    State                       2004 formula       minimum        development         Total
                                                 limitation       guarantee         highways
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.....................................         $474,338          $36,849          $53,034         $564,221
Alaska......................................          248,718           69,955                0          318,673
Arizona.....................................          448,905           49,754                0          498,659
Arkansas....................................          338,732           26,519                0          365,251
California..................................        2,535,880          150,109                0        2,685,989
Colorado....................................          358,091           22,145                0          380,236
Connecticut.................................          368,355           48,358                0          416,713
Delaware....................................          121,492            8,515                0          130,007
Dist. of Col................................          114,465              315                0          114,780
Florida.....................................        1,196,365          168,438                0        1,364,803
Georgia.....................................          877,848          104,285           21,195        1,003,328
Hawaii......................................          133,427           10,093                0          143,520
Idaho.......................................          184,639           19,536                0          204,175
Illinois....................................          905,230           37,407                0          942,637
Indiana.....................................          589,237           61,762                0          650,999
Iowa........................................          330,696           10,461                0          341,157
Kansas......................................          322,376            9,505                0          331,881
Kentucky....................................          425,174           26,846           48,651          500,671
Louisiana...................................          421,743           27,311                0          449,054
Maine.......................................          142,152            7,944                0          150,096
Maryland....................................          437,794           25,609            8,293          471,696
Massachusetts...............................          502,534           19,391                0          521,925
Michigan....................................          807,086           65,636                0          872,722
Minnesota...................................          399,074           16,143                0          415,217
Mississippi.................................          325,056           17,654            5,948          348,658
Missouri....................................          627,684           30,960                0          658,644
Montana.....................................          250,056           34,525                0          284,581
Nebraska....................................          223,235            6,618                0          229,853
Nevada......................................          188,113           17,730                0          205,843
New Hampshire...............................          131,767            9,207                0          140,974
New Jersey..................................          715,080           37,061                0          752,141
New Mexico..................................          255,492           21,260                0          276,752
New York....................................        1,317,440           89,000           11,431        1,417,871
North Carolina..............................          699,677           69,841           31,225          800,743
North Dakota................................          181,275           10,635                0          191,910
Ohio........................................          888,292           59,245           23,915          971,452
Oklahoma....................................          433,648           13,321                0          446,969
Oregon......................................          319,759           16,430                0          336,189
Pennsylvania................................        1,166,657           58,323          129,676        1,354,656
Rhode Island................................          162,477           10,540                0          173,017
South Carolina..............................          431,375           44,852            2,598          478,825
South Dakota................................          187,631           13,206                0          200,837
Tennessee...................................          536,856           36,656           59,458          632,970
Texas.......................................        2,039,743          220,203                0        2,259,946
Utah........................................          212,565            7,410                0          219,975
Vermont.....................................          127,630            5,679                0          133,309
Virginia....................................          653,927           55,918           12,497          722,342
Washington..................................          479,459           18,763                0          498,222
West Virginia...............................          219,205           10,163           73,742          303,110
Wisconsin...................................          498,014           53,930                0          551,944
Wyoming.....................................          196,690            7,984                0          204,674
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..............................       26,153,154        2,000,000          481,663       28,634,817
Special Limitation:
    High Priority Projects..................  ...............  ...............  ...............        1,947,317
    Allocation Programs.....................  ...............  ...............  ...............        2,802,866
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Limitation......................  ...............  ...............  ...............       33,385,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee's recommendations are based on current law, 
under which 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 2004 shall be available for the 
following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Business Route I-44 (Chestnut Expressway) and National 
    Avenue Intersection Improvement Missouri............        $750,000
Capacity expansion on I-35 in Olathe, KS, from 159th St. 
    to 175th St.........................................       1,200,000
Cawtawba Avenue Interchange (I-77) Improvement, North 
    Carolina............................................         750,000
Central Sarasota Parkway Interchange at I-75, Sarasota, 
    Florida.............................................         500,000
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, I-70 and State Highway 58 
    Interchange Reconstruction..........................       1,600,000
Conceptual Development & Preliminary Design improvements 
    to the intersections of Interstate 59, U.S. Highways 
    15 and 84, Mississippi..............................         265,000
Construct Madison Street Interchange I-29 in Sioux 
    Falls, SD...........................................       3,000,000
Coors/Interstate 40 Interchange Reconstruction, New 
    Mexico..............................................       1,000,000
Deming, NM I-10 Frontage Road Extension.................       1,800,000
Double Eagle II Airport (Paseo del Volcan) Interchange 
    and Roadway Rehabilitation, New Mexico..............       2,000,000
Ellensburg Interchange I-90, Milepost 108.31, Washington       2,000,000
Feasibility study for Routes 495/195 Interchange, 
    Wareham, Massachusetts..............................         500,000
Four interchanges at I-435 and I-35 in Johnson County, 
    Kansas..............................................       1,000,000
I-12 Sound Barriers, Slidell, Louisiana.................         750,000
I-15, Utah/ Salt Lake County Line to SR-92..............       3,000,000
I-20 Downing Pines Interchange, Louisiana...............       1,405,000
I-205, Oregon...........................................       1,000,000
I-210 and Highway 14 Interchange, Lake Charles, 
    Louisiana...........................................       1,000,000
I-25, US 36, I-270 Interchange, Colorado................         500,000
I-25/Tramway Interchange, Albuquerque, New Mexico.......       2,000,000
I-285 Noise Walls, Henderson Mill to Chamblee Tucker 
    Road, Georgia.......................................         800,000
I-285 Noise Walls, I-20 to Bouldercrest Road, Georgia...         480,000
I-295/Meadowville Interchange, Virginia.................       2,000,000
I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas......................         800,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma.....................       1,000,000
I-44 exit ramp in Luther area, Oklahoma.................       2,000,000
I-44 Rogers Lane Interchange, Lawton, Oklahoma..........       1,000,000
I-44 widening and construction Arkansas River east to 
    Yale Avenue in Tulsa, OK............................       5,000,000
I-476 Reconstruction and Widening Project, Pennsylvania.       1,000,000
I-5 Rush Road to Maytown Widening, Lewis County, WA.....         500,000
I-5 Vancouver Interchange Improvements, Washington......       1,000,000
I-5/Ortega Highway Interchange Construction, California.       1,000,000
I-66/Route 29 Gainsville Interchange, Virginia..........       1,750,000
I-676 Martin Luther King Blvd., Camden County, NJ.......       1,250,000
I-695 Baltimore Beltway N/E Inner Loop, Maryland........       1,000,000
I-70 Projects: Frederick, Maryland......................         750,000
I-75 in Rockcastle County, Kentucky (Milepoint 64.5 to 
    Milepoint 69.0), 4.5 Miles..........................       1,500,000
I-75/Aviation Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia....................       1,000,000
I-76, Fort Morgan, Colorado to Brush, Colorado..........         250,000
I-77/Lauby Road exit, Ohio..............................       1,000,000
I-80 Truck Climbing Lane, Keystone to Robb Drive, Nevada         500,000
I-81 Corridor and I-690 Interchange Improvement Project 
    in Syracuse, New York...............................       2,000,000
I-84, Glenns Ferry to King Hill, Idaho..................       1,000,000
I-84/I-87 Interchange Reconstruction, New York..........         250,000
I-84/Route 2 East Hartford Connecticut, operational 
    improvements (flyover access).......................       1,000,000
I-85 Coweta County Noise Barriers, Georgia..............         750,000
I-90, Spokane to Idaho State Line, Washington...........       1,000,000
I-96/Latson Road Interchange, Michigan..................         750,000
IH 30 from FM 989 (Kings Highway) to US 59/71 (Stateline 
    Avenue) in Texarkana, Texas.........................       3,000,000
IH-30 Interchange Improvement Project, Texas............       2,000,000
IH35/SH45 interchange at Round Rock, Texas..............         250,000
Improvements to I-75 in Lee County, FL..................       1,000,000
Interchange at I-565 and County Line Road, Alabama......       1,000,000
Interstate 10 Cypress Avenue Overcrossing, California...       1,000,000
Interstate 10/Tippecanoe Interchange, California........       2,500,000
Interstate 295/Route 38 Interchange Improvements, New 
    Jersey..............................................         750,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, Arkansas..       1,000,000
Interstate 74 Bridge Corridor Project, Iowa.............         500,000
Interstate 80-Exits 298-299 Renovation Project, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       1,000,000
Laval Road Interchange Upgrades at I-5, California......       1,000,000
Louisville--Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges project, 
    Indiana.............................................       3,250,000
New York State Thruway Authority, Westchester County, 
    Byram Bridge Rehabilitation.........................       1,000,000
Noise Walls on I-20 from Fulton Industrial Boulevard to 
    H. E. Holmes, Fulton County, Georgia................         500,000
Northbound I-675 Sound Barrier, Greene County, Ohio.....       1,000,000
Ohio River Bridges, Kentucky............................       6,550,000
Pavement and Bridge Rehabilitation on I-85, North 
    Carolina............................................       1,000,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike--Interstate 95 Interchange Project         250,000
Phase II, I-44 Modification (Widen Eastbound I-44 Bridge 
    at Meramec River), Missouri.........................         200,000
Pineda Causeway Interchange at I-95, Florida............       1,100,000
Rancho Cucamonga I-15 & Base Line Road Interchange 
    Improvements, California............................       1,000,000
Reconstruct Exit 60--I-90 in Rapid City, South Dakota...       1,000,000
Reconstruction/Removal of I-40 and I-55 ramps, Memphis, 
    TN..................................................         750,000
Right of way Project on IH 35, from FM 2063 in Hewitt to 
    South Loop 340/ State Hwy 6 Interchange, Texas......       1,500,000
Scott City, Missouri Access Ramp........................         250,000
Sierra College Boulevard/I-80 Interchange, California...       1,000,000
SR-56/I-5 Northbound Widening, California...............       1,000,000
Tri-State Tollway (I-294), Plaza 33 Irving Park Road, MP 
    39.0, Illinois......................................         600,000
Upgrade Interchange at I-15--Design, Cajalco Road, 
    Corona, CA..........................................         200,000
Upgrade of the Interstate 95 and SC-327 Interchange in 
    South Carolina......................................       1,750,000
Valley Mall Boulevard Interchange and South Union Gap 
    Interchange, Washington.............................         500,000
Waltham, MA 1-95/Rt 20 Interchange......................       2,000,000
Widening Interstate 35 East between FM 2181 and Lake 
    Lewisville, Denton County, Texas....................         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; 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 2004 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

12th Street Viaduct (Kansas City, Missouri).............        $750,000
Boulder Ave Bridge project, Highland, California........       1,000,000
Coal Creek Parkway, Washington..........................       1,500,000
Construction of the Cooper River Bridge Replacement 
    Project, South Carolina.............................       2,000,000
CR 309 Georgetown Bridge, Putnam County, Florida........         500,000
Ferry Street Bridge, New Haven, CT......................       1,750,000
First Street Bridge, Roanoke, Virginia..................         500,000
Gill-Montague Bridge, MA................................       5,000,000
Gilmerton Bridge, Virginia..............................       4,000,000
Greenspot Bridge, Highland, CA..........................         500,000
Hagatna River, Flood Mitigation Bridge Improvement 
    Project, Guam.......................................         750,000
Historic Woodrow Wilson Bridge Restoration Project, 
    Rankin Co., MS......................................       2,500,000
I-195 Washington Bridge (East Bound), Rhode Island......         750,000
I-35 Trinity River Bridge, Texas........................       1,000,000
I-710 Corridor/Gerald Desmond Bridge Gateway Program 
    (Desmond Bridge Replacement)........................       2,000,000
I-95 New Haven Q-Bridge, Approach Work (Contract C), 
    Connecticut.........................................         750,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge Replacement, Delaware.........       2,000,000
Interstate 74 Bridge Corridor Project, Iowa.............       1,900,000
Kapahi Bridge, Island of Kauai..........................         500,000
Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge, Louisiana...........       3,000,000
Leeville Bridge, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana............       2,000,000
Longfellow Bridge, Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts..       3,000,000
Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Aprons, Toledo, Ohio......       2,000,000
MD 70 Bridge over Weems Creek, Maryland.................         500,000
Missouri River Bridge, Rulo.............................       1,250,000
North Avenue Bridge over the North Branch of the Chicago 
    River, Illinois.....................................       1,000,000
Red Cliff Arch Bridge, Colorado.........................       1,500,000
Replacement of existing I-75 Brent Spence Bridge over 
    Ohio River between Covington and Cincinnati.........       2,500,000
Route 17/Essex St. Bridge Replacement, Bergen County, 
    New Jersey..........................................       3,000,000
Route 52 Causeway Replacement and Somers Point Circle 
    Elimination, New Jersey.............................       1,750,000
Russell Street Viaduct Replacement, Maryland............         650,000
Sauvie Island Bridge Replacement, Oregon................         500,000
State Highway 332 at Brazos River, Brazoria County, 
    Texas...............................................       6,000,000
Tamiami Bridge Replacement, Florida.....................       2,000,000
U.S. 220--Business Bridge Replacement, Virginia.........       2,600,000
U.S. 34 Missouri River Bridge in Mills County, Iowa.....       2,500,000
US-169 viaduct between Kansas Avenue and I-70, Kansas 
    City, Kansas........................................       2,100,000
US-2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County, Idaho................       2,000,000
VA Route 28 Widening, Virginia..........................       2,000,000
Vernon Atlantic Boulevard Bridge Expansion Project, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Waldo-Hancock Suspension Bridge in Prospect and Verona, 
    Maine...............................................       3,000,000

    Funds provided for seismic retrofit under the bridge 
discretionary program in fiscal year 2004 shall be available 
for the following activities in the corresponding amount:

9th Street Bridge, NE over New York Avenue, District of 
    Columbia............................................        $750,000
Christina River Bridge Seismic Retrofit, Delaware.......       2,500,000
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit, California.........       5,000,000
Highway 21/Rincon Truck Bypass, Georgia.................       7,500,000
Sakonnet River Bridge Replacement, Rhode Island.........       1,750,000
South Capitol Street/Frederick Douglass Bridge, Maryland       2,500,000
SR 520/SR 25 Flyover Bridge, Glynn County, Georgia......       5,000,000

    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 
2004 shall be available for the following activities in the 
corresponding amounts:

Access roads to Beale Air Force Base, CA................        $750,000
Adams National Historic Park Transportation and Access, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         465,000
Apache County Road, 5020, Arizona.......................         750,000
Apache County South Fork Bridge, Arizona................         250,000
Atwater Federal Penitentiary Access Road, California....       1,500,000
Badger Creek Crossing, Fall River Lake, Greenwood 
    County, KS..........................................       5,000,000
Battlefield Parkway expansion from Kindaid Boulevard to 
    Route 7, Virginia...................................       6,000,000
BIA Route 35 resurfacing: State line to Montezuma Creek, 
    Utah................................................       1,500,000
Big South Fork, Scenic Railway Track Restoration in 
    McCreary County, Kentucky...........................         400,000
Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island..................         800,000
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge roads and visitor center, 
    Rhode Island........................................         500,000
Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area Universal 
    Access, Massachusetts...............................       2,600,000
Brown's Park, Utah......................................       1,500,000
Calaveras Wagon Trail Expressway Realignment, California         500,000
Calumet Trail, Prairie Duneland Trail and Marquette 
    Trail Link, Indiana.................................         307,000
Choctaw Roads, Band of Choctaw Indians Road 
    Improvements, Mississippi...........................         900,000
City of Henderson Lake Las Vegas/Lake Mead Interchange, 
    Nevada..............................................       2,000,000
Cross Base Highway, Washington..........................       1,000,000
East Flagstaff Traffic Interchange, Arizona.............         500,000
Foothills Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, 
    Tennessee...........................................       1,000,000
Fort Yates Business Loop Street Improvement, North 
    Dakota..............................................         550,000
George Washington Memorial Parkway Safety Improvements, 
    Virginia............................................         800,000
Glorieta Battlefield New Mexico 50 realignment..........         750,000
Hal Rogers Parkway, Kentucky............................       1,000,000
Hansen Dam Recreation Area Parking Enhancements, 
    Pacoima, California.................................         500,000
Highway 62 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements, 
    in Yucca Valley, California.........................         500,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, Arizona.......................       5,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass-Boulder Extension (US 93/US 95, Wagon 
    Wheel Pass), Nevada.................................       6,000,000
IH20--Dyess AFB Access Project, Texas...................       2,500,000
Lake Tahoe EIP, Nevada..................................       1,000,000
Lowell Riverwalk Phase II Design, Massachusetts.........         800,000
Marin Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, California...       2,000,000
MD 4 Suitland Parkway Interchange.......................       4,500,000
Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) Improvements in New 
    Hanover County, North Carolina......................         887,000
Mill Creek Road (Mendocino County), California..........         800,000
Navajo Archeological Study, Utah State Route 262 between 
    Montezuma Creek and Aneth...........................       2,000,000
Needles Highway Realignment and Safety Improvements, 
    California..........................................       3,000,000
Ohiki Road Bank Stabilization and Engineering, Hanalei, 
    Island of Kauai.....................................         100,000
Ohio State Route 2/Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge......       1,000,000
Phase 2 South Palm Canyon Realignment and Ancillary 
    Access Improvements, California.....................         300,000
Presidio Trails and Bikeways, Golden Gate National 
    Recreation Area, California.........................       1,500,000
Preston North & South, Nebraska.........................         500,000
Public Lands Highways Project, Cedar Creek bridge 
    construction at Wilson Lake, Russell County, Kansas.         304,000
Regional Tourism and Transportation Center, New York....       1,250,000
Rehabilitation of the Henry Drive Bridge over the Union 
    Pacific Railroad tracks at Fort Riley, Kansas.......         808,000
Rossie Coats Road, Kemper County, MS....................         200,000
Russell Cave National Monument Road, Jackson County, 
    Alabama.............................................         496,000
Saginaw Chippewa Transportation Improvement Project, 
    Michigan............................................       1,000,000
Seminoe Dam Road, Wyoming...............................         750,000
Snake Road (BIA Route 1281) Improvement, Florida........       1,000,000
SR 196 Widening, Liberty County, Georgia................       1,000,000
Stafford 8th Avenue Bridge, Arizona.....................       1,000,000
State Highway 149, Colorado.............................         500,000
Sturgeon Lake Road Overpass, Minnesota..................       2,000,000
Summit Valley Road Project, San Bernardino, California..         500,000
Tank Destroyer Blvd, Ft. Hood, TX.......................       2,000,000
Timucuan Preserve Bike Trail, Florida...................         600,000
Turquoise Trail Project (BIA Route 4), Arizona..........       2,498,000
US 50 Phase I highway and water quality improvement 
    project, California.................................       2,000,000
US 666 Archaeological Studies and Planning Design, New 
    Mexico..............................................         880,000
USMC Heritage Center Access, Virginia...................         750,000
Western Canalway, Suffolk and Moody Street Reach, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         500,000
Western Maryland Low Impact Welcome Center at Byron 
    Overlook, Maryland..................................         770,000
Wolf Trap National Park Pedestrian Crossing, Virginia...       1,285,000

    The Committee directs that the funds allocated above shall 
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, 
and not from funds allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Service 
and National Park Service regional offices.
    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.
    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 1999-2004; 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 2004 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

172nd Street/I-5 Interchange and Bridge Expansion, 
    Washington..........................................      $2,000,000
60/67 Interchange--Butler County, Missouri..............       1,500,000
Aiken Road Bridge, Kentucky.............................         100,000
Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to America Project Phase 
    II, Los Angeles, California.........................       2,000,000
Anacostia Crossings and Freeway Study, Maryland.........         750,000
Annie Glidden Road, DeKalb, Illinois....................         500,000
Arch-Sperry Road Improvements, California...............         250,000
Auburn Ravine Bridge--City of Lincoln, California.......         250,000
Bayfield County bridge projects, Wisconsin..............         410,000
California State Route 75 (City of Coronado) Tunnel 
    Project Report and Environmental Document, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Cameron Street Bridge, Shamokin/Coal Townships, 
    Northumberland County, Pennsylvania.................       1,000,000
Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation U.S. 15, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       2,000,000
Central Thruway (LA 37/US 190 to Central Thruway 
    Connector), Louisiana...............................       1,000,000
City of Forsyth Frontage Road, Illinois.................         200,000
City of Madison East Washington Avenue Reconstruction, 
    Wisconsin...........................................       2,000,000
City of Seminole, US 377 upgrades and creation of a 
    spur, Oklahoma......................................       2,000,000
City of Wewoka, Oklahoma................................         250,000
Coalfields Expressway--Virginia.........................         500,000
Columbus, Mississippi Highway 45 Bypass.................         750,000
Corridor V construction along SR-6, Mississippi.........       1,000,000
County State Highway 21 Project, Minnesota..............         750,000
CR 578 Widening from Mariner Boulevard to Suncoast 
    Parkway, Florida....................................       1,000,000
Donna-Rio Bravo International Border Crossing, Texas....         750,000
Elk Grove Sheldon 99 Interchange, California............         300,000
Extend 4-Lane Highway from Maverick Junction to Nebraska 
    in Fall River County, South Dakota..................         250,000
FAECO Drive, Luzerne Township, Pennsylvania.............       3,000,000
Falls to Falls Corridor, Minnesota......................       1,000,000
Freight Rail Transportation Corridor and Urban Mobility 
    Program--Harris County, Texas.......................       1,000,000
Georgia S.R. 316 Improvements--Gwinnett County, Georgia.         100,000
Highway 101 Implementation Plan, California.............         600,000
Highway 22/Cordon Road interchange- Environmental Impact 
    Study, Oregon.......................................         500,000
Highway 29/Highway 51 Wausau, Wisconsin.................       3,000,000
Highway 412: Baxter County Line to Eastern Sharp County 
    Line................................................       1,500,000
Highway 431 Modification, Alabama.......................       1,200,000
Highway 71: Louisiana State Line, DeQueen, Arkansas.....       1,000,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma.....................       8,000,000
I-5 Interregional Arterials Improvement Project, 
    California..........................................         725,000
I-540 and Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas......       1,050,000
I-65 and County Road 24 Interchange, Limestone County, 
    Alabama.............................................       1,000,000
I-66 A westbound widening from Rosslyn Tunnel to Dulles 
    Connector, Virginia.................................       1,000,000
I-675 Corridor Improvements, Ohio.......................         500,000
I-69 Indianapolis to Evansville, Indiana Segment........       1,000,000
I-75, Enterprise South Connector Road, Chattanooga, 
    Tennessee...........................................       1,000,000
I-75/Austin Road Interchange, Ohio......................         650,000
I-87 Exit 11A New Interchange, New York.................         750,000
I-96 at Beck Rd. and Wixom Rd. interchange 
    reconstruction, Michigan............................       2,000,000
Interchange/overpass at highway K-7 and 55th St. and 
    Johnson Dr. in Shawnee, Kansas......................       1,000,000
Intercounty Connector (ICC), Maryland...................         500,000
Interstate 15 Managed Lanes, California.................       1,000,000
Interstate 5 Riverfront Reconnection, California........         500,000
Jasper Airport Road, Jasper, Alabama....................       1,000,000
Jim Thorpe Bridge Renovation Project, Pennsylvania......         500,000
Johnsontown Road, Kentucky..............................         200,000
Kauffman Ave Roadway Improvements, Greene County, Ohio..         500,000
KY750 from US 23 to KY 3105 in Raceland, Greenup County, 
    Kentucky............................................         300,000
LA 18 from Avondale to US 90, Jefferson Parish, 
    Louisiana...........................................         500,000
LA Hwy 820 Improvements, Lincoln Parish, Louisiana......       1,500,000
Lake County, Tennessee, State Route 21, from Log Mile 
    7.0 to Obion County Line............................         500,000
Lincoln bypass-SR65/Ferrari Interchange Construction, 
    California..........................................       2,000,000
Long Meadow Parkway Fox River Bridge Crossing, Bolz 
    Road, Illinois......................................       3,000,000
Loop 201 Expansion Project, Texas.......................         750,000
Loop 304 Expansion and Improvement, Crockett, Texas.....         500,000
Lyndale Avenue Bridge, Minnesota........................       2,000,000
Montgomery County/U.S. 35 Widening, Ohio................         500,000
New Haven Road Corridor Study, Connecticut..............          90,000
New Jersey Route 31 Highway/ Congestion Mitigation Study         150,000
New Jersey Route 57/CR Route 519 Intersection 
    Improvements........................................       1,300,000
North Coast Interstate 5, La Jolla Village Drive and 
    Vandegrift Boulevard, California....................         500,000
Northern Bypass of Somerset, Kentucky in Pulaski County.         650,000
Northern Tier Expressway (NTE), New York................         100,000
North-South Highway TCL-MSL Corridor, Alabama...........       1,000,000
Pennsylvania Mon Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway 
    Project, Pennsylvania...............................       2,000,000
Pinellas County, Florida Roosevelt Connector Project....       7,000,000
Pittston Connector Project, Pennsylvania................         300,000
Planning for New Route over Cape Fear River, North 
    Carolina............................................         250,000
Ports-to-Plains highway rehabilitation between Del Rio 
    and Eagle Pass, Texas...............................       1,000,000
Ranchero Road/Cajon Branchline Grade Separation, 
    California..........................................         500,000
Route 104/Dominion Boulevard, Virginia..................       3,000,000
Route 106 Underpass Rehabilitation, Mansfield, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         750,000
Route 116 Ashfield, Conway, Massachusetts...............       2,500,000
Route 12, Veterans Memorial Corridor, Auburn, 
    Massachusetts.......................................       1,250,000
Route 168 Corridor Improvements, Camden and Gloucester 
    Counties, New Jersey................................         250,000
Route 17 Improvements from Route 3 to Linwood Avenue, 
    Bergen Co, New Jersey...............................       1,000,000
Route 2 Safety Improvements, Athol, Philipston, Orange, 
    Massachusetts.......................................       3,000,000
Route 24/140 Interchange Improvements, Taunton, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         750,000
Route 403 Relocation, Rhode Island......................       1,000,000
Route 590 Reconstruction project, Irondequoit, New York.       2,500,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement, Fall River, 
    Massachusetts.......................................         750,000
Route 8, Berkshire County, Massachusetts................       1,250,000
Rutherford Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts................       1,500,000
Santa Clarita Cross Valley Connector, California........       3,000,000
SH 158 widening in Sterling County, Texas...............       1,000,000
Shelby County CR 500 E Safety Upgrade, Indiana..........         100,000
SR694, Pinellas Park, Florida...........................       2,000,000
St. Charles, Illinois, Fox River Crossing at Red Gate 
    Corridor............................................       1,750,000
St. Clair Avenue in East Liverpool, Ohio................         500,000
State Highway 29 (Interstate 94--Chippewa Falls, 
    Wisconsin)..........................................       2,000,000
Ten Mile at Middlebelt Road Intersection Safety, 
    Michigan............................................         200,000
Tennessee US 412 Corridor, Tennessee....................       2,000,000
Tennessee's I40 in Roane County.........................         750,000
Rock Island Parkway, Arkansas...........................         600,000
Tienken Road Bridge over the Paint Creek, Rochester 
    Hills Michigan......................................         750,000
Town of Marana, Twin Peaks Corridor, Arizona............       1,000,000
Trenton Channel Bridge Replacement, Wayne County, 
    Michigan............................................         375,000
U.S. Highway 54, Kansas.................................       1,000,000
U.S. Route 33 Corridor Improvements at Winchester-
    Cemetary Road, Ohio.................................       1,000,000
U.S. Route 33 Road Improvements (Pendelton County, West 
    Virginia)...........................................         500,000
U.S. Route 422 Improvement Project, Pennsylvania........         500,000
University Boulevard Interchange Project, Pittsburgh 
    area Pennsylvania...................................         250,000
Upgrade of SR 1165 (Beckford Drive) to a multilane 
    facility, North Carolina............................         100,000
Upgrade US158 to a multilane facility between I-85 and 
    I-95, North Carolina................................         250,000
US 20 Webster County Widen to four lanes, Iowa..........       1,500,000
US 278 from Sulligent, AL to Guin, Alabama..............       1,500,000
US 60, Osage County, Pawhuska to Vinita, Oklahoma.......       2,000,000
US 83 Anzalduas Connection Road and Structures to New 
    International Bridge, Texas.........................         500,000
US Highway 212/County Road 134 Intersection, Minnesota..         750,000
US Highway 218 in Keokuk, Iowa..........................       1,000,000
US Market Street Bridge, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania..       1,000,000
US-12 Burbank to Walla Walla, Washington................       1,000,000
US-395 North Spokane Corridor, Washingon................       1,000,000
USH 151 Dickeyville-Dodgeville, Wisconsin...............       2,000,000
USH 53 Bypass (Eau Claire, Wisconsin)...................       2,000,000
West Laredo Multimodal Trade Corridor, Texas............       2,000,000
Widen NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Cumberland County, 
    North Carolina......................................       1,750,000
Winfield Way Extension, Canton, Ohio....................         500,000

    I-66 widening.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for 
I-66 westbound widening. However, if funds are not obligated by 
June 1, 2004, amounts shall be available for Route 7 widening 
in Fairfax County.
    Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Current law 
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry 
terminal facilities. It also sets-aside $20,000,000 from each 
of fiscal year for marine highway systems that are part of the 
National Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New 
Jersey and Washington. Consistent with current law, this bill 
provides $38,000,000.
    Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal 
facilities program in fiscal year 2004 shall be available for 
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:

Beale Street Landing/Docking Facility, Memphis, TN......        $750,000
Canal Corridor Association--Port of LaSalle Project, 
    Illinois............................................         500,000
Capital Cost of Contracting for Water Bus Service, 
    Florida.............................................         500,000
City of Palatka Ferry Service, Florida..................         750,000
Coffman Cove ferry terminal, Alaska.....................       2,000,000
Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority Ferry Vessel 
    Acquisition.........................................       1,100,000
Ferry service from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan 
    (Jamaica Bay Transportation Hub), New York..........         500,000
Fire Island Ferry Terminal, Saltaire, New York..........         500,000
Fishers Island Ferry District New London Terminal 
    Expansion and Upgrade, Connecticut..................         750,000
Governor Curtis Ferry Boat Replacement, Maine...........         500,000
High Speed Ferry Terminal, Bridgeport, CT...............       1,000,000
Jacksonville Water Taxi Stations, Florida...............         700,000
Oyster Point Ferry Vessel, California...................         500,000
Passenger Ferry, Port of Corpus Christi, Texas..........         500,000
Passenger-only ferry purchase and facility development, 
    Washington..........................................       1,000,000
Pittsburgh Water Taxi, Pennsylvania.....................         250,000
Rockland County and City of Yonkers, NY Ferry Service...       1,250,000
S-236 Claggett Road/Lewis & Clark Ferry Boat Facilities 
    on Missouri River, Montana..........................       1,000,000
Savannah Water Ferry Project............................       1,000,000
Southworth and Vashon Terminal Improvements, Washington.         400,000
St. George's Ferry, New York............................       1,000,000
St. Mary's River Ferry System Facility and Facility 
    Improvement, Michigan...............................         250,000
Stamford High Speed Ferry, Stamford, CT.................         500,000
Swans Island Ferry Terminal Improvements, Swans Island, 
    Maine...............................................         500,000
Winthrop, MA Ferry......................................         300,000

    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 2004, the bill provides $26,500,000 for this 
program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program 
in fiscal year 2004 shall be available for the following 
activities in the corresponding amounts:

Amherst County Greenway, Virginia.......................      $2,000,000
Berkshire/Franklin Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway, MA........       1,000,000
City of Espanola El Camino Real Scenic Byway alignment, 
    New Mexico..........................................         100,000
Enhancements to Route 6A Scenic Byway, Cape and Islands 
    Rural Roads Initiative, Massachusetts...............       1,000,000
Flagler County Scenic and Historic A1A, Florida.........         892,000
Franklin County Connecticut River Scenic Byway, MA......       1,000,000
Gateways for Maine's National Scenic Byways.............       1,000,000
Great River Road in Mercer County, Illinois.............         500,000
Idaho National Scenic Byways............................          75,000
Kentucky Scenic Byways..................................       1,000,000
Mason Creek Greenway, Virginia..........................       1,250,000
New York State Scenic Byways Program Statewide Project..       2,000,000
Pioneer Historic Byway Interpretive Site Development, 
    Idaho...............................................         100,000
Route 29 Scenic Byway, Hunterdon County, NJ.............         500,000
S-323 Alzada-Ekalaka, Montana...........................       4,183,000
Snoqualmie Point View Park, Washington..................         600,000
US 78 Bamberg Scenic Highway Project, South Carolina....       5,000,000
Washington State Scenic Byways..........................       1,000,000
Welcome Center off SR 410, Washington...................       2,800,000
Woodward Avenue--Developing the Byway Story, Michigan...         500,000

    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 2004 shall be 
available for the following activities in the corresponding 
amounts:

34th St. Corridor Completion and Related Improvements, 
    Minnesota...........................................        $200,000
Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail Construction, District of 
    Columbia............................................         250,000
Atlantic Avenue Extension, Jamaica, Queens, New York....         150,000
Balls Ferry Historic Park, Georgia......................         250,000
Bremerton Ferry/Tunnel project, Washington..............         400,000
Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, New York 
    traffic light.......................................         100,000
Central Avenue Parking Facility and Pedestrian 
    Improvements, Florida...............................         100,000
City of Bayfield/Highway 13 Emergency Culvert Repairs, 
    Wisconsin...........................................         140,000
Civic center streetscape improvement, New York..........         400,000
Connection of the Alabama Chief Ladiga Trail and the 
    Georgia Silver Comet Trail, Alabama.................         100,000
Crocker/Stearns, widening and construction, North 
    Olmstead, Ohio......................................         300,000
Des Moines Riverwalk, Des Moines, IA....................         400,000
Downtown Revitalization Project, Somerset, Kentucky.....       1,750,000
Fairmont Pedestrian Bridge, West Virginia...............         200,000
FM 66 Ellis County from IH-35 in Waxahachie to FM 157 at 
    Maypearl, Texas.....................................         750,000
Forest Park/Atlanta State Farmers Market Transportation 
    Study, Georgia......................................         200,000
Glenwood Avenue Overpass, Ohio..........................       1,100,000
High line project, New York City, New York..............         250,000
Hobbs Industrial Air Park Roads, New Mexico.............         100,000
Homewood, IL railroad station/platform acquisition and 
    improvement.........................................         193,500
Hot Springs Bike Trail, Arkansas........................          80,000
Houston-Galveston Regional Congestion Study, Texas......         750,000
Independence Creek Hiking/Biking Road Access, Kansas....         250,000
Lafayette Street Extension/Pennsylvania Turnpike 
    Electronic Toll Interchange.........................         500,000
Lakeland In-town Bypass, Phase II, Florida..............         400,000
Lewisburg Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Lewisburg, 
    West Virginia.......................................          85,000
Lincoln Boulevard Improvement Project, California.......         400,000
Lombardy Street Renovation between Route 1 and Admiral 
    Street (Richmond, VA)...............................         750,000
Los Angeles City College Red Line Pedestrian Connector, 
    California..........................................         250,000
M&B; Railroad Bridge Rehabilitation, Alabama.............       1,000,000
Marathon County--Mountain Bay Trail, Wisconsin..........         100,000
Marion County Alabama Safety, Efficiency, and Trade 
    Highway Improvement Program.........................       1,000,000
Miller Farm Bridge, Pennsylvania........................         500,000
Milwaukee Avenue Rehabilitation, Illinois...............         250,000
Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project, 
    Oregon..............................................         200,000
North Dakota 23 Lake Sakakawea Crossing Improvements....         250,000
North Delaware River East Coast Greenway Trail Project..         100,000
Northern Corridor, St. George, Utah.....................         400,000
Oneonta, Alabama Downtown Revitalization................         500,000
Osceola, WI installation of culverts under Hwy. 35 and 
    repair of eroded highway beds.......................         140,000
Pedestrian Walkway over US Highway 601 at South Carolina 
    State University and Claflin University.............         250,000
Puna Makai Alternate Road Study, Island of Hawaii.......         100,000
Riverfront Battle Property Trail, Georgia...............         250,000
Riverfront Redevelopment and Park Area, City of North 
    Augusta, SC.........................................       1,800,000
Riverwalk, Warren, Ohio.................................         200,000
Road construction for industial park for City of Vinita, 
    Oklahoma............................................         100,000
Rockford Road, Ardmore, Oklahoma........................         700,000
Route 152 Safety Improvements, Santa Clara County, 
    California..........................................         300,000
Route 17 Congestion Improvements from Route 3 to Linwood 
    Avenue, Bergen County, New Jersey...................         200,000
Route 17 Safety Improvements from Route 50 to I-66, 
    Virginia............................................          25,000
Route 50 traffic calming in Loudoun and Fauquier 
    Counties, Virginia..................................          75,000
Sauk Trail Reconstruction Improvements, Park Forest, 
    Illinois............................................         330,000
Scranton Nay Aug Park Enhancement Project, Pennsylvania.         250,000
Sheridan Road Evanston, Illinois........................         431,500
Streetscape Initiative, Northwest Moultrie, Georgia.....         300,000
Streetscape/Roadway Improvements to the Chester City 
    (PA) Waterfront.....................................         350,000
Study of Highway 35/county M Bypass of Downtown Osceola, 
    Wisconsin...........................................         100,000
Susquehanna Road/Limekiln Road/Norfolk Southern Bridge 
    Project, Pennsylvania...............................         400,000
Talcottville Transportation Improvement Project, 
    Connecticut.........................................         500,000
Traffic Calming for the City of Riviera Beach, Florida..         250,000
Trinity River Visions Neighborhood Linkage, Texas.......         500,000
U.S. 101 Bikeway System, California.....................         100,000
US-222 Kutztown Bypass, Pennsylvania....................         250,000
US30 Bypass--PA10 to US30 Business, Pennsylvania........         250,000
Village of Glencoe, Illinois, Green Bay Trail--North 
    Branch Trail Connection.............................         200,000
Village of Owego riverwalk, New York....................         250,000
Walden Woods Corridor Overpass Study, Massachusetts.....         200,000
Weston Streetscape Renewal, West Virginia...............         200,000
White Pond Drive, Akron, Ohio...........................         250,000
Widen NC 210 in Cumberland County, North Carolina.......         250,000
Williamsburg corridor access, New York..................         100,000
Woodland Avenue Bridge Repair, Cleveland, Ohio..........         200,000
Woodward Avenue Livable Community Project, Michigan.....         100,000

    Performance based outcomes.--The Committee recognizes the 
impact that performance based outcomes can have on the road 
building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and 
flexibility to focus on quality and long term performance, and 
encourages the Department of Transportation to further explore 
their use.
    Ineffective use of transportation funding.--The Committee 
is concerned that transportation funding is being diverted to 
projects and activities that do not contribute directly to 
roadway construction or solving the growing problem of highway 
congestion. For example, about $600,000,000 per year of 
transportation enhancement funding has been spent on roadway 
landscaping, transportation museums, and renovation of historic 
places. The Committee believes that given the serious drop in 
estimated highway taxes, every penny of our Federal highway 
investment must go to its best and highest use. It is essential 
to focus the nation's limited transportation funding on 
critical transportation projects and not divert funds for 
projects that are ``nice to have,'' but do not contribute in a 
meaningful way to solving our highway congestion problems. 
Therefore, the Committee has included a provision (section 114) 
that discontinues the mandatory 10 percent set-aside from the 
surface transportation program (STP) for the transportation 
enhancement (TE) program. However, TE-type projects remain 
eligible under STP, and states can spend their limited 
resources on TE, consistent with their priorities, if they 
choose.
    Central Artery/Tunnel project cost recovery program.--The 
Committee is concerned that cost recovery efforts for the 
Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts have 
not, to date, yielded substantial recoveries. The Massachusetts 
Turnpike Authority recently revised its evaluation process in 
an attempt to strengthen these efforts. Nevertheless, the DOT 
Inspector General has raised concerns regarding the revised 
process, citing concerns that the partnership between the 
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the prime contractor may 
make it difficult for the process to maintain organizational 
independence and objectivity.
    Further, several entities, including FHWA, the 
Massachusetts Inspector General, Massachusetts State Auditor 
and the Governor of Massachusetts have also announced an 
intention to review the cost recovery process. The Committee 
concurs with DOT IG that the most effective way to ensure that 
there is a thorough, objective, and effective cost recovery 
process is to establish one cost recovery review effort that is 
jointly carried out by FHWA, the Governor's Office, the State 
Auditor, and the Massachusetts IG.
    Therefore, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is directed 
to provide to the Committee, no later than August 1, 2003, its 
plan for a revised cost recovery review process that adheres to 
the precepts set forth by the DOT IG in his letter of May 21, 
2003. This process shall be conducted jointly by the entities 
identified in the IG's letter and should address the following 
needs:
           A proper governance framework to provide 
        independent, credible executive direction;
           An appropriate review methodology to provide 
        the engineering, forensic accounting/auditing, and 
        legal analyses to document design errors and the 
        resulting costs; and
           The proper mix of skills, including 
        engineering, accounting, and legal expertise related to 
        construction change orders, in order to apply the 
        methodology and resolve questionable change orders 
        appropriately.
    Highway rest area commercialization.--The Committee 
encourages FHWA to preserve the federal ban on highway rest 
area commercialization and consider expanding it to the rest of 
the national highway system.
    Costs and Benefits of Transportation.--The Committee 
directs GAO to provide the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations with a study on the costs and benefits of 
various forms of transportation modes, to include comparisons 
between competing forms of transportation modes within 
communities, not later than one year from the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    Bridge standards in rural areas.--The Committee is 
concerned that there may not be compelling reasons to construct 
or maintain bridges in urban and rural areas to the identical 
engineering standards, given the differences in use and traffic 
on those bridges. To investigate this further, the Committee 
directs FHWA, in concert with representatives of rural 
communities knowledgeable in bridge use and bridge standards, 
to submit a report on the potential simplification of bridge 
standards in rural areas. This report should be submitted to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later 
than April 1, 2004.

                          Federal-Aid Highways


                              (RESCISSION)

    The bill rescinds $137,000,000 in contract authority 
balances from the five core programs. These resources cannot be 
obligated by the states as they were apportioned at levels over 
and above annual statutory obligation limitations. The 
Committee directs FHWA to administer the rescission by allowing 
each state maximum flexibility among the five programs in 
making these adjustments.

                          Federal-Aid Highways

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $283,147,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       400,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +116,852,500
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................      +400,000,000


    In addition to the $33,385,000,000 provided under the 
Federal-aid obligation limitation, the Committee provides a 
$400,000,000 appropriation, derived from the Highway Trust 
Fund, other than the Mass Transit Account, to be distributed 
and allocated under the terms and conditions, of Section 110, 
title 23, U.S.C. In addition, states or a compact of states may 
apply to FHWA to transfer a portion of its allocation provided 
within this section to Amtrak. Before any distribution or 
allocation is made, $133,450,000 shall be set aside for surface 
transportation projects, as follows:

America Samoa Ferry Boat System.........................        $300,000
Anniston East Bypass, Alabama...........................       2,000,000
Arlington County South Glebe Road improvements, Virginia         500,000
Bobby Jones Expressway (GA)/Palmetto Parkway (SC) 
    extension in South Carolina.........................       4,000,000
Broadway Bridge, Colorado...............................         700,000
Broken Bow rail spur, Oklahoma..........................         750,000
Bronx River--Concrete Plant Link of the Bronx Greenway, 
    New York............................................         700,000
California University of Pennsylvania Shuttle System 
    (CUPSS), PA.........................................       1,000,000
Caraway Bridge Overpass, Arkansas.......................       1,000,000
City of Aurora, Colorado I-225..........................       2,500,000
City of Bayfield, Highway 13 Emergency Culvert Repairs..         500,000
City of Columbus, Ohio, Morse Road corridor improvement 
    program phase I.....................................         500,000
City of Fort Worth Corridor Redevelopment Program, Texas       1,200,000
City of Madison State Street Revitalization, Wisconsin..       1,000,000
City of Orangeburg Railroad Relocation Project, South 
    Carolina............................................       1,000,000
City of Oxford, Mississippi bike path...................         800,000
City of St. Petersburg, Florida, bike path..............         500,000
Collins Road (Iowa Highway 100) and 1st Avenue (Business 
    Highway 151) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa..................       1,000,000
Copperas Cove Reliever Route, Texas.....................       1,000,000
Dagget Road, Port of Stockton, California...............         100,000
Delaware Avenue Streetscape Program in the Village of 
    Kenmore, New York...................................         400,000
Fairmont Gateway Connector System, West Virginia........       2,750,000
Feasibility Study and Work Plan for International Trade 
    Processing Center, Wichita, Kansas..................       1,000,000
Forest Park/Atlanta State Farmers Market Transportation 
    Study, Georgia......................................         200,000
Forsyth Downtown Streetscape Project, Georgia...........         750,000
Frederick Douglass Bridge, Maryland.....................       1,750,000
Grand Avenue Railroad relocation, Illinois..............         500,000
Greene County, Missouri Demonstration Bridge............         400,000
Harlem River Promenade, New York........................         500,000
Highway 20 Corridor through Woodbury, Ida and Sac 
    Counties, Iowa......................................       1,000,000
Highway 71, Alma to Greenwood...........................         900,000
Highway 74 Monroe Bypass, North Carolina................       2,600,000
Highway 92 study in Warren County, Iowa.................         500,000
Holyoke Canalwalk, Massachusetts........................       1,200,000
Houston, Texas Main Street Corridor Revitalization 
    Project.............................................         400,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma.....................       1,000,000
I-66 Pike County, Kentucky..............................       2,000,000
I-66 Somerset to London, Kentucky.......................       2,000,000
I-69 at SR 304, Mississippi.............................       2,500,000
I-69, Texas.............................................       7,000,000
I-79/Parkway West Missing Ramps and Widening Project, 
    Pennsylvania........................................       1,000,000
I-80 Waukee/West Des Moines Interchange.................       3,000,000
I-87 exit 11A new interchange, New York.................         845,000
I-95 at CR 23, Georgia..................................       4,000,000
I-540 Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas..........         200,000
I-880/Coleman Avenue Interchange Reconstruction, 
    California..........................................       1,000,000
Intermodal Transportation for Corridor from Atlanta to 
    Chattanooga, Tennessee..............................       1,000,000
Interstate 5-Sorrento Valley Road and Genesee Avenue 
    Interchange Project, California.....................       1,000,000
Interstate 94/43/794 (Marquette Interchange), Milwaukee, 
    Wisconsin...........................................       6,000,000
Jefferson Road Connector (Kanawha County, West Virginia)       1,000,000
Jimmy Carter Blvd pedestrian safety, Gwinnett County, 
    Georgia.............................................         400,000
Knik Arm Bridge Causeway, Alaska........................       1,000,000
LA 143-US 165 Connector & Quachita River Bridge, 
    Louisiana...........................................       1,280,000
Lake County, Tennessee, State Route 21, from Log Mile 
    7.0 to Obion County Line............................         500,000
Lake Stanely Draper Road improvements, Oklahoma.........         300,000
Logan Square Access and Safety Improvements, 
    Philadelphia Pennsylvania...........................       1,000,000
Los Angeles Metro system intermodal studies, California.       1,000,000
MacArthur and Airport Drive Intersection Improvements, 
    Shawnee, Oklahoma...................................         750,000
Martin Luther King, Jr. Pkwy in Des Moines, Iowa........       1,800,000
Miniature Transportation Safety Training Village, Town 
    of Brookhaven, New York.............................       1,000,000
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, California.........         300,000
Montgomery County ITS Phase II, Pennsylvania............       2,000,000
NE 23rd street between Lincoln and I-35, Oklahoma City, 
    Oklahoma............................................         250,000
North Sinatra Drive, Hoboken, New Jersey................         500,000
Northern Bypass of Somerset, Kentucky in Pulaski County.       1,850,000
Ohio and Erie Canal towpath trail, Ohio.................       1,000,000
Orchard Lane and Factory Road, Greene County, Ohio......       1,000,000
Pennsylvania State Route 30/981 upgrade.................         500,000
Port of Albany Security Improvements, New York..........         500,000
Puerto Rico Port Authority Ferry Program................         500,000
Queens Plaza Roadway rebuilding project, Long Island 
    City, New York......................................         750,000
Reflective Crack Relief Interlayer, US 59, Texas........       3,000,000
Rehabilitation of Laurel Street and Cass Street Bridges, 
    Florida.............................................         250,000
Replace Meridan Bridge at Yankton, South Dakota.........       1,000,000
Route 9W Alpine/Tenafly, Bergen County, New Jersey......         100,000
Routes 23 and 94--Linwood Avenue to Wallkill Avenue 
    Intersection, Sussex Co., New Jersey................         500,000
Route 66, Village of Chatham, New York..................         200,000
Route 93 Feasibility Study, Milton, Massachusetts.......         250,000
Route 130 Renaissance Boulevard to Adams Lane 
    Intersection Improvements, Middlesex County, New 
    Jersey..............................................       1,000,000
San Antonio Economic Development Spur, Texas............       3,000,000
San Francisco Muni Third Street Project Phase II 
    roadwork, California................................       2,500,000
Sauk Village Industrial Park Access Road, Illinois......       1,000,000
South La Brea Avenue and Imperial Highway Realignment 
    Project, California.................................         500,000
South Orient economic rehabilitation project, Texas.....       1,000,000
SR 1/US 27 widening, Heard County, Georgia..............       2,500,000
St. Leo University Transportation Safety & Community 
    Access Project, Florida.............................       2,500,000
State Street Corridor Improvement Plan, Massachusetts...       1,000,000
Stearns Widening, Ohio..................................         500,000
Susquehanna Road/Limekin Road, PA.......................         400,000
Teaneck, New Jersey Pedestrian Overpass.................         400,000
Tennessee State Route 28/US 127.........................         400,000
Thackerville, Oklahoma I-35 Interchange.................       1,000,000
Thomas Cole National Historic Site, New York............          50,000
Toledo Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment, Ohio..........         500,000
Town of Saratoga Scenic Byway, New York.................         250,000
Transportation Improvement Project, Desert Hot Springs, 
    California..........................................       1,925,000
Trevillian Way, Kentucky................................         100,000
U.S. 31 South Bend to Indianapolis Freeway project, 
    Indiana.............................................       2,000,000
U.S. 319 Expansion, Florida.............................       1,000,000
U.S. Route 35 Corridor Improvements in Mason and Putnam 
    Counties, West Virginia.............................       5,650,000
US 36, Wadsworth, State Highway 128 Interchange, 
    Colorado............................................         750,000
US Highway 84, Evergreen, Al to Monroeville, Alabama....         250,000
US 27 North of Somerset, Kentucky.......................       2,000,000
Village of Schuylerville, New York......................         500,000
West Grand Ave. (from North Western to N. California 
    Ave.)...............................................         950,000
Weston Ave. Streetscape, Wisconsin......................       1,500,000
WI--Highway 2 Ashland, Wisconsin........................       2,000,000
WI--Highway 53 Chetek, Wisconsin........................         800,000
Widening and creation of sidewalks at Floyd Road and 
    Veterans Memorial Highway in Cobb County, Georgia...       1,600,000
Woodland Avenue Bridge, Ohio............................         400,000

           General Provisions--Federal Highway Administration

    The bill includes a provision (sec. 110) that distributes 
an obligation authority among Federal aid highways programs.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 111) that provides a 
specific percentage take-down for FHWA administrative funds.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 112) that provides that 
funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may 
be credited to the Federal aid highways account.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 113) that amends ISTEA 
to identify U.S. 78 from Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of 
the Appalachian development highway system near Fulton, 
Mississippi, extending to Birmingham, Alabama, as a High 
Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and as a 
future part of the interstate system, and to designate the 
corridor as future Interstate Route I-22.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 114) that discontinues 
the mandatory set-aside for the transportation enhancement (TE) 
program, but continues eligibility for TE-type projects under 
the surface transportation program (STP).
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 115) that amends 
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st 
Century to allow changes to projects in New York and Louisiana.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 116) that amends the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and allows ITS 
funds already appropriated to the State of Wisconsin in prior 
laws to be used for the installation of intelligent 
transportation infrastructure elements in the metropolitan 
areas of Wausau and Superior.
    The bill includes provision (sec. 117) that allows ITS 
funds already appropriated for use in specified locations 
within Wisconsin to be spent in additional locations within the 
state.
    The bill includes a provision (sec. 118) that requires the 
Department of Transportation to restructure an existing loan 
with ACTA for the purpose of additional improvements to the 
Alameda Corridor, including the construction of a truck 
expressway. The budgetary cost of the loan modification shall 
not exceed $80,000,000.
    The bill includes a new provision (sec. 119) requiring the 
Secretary to enter an agreement with the State of Arizona and/
or the State of Nevada to provide a method of funding for the 
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge.

              FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    The primary mission of Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration (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. In addition, 
FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican commercial 
vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all U.S. hazardous 
material and safety regulations.
    The Administration's request proposes excellent changes in 
the FMCSA account structure in the fiscal year 2004 budget. It 
would simplify and consolidate activities with similar missions 
under the same program areas. Since no reauthorization proposal 
has been passed by Congress, the Committee bill assumes the 
account structure and funding levels contained in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the 
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA), which established 
the FMCSA within the Department of Transportation.
    These laws, which expire on September 30, 2003, provide 
funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative 
expenses, motor carrier research and technology, national motor 
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information 
systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI). FMCSA's scope 
was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the U.S.A. Patriot Act 
(P.L. 107-56), which called for new security measures. In 
addition, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriates Acts 2002 and 2003 (P.L. 107-87 and P.L. 108-7) 
funded border enforcement and safety related activities 
associated with implementation of NAFTA, and activities 
associated with permitting of hazardous materials.
    The Committee recommends a total of $439,624,000 for the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration plus an additional 
$47,000,000 for state truck inspection facilities at the 
Southern U.S. border.

                          Motor Carrier Safety

                (LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                                         Limitation on
                                                        administrative
                                                           expenses

Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\, \2\...............      ($116,700,484)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004\3\, \4\............       (257,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.............................       (236,753,000)
Bill compared with:
    Limitation, fiscal year 2003....................      (+120,052,516)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004................      (-20,247,000)

\1\ Includes a reduction of $963,516 pursuant to P.L. 108-7.
\2\ Does not include $41,694,000 in administrative expenses associated
  with 274 border personnel. This was funded under the FHWA limitation
  on administrative expenses in fiscal year 2003.
\3\ Includes $42,908,000 for administrative expenses associated with
  border personnel for fiscal year 2004.
\4\ Reflects funding in the TEA-21 account structure. The President's
  budget proposed a change in account structure.

    The motor carrier safety account provides salaries, 
expenses, research, and safety program funding for the Federal 
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    MCSIA amended section 104(a)(1) of title 23 United States 
Code to deduct one-third of one-percent from specified Federal-
aid funds to finance personnel, and to administer motor carrier 
safety programs and motor carrier research. This mechanism, 
known as a ``takedown,'' has proven to be inflexible and has 
been unable to adequately cover basic administrative expenses 
after the first year of enactment. In addition, it has been 
unable to react to new national safety and programmatic needs, 
such as emergent safety enforcement on our Southern border due 
to NAFTA, and security changes required to protect our nation 
as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
    This inflexibility forces the Committee to either 
irresponsibly compromise safety by reducing and eliminating 
important programs, or, as in past years, amend current law to 
increase the ``takedown'' percentage. The budget request 
proposes a level of $257,000,000 to fund motor carrier 
administration, including border personnel, safety-related 
programs, and safety research. The takedown would provide only 
$92,712,176.
    The Committee increases the takedown percentage to nine-
tenths of one percent and provides a total of $236,753,000 for 
these purposes. Of the total provided, $229,753,000 is for 
operating expenses and $7,000,000 is for research and 
technology initiatives. In response to recent safety and 
security issues, the Committee provides funding for grant 
programs under this limitation--$23,000,000 for southern 
border-state operations grants, $9,000,000 for northern border-
state truck inspection grants, $21,000,000 for state commercial 
driver's license (CDL) program improvement grants, and not less 
than $5,000,000 for new entrant program state grants. These are 
provided under the administrative account because no 
flexibility exists to fund these new programs elsewhere.
    The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to 
the budget request:

New entrant program reduction...........................     -$9,000,000
Hazardous materials permitting program reduction........        -865,000
Conditional carrier review program reduction............        -666,000
Commercial driver's license background checks...........      -3,000,000
Household goods enforcement reduction...................        -466,000
``Safety is good business'' program reduction...........        -250,000
Administrative infrastructure reduction.................      -6,000,000

    New entrant program.--As required under section 210 of 
MCSIA, the interim final rule for the new entrant safety 
assurance process was published on May 13, 2002, with an 
effective date of January 2003. Section 350 of the Department 
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2002 
required FMCSA to complete this rule as a precondition to 
opening the Southern border. This rule requires all new 
entrants to pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of 
operations in order to receive permanent DOT registration.
    The Committee reduces this program by $9,000,000 to reflect 
half-year funding of personnel and a reduction in costs 
associated with Federal versus state safety auditors and 
contractors. The Committee agrees with FMCSA that the program 
will be ultimately staffed entirely with state-hired safety 
auditors supported through Federal grants. Therefore, the 
Committee directs FMCSA to provide at least $5,000,000 to 
states to hire state safety auditors and to contract out when 
necessary. The Committee believes that the Federal 
responsibility is limited to program oversight and to respond 
to the rare case where a state does not have the authority to 
implement the program. The Committee understands that two 
states lack this authority. The FMCSA shall not hire Federal 
safety auditors for states and shall enter into Federal 
contracts for safety auditors only in cases where the state 
lacks the authority to implement the program. Therefore, the 
Committee directs FMCSA to retain not more than $2,200,000 for 
Federal responsibilities, and to provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriation a summary of the use of these funds 
by March 15, 2004.
    Hazardous materials permitting.--The hazardous materials 
program, authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5109, requires a HAZMAT 
permitting program for certain carriers of extremely hazardous 
materials, to ensure that carriers have sufficient safety and 
security measures in place. The Committee reduces funding by 
$865,000 and provides $1,135,000 to support the rulemaking 
effort and fund 13 new positions at half-year funding. In 
addition, this funding will allow FMCSA to meet the settlement 
agreement pursuant to Litigation involving the Citizens for 
Reliable and Safe Highways.
    Conditional carrier reviews.--The Committee reduces funding 
for conditional carrier reviews by $666,000 below the budget 
request. This level funds six new safety auditors at a half-
year funding level. The implementation of the new entrant 
program and strengthening of the outreach program will 
necessitate fewer conditional carrier reviews.
    Commercial driver's license background checks.--The 
Committee deletes funding for CDL background checks, a 
reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. Funding for 
the background checks is no longer an FMCSA responsibility, as 
duties have been transferred to the Transportation Security 
Administration.
    Share the road program.--The purpose of the share the road 
program is to reduce crashes between commercial and passenger 
vehicles by educating the motoring public about sharing the 
road with commercial motor vehicles. FMCSA has not evaluated 
the effectiveness of the share the road program since 2000, and 
past evaluations of the program provided little information on 
the program's effectiveness. In a report entitled, ``Share the 
Road Safely Program Needs Better Evaluation of its 
Initiatives,'' GAO found that some initiatives funded as a part 
of this program lack a clear linkage to the program's goal. In 
fact, 20 percent of the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funding was 
not directly linked to the program's goal.
    The Committee directs FMCSA to immediately eliminate each 
initiative that is not directly linked to the program's goal, 
and aggressively continue to combine educational outreach with 
local enforcement efforts. Further, consistent with GAO's 
recommendations, the Committee directs FMCSA to: (1) develop an 
explicit program strategy that clearly and directly links 
FMCSA' share the road safely program initiatives to its goal; 
(2) use the results of the large truck crash causation study 
and other relevant data to effectively target resources; and 
(3) establish a systematic strategy for evaluating the 
program's initiatives that makes greater use of DOT's 
experience in designing and evaluating information 
dissemination programs to enhance highway safety. The Committee 
directs FMCSA to report on its progress by January 5, 2004.
    ``Safety is good business'' program.--The Committee 
provides $250,000, half of the request level, for the safety is 
good business program. FMCSA shall first use this funding to 
develop a goal, message, coherent strategy, and initiatives 
that are directly linked to the program's goal. The Committee 
encourages FMCSA to combine this outreach effort with other 
interactions it has with motor carrier companies, such as 
security sensitivity visits, compliance reviews, and safety 
audits.
    Commercial driver's license program.--The Committee 
includes $21,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for 
the commercial driver's, license (CDL) program from the office 
of motor carrier safety. This funding is to support new and 
expanded safety and security initiatives. This increase in 
funding is necessary to meet the backlog of demand for state 
computer systems and data reporting improvements; to maintain 
the central depository of Mexican and Canadian commercial 
driver's license convictions; implement the OIG's report dated 
May 8, 2002, as directed in Public Law 108-7, and fund state 
compliance program reviews.
    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 within high priority funds, 
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.
    Household goods enforcement.--The Committee reduces funding 
by $466,000 for the household goods enforcement program to 
reflect half-year funding of the new positions requested. Total 
funding of $534,000 will support 7 positions and establish a 
highly visible enforcement program to reduce the number of 
consumer complaints filed against household carrier moving 
companies and brokers and allow FMCSA to respond to lapses in 
enforcement and concerns of Congress and the GAO.
    Administrative infrastructure.--The Committee provides a 
total of $4,400,000 to augment its current administrative 
infrastructure. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration 
partially supports FMCSA administrative infrastructure, and 
this increase will allow FMCSA to contract out additional 
services that FHWA is completing. The reduction of $6,000,000 
reflects half-year funding and reduced costs associated with 
contractors versus Federal employees.
    Interstate digital image exchange project and online 
verification of birth records.--Any savings in any account 
within funding provided to the FMCSA shall be used to expand 
pilot projects that improve the integrity of CDLs and reduce 
the number of fraudulent CDLs. FMCSA should provide up to 
$2,560,000 in savings for the interstate digital image 
exchange, and up to $3,190,000 for online verification of birth 
and death records to deploy these systems nationwide.
    New Hampshire study.--Within the funds provided under the 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Secretary 
shall provide $250,000 to the New Hampshire Department of 
Transportation to conduct a study to evaluate the safety, 
economic, and infrastructure impacts of a weight limit 
exemption on Interstates 89 and 93.

                 National Motor Carrier Safety Program


                  (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

                                                                      (Liquidation of
                                                                 contract authorization)       (Limitation on
                                                                                               obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\............................          $190,000,000          ($188,765,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\...........................           190,000,000           (190,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................................           190,000,000           (190,000,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................               (- - -)            (+1,235,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004...........................               (- - -)                (- - -)

\1\ The limitation on obligations includes a reduction of $1,235,000 pursuant to Public Law 108-7.
\2\ Reflects funding in the TEA-21 account structure. The President proposed a change in account structure.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash 
for this program.

                       LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

    The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of 
$190,000,000 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, and is the same 
level provided in 2003.
    The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as 
follows:

                                                                  Amount
Motor carrier safety assistance program.................    $170,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Basic motor carrier safety grants...................     130,329,000
    Performance based incentive grant program...........       7,015,000
    High priority activities \1\........................      25,593,000
    State training and administration...................       2,063,000
    Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA).................       5,000,000

Information systems and strategic safety initiatives....      20,000,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Data Analysis and Information systems...............      14,000,000
    PRISM...............................................       5,000,000
    Driver programs.....................................       1,000,000

\1\ Up to $17,000,000 is for the implementation of the new entrant 
program required under section 210 of MCSIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       Border Enforcement Program

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\..................  ................
Recommended in the bill \3\...........................       $47,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +47,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................      +47,000,000

\1\ Does not includes $41,694,000 in administrative expenses associated
  with 274 border personnel, $17,883,000 state operations grants, and
  $46,695,000 in infrastructure improvements under the FHWA
  appropriation; and $8,196,000 in MCSAP border grants reflected under
  the national motor carrier safety program.
\2\ Does not include $42,908,000 in administrative expenses associated
  with border personnel, $32,000,000 in border grants, and $47,000,000
  in infrastructure improvements.
\3\ Does not include $42,908,000 in administrative expenses associated
  with border personnel and $32,000,000 in border grants. These are
  reflected under the FMCSA limitation of administrative expenses.

    Enacted in 1993 and entered into force in 1994, the North 
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was based on the premise 
that all of the countries in North America would be integrated 
into one free trade area. Under NAFTA's original timeline, the 
United States and Mexico agreed to permit commercial vehicle 
access to each other's border states by December 18, 1995. 
Reciprocal access beyond the border states was promised by 
January 1, 2000. (Canadian carriers have been operating 
throughout the U.S. since 1982.) The NAFTA timetable also 
called for the U.S. and Mexico to lift all restrictions on 
regular route, scheduled cross-border bus service by January 1, 
1997.
    In December 1995, the prior administration postponed 
implementation of NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which 
continued to limit Mexican trucks to operations in designated 
commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and 
Texas. A NAFTA arbitration panel concluded in February 2001 
that the U.S. blanket refusal to process the applications of 
Mexican carriers seeking U.S. authority because of concerns 
over the carriers' safety was in breach of its NAFTA 
obligations.
    In February 2001, the Administration announced it would 
fully comply with NAFTA obligations regarding truck and bus 
access. Concerns regarding safety compliance and monitoring of 
Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles were resolved in section 
350 of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations 
Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-87). The Administration has completed all 
requirements under section 350 and has implemented a regime of 
regulations to ensure the safety of Mexican trucks operating 
within the U.S. However, on January 18, 2003, the 9th U.S. 
Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Mexican trucks from gaining 
wider access to U.S. highways citing that DOT did not prepare a 
full environmental impact statement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $47,000,000 from the 
highway trust fund for the construction of permanent truck 
safety inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. In 
the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Administration's 
stated goal was to receive a total of $160,000,000 over three 
years to contribute towards the construction of state border 
inspection facilities at 23 sites. In the past two fiscal 
years, the Committee has provided $112,695,000 for this effort.
    Total FMCSA border funding.--Consistent with the budget 
request, the Committee recommends a total of $121,908,000 for 
motor carrier border related programs. Under FMCSA's limitation 
on administrative expenses, a total of $42,908,000 is for 
Federal personnel on the border and $32,000,000 for Federal 
border safety enforcement grants. A total of $47,000,000 is for 
inspection station construction under the Border Enforcement 
Account. Total funding in fiscal year 2004 exceeds the 
$114,468,000 level provided in fiscal year 2003.

    General Provisions--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

    The bill includes a provision (Sec. 130) which provides a 
specific percentage take-down for FMCSA administrative funds.
    The bill includes a provision (Sec. 131) which prohibits 
the use of funds in this Act to implement or enforce any 
provision of the final rule issued on April 16, 2003 (docket 
no. FMCSA-97-2350) as it applies to operators of utility 
service vehicles.
    The Committee is concerned that operators of utility 
service vehicles have unique public service responsibilities 
and operating characteristics that were not adequately 
considered or addressed in the rulemaking. The Committee 
directs the FMCSA to review the appropriate application of 
driver hours-of-service rules, including an analysis of the 
unique public service responsibilities of operators of utility 
service vehicles, and whether they should be exempted from the 
regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 395.
    The bill includes a new provision (sec. 132) subjecting 
funds appropriated or limited in this Act to the terms and 
conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107-87, including that 
the Secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor 
carriers.

             NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    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.
    To date, the administration's current programs are 
currently authorized in five 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 Act 
(MVICSA), (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); (4) the 
National Driver Register (chapter 303 of Title 49 U.S.C.); and 
(5) 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 
drunken driving prevention programs.
    The third law (MVICSA) 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 MVICSA established automobile content 
labeling requirements.
    The fourth law provides for the operation of the national 
driver register which facilitates the interstate exchange of 
driver licensing concerning problem drivers whose licenses to 
drive have been suspended or revoked for cause.
    The fifth law (TEA-21) is the current authorization for the 
full range of NHTSA programs. 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); highway safety data improvement incentive 
grant program (section 411); highway safety research 
development and demonstration programs (section 403); and a 
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, 
including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash 
protection systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the 
odometer requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the 
Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile 
domestic content labeling requirements. This law is scheduled 
to expire on September 30, 2003. Because reauthorization 
actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has 
continued the fiscal year 2003 program levels as if authorized 
through fiscal year 2004.
    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 remaining fairly constant for the past several years 
at approximately 42,000 traffic-related fatalities per year, 
the nation experienced an increase in 2002. The latest NHTSA 
estimates indicate fatalities in 2002 were 42,850, an increase 
of 734 over 2001. In comparing 2001 to 2002, the number of 
police-reported nonfatal crashes remained approximately the 
same, with 6,241,000 in 2002 compared to 6,285,000 in 2001. The 
number of injured persons declined to 2,914,000 in 2002, down 
from 3,033,000 in 2001. The fatality rate in 2002 was 1.51 
deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is 
the same as 2001. Motorcycle rider deaths continued to 
increase, with 3,276 riders killed in 2002 compared to 3,181 
riders killed in 2001. Alcohol-related fatalities increased by 
3 percent over 2001 to 17,970. The number of passenger vehicle 
occupants killed in traffic related crashes increased by 850, 
to 34,055 deaths in 2002. The downward trend of traffic deaths 
of the nation's youngest (ages 0 through 7) continued to 
improve to the lowest levels recorded.

                        Operations and Research

                                                                                  (Highway trust
                                                                  (General fund)       fund)       Total funding

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.................................    $137,389,000     $71,532,000    $208,921,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................................     126,058,000      92,052,000     218,110,000
Recommended in the bill.........................................     134,178,000      72,000,000     206,178,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.............................      -3,211,000         468,000      -2,743,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................       8,120,000     -20,052,000     -11,932,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends new budget authority and 
obligation limitations for a total program level of 
$206,178,000. Of this total, $134,178,000 is for operations and 
research from the general fund and $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C. 
403 activities from the highway trust fund. The funding shall 
be distributed as follows:

                                                                  Amount
Salaries and benefits...................................     $68,300,000
Travel..................................................       1,330,000
Operating expenses......................................      24,481,000
Contract programs:
    Safety performance (rulemaking).....................      10,553,000
    Safety assurance (enforcement)......................      17,028,000
    Highway safety programs.............................      41,684,000
    Research and analysis...............................      58,443,000
    General administration..............................         665,000
Grant administration reimbursements.....................     -16,306,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Total.............................................    $206,178,000

    The recommendation assumes the following major adjustments 
to the budget request:

Reduce funding for crash causation study................     -10,000,000
Increase funding for highway safety programs............        +450,000
Reduce funding for harmonization of vehicle safety 
    standards...........................................        -200,000
Reduce funding for new car assessment study.............        -220,000
Reduce funding for fuel economy program.................        -267,000
Reduce funding for workforce planning and development...        -300,000
Increase funding for NH Dept. of Safety research........         +40,000
Increase funding for Univ. of Mass. research............        +300,000

    Highway safety programs.--The Committee is very troubled by 
the proposed NHTSA budget for highway safety programs in fiscal 
year 2004. The latest statistics show that, from 2001 to 2002, 
alcohol-related fatalities and motorcycle fatalities have 
increased by three percent each, while general highway 
fatalities also increased. These statistics are a stark 
reminder that (contrary to the administration's proposal) 
programs to address these critical issues should not be 
diminished. The Committee has therefore funded highway safety 
programs at the following levels:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 2004
                                           request         Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired driving....................       $10,926,000       $12,000,000
Peds/bicycle........................         1,284,000         1,284,000
Motorcycle..........................           656,000           800,000
National occupant protection........        11,373,000        11,373,000
Traffic law enforcement.............         2,174,000         2,174,000
Emergency medical services..........         2,226,000         2,226,000
Records and licensing...............         2,570,000         2,570,000
Highway safety research.............         7,238,000         7,090,000
Emerging traffic safety issues......         1,187,000         1,167,000
NOPUS...............................         1,600,000         1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Committee is concerned that the very 
important role of enforcement in impaired driving and occupant 
protection may currently be overlooked at NHTSA. Therefore, 
$50,000 from the national occupant protection program and 
$50,000 from the impaired driving program shall fund a law 
enforcement liason demonstration program in fiscal year 2004. 
This program should help encourage the use of law enforcement 
liaisons to help facilitate impaired driving and occupant 
protection information dissemination and training. No funds 
shall be expended until NHTSA provides an implementation plan 
to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
    NHTSA shall also report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations on all fiscal year 2003 expenditures on 
impaired driving, motorcycle, and national occupant protection 
programs. The report shall include all planned expenditures for 
fiscal year 2004, and explanations describing how the majority 
of these activities are based on proven research and 
implementation strategies. This report is due by September 30, 
2003, and shall be posted on NHTSA's webpage. An update of this 
information should also be provided in NHTSA's fiscal year 2005 
budget justification.
    Artemis program.--The Transportation Recall Enhancement, 
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act required motor 
vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report 
information and to submit documents on customer satisfaction 
campaigns and other activities that may assist in identifying 
defects related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA was charged with 
developing and implementing a data system for this purpose, 
which is known as Artemis. NHTSA has contracted the development 
work to the Volpe National Transportation System Center, or the 
Volpe Center. The Committee is very concerned with the current 
status of the development work. To date, the project is 
$3,400,000 over budget and the Volpe Center, as the prime 
contractor, is expected to make-up $1,000,000 of this overrun, 
leaving NHTSA with the task of scrambling to produce the 
excess. This mismanagement of government dollars is absolutely 
unacceptable.
    To investigate the causes of this problem fully, the 
Committee has requested an audit from the Inspector General of 
the work currently being undertaken at the Volpe Center. The 
audit will address the following issues: (1) How has Volpe's 
role and function changed over the years, and do the current 
activities meet the needs of DOT; (2) Does Volpe have the 
necessary financial controls in place to assure that its 
service fees are appropriate; and (3) What is DOT's role in 
overseeing Volpe and is it adequate to ensure that cost 
effective services are being provided. The report shall be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
no later than December 1, 2003.
    Regulatory activities.--In July 2002, NHTSA published a 
request for comments on a planning document that described the 
agency's safety priorities for 2005. The agency's openness to 
public scrutiny of its priorities, and its reaction to public 
comments, should result in improved vehicle safety in an 
effective manner and the Committee commends these actions.
    Although not all of NHTSA's activities were included in the 
report, the plan is less then one year old and NHTSA appears to 
be falling behind the proposed rulemaking schedule. For 
example, the priority plan indicates final actions on daytime 
running light intensity, upgraded tire standards, and a child 
restraint rating system in calendar year 2002. It appears that 
only one of these actions has been taken. In addition, many 
activities shown for 2003, such as a proposal for offset 
frontal protection or the use of a small female dummy in the 
advanced air bag's thirty-five mile-per-hour speed test also 
have not been undertaken to date. It is important that the 
public and the regulated participants have confidence in the 
agency's ability to deliver on its intentions. In recognition 
that such a plan is a living document subject to changes and 
that the agency indicated in its July 25, 2002, Federal 
Register notice that it ``intends to periodically update the 
plan'', the Committee requests NHTSA, by December 1, 2003, to 
update the plan and submit it to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations. The report should include public 
comments that have been received, as well as new data and 
research results.
    Harmonization of vehicle safety standards and new car 
assessments.--Due to budget constraints, funding is denied for 
the proposed international harmonization of vehicle safety 
standards and the new car assessment study.
    Fuel economy standards.--Improving fuel efficiency and 
conserving natural resources are a recognized and important 
goal of the fuel economy program. However, the fiscal year 2004 
budget submission stated that the key goal of the program is 
reducing pollution. Nowhere in the 1975 statute is it stated 
that NHTSA is to work to reduce ``pollution'', as is declared 
in the agency's budget justification. The Committee is 
disappointed with NHTSA's goals related to this program and 
therefore denies the proposed increase. Further, the Committee 
directs NHTSA to reevaluate the agency's goals with regard to 
fuel economy and produce an updated performance structure, 
which shall be submitted in writing to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Motorcycle injury prevention study.--There was a continuous 
decline in motorcycle crash fatalities from the mid-1980's 
through 1997. Since 1997, however, motorcycle fatalities have 
increased annually. An additional $40,000 is included for the 
New Hampshire Department of Safety to conduct a study to 
evaluate the speed and safety threshold for preventing and 
analyzing motorcycle injuries. The Department of Safety shall 
work in coordination with the Inova Fairfax Hospital Honda 
CIREN Center in Fairfax, Virginia, and a report shall be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
upon completion.
    University of Massachusetts, Amherst Risk Prone Driving 
Research.--The Human Performance Laboratory at the University 
of Massachusetts College of Engineering is home to one of the 
nation's most advanced driving simulators. The simulator 
consists of a full-size car in which an individual can 
``drive'' as though on an actual highway. Among other projects, 
the simulator has been used to test the effects of very low 
levels of blood alcohol on the performance of younger drivers; 
the ability of novice and more experienced drivers to recognize 
potential risks in various driving situations; and the design 
of directional signs for the depressed section of Boston's 
Central Artery. Additional funding of $300,000 has been 
provided to support a research study to look at risk awareness 
and avoidance training program for younger drivers and analyze 
driver perceptions and behavior during left-turn maneuvers at 
signalized intersections.

                        National Driver Register

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $1,987,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         3,600,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,600,000
Bill compared to:
  Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.....................        +1,613,000
  Budget request, fiscal year 2004....................               ---


    The National Driver Register Act (chapter 303 of Title 49, 
U.S.C.) provides for the operation of the national driver 
register, which facilitates the interstate exchange of driver 
licenses due to concerns regarding problem drivers whose 
licenses to drive have been suspended or revoked for cause.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $3,600,000 from the highway trust 
fund for activities associated with the national driver 
register. This is the same amount as the fiscal year 2004 
request.

                     Highway Traffic Safety Grants

                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                      (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)


                                        (Liquidation of
                                            contract      (Limitation on
                                         authorization)    obligations)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......     $225,000,000   ($223,538,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......      447,000,000    (447,000,000)
Recommended in the bill...............      225,000,000    (225,000,000)
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...  ...............     (+1,462,000)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..     -222,000,000   (-222,000,000)


    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 $225,000,000 for liquidation of 
contract authorization, which is the same as the fiscal year 
2003 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 set out in TEA-21, and the Committee continues 
this funding at its current level until reauthorization actions 
have been completed. The bill includes separate obligation 
limitations with the following funding allocations:

Highway safety programs.................................    $165,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................      20,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures................      40,000,000

    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 $165,000,000 is included in the 
bill. The national occupant protection survey shall be funded 
within this total. Also, language is continued in the bill that 
limits funding available for federal grants administration from 
this program to $8,150,000.
    The fiscal year 2004 budget submission reflected NHTSA's 
reauthorization proposal, which restructures the highway safety 
grant programs into a consolidated program, funded at the 
combined level of the TEA-21 section 402, 410, 405, 411, 
2003(b), 163, and 157 programs. The Committee has continued to 
fund the 157 and 163 programs at their authorized level, which 
is $122,000,000, out of the highway account of the highway 
trust fund.
    Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has 
funded the section 405 occupant protection incentive grant 
program at $20,000,000. States may qualify for this 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 $1,000,000.
    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 totaled $500,000,000 over the past six fiscal 
years and, as stated, the Committee has extended this funding 
at its current levels. 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.--The Committee 
has funded the section 410 alcohol incentive grant program at 
$40,000,000. These grants 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 become eligible by implementing 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) a graduated licensing law with nighttime 
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) programs to 
address drivers with high blood alcohol content (BAC); (6) 
young adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals 
ages 21-34; and (7) an effective system for increasing the rate 
of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they 
can reach eligiblity by demonstrating a reduction in alcohol-
related fatality rates in each of the last three years for 
which Fatal Accident Reporting System 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 $40,000,000 for these grants in 
fiscal year 2004. Language is included in the bill that limits 
funding available for federal grants administration from this 
program to $2,000,000.
    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). The Committee has continued this funding for 
fiscal year 2004 at its current level. For each fiscal year in 
which 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). This grant program encourages states 
to adopt and enforce significant anti-drunk driving 
legislation.
    Bill language.--The bill maintains two provisions that 
pertain to NHTSA's highway safety grant programs. 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.
    Oversight of state highway safety programs.--The GAO 
recently found that NHTSA's ``performance based'' approach to 
oversight of state and community highway safety program 
expenditures by the states has not yielded measurable safety 
benefits since it was implemented in fiscal year 1998. Indeed, 
highway fatalities have increased each year since the policy 
was implemented.
    The Committee shares the concerns raised by GAO regarding 
the federal oversight of these state programs. Prior to fiscal 
year 1998, NHTSA reviewed and approved each state's highway 
safety plan as a condition of state spending authority. 
However, concerns have risen that some states may not be using 
their grant funding in the most cost-effective manner. The 
approval of a state's spending plan prior to implementation, to 
ensure that resources are being applied in the most effective 
manner, is a necessary and normal element of Federal oversight, 
and one that the Committee feels is essential to ensuring that 
federal resources are being used effectively and efficiently. 
Therefore, the Committee directs NHTSA to rescind its 1998 
policy regarding the submission of state plans. All funds 
allocated to states under the state and community highway 
safety program (section 402) under this legislation must be 
subject to approval of each state's highway safety plan by the 
Administrator. Further, the Committee would recommend that 
NHTSA take a lead in providing guidance to states on how best 
to craft these plans. Funding of $50,000 in operating expenses 
has been provided to begin this process.
    As part of this review, NHTSA should also look at the 
agency's own policies with regard to the state grant programs. 
The Committee directs the submission of a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 1, 2003, 
that should include the following information: (1) how the 
agency has provided oversight and supervision of the state 
grant programs; (2) how NHTSA will address the oversight of 
state highway safety plans that receive federal funding; and 
(3) how NHTSA is proposing to help facilitate states in the 
process of drafting these plans and future funding requirements 
for these purposes.

   GENERAL PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION

    Section 140 allows states to use funds provided under 
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C. to produce and place highway 
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema, 
print media, and on the internet. The provision allocates 
$10,000,000 for innovative seat belt projects under section 157 
and $12,000,000 under section 410 to be used to purchase 
advertising for national seat belt and impaired driving 
mobilizations. The provision was included for the first time in 
fiscal year 2001.
    Section 141 directs that, for fiscal year 2004 only, the 
comprehensive early warning reporting requirements applicable 
to manufacturers of trailers under section 579.24 of title 49, 
Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the National 
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in accordance 
with section 30166(m), title 49, United States Code shall not 
apply to trailers rated at 26,000 pounds or less gross vehicle 
weight. Manufacturers of such vehicles shall be required to 
report information about incidents involving one or more deaths 
that are identified in a claim or a notice received by the 
manufacturer alleging or proving that the death was caused by a 
possible defect in the manufacturer's vehicle, as required by 
49 CFR 579.27. The Committee notes that the authorizing 
committee in this area, the House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, is scheduled to review the early warning reporting 
program in the context of a reauthorization of NHTSA later this 
year.

                    FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

    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.

                         Safety and Operations

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................      $116,600,141
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       131,175,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       130,922,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +14,321,859
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................         -253,000

\1\ Reflects reduction of $762,859 pursuant to section 601 of PL 108-7.

    The safety and operations account provides support for 
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities. 
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating 
costs related to FRA staff and programs.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    A total of $130,922,000 has been allocated to safety and 
operations, which is 12.3 percent above the fiscal year 2003 
enacted level. Of this total, $11,712,000 is available until 
expended. The following adjustments were made to the budget 
request:

Deny half of workforce planning funding.................       -$175,000
Deny funding for one position...........................         -78,000

    Workforce planning.--The Committee has provided a total of 
$475,000 for workforce planning. While this represents an 
increase of $175,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level, it is 
only half of the increase requested. The Committee believes the 
funding level should provide ample resources for human capital 
workforce planning and employee development needs.
    Staff.--The Committee has provided FRA with a total of 24 
new full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years. The Committee 
denies funding for title VI enforcement due to budget 
constraints.

                   Railroad Research and Development

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................       $29,134,388
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        35,025,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        28,225,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          -909,388
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -6,800,000

\1\ Reflects reduction of $190,612 pursuant to section 601 of PL 108-7.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,225,000, 
which is $6,800,000 less than requested. The Committee 
recommendation would delete funding for nationwide differential 
global positioning system.

            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 $3,500,000,000 at any one time. Not less than 
$1,000,000,000 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 2004, as requested.

                    Next Generation High-Speed Rail

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................       $30,252,075
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        23,200,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        28,250,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -2,002,075
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +5,050,000

\1\ Reflects reduction of $197,925 pursuant to section 601 of Public Law
  108-7.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $28,250,000 for the next 
generation high-speed rail program, which is $5,050,000 more 
than the budget request. Total program funding is allocated as 
follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Fiscal year 2004      Committee
                                           request       recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems:
    North American joint PTC project        $9,000,000        $9,000,000
    Train control--TTC..............         1,000,000         1,000,000
Non-electric locomotives:
    Advanced locomotive propulsion           3,800,000         3,500,000
     system.........................
    Prototype non-electric                   2,000,000         2,000,000
     locomotive.....................
    Diesel multiple units compliance  ................         5,000,000
     and demonstration..............
Grade crossing and innovative
 technologies:
    Mitigating hazards..............         3,000,000         2,250,000
    Low-cost technologies...........         1,300,000         1,000,000
Track and structures technologies...         1,300,000         1,000,000
Corridor planning...................         1,700,000         3,500,000
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................        23,200,000        28,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration 
program.--There is a growing interest from both commuter and 
intercity rail passenger service providers to use diesel 
multiple units on commuter and future high-speed rail 
corridors. However, this form of rail technology has not been 
produced in the United States since the Federal Railroad 
Administration issued passenger equipment safety regulations. 
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to validate the 
compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger car 
safety standards and to make grants to two public entities for 
the purpose of continuing or initiating a demonstration in 
daily revenue service of a compliant DMU during calendar year 
2004. The Committee expects that one of these grantees shall 
have received no prior Federal funding for this purpose. 
Federal funding shall only be made available if funds are 
matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from non-federal sources 
and shall only be used for activities related to establishing 
the compliance of the DMU design with passenger car safety 
standards and for the acquisition of DMUs and service 
facilities necessary for revenue service demonstration. All 
other expenses, including the cost of passenger facilities and 
any net operating expenses, are not eligible for funding under 
this appropriation.
    California corridor.--In making any funds available to the 
California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Committee expects FRA 
to ensure that the State of California maintains its level of 
effort in state funds to support high-speed rail development 
and does not substitute federal funds for reduced level of 
state funding.
    Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section 
1003 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 corridors are eligible for these 
funds. Of these funds distributed under this program for fiscal 
year 2004:
          $1,022,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing 
        hazards at Assembly Street, Whaley Street and Rosewood 
        Drive in Columbia, South Carolina;
          $2,300,000 shall be used on the Tulsa Sealed Corridor 
        Quiet Zone in Tulsa, Oklahoma;
          $1,078,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing 
        hazards related to the New Orleans Union Passenger 
        Terminal project in Louisiana; and
          $850,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing 
        hazards associated with an intersection at Hamilton 
        Boulevard over the CSX rail line near US 90, Mobile, 
        Alabama.
    Northern New England high speed rail corridor.--The 
Committee is aware that the existing Northern New England High 
Speed Rail Corridor only goes from Boston to Portland and from 
Boston to Montreal. The Committee is concerned that the 
existing designation does not include many large communities in 
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York that would greatly 
benefit from being part of a High-Speed Rail Corridor. 
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of 
Transportation to include the train routes from Boston, 
Massachusetts via Worcester and Springfield, Massachusetts to 
Albany, New York and from Springfield, Massachusetts via 
Hartford, Connecticut to New Haven, Connecticut as part of the 
existing Northern New England High-Speed Rail Corridor.
    Magnetic levitation.--Section 1218 of TEA21 established a 
magnetic levitation deployment program to be administered by 
the FRA. FRA has received project submissions for several 
projects in the eastern and western United States which have 
the potential to provide significant traffic congestion relief. 
It is a Committee priority to make the most of our limited 
transportation resources. In order to assist the Committee to 
evaluate the potential of magnetic levitation to achieve 
traffic congestion relief and determine its appropriate role in 
our nation's transportation system, the Committee directs the 
FRA to provide the Committee a cost-benefit comparison report 
of magnetic levitation to other modes of travel.

         Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation

                                (AMTRAK)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $1,043,175,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       900,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       900,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      -143,175,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was 
created by the Rail Passenger Service Act in 1970 and 
incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia. It 
started operation on May 1, 1971. Amtrak's purpose was to 
operate a national rail passenger system to relieve the freight 
railroads of the burden of money-losing passenger operations 
and to preserve rail passenger service over a national system. 
It was created as a for-profit government corporation that was 
granted the right of access to the tracks owned by the freight 
railroads at incremental cost and with operating priority over 
freight trains. Amtrak was also granted jurisdiction to provide 
intercity rail transportation over its route system and was to 
receive federal subsidies for the first few years, but then it 
was expected to make a profit.

                            Status of Amtrak

    For over thirty years, Amtrak has operated in the red at 
the expense of American taxpayers. After three decades of 
federal jump-starting, nearly forty percent of Amtrak's costs 
are still taxpayer subsidized. In a Subcommittee hearing this 
year, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation testified:

          The Department of Transportation (DOT) expects that 
        each and every one of Amtrak's 17 long distance trains 
        will this year lose money on a fully allocated cost 
        basis, even excluding depreciation and interest. On a 
        fully allocated cost basis including depreciation and 
        interest (a more accurate measure of overall federal 
        investment), all of Amtrak's 43 regularly scheduled 
        routes lose money. Ten of its 17 long distance train 
        routes have a net loss of more than $40 million per 
        year. On a per passenger basis, the loss for long 
        distance trains range from $131 per passenger to $551 
        per passenger.

    If increased levels of support had a realistic chance of 
turning Amtrak into a successful railroad, it would be 
worthwhile to consider such a plan. However, after thirty years 
it should be apparent that the difficulties faced by Amtrak 
will not go away with additional injections of federal funding. 
After years of mortgaging, leasing, and misleading Congress 
about the state of the corporation, Amtrak is finally facing a 
time where fundamental system change is necessary. The only 
actions that can change the abysmal situation at Amtrak is to 
completely change how Amtrak operates and how intercity 
passenger rail is managed. As the Deputy Secretary testified, 
``the problem at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more 
liberal application of dollars drawn from the federal treasury. 
The status quo cannot stretch to resolve these and other 
inherent weaknesses with which Amtrak has struggled to live. 
Structural reform is needed''.
    The Committee believes that, given the perennial financial 
losses of the railroad, Amtrak must show that it can operate 
effectively on a more limited system before even attempting to 
continue operations on its current scale. Amtrak has itself 
stated that its long-distance trains are ``political'' trains 
whose viability should be decided by the Congress and not by 
the corporation. The Committee bill makes that decision by 
focusing the nation's limited resources on train operations in 
the northeast corridor and the west coast corridor. Only if and 
when Amtrak demonstrates it can manage these services, would it 
be appropriate for Congress to consider an expansion of their 
system back to its current size.
    In fiscal year 2002, 23,407,000 passengers rode on Amtrak 
trains. Of those, 59% were passengers on the northeast 
corridor, as shown in the table below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Percentage
                                                               of total
                  Trains (25)                   Fiscal year     Amtrak
                                                    2002       national
                                                              ridership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast corridor total ridership............   13,834,000           59
West total ridership..........................    4,610,000           20
Intercity total ridership.....................    4,963,000           21
                                               -------------------------
      Amtrak Total Ridership..................   23,407,000          100
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Amtrak service should not be equated with rail passenger 
service. Amtrak carries less than five percent of the rail 
passengers in America. The remaining vast majority are carried 
by commuter rail systems which focus high-volume routes in 
densely-populated areas, rather than attempting expensive and 
money-losing cross-country routes.
    In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided new guidelines for 
the Department of Transportation to follow in administering its 
grants to Amtrak. The Department of Transportation called these 
``important reforms'' that provide ``oversight with teeth, 
placing the relationship between DOT and Amtrak on a footing 
similar to the oversight DOT exercises with respect to other 
transportation modes''. Amtrak had to pace itself on 
expenditures, with DOT oversight, to ensure that their funding 
would last through the fiscal year. For the first time in four 
summers, the railroad did not threaten to enter bankruptcy and 
have to request supplemental funding. For example, last year, 
the railroad came within weeks of shutting down before an 
emergency appropriation was provided, and in 2001 it mortgaged 
Pennsylvania Station in New York City, one of its last 
remaining unencumbered assets. As a start to creating financial 
accountability for Amtrak, these reforms are promising and as a 
result, the Committee bill retains them for fiscal year 2004.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $900,000,000 for grants to Amtrak 
in fiscal year 2004, subject to completion of authorization 
actions by the Congress. Of this total, $400,000,000 is 
provided as a subsidy for operating losses on Amtrak routes, 
with $188 million for short distance train operating losses and 
$193 million for long distance train operating losses. The 
northeast corridor trains currently operate with a profit of 
$188,000,000, according to the Office of Inspector General, and 
this revenue is expected to be used for Amtrak's debt principal 
payment in fiscal year 2004, which is estimated to be 
$163,000,000. $373,000,000 is provided for capital improvements 
to the northeast corridor and $127,000,000 is provided for 
general capital improvements, including $117 million for the 
debt service payment for fiscal year 2004. Similar to fiscal 
year 2003, funding is provided to the Secretary of 
Transportation, subject to the same grant oversight and 
management reforms as enacted in fiscal year 2003. Further, the 
Secretary is directed to ensure that the Amtrak continues to 
meet all debt principal and interest payments in fiscal year 
2004.
    Capital grants.--The Secretary is directed to assure that 
any funds provided to Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, on 
projects where positive results can be seen. Funding should be 
spent on projects that maximize operational efficiencies and 
promote those lines with the highest ridership and cost sharing 
agreements in place. Amtrak shall not begin any new projects 
unless they can be fully funded with the fiscal year 2004 
appropriation and Amtrak-generated revenues unless such 
projects are critical for safety or infrastructure repairs.
    Operating and capital plans.--Bill language has been 
continued that prohibits funding to Amtrak until after an 
operating and capital plan has been developed for fiscal year 
2004. This plan must be approved by the Board of Directors and 
the Secretary of Transportation and submitted to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than: (1) 60 days 
after enactment of a final Amtrak appropriation, or (2) at the 
time Amtrak submits its grant request to Congress in February 
2004, whichever comes first. Development and approval of the 
operating and capital plan should minimize the number of 
stopgap measures Amtrak has to employ, particularly relating to 
capital projects, in those cases where the Corporation is 
unable to commit funding to complete an entire project.
    Amtrak financial information.--In addition to the 
submission of an operating and capital plan for fiscal year 
2004, the Secretary must continue to vouch for the accuracy of 
Amtrak's financial information. This must be in the form of a 
signed letter that accompanies the operating and capital plans. 
In doing so, the Secretary must certify in writing, that based 
on his knowledge, the financial statements and other financial 
information prepared by Amtrak for Congress (e.g. capital and 
operating plans and business plans that are attached to yearly 
grant requests) fairly present in all material respects the 
financial condition of the Corporation. Specifically, the 
Secretary's letter should attest that:
    1. Amtrak's financial information and reports are prepared 
using generally accepted accounting standards.
    2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or 
inaccuracies identified by a publicly registered accounting 
firm using practices sanctioned by generally accepted 
accounting principles.
    3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all 
material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements, and 
obligations that may have a material current or future effect 
on the Corporation's financial condition, changes in financial 
condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital 
expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components 
of revenues or expenses.
    4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that 
material information is made known to the Board of Directors 
and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion.
    5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of 
Amtrak's internal controls to assure that deficiencies are not 
occurring and all significant deficiencies in the design or 
operation of internal controls that could adversely affect the 
Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize, or report 
financial data and identify fraud, have been corrected.
    6. Amtrak's financial information does not contain untrue 
statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact 
necessary for the Board of Directors and the Secretary of 
Transportation to make informed financial decisions.
    The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must 
approve all variations to the base operating and capital plans 
according to the Department's reprogramming process.
    Direct loan provisions.--Bill language is also continued 
from fiscal year 2003 that requires Amtrak to continue abiding 
by certain provisions of the direct loan agreement signed on 
June 28, 2002, which would otherwise expire. These include the 
following requirements:
    1. Amtrak management will significantly improve financial 
controls and accounting transparency. Management must report to 
the Board of Directors, the Department of Transportation, and 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations monthly on: 
(a) all revenues and expenses associated with rail operations 
by route, and (b) budgeted and actual expenditures for all 
capital investments.
    2. Amtrak management will provide to the Board of 
Directors, the Department of Transportation, and Congress 
monthly performance reports no later than 30 days after the end 
of that month. Amtrak shall also make available to DOT the same 
details and reports on its financial performance that it makes 
available to Amtrak management, at the same time that it 
provides those reports and details to Amtrak management.
    3. Amtrak funds will be spent only on existing plant and 
services. With the exception of expenditures for which it 
obtains written approval from DOT, Amtrak will suspend use of 
any of its funds for actual expansion or planning for expansion 
of rail service, including all high speed rail service, through 
fiscal year 2004.
    4. Amtrak will provide DOT all core operating data so the 
Department can monitor and evaluate the railroad's ability to 
manage its cash flow, within the current appropriations level 
and using conservative revenue assumptions.
    Monthly reporting requirements.--The monthly performance 
reports that Amtrak is required to submit to DOT and the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations shall include the 
following:
           all revenue and expenses associated with 
        rail operations by route, grouped by the following 
        service types or regions: (a) Northeast Corridor 
        intercity; (b) Corridor services reported individually 
        for the Empire, Keystone, Midwest, California, and 
        North Carolina Corridors; (c) long-distance services, 
        with profit and loss visibility on individual trains; 
        and (d) remaining services, with profit and loss 
        visibility on individual services or groups of 
        services;
           budgeted and actual expenditures for all 
        capital investments, including categories for high-
        speed rail activities;
           monthly performance reports, including cash 
        flow information, revenues, and expenses;
           a comprehensive business plan for the 
        upcoming fiscal year that includes targets for 
        ridership, revenues, capital, and operating expenses 
        for each business unit;
           a quarterly assessment explaining the extent 
        to which each goal identified in the comprehensive 
        business plan has been achieved or deviated from (and 
        why);
           a current listing of all debt including 
        assets, long-term liabilities, and the repayment 
        schedule for those liabilities; and
           a detailed report on all operating 
        relationships between Amtrak and commuter rail systems 
        that highlights the manner and extent each commuter 
        operation and state could be impacted if a suspension 
        of Amtrak operations occurred.
    Office of Inspector General quarterly reports.--The DOT 
Office of Inspector General shall report quarterly to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on Amtrak's compliance 
with these provisions.
    State-assisted intercity rail service.--The Secretary, 
working with affected states, is directed to develop and 
implement a fair competitive bid procedure to assist states in 
introducing carefully managed competition to demonstrate 
whether competition will provide higher quality rail service at 
reasonable prices. The goal is to give the states, at their 
option, the ability to conduct a fair competition for state-
assisted operations, commonly known as 403(b) trains. The bill 
provides a dispute resolution process for the Secretary to 
resolve disputes between states and Amtrak regarding the 
provision of facilities, equipment, and services by Amtrak at 
reasonable terms and compensation to enable service by a non-
Amtrak operator. This process is similar to the one Amtrak now 
uses under 49 U.S.C. 24308 to resolve disputes with freight 
railroads for their provision of facilities and services to 
enable passenger rail service by Amtrak. The objective of this 
provision is to allow states the option of providing 
competitive intercity rail service.
    The Secretary may reprogram up to $5,000,000 from Amtrak 
operating grant funds to make grants to the states for 
implementation of this provision. As part of this process, the 
Secretary shall evaluate and report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on 
Commerce, Science and Technology, by November 3, 2003, on 
options for insurance pooling to provide states and operators 
with the lowest possible insurance costs. Further, the 
Secretary is directed to initiate the Fair Competitive Bid 
Procedure by January 1, 2004. The Secretary will administer the 
process, monitor its progress, and make monthly reports to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

          GENERAL PROVISIONS--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

    Section 150 amends Section 11123 of title 49, U.S.C., to 
ensure that emergency commuter rail service is continued if 
Amtrak should cease operation.

                     FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    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.
    Authorization for the programs funded by the Federal 
Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation 
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which will expire on 
September 30, 2003. Because reauthorization actions have not 
yet been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year 
2003 program levels as if authorized through fiscal year 2004.
    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 Budget Enforcement Act 
amendments will also expire on September 30, 2003, without 
actions by Congress.
    The authorized level for mass transit category obligations 
were capped at $7,226,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. After an 
across-the-board cut of .65 percent, mass transit category 
obligations were $7,179,030,000. Any additional appropriated 
funding above the levels guaranteed (that which could be 
appropriated from general funds authorized under section 
5338(h)) is scored in the budget process against the non-
defense discretionary category.

                        Administrative Expenses
                                                                                   Limitation on
                                                                   Appropriation    obligations    Total funding
                                                                  (general fund)   (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.................................     $14,505,000     $58,020,000     $72,525,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................................      76,500,000               0      76,500,000
Recommended in the bill.........................................      14,500,000      58,000,000      72,500,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.............................          -5,000         -20,000         -25,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................     -62,000,000     +58,000,000      -4,000,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$72,500,000 for FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation 
is $25,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The 
recommendation is comprised of an appropriation of $14,500,000 
from the general fund and $58,000,000 from limitations on 
obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust 
fund. A limitation has been included to limit travel to 
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
    Administrative expenses.--Funding is specified in the bill 
for the administrative offices of FTA at the following levels:

Office of the Administrator.............................        $948,000
Office of administration................................       6,126,000
Office of the chief counsel.............................       3,848,000
Office of communication and congressional affairs.......       1,067,000
Office of program management............................       7,303,000
Office of budget and policy.............................       6,027,000
Office of research, demonstration and innovation........       4,328,000
Office of civil rights..................................       2,657,000
Office of planning......................................       3,732,000
Regional offices........................................      17,697,000
Central account.........................................      16,567,000
National transit database...............................       2,200,000

    In addition, the Administrator is authorized to transfer 
funding between offices, but any transfers totaling more then 
three percent of the initial appropriation must be approved by 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Director 
of Safety and Security has been reported under the Office of 
the Administrator.
    The Committee is disturbed that FTA's centralized 
administrative system does not allow for a sufficient 
itemization of office expenses. It is important for the 
department and the Congress to have the ability to analyze the 
needs of FTA on an office-by-office basis consistent with other 
DOT agencies. Therefore, FTA is directed to submit the fiscal 
year 2005 budget request by office, similar to the format 
utilized by the Office of the Secretary.
    Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--Within the fiscal 
year 2004 Federal Transit Administration budget justification, 
FTA listed an increase of $964,000 for the support of ten 
additional FTE as a ``mandatory increase''. This puzzles the 
Committee, as it is clearly not mandatory to provide increases 
in human capital. The Committee approves four of the requested 
FTE for the Offices of Planning and Program Management only.
    Revisions of Congressional intent.--The Committee is 
troubled by actions taken by FTA this year to revise the intent 
of Congressional programs without discussing such measures with 
the Committee. Although the Committee appreciates the prompt 
intervention of the Office of the Secretary in this matter, the 
Committee reiterates to FTA that it is improper for DOT 
agencies to take actions changing the Congressionally-approved 
scope of programs without receiving the approval of the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. FTA is directed to 
consult with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
before making any decisions clarifying Congressional intent.
    Transit project performance standards.--TEA-21 allocated 
forty percent of transit funds to new starts and forty percent 
to the modernization of existing rail systems, leaving twenty 
percent for bus systems. This method has skewed the outcomes of 
local analysis because more federal funding is available for 
new fixed guideway systems without regard to overall 
priorities. The Committee believes strongly that high-capacity 
transit systems, regardless of the technology, that will move 
the most people, relieve the most congestion, produce the 
largest increase in transit ridership, and have the greatest 
positive cost-benefit ratio, should be those that are rewarded 
with federal investment.
    The Committee believes that each new start project, in 
order to qualify for a full funding grant agreement, should be 
required to show that its locally-preferred alternative will 
attract and move more transit riders, at the lowest cost per 
rider, than other modal alternatives. This would help shift the 
nation's mass transit funding system to a more cost-efficient, 
outcomes-based system and away from the funding category-based 
system currently in place. As long as eighty percent of federal 
funding is reserved for fixed guideway technology, local 
transit agencies will continue to presume that the answer to 
their transit needs will be found in that technology. The 
Committee believes that the current funding criteria do not 
adequately provide incentives for the best transit investments. 
The Federal Government can no longer continue to allocate 
scarce transportation resources without maximizing the benefits 
relative to the costs.
    Reauthorization of transit programs.--The administration's 
proposal for reauthorization of federal transit programs calls 
for a significant restructuring of FTA programs. In particular, 
the administration is proposing to shift the resources 
currently provided in the section 5309 bus and bus facilities 
program to the urbanized area formula and state-administered 
formula programs, an expanded new starts program, and 
performance incentive grants. One of the justifications for the 
elimination of this discretionary program is that historically 
``only half of the States have received statewide earmarks'' 
and that this ``shift in resources will make for a more 
equitable distribution across the Nation'', according to 
materials submitted for the record by FTA. The Committee is 
very concerned that this proposal would not make a more 
equitable distribution, but simply shift control of Federal 
funds away from the Congress. In the last two fiscal years, 
every state, as well as the District of Columbia and the Virgin 
Islands, has received a transit allocation in the annual 
transportation appropriations bill, and the Committee is 
troubled that FTA is trying to make it seem as if states' bus 
funding is being shortchanged at the hand of Congressional 
appropriators.
    Project management oversight activities.--The Committee 
directs that any savings from funding of any administrative 
expenditures be used to increase funding for project management 
oversight activities. It is critical that FTA continue to 
support strong project and financial oversight activities, 
particularly as more communities are applying for capital 
grants funding as urbanized areas grow.
    Further, the Committee encourages FTA to provide for 
additional planning experience in the regional and metropolitan 
offices, as it is essential to have adequate knowledge of the 
fundamentals of these activities in the offices that are most 
closely involved in the development of individual projects.
    The Committee also directs that FTA submit to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO 
reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
    To further support oversight activities, the bill continues 
a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the Department of 
Transportation Office of Inspector General $2,000,000 for 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 2004.
    Office of research, demonstration, and innovation.--The 
Committee is concerned with the effectiveness and worth of the 
office of research, demonstration, and innovation. Therefore, 
FTA shall report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations on all expenditures on research, demonstration 
and innovation activities for the past three fiscal years and 
all planned expenditures for fiscal year 2004. The report shall 
include explanations of how each activity is based on advancing 
transit initiatives, and how this work is implemented within 
the industry. The report is due by September 30, 2003. An 
update of this information should also be provided in FTA's 
fiscal year 2005 budget justification.
    Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended, 
requires that 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, Housing 
and Urban Affairs, sixty days before executing a full funding 
grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, FTA shall include 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 2004; (4) a detailed analysis of annual 
commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the 
program authorization; (5) an evaluation of whether the 
alternatives analysis made by the applicant objectively and 
fully weighed all viable alternatives; and (6) 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; an operating 
plan which enumerates the project's future revenue and 
ridership forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks 
associated with the project.
    The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty days 
before approving scope or budget 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, including any proposed change in rail car 
procurements.
    The Committee further directs FTA to notify the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations fifteen days before any 
project in the new starts process is given approval by FTA to 
advance to preliminary engineering or final design.
    Advanced vehicle program.--The transit industry has been 
leading the nation's heavy-duty vehicle industry in the use of 
clean fuel vehicle technology helping to improve air quality 
and lessen our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the past 
ten years, the use of alternative fuels in the transit industry 
has increased dramatically. In 1993, sales of alternative fuel 
transit buses was less than one percent of the total. Today, 
20% or more of all new transit buses are fueled by natural gas. 
At the end of 2002, there were over 6,000 natural gas transit 
buses in use.
    DOT and FTA also have played an important role in 
supporting the development of heavy-duty hybrid electric 
vehicles through its support of the consortia-based advanced 
vehicle program (AVP), which supports the early stage 
development of every North American hybrid electric bus 
manufacturer. Based on its success in facilitating the 
development of heavy-duty hybrid electric technology, the 
Committee feels that AVP would be the ideal venue for 
initiating a major fuel cell bus program in the United States. 
The consortia model used by AVP helps to encourage the flow of 
information and networking to a much higher degree than 
traditional programs. Therefore, the Committee encourages FTA 
and DOT to actively develop operations of AVP and build on the 
agency's strong relationship with the transit industry.
    Charter service activities.--Section 604 of title 49 of the 
United States Code states that recipients of equipment or 
facilities funding from the Federal Transit Administration may 
not use that property to provide private charter service, with 
few exceptions. The Committee is concerned that despite these 
statutory regulations many local transit agencies continue to 
provide charter service under the guise that it may be 
``regular and continuing service''. The Committee is concerned 
that FTA is not enforcing this statute to the full extent of 
the law. These activities present a great injustice to private 
operator services, which should not have to compete with a 
government entity that uses federal subsidies to purchase their 
equipment. The Committee directs FTA to revisit its enforcement 
of this statute and ensure that it is not being exploited. A 
report on FTA's review of this situation shall be submitted to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
October 1, 2003.

                             Formula Grants

                                                                               Limitation on
                                                             Appropriation  obligations (trust    Total funding
                                                            (general fund)         fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...........................    $762,809,000      $3,051,237,000    $3,814,046,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004..........................  ..............       5,615,406,000     5,615,406,000
Recommended in the bill...................................     767,800,000       3,071,200,000     3,839,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      +4,991,000        +19,963,000)       +24,954,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................    +767,800,000     -2,544,206,000)    -1,776,406,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The accompanying bill provides $3,839,000,000 for transit 
formula grants.
    The recommended level of $3,839,000,000 is comprised of an 
appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general fund and 
$3,071,200,000 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 (sec. 5308); formula grants 
and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and 
individuals with disabilities (sec. 5310); and formula grants 
for other than urbanized areas (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.
    The proposed oversight take down increase is denied. Within 
the total funding level of $3,839,000,000, the Committee's 
recommendation includes the following distribution:

Urbanized areas (sec. 5307).............................  $3,428,709,908
Oversight...............................................      18,432,736
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................      90,652,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311).........................     239,404,605
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.................       6,950,000
Alaska Railroad.........................................       4,850,000
Clean-fuels.............................................      50,000,000

    Section 3007 of TEA-21 amends title 23 U.S.C. 5307, 
urbanized formula grants, by striking the authorization to 
utilize these funds for operating costs, but including 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.
    Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design.--Funds in the bill can be used, among 
other activities, for alternatives analysis and preliminary 
engineering and design (PE&D;) of new rail extensions or 
busways. The Committee continues to assert that local project 
sponsors of new rail extensions or busways must use these funds 
(or those provided under section 5303 metropolitan planning) 
for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and 
design activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary 
set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects FTA, when 
evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, 
to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have 
used these formula grants apportionments for alternatives 
analysis and PE&D; activities of proposed new systems.
    Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 required that $50,000,000 be 
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants 
program to fund a clean fuels program.
    This program has been extended in fiscal year 2004. 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 continued 
to identify designated recipients of these funds within the 
projects listed under the bus program of the capital investment 
grants account, as has been done in previous years.
    Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee 
provides $6,950,000 for the over-the-road bus accessibility 
program. This program is designed to assist operators 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.
    The following table displays the state-by-state 
distribution of formula funds within each of the program 
categories:

         FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                Section 5310
                                            Section 5307    Section 5311 non-     elderly &
                  State                    urbanized area    urbanized area     persons with       State total
                                                                                disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.................................       $15,138,667        $6,692,853        $1,582,925       $23,414,445
Alaska..................................     \1\ 8,583,909           932,825           240,303         9,757,037
America Samoa...........................  ................           153,015            60,088           213,103
Arizona.................................        45,440,735         3,265,027         1,652,847        50,358,609
Arkansas................................         8,174,080         4,841,318         1,029,871        14,045,269
California..............................       586,497,810        10,288,103         9,488,916       606,274,829
Colorado................................        45,565,774         2,906,645         1,160,010        49,632,429
Connecticut.............................        42,916,872         1,487,843         1,128,644        45,533,359
Delaware................................         6,423,520           674,570           352,994         7,451,084
District of Columbia....................        68,645,916  ................           309,042        68,954,958
Florida.................................       164,147,558         6,709,898         6,064,881       176,922,337
Georgia.................................        62,615,813         8,483,506         2,295,637        73,394,956
Guam....................................  ................           413,460           157,227           570,687
Hawaii..................................        27,934,110         1,003,237           476,147        29,413,494
Idaho...................................         5,729,233         1,843,271           455,768         8,028,272
Illinois................................       218,339,751         7,162,729         3,526,256       229,028,736
Indiana.................................        35,559,976         7,129,966         1,871,517        44,561,459
Iowa....................................        12,691,349         4,838,329           980,862        18,510,540
Kansas..................................         9,947,047         3,954,418           882,653        14,784,118
Kentucky................................        19,148,378         6,610,369         1,461,839        27,220,586
Louisiana...............................        30,616,488         5,163,713         1,455,553        37,235,754
Maine...................................         3,061,990         2,566,606           533,084         6,161,680
Maryland................................        69,033,173         2,668,245         1,545,478        73,246,896
Massachusetts...........................       124,990,002         1,906,899         2,041,414       128,938,315
Michigan................................        67,602,520         8,973,689         2,938,848        79,515,057
Minnesota...............................        41,820,114         5,896,505         1,366,007        49,082,626
Mississippi.............................         5,296,811         5,781,661         1,032,720        12,111,192
Missouri................................        36,365,026         6,689,314         1,788,808        44,843,148
Montana.................................         2,581,409         1,784,125           384,485         4,750,019
N. Mariana Islands......................           675,985            20,101            60,998           757,084
Nebraska................................         8,239,653         2,420,193           596,510        11,256,356
Nevada..................................        24,473,107           859,874           721,940        26,054,921
New Hampshire...........................         4,642,118         1,826,747           457,852         6,926,717
New Jersey..............................       217,148,481         1,764,249         2,587,773       221,500,503
New Mexico..............................         9,551,855         2,555,204           655,206        12,762,265
New York................................       550,931,718         9,272,746         6,091,120       566,295,584
North Carolina..........................        37,901,829        11,453,770         2,563,722        51,919,321
North Dakota............................         3,055,663         1,098,794           310,725         4,465,182
Ohio....................................        90,141,703        10,795,153         3,431,195       104,368,051
Oklahoma................................        14,269,627         5,253,598         1,208,398        20,731,623
Oregon..................................        35,475,309         3,860,108         1,122,512        40,457,929
Pennsylvania............................       153,018,676        10,870,487         4,044,433       167,933,596
Puerto Rico.............................        43,018,815           886,505         1,399,708        45,305,028
Rhode Island............................         8,886,917           321,036           463,004         9,670,957
South Carolina..........................        14,252,555         5,710,780         1,383,261        21,346,596
South Dakota............................         2,347,890         1,496,368           339,305         4,183,563
Tennessee...............................        28,940,103         7,276,884         1,914,830        38,131,817
Texas...................................       196,543,779        16,174,536         5,644,548       218,362,863
Utah....................................        27,263,133         1,295,598           592,321        29,151,052
Vermont.................................         1,043,871         1,344,670           294,426         2,682,967
Virgin Islands..........................  ................           290,086           150,772           440,858
Virginia................................        54,598,970         6,317,121         2,017,699        62,933,790
Washington..............................        95,763,294         4,247,495         1,720,930       101,731,719
West Virginia...........................         4,949,894         3,454,176           784,330         9,188,400
Wisconsin...............................        40,150,971         6,733,687         1,574,405        48,459,063
Wyoming.................................         1,381,661           982,500           256,054         2,620,215
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Subtotal..........................     3,433,535,608       239,404,605        90,652,801     3,763,593,014
Oversight...............................        17,253,948         1,203,038  ................        18,456,986
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.............................     3,450,789,556       240,607,643        90,652,801     3,782,050,000
Over-the-Road Bus Program...............  ................  ................  ................         6,950,000
Clean Fuels.............................  ................  ................  ................        50,000,000
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Grand total.......................  ................  ................  ................     3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 to Alaska Railroad for improvements to passenger operations.

                   University Transportation Research

                                               Limitation
                               Appropriation       on           Total
                                  (general     obligations     funding
                                   fund)      (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year        $1,192,000  ($4,769,000)    $5,961,000
 2003........................
Budget request, fiscal year    .............  ............  ............
 2004........................
Recommended in the bill......      1,200,000   (4,800,000)     6,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal             +8,000     (+31,000)       +39,000
     year 2003...............
    Budget request, fiscal        +1,200,000  (+4,800,000)    +6,000,000
     year 2004...............


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for 
university transportation research. The recommendation is a 
$39,000 increase above the fiscal year 2003 level.
    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     Total funding
                                                               (general fund)    (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003..............................     $24,043,000     ($97,164,000)     $121,207,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.............................  ..............  ................  ...............
Recommended in the bill......................................      24,200,000      (97,800,000)      122,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003..........................        +157,000        (+636,000)         +793,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004.........................     +24,200,000     (+97,800,000)     +122,000,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The accompanying bill provides $122,000,000 for transit 
planning and research. The recommendation is $793,000 more than 
provided in fiscal year 2003.
    The recommended level of $122,000,000 is comprised of an 
appropriation of $24,200,000 from the general fund and 
$97,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass 
transit account of the highway trust fund.
    The bill contains language specifying that $60,385,600 
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 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.
    National planning and research.--Within the funds for 
national planning and research, support is provided for a 
number of important initiatives including:

CALSTART/Weststart Bus Rapid Transit; Clean Mobility and 
    Transit Enhancements................................      $3,250,000
Center for Intermodal Transportation, Florida State 
    University..........................................       1,000,000
Northern Illinois University Fuel Cell Research.........       1,750,000
Transportation Research Program at the University of 
    Kansas..............................................       2,000,000
Community Transportation Association of America's 
    National Joblinks Program...........................       1,000,000
PVTA Electric Bus Program, MA...........................       1,925,000
North Carolina State University Center for 
    Transportation and the Environment..................       1,000,000
National Transit Institute at Rutgers University........       1,000,000
State University System of Florida Intermodal 
    Transportation Safety Initiative....................       8,000,000
National Transit Institute at Rutgers University, TELLUM       1,000,000
NYU-Wagner Rudin Center Americas Mega City Project, NY..          75,000
Advanced Transportation Technology Institute, TN........       1,000,000
Project ACTION..........................................       2,000,000
Hennepin County community transportation, MN............       1,000,000

                      Trust Fund Share of Expenses


                (LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)

                          (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2004......................   ($5,781,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.....................      (320,594,000)
Recommended in the bill..............................    (5,807,020,000)
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003..................            (- - -)
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................      (+26,020,000)


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided 
$5,807,020,000 for liquidation of contract authorization.

                       Capital Investment Grants

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
                                                                                Limitation on
                                                              Appropriation      obligations      Total funding
                                                              (general fund)     (trust fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................     $603,253,000     $2,413,013,000   $3,016,266,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...........................    1,213,500,000        320,594,000    1,534,094,000
Recommended in the bill....................................      599,280,000      2,507,220,000    3,106,500,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003........................       -3,973,000        -94,207,000      +90,234,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004.......................     -614,220,000     +2,186,626,000   +1,572,406,000


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,106,500,000 to 
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation 
is $90,234,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2003.
    The recommended level of $3,106,500,000 is comprised of an 
appropriation of $599,280,000 from the general fund and 
$2,507,220,000 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 the bill
Fixed guideway modernization............................  $1,214,400,000
New starts..............................................   1,214,400,000
Bus and bus facilities..................................     677,700,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
    Total...............................................  $3,106,500,000

    Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--Consistent 
with past years 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 
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies 
Appropriations Act, 2001 and previous Acts are available for 
reallocation in fiscal year 2004 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 and bus and 
bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying reports 
of the fiscal year 2004 Departments of Transportation and 
Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA 
shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with 
reprogramming guidelines.
    The Committee, however, directs FTA not to reallocate funds 
provided in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation 
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for 
the following new start projects:

          Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project, California
          Dulles Corridor Project, Virginia
          Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor Project
          Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire Commuter Rail 
        Project
          Portland, Maine, Marine Highway Program
          Charlotte, North Carolina, North Corridor and South Corridor 
        Transitway
          Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore-Central Business 
        District Corridor Project
          Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Commuter Rail Project
          Spokane, Washington, South Valley Corridor Light Rail Project
          Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro Project
          Alaska Ferry Projects
          Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, Commuter Rail Project
          Birmingham, Alabama, Transit Corridor
          Twin Cities Transitways Project
          Kenosha, Racine & Milwaukee Rail Extension
          West Trenton, New Jersey, Rail Project
          Indianapolis, Indiana Northeast-Downtown Corridor Project
          Burlington-Bennington (ABRB), Vermont Commuter Rail Project
          Kansas City, Missouri, Southtown Corridor Project
          Hollister/Gilroy Branch Line Rail Extension Project, CA 
        (2001)
          Colorado Roaring Fork Valley Project
          Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit Project

    The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA 
information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the 
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 or soon thereafter.
    In addition, the Committee directs FTA not to reallocate 
funds provided in the fiscal year 2001 Department of 
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or 
previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities 
projects:

          Sullivan County, buses, bus facilities, and related 
        equipment, NY
          Jamaica, intermodal facilities, NY
          Statewide bus and bus facilities (including Tallahassee), FL
          Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight 
        facility, AL
          University of South Alabama, buses and bus facilities, AL
          Homer, Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge intermodal and welcome 
        center, AK
          Port Mackenzie intermodal facilities, AK
          Port Mackenzie/Upper Cook Inlet facilities, AK
          Ship Creek pedestrian and bus facilities and intermodal 
        center/parking garage, AK
          Alabama Bus A&M; University, AL
          University of North Alabama, bus and bus facilities, AL
          Central Arkansas Transit Authority, bus and bus facilities, 
        AR
          River Market and College Station Livable Communities Program, 
        AR
          Gary--Adam Benjamin Intermodal Center, IN
          Kansas City, JOBLINKS, KS
          Wyandotte County, buses, KS
          Traverse City, transfer station, MI
          Greater Minnesota buses and bus facilities, MN
          Metro Transit, buses and bus facilities, MN
          Newark Arena bus improvements, NJ
          Trenton, train/intermodal station, NJ
          Eastchester, Metro North facilities, NY
          Suffolk County, senior and handicapped vans, NY
          Fayette County, maintenance facilities, PA
          Somerset County, ITS related equipment, PA
          Bellows Falls Multimodal, VT
          Brattleboro multimodal center, VT
          Burlington multimodal transportation center, VT
          Central Vermont Transit Authority buses and bus facilities, 
        VT
          Washington County, intermodal facilities, buses and bus 
        facilities, PA
          Fayatte County intermodal parking facility, PA
          Wilkes-Barre, intermodal facility, PA
          Wilkes-Barre intermodal transportation center, PA
          Tulsa pedestrian and streetscape improvements, OK
          Binghamton intermodal transportation center, NY

    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. Those 
projects have had four years to expend their funding, and if 
they still remain unable to do so, the Committee believes it is 
better to allocate these funds to projects that can obligate 
these funds in a more timely fashion.

                        BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES

    The accompanying bill provides $677,700,000 for bus 
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and 
intermodal facilities. Bus systems 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.
    Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be 
supplemented with $37,000,000 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 unexpended sums 
from the following projects from previous appropriations Acts 
are reallocated:

          Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses and bus 
        facilities, AL (2001)
          Dothan--Wiregrass Transit Authority buses and bus facilities, 
        AL (2001)
          Intermodal Center, AL (1999)
          Montgomery--Moulton Street Intermodal Facility, AL (2001)
          Montgomery, civil rights trail trolleys, AL (2001)
          Tuscaloosa interdisciplinary science building parking and 
        intermodal facility, AL (2001)
          University of Alabama Birmingham fuel cell buses, AL (2001)
          Anaheim, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
          Brea, buses, CA (2001)
          Compton, buses and bus-related equipment, CA (2001)
          El Dorado, buses, CA (2001)
          Folsom, transit stations, CA (2001)
          Fresno, intermodal facilities, CA (2001)
          Modesto, bus facility, CA (2001)
          Monterey Salinas Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities, 
        CA (2001)
          Oceanside, intermodal facility, CA (2001)
          Sacramento, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
          Santa Cruz, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
          Sonoma County, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
          Sunline transit agency, buses, CA (2001)
          Vista, bus center, CA (2001)
          Bridgeport, intermodal center, CT (2001)
          Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access, CT (2001)
          Waterbury, bus garage, CT (2001)
          Chatham, buses and bus facilities, GA (2001)
          Cobb County, buses, GA (2001)
          Georgia Regional Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities, 
        GA (2001)
          Des Moines park and ride, IA (2001)
          Mason City, bus facility, IA (2001)
          Sioux City Trolley system, IA (2001)
          Waterloo, buses and bus facilities, IA (2001)
          Statewide, bus and bus facilities, ID (2001)
          Alexandria buses and vans, LA (2001)
          Plaquemines Parish ferry/New Orleans Regional Planning 
        Commission vans, buses, facility construction in Plaquemines, 
        St. Bernard, St. John and St. Charles Parishes, LA (2001)
          St. Tammany Parish park and ride, LA (2001)
          Bangor intermodal transportation center, ME (2001)
          Southeast Missouri Transportation Service bus and bus 
        facilities, MO (2001)
          Brookhaven multimodal transportation center, MS (2001)
          Coast Transit Authority multimodal facility and shuttle 
        service, MS (2001)
          Picayune multimodal center, MS (2001)
          Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association buses, 
        MT (2001)
          Missouri River pedestrian crossing--Omaha, NE (2001)
          Elizabeth Ferry Project, NJ (2001)
          Angel Fire bus and bus Facilities, NM (2001)
          Clovis, buses and bus facility, NM (2001)
          Las Cruces, buses, NM (2001)
          Valencia County, transportation station improvements, NM 
        (2001)
          Clark County bus passenger intermodal facility--Henderson, NV 
        (2001)
          Lake Tahoe CNG buses and fleet conversion, NV (2001)
          Reno and Sparks, buses and bus facilities, NV (2001)
          Washoe County buses and bus facilities, NV (2001)
          Greenport and Sag Harbor, ferries and vans, NY (2001)
          Highbridge pedestrian walkway, NY (2001)
          Intermodal Transporter Center, NY (2000)
          Tompkins County, intermodal facility, NY (2001)
          Westchester and Duchess counties, vans, NY (2001)
          Columbus Near East transit center, OH (2001)
          Columbia County ADA buses, OR (2001)
          Hood River County bus and bus facility, OR (2001)
          Lakeview buses, OR (2001)
          Rogue Valley buses, OR (2001)
          Altoona bus testing facility, PA (2001)
          Bucks County, intermodal facility improvements, PA (2001)
          Monroe County, buses and bus facilities, PA (2001)
          Phoenixville, transit related improvements, PA (2001)
          Statewide, buses and bus facilities, SC (2001)
          Brazos Transit District, buses, TX (2001)
          Houston Metro, Main Street Transit Corridor improvements, TX 
        (2001)
          Charlottesville bus and bus facilities, VA (2001)
          City of Richmond bus and bus facilities, VA (2001)
          Fair Lakes League, VA (2001)
          Fair Lakes League, VA (2000)
          Fairfax County Transportation Association of Greater 
        Springfield, VA (2001)
          Falls Church Bus Rapid Transit terminus, VA (2001)
          Jamestown/Yorktown and Williamsburg CNG bus, VA (2001)
          Springfield station improvements, VA (2001)
          King County Metro transit bus and bus facilities, WA (2001)
          Renton/Port Quendall transit project, WA (2001)
          Richland, bus maintenance facility, WA (2001)
          Cheyenne transit and operation facility, WY (2001)

    The Committee recommendation assumes the following 
distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:

95th Dan Ryan Transit Station Refurbishment, IL.........      $1,000,000
AC Transit Expansion Buses, CA..........................       1,500,000
Access Enhancements to Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line 
    Station, CA.........................................         750,000
Adams County Transit Authority (ACTA) buses and bus 
    facility, Adams County, PA..........................          70,000
Alameda Point aerial transit project, CA................         700,000
Albany, GA, Intermodal Facility.........................       2,000,000
Allegan County, MI, Bus and Equipment...................       4,000,000
Alternative Fuel Replacement Buses for Sun Tran, AZ.....         500,000
Ames, IA transit/bus facility...........................       3,000,000
Amesbury, MA bus facility upgrade.......................       2,500,000
AMTRAN Buses and Transit System Improvements, PA........         750,000
Anaheim, CA Resort Transit (ART)........................         750,000
Ann Arbor Transit Authority Transit Center, MI..........       1,750,000
Antelope Valley, CA Transit Authority Operations and 
    Maintenance Facility................................       3,000,000
Area Transit Authority, PA Bus Purchase.................       2,750,000
Athens Clarke County Park Ride Project, GA..............       3,900,000
Attleboro Intermodal Transportation Center, Attleboro, 
    MA..................................................       2,500,000
Audubon Area Community Services, KY.....................         225,000
Baltimore, MD, Center Plaza.............................       1,000,000
Barry County Transit, MI, Replacement maintenance 
    equipment...........................................          50,000
BARTA Fixed Route Bus and Paratransit Vehicle 
    Replacement, PA.....................................       4,800,000
BARTA Park-N-Transit Facility, PA.......................         650,000
Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Authority New and 
    Replacement Buses, MI...............................         500,000
Bay Area Transportation Authority Facility and Buses, 
    Grand Traverse County, MI...........................       3,000,000
Beaver County, PA Transit Authority replacement buses 
    and equipment.......................................         650,000
Bergen Intermodal Stations and Park n' Rides Capital 
    Improvements, NJ....................................       4,000,000
Berkshire Regional Transit Authority (BRTA) Buses and 
    Fare Boxes, MA......................................         765,000
Birmingham, AL Downtown Intermodal Facility.............       1,000,000
Bismarck Fixed Route Bus System, Fargo/Moorhead Transit 
    Maintenance Facility, Valley City Garage, ND........       4,000,000
Bloomington Transit--Bloomington, IN....................         720,000
Branch Area Transit Authority Equipment Upgrade, MI.....          40,000
Brazos County, TX Bus Replacement Program...............       1,000,000
Brockton Area Intermodal Transit Centre Bus Replacement, 
    MA..................................................         500,000
Bronx HUB Streetscape Improvement & Pedestrianization, 
    NY..................................................       1,000,000
Broome County Hybrid Buses, NY..........................       1,800,000
Bucks County, PA Intermodal Facility Improvements.......       2,000,000
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Implementation, NY.......       1,580,000
Bus Replacement, Brockton Area Transit Authority, MA....       2,000,000
Butler Multi-Modal Transit Center, PA...................       2,500,000
Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority, MI Buses............         200,000
Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority, MI Intermodal 
    Facility............................................       1,500,000
Calexico Transit System, CA.............................         400,000
Cambria County Transit Bus and Facility, PA.............         900,000
Capital Area Transit Buses, PA..........................       3,000,000
Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA), 
    Rensselaer Intermodal Station, NY...................         500,000
Capital Metro Hybrid Electric Buses, TX.................         500,000
Capital Metro North Operating Facility, TX..............       1,250,000
CART/UOO, Norman, OK Buses and Bus Facilities...........       1,750,000
CAT, NV Double Decker Bus Purchase......................       5,950,000
CATA Bus Replacement, Lansing, MI.......................       2,500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, NY..       5,000,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority Facility.................       1,100,000
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority 
    (COPTA).............................................       1,820,000
Centre Area Transit Authority--Advanced Public 
    Transportation Systems Initiative, PA...............       1,600,000
Cerone Operating Complex Improvements, CA...............         750,000
Cerritos, CA, Circulator Buses..........................         500,000
Chapel Hill, NC Bus Maintenance Facility................       1,000,000
Charlotte, NC Area Transit System Transit Maintenance 
    and Operations Center...............................       8,000,000
Chatham Area Transit Authority, GA Bus and Bus 
    Facilities..........................................      10,000,000
Cherry Street Multi-Modal Facility, IN..................       1,800,000
Church Street Transportation Center, Williamsport, 
    Lycoming County, PA.................................       1,000,000
Citrus County Enhancement Project for the Transportation 
    Disadvantaged, FL...................................         300,000
City Bus, Williamsport Bureau of Transportation, 
    Lycoming County, PA.................................       3,000,000
City of Adrian, MI Equipment Upgrade....................          95,000
City of Albuquerque, NM Transit Department Revenue 
    Vehicle Purchase....................................       6,000,000
City of Albuquerque, NM Transit Department West Side 
    Transit Facility....................................       2,000,000
City of Alexandria After School Bus Program, VA.........          75,000
City of Alma, MI Intermodal Transit Facility, Equipment 
    Replacement and Tenant Sweeper......................         300,000
City of Asheville, NC Transit System Fleet Replacement..         825,000
City of Baldwin Park, CA Downtown/Metrolink Parking 
    Improvements........................................         500,000
City of Battle Creek, MI Equipment and Facility Upgrade.         100,000
City of Belding, MI, Bus replacement and communication 
    equipment...........................................         100,000
City of Burbank, CA Empire Area Transit Center..........       1,000,000
City of Canby, OR, Transit Center.......................         150,000
City of Clinton, MO Transit Office......................         300,000
City of Columbia, MO, Transit Replacement...............         107,000
City of Corvallis, OR, Bus Replacement..................         250,000
City of Davis, CA Intermodal Facility...................         350,000
City of Durham, NC Multimodal Transportation Facility...       1,500,000
City of El Paso, TX Sun Metro--Bus Replacement Program..       1,000,000
City of Eureka, CA Intermodal Depot.....................         400,000
City of Fresno, CA FAX Buses, Equipment, and Facilities.       4,000,000
City of Grapevine, TX Bus Purchase......................         325,000
City of Greenville, SC Multimodal Transportation Center 
    Improvements........................................         525,000
City of Hillsdale, MI Equipment and Facility Upgrade....         400,000
City of Holland, MI Macatawa Area Express (MAX).........       1,500,000
City of Jackson, MI Transportation Authority Facility 
    upgrade.............................................       1,500,000
City of Lubbock/Citibus Buses, TX.......................       1,250,000
City of Lufkin, Intermodal Transit Terminal/Parking 
    Facility, TX........................................       1,000,000
City of Macon, GA Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase.....         420,000
City of Nacogdoches, TX, Vehicle Replacement............       1,000,000
City of Palm Beach, FL, Gardens Mass Transit Bus 
    Shelters............................................          50,000
City of Peoria, IL Bus Purchase.........................         650,000
City of Revere, MA Intermodal Transit Improvements......       2,500,000
City of San Fernando, CA Local Transit System...........         300,000
City of Springfield, IL Bus Purchase....................         700,000
City of Waco, TX Bus Facility Project...................       1,500,000
City of Wichita Transit Authority, KS System Upgrades...         288,000
CityLink van and technology replacement, Abilene, TX....         700,000
Clallam Transit Buses, WA...............................         250,000
Clare County, MI Transit Corporation--Replacement Buses, 
    MI..................................................         250,000
Claremont, CA Intermodal Transit Village Expansion 
    Project.............................................       2,500,000
Clean Fleet Bus Purchase and Facilities, VA.............       2,500,000
Clinton, MI Transit Bus Purchase........................          75,000
Coast Transit Authority, MS.............................         900,000
Coconino County, AZ Buses and Facilities................       2,000,000
Collegian Busway Improvements, CA.......................         250,000
Colorado Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities.......      10,000,000
Connecticut Statewide Bus Replacement Purchase..........       6,000,000
Coralville, IA Intermodal Facility......................       2,000,000
Corona Transit Center, CA...............................       1,750,000
Corpus Christi, TX, Bus and Bus Facilities..............         800,000
County Connection, Midland County, MI...................         200,000
Danville, KY Transit Facility / Parking Structure.......       1,750,000
Danville, VA Trolley Buses..............................         225,000
Delaware Bus and Bus Facilities.........................       3,000,000
Detroit Bus Replacement, MI.............................       4,000,000
Detroit Downtown Transit Center, MI.....................       8,000,000
Detroit Timed Transfer Center--Phase II, MI.............       2,000,000
East Haddam Mobility Improvement Project, CT............       5,075,000
Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots, CA......         700,000
Ed Roberts Campus, CA...................................         450,000
El Garces Intermodal Station, Needles, CA...............       3,000,000
Endless Mountain Transportation Authority, Bradford 
    County, PA..........................................         100,000
Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus Acquisition, PA.         500,000
Escondido Bus Maintenance Facility, CA..................       1,000,000
Everett Transit Buses, WA...............................         500,000
Fairfax County, VA Richmond Highway Transit Improvements       1,850,000
Fairfield/Vacaville, CA Intermodal Transit Station......         700,000
Fayette County Intermodal Transit Facility, PA..........         400,000
Flagler Senior Services Transit Coaches, FL.............         300,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority New and Replacement 
    Buses, MI...........................................       1,000,000
Florida International University/University of Miami 
    University Transportation Center....................       1,000,000
Folsom, CA Railroad Block Project.......................       2,000,000
Foothill Transit, CA Transit Oriented Neighborhood 
    Program.............................................       4,000,000
Fort Edward Intermodal Station Interior Restoration/
    Rehabilitation Project, New York....................         600,000
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Tri-City Transit Authority, fare 
    collection system...................................       1,440,000
Fort Smith, Arkansas Transit Facility...................         750,000
Fort Wayne, IN, Citilink Bus Purchase...................       1,000,000
Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) Bus, MA......         150,000
Ft. Worth Transportation Authorty Fleet Modernization 
    and Bus Transfer Centers, TX........................       4,000,000
Fulton County Transit Authority, KY.....................         400,000
Gallagher Intermodal Transportation Center Project, MA..       2,000,000
Galveston Maintenance Facility Renovations, TX..........         800,000
Georgia Statewide Bus Replacement, and Facility Projects 
    in Albany & Rome....................................       2,000,000
Golden Empire Transit Traffic Signal Priority, CA.......         750,000
Grand Rapids, MI Metropolitan Area, Multimodal surface 
    transportation center...............................       3,475,000
Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility, WA...............       1,200,000
Grays Harbor Transportation Authority Capital 
    Improvement, WA.....................................          75,000
Greater Dayton, OH Regional Transit Authority...........       2,000,000
Greater New Haven Transit District, CT, Fuel Cell and 
    Electric Bus Funding................................       4,000,000
Greater Ouachita Port and Intermodal Facility, LA.......       1,000,000
GRTA Capital Improvements, GA...........................       3,000,000
Hamilton Clean Fuels Bus Facility, GA...................       2,500,000
Hampton Roads Transit Southside Bus Facility, VA........       1,000,000
Harbor Transit, MI Bus Replacement......................         450,000
Harrisburg Transportation Center Capital Purchase, PA...       1,750,000
Harrison County multi-modal facilities and shutle 
    service, MS.........................................       1,000,000
Harrison Intermodal Project, NJ.........................       1,000,000
HART Bus Facility--Ybor Station Intermodal Facility, FL.         700,000
HART Bus Purchase, FL...................................         750,000
Hartford Downtown Circulator, CT........................         750,000
Hemet Transit Center/Bus Facility, CA...................         800,000
Henderson Area Rapid Transit Authority, KY..............          25,000
High Point, NC Project Terminals........................       3,000,000
Holyoke Multimodal Transportation Center, MA............       4,000,000
Honolulu Bus and Paratransit Replacement Program, HI....         750,000
Honolulu Middle Street Intermodal Center, HI............       1,300,000
Hopkins County, TX, Intermodal Center...................         750,000
Howard Boulevard Intermodal Park & Ride, NJ.............       4,000,000
Hunt County, TX, Committee on Aging Transportation 
    Facility............................................         750,000
Hunterdon County Intermodel Stations and Park & Rides, 
    NJ..................................................       1,250,000
Wyandanch, NY Intermodal Transit Facility...............         750,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Capital Purchases...............       4,000,000
Illinois Statewide Buses and Facilities.................       6,000,000
Indiana County Transit Authority/Bus Facility Expansion 
    and Renovation, PA..................................         400,000
Indiana University Bloomington, IN......................       1,500,000
Indianapolis Downtown Transit Center, IN................       1,800,000
Intelligent Transportation System for ITP--The Rapid, MI       1,500,000
Intermodal Transit Facility for ULM, LA.................         750,000
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study, Raleigh, NC........         250,000
Interstate 15 Managed Lanes BRT Capital Purchase, CA....       2,000,000
Iowa Statewide bus and bus facility.....................       6,600,000
Isabella County Transportation Commission Vehicle 
    Replacement, MI.....................................         600,000
Island Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility, WA..       2,500,000
Jacksonville, FL Transportation Authority, Bus and Bus 
    Facilities, Bus Replacement.........................       3,250,000
Jacobi Transportation Facility, NY......................       1,000,000
Jamaica Intermodal Facilities, Queens, NY...............         750,000
Jasper, AL Bus Replacement..............................         100,000
JATRAN vehicles for disabled and elderly, MS............         300,000
Jefferson City Transit System, MO.......................         400,000
Jefferson Transit Bus Facility, WA......................       1,000,000
Jefferson Transit bus purchase, WA......................         200,000
Johnson County, KS Nolte Transit Center.................         200,000
Johnson County, KS, Transit automated vehicle locator 
    system..............................................          50,000
Kansas City Area Transit Authority: bus replacement, 
    facility improvement, KS............................       3,000,000
Kansas Department of Transportation Bus and Bus Facility 
    Project.............................................       3,000,000
Kearney RYDE Transit Program, NE........................       2,250,000
Kent State University Intermodal Facility, OH...........         750,000
Key West, FL, Bus and Bus Facilities....................       2,000,000
Kibios Area Transit System (KATS) maintenance facility 
    and vehicles, OH....................................         642,000
King County, Clean Air Buses, WA........................         450,000
Kitsap Transit bus purchase, WA.........................         500,000
Knoxville, TN Electric Transit Intermodal Center........       2,025,000
KY Transportation Cabinet/Community Action Groups.......       1,250,000
Lake Erie Transit Bus Storage Facility and Maintenance 
    Facility Expansion, MI..............................       1,400,000
Lakeland Area Mass Transit District--Citrus Connection, 
    FL..................................................       1,250,000
Lane Transit District Bus Facilities, OR................         850,000
Laredo, TX, Bus Facility................................       1,750,000
Lawrence, Kansas, Transit System maintenance facility...         400,000
Lebanon County Transit Authority, Bus and Bus Related 
    Facilities, PA......................................         600,000
Lee County, FL LeeTran Bus Replacement..................         500,000
Leesburg, GA, Train Depot Renovation and Restoration....         400,000
Lenawee Transportation Corporation equipment upgrade, MI         300,000
LETS Bus Replacement, MI................................         225,000
Levy County Improvement Project for the Transportation 
    Disadvantaged, FL...................................         500,000
Lincoln County, OR Transportation--Bus Garage Facility..         200,000
Livingston County, NY, Transportation Center............         500,000
Long Beach Transit--Bus Purchase, CA....................       1,400,000
Lorain Port Authority, OH, Lighthouse Shuttle and Black 
    River Water Taxi Project............................         250,000
Los Angeles County, CA MTA Bus Improvements.............       3,500,000
Louisiana Bus & Bus-Related Facilities..................       4,500,000
Ludington, MI Mass Transportation Authority Bus Facility         525,000
Macon and Athens Multimodal Station, GA.................       2,000,000
Macon, GA Terminal Station..............................       2,000,000
Mammoth Lakes, CA Bus Purchase..........................       2,250,000
Manassas, VA, Old Town Intermodal Center................       4,530,000
Manistee County, MI Transportation, Replacement Buses...         125,000
MARTA Automated Fare Collection/Smart Card System, GA...       6,000,000
MARTA Bus Acquisition Program, GA.......................       4,000,000
Maryland Bus and Bus Facilities Program.................       7,250,000
Mason County Transportation Authority Capital 
    Improvements, WA....................................         200,000
Mecosta Osceola County Area Transit Vehicle Replacement, 
    MI..................................................         350,000
Mesa, AZ Operating Facility.............................       2,000,000
Metro Transit Bus/Bus Facilities, MN....................       4,400,000
Metro Transit Turn Around at Taylor Landing Park, WA....          70,000
Miami Dade County, FL System Enhancements...............       5,000,000
Miami-Dade County, FL Bus Procurement...................       1,000,000
Mid County Transit Authority Kittanning, PA.............         400,000
Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority, Charleroi, PA.........         600,000
Minnesota Bus Replacement...............................         672,000
Minnesota Transit Vehicles and Transit Bus Facilities...       1,000,000
Missouri Bus & Paratransit Vehicles--Rolling Stock......       1,500,000
Mobile, AL Waterfront Terminal and Maritime Center of 
    the Gulf............................................       1,750,000
Modesto, CA Bus Facility................................       2,250,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) Buses and Bus 
    Facility, MA........................................       2,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) Regional 
    Transit Facility, MA................................       2,400,000
Montclair State University Campus and Community Bus 
    System, NJ..........................................         800,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit Buses, CA......................       2,800,000
Montgomery, NY Buses....................................          40,000
Morgantown Intermodal Facility, WV......................       3,500,000
Morris County Intermodal Facilities and Park & Rides, NJ       5,000,000
MTA/Long Island Bus purchase, NY........................       2,000,000
Muncie Indiana Transit System, IN.......................       2,000,000
Myrtle Beach Regional Multimodal Transit Center, SC.....         500,000
Myrtle/Wycoff/Palmetto Transit Hub Enhancement, NY......         750,000
Nashville, TN, Replacement of aged buses................         800,000
Nassau HUB Enhancements, NY.............................       2,000,000
New Castle Transit Authority replacement buses, PA......         500,000
New Hampshire Statewide Bus Acquisition.................       4,500,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 
    Park & Ride.........................................         150,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 
    Statewide Multi-Modal Transportation System.........         150,000
Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, NJ.........       2,000,000
Newton, MA Rapid Transit Handicap Access Improvements...         300,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Metro Bus and 
    Rail replacement buses, NY..........................       4,500,000
Normal Multimodal Transportation Center including 
    facilities for adjacent public uses, IL.............       3,000,000
North Bend Park and Ride, WA............................       2,000,000
North Carolina Bus and Bus Facilities...................       6,250,000
North Charleston Regional Intermodal Transportation 
    Center, SC..........................................       3,000,000
North Las Vegas Intermodal Transit Hub, NV..............       1,500,000
North Side Transfer Center Brownsville Urban System 
    (BUS), TX...........................................         500,000
Northern Michigan Bus and Bus Facilities................         500,000
Northern Oklahoma Regional Multimodal Transportation 
    System..............................................       5,500,000
Northumberland County Transportation, PA................         125,000
Northwest Corridor Busway, MN...........................       4,000,000
NW 7th Avenue Transit HUB Improvements, FL..............       1,300,000
Oates Transportation Service of Southwest Missouri......          80,000
Oceanside, CA Transit Maintenance Improvements..........         750,000
Oklahoma Department of Transportation Transit Programs 
    Division............................................       6,250,000
Omnitrans--Paratransit Vehicles, CA.....................         300,000
Oneonta, NY Bus Replacement.............................       1,000,000
Orange County, CA Transit Center Improvements...........         725,000
Orange County, CA Bus Rapid Transit (Initial Capital)...       5,000,000
Orange County, CA Fare Collection System................       2,250,000
Orange County, CA Inter-County Express Bus Service......       5,000,000
Orange County, NY Bus Replacement.......................       3,400,000
Over the Road Bus Accessibility--Intercity Bus 
    Accessibility Consortium, NY........................       5,000,000
Paducah Area Transit Authority, KY......................          75,000
Palm Beach County and Broward County Regional Buses, FL.       5,000,000
Palmdale Intermodal Facility Parking Lot Expansion, CA..         750,000
Palo Alto, CA Intermodal Transit Center.................         750,000
Paoli Transportation Center, PA.........................       1,250,000
Passenger Intermodal Transit Center, Bridgeport, CT.....       5,000,000
PCDC Busstop Related Facility Enhancements, PA..........       1,000,000
Perry County, KY, Intermodal Facility...................       2,500,000
Phoenix/Glendale, AZ West Valley Operating Facility.....       5,000,000
Phoenix/Regional, AZ Heavy Maintenance Facility.........       1,350,000
Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART) 
    multimodal transportation center, NC................       2,250,000
Pierce Transit Maintenance and Operations facility, WA..       1,000,000
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Buses, MA.......       2,500,000
Pittsfield Intermodal Transportation Center, MA.........         615,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County Clean Fuel Buses, PA.       3,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, PA - Bus Purchase...       2,000,000
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission, VA..       1,000,000
Public Transportation Management, Tyler/Longview, TX....         500,000
Puerto Rico Metropolitan Bus Authority Replacement......         750,000
Pulse Point Joint Development and Safety Improvements, 
    Norwalk, CT.........................................       1,250,000
Purchase of Advanced Public Transportation Technology, 
    MS..................................................         300,000
Putnam County, FL, Transit Coaches for Ride Solutions...       3,000,000
Ray County Transportation vehicle replacement, MO.......          80,000
Red Cross Wheels, KY....................................         200,000
Redondo Beach, CA Catalina Transit Terminal.............       1,500,000
Regional Transit Project for Quitman, Clay, Randolph and 
    Stewart Counties, GA................................       1,000,000
Reseda Boulevard, CA Bus Rapid Transit Project Capital 
    Improvement.........................................         450,000
Rhode Island Bus Replacement............................       2,500,000
Rhode Island ITS Program Phase II Capital Program.......         500,000
RIPTA Facilities Upgrade, RI............................         600,000
Riverside Transit Agency, Automatic Traveler Information 
    System (ATIS), CA...................................         200,000
Riverside Transit Agency: Bus Rapid Transit Investment, 
    CA..................................................       1,250,000
Riverside Transit Agency: Transit Center, CA............       2,250,000
Rochester Central Station, NY...........................       5,000,000
Rock Island County Mass Transit District (Metrolink) 
    transit facility, IL................................         450,000
Rome, NY Martin Street Station Restoration..............       1,000,000
Ronstadt Transit Center Modifications, AZ...............       3,000,000
Roseville, CA Multitransit Center.......................       1,000,000
Sacramento Regional Bus Expansion, Enhancement, and 
    Coordination Program, City of Auburn, CA............         200,000
Sacramento Regional Bus Expansion, Enhancement, and 
    Coordination Program, City of Lincoln, CA...........       1,000,000
Sacramento, CA Regional Transit District, Bus 
    Maintenance Facility................................         750,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--Bus Replacement.................         600,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--South Salem Transit Center......         750,000
San Antonio, TX, VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority--New 
    Buses and Bus Facility Modernization................       1,000,000
San Francisco, CA Muni Bus and Bus Facilities...........       4,000,000
San Mateo County, CA Transit District Zero-Emission 
    Buses...............................................         800,000
Sanilac County, MI Bus facility.........................         250,000
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District Electric Bus 
    Investment, CA......................................         500,000
Santa Clara Valley, CA Transportation Authority Zero-
    Emission Buses......................................         400,000
Santa Fe Trails Transit Center, NM......................         300,000
Schlow Library Bus Depot, State College, PA.............       2,000,000
Schuylkill Transportation System, Bus and Bus 
    Facilities, PA......................................       2,000,000
SEPTA Hybrid Buses, PA..................................       2,200,000
SEPTA Norristown Intermodal Facility, PA................       5,000,000
SEPTA Trackless Trolley Acquisition, PA.................       1,000,000
Shiawassee Transportation Center and two replacement 
    buses, MI...........................................         200,000
Shreveport, LA, Intermodal Bus Facility.................       2,000,000
Small Urban and Rural Transit Center, ND................         400,000
Smithtown Senior Citizen Center Bus Replacement, NY.....         200,000
Snohomish County Community Transit Park and Ride Lot 
    Expansion Program, WA...............................         800,000
Somerset County, PA Transportation System Maintenance 
    Facility............................................         160,000
Sound Transit Regional Express Transit Hubs, WA.........       2,500,000
South Amboy, NJ Regional Intermodal Transportation 
    Initiative..........................................       1,000,000
South Bend TRANSPO Bus Facilities, IN...................       2,600,000
South Carolina Statewide Transit Facilities Construction 
    Project.............................................       2,500,000
South Clackamas Transit--Molalla, OR....................         100,000
South Dakota, Statewide buses and bus facilities........       3,000,000
Southeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Authority........         500,000
South East Texas Transit Facility Improvements and Bus 
    Replacements........................................         250,000
South San Fernando Valley, CA Park and Ride facility 
    expansion...........................................         400,000
Southeast Missouri Bus Service Capital Improvements.....       3,500,000
Southern and Eastern Kentucky Bus and Bus Facilities....       2,500,000
Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative...............       5,000,000
Southern Minnesota Transit Facilities...................         100,000
Southern Minnesota Transit Vehicles.....................       1,000,000
South Whitler, CA Circulator Buses......................         500,000
Southwest Missouri State University Intermodal Transfer 
    Facility............................................       2,225,000
Sparks and Reno, Nevada bus and bus facilities..........         500,000
Spring Valley, CA Multi-Modal Center....................       1,600,000
Springfield Union Station Intermodal Redevelopment 
    Project, MA.........................................       3,000,000
St. Augustine Intermodal Transportation and Parking 
    Facility, FL........................................       1,500,000
St. George Ferry Terminal Reconstruction, NY............       3,953,000
St. George Transit O&M; Facility, UT.....................         500,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Administrative 
    Facility............................................         650,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Passenger 
    Amenities...........................................         150,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Transit Coaches..         800,000
St. Louis Downtown Shuttle/Trolley Equipment, MO........         375,000
St. Louis, MO, Bus Facility.............................       1,250,000
St. Tammany Park and Ride, LA...........................       1,000,000
State of Arkansas, Bus and Bus Facilities; Urban, Rural 
    and Elderly and Disabled Agencies...................       3,750,000
State of Maine Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities Progam..       1,250,000
State of Wisconsin, Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities....      22,000,000
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation 
    (SMART) bus and bus facilities, MI..................       6,400,000
Suffolk County, NY Transit Bus..........................       1,900,000
SunLine Transit Agency Clean Fuels Mall Facility and 
    Hydrogen Infrastructure Expansion, CA...............       1,000,000
TalTran Bus and Bus Facilities Project, FL..............       1,500,000
TalTran Intermodal Facility Project, FL.................       1,000,000
TARTA/Toledo Bus Fueling Facilities Improvements, OH....       3,000,000
Temecula, CA Transit Center.............................       1,950,000
Tempe, AZ Downtown Transit Center.......................       1,500,000
Tempe/Scottsdale, AZ East Valley Maintenance Facility...       6,000,000
Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities..............       4,500,000
Terminal Station Multi-Modal Roof Rehabilitation, GA....         338,000
The District-Bryan Intermodal Transit Terminal/Parking 
    Facility & Pedestrian Improvements, TX..............       1,250,000
The Woodlands Capital Cost of Contracting, TX...........         800,000
The Woodlands Park and Ride Expansion, TX...............         800,000
Tillamook County, OR Transportation District--
    Maintenance Facility................................         200,000
Tompkins County Bus Facilities , NY.....................         600,000
Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus and Bus 
    Facilities, KS......................................         500,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Bus Replacement..       2,000,000
Transit First Implementation, Chula Vista, CA...........         400,000
Transit Provider Vehicle Acquisition Program, SC........       4,000,000
Transportation Authority of the River City, KY (TARC)--
    bus/trolley replacement.............................       5,100,000
Transportation Authority of the River City, KY (TARC)--
    expansion facility..................................       2,000,000
Transportation Modernization Initiative, Northwest 
    Shoals Community College, AL........................         450,000
Tri-Met, OR Regional Bus Replacement....................       1,500,000
Truckee, CA Replacement Buses...........................         200,000
Tucson, AZ Alternative Fuel Replacement Buses...........       8,085,000
Tulsa, OK Transit Bus Replacement Program...............       4,500,000
UCHRA, TN Capital Improvements..........................         600,000
Ulster County Area Transit Buses, NY....................          40,000
Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas bus 
    replacement, KS.....................................         500,000
Union County, PA, Union/Snyder Transportation Alliance 
    (USTA)..............................................       2,000,000
Union Depot Multi-modal Transportation Hub, MN..........         750,000
Union Station Regional Intermodal Transportation Center, 
    Washington, DC......................................       1,250,000
Union Station Renovations, Utica, NY....................       2,500,000
University of Delaware Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration 
    Project, DE.........................................       1,500,000
UTA Transit ITS, Upgrades, UT...........................       1,000,000
Utah Intermodal Terminals...............................         750,000
Utah Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities...................       4,000,000
Ventura County, CA--CNG Fueling Station and Facility 
    Pavement Replacement................................         500,000
Vermont, Bus Upgrades...................................       1,000,000
Village of Pleasantville, NY Handicapped Ramp...........          48,000
Village of Pleasantville, NY Memorial Plaza.............         400,000
Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) Buses...................         750,000
Visalia, CA Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility.....       4,000,000
VOTRAN Public Transit System--Buses, FL.................       1,750,000
West Palm Beach, FL, Trolley Buses......................       2,000,000
Westchester, NY Replacement Buses for Bee-line System...       2,500,000
Western Gateway Transportation Center Intermodal 
    Facility--Schenectady, NY...........................         750,000
Westfield Multimodal Transportation Center, MA..........       3,400,000
Westmoreland County Transit Authority (WCTA) Bus 
    Replacement, PA.....................................         900,000
Whitehall Intermodal Terminal of the Staten Island Ferry 
    Reconstruction, NY..................................       2,000,000
Wilsonville, OR--Park and Ride..........................         300,000
Winston-Salem Union Station, NC.........................       3,000,000
Winter HavenTransit Terminal, FL........................         800,000
WMATA Bus Fleet, Washington, DC.........................       1,750,000
WMATA Buses, MD.........................................       1,000,000
Wyandanch, NY Intermodal Transit Facility...............         750,000
Wyoming Statewide Buses and Bus Facilities..............       2,000,000
Yamhill County, OR--bus and bus facilities..............         167,000
York County Transit Authority (YCTA) buses and bus 
    facility, York County, PA...........................         750,000
Zanesville, OH Bus System Improvements..................          85,000

    San Dieguito Transportation Cooperative, CA.--The Committee 
directs that amounts to be distributed under this heading for 
fiscal year 2002 to the San Dieguito Transportation 
Cooperative, California, instead be distributed to the North 
County Transit District for initial design and planning for 
construction of a new facility to provide enhanced bus 
transportation.
    Cambria County, Pennsylvania.--The Committee directs that 
amounts to be distributed under this heading for fiscal year 
2003 to the Cambria County operations and maintenance facility, 
Pennsylvania, instead be distributed to the Johnstown Inclined 
Plane visitor's center, Pennsylvania.
    Hollister-Gilroy Caltrain Extension Project, Califorina.--
The Committee directs that amounts to be distributed under this 
heading for fiscal year 2001 to the Hollister-Gilroy Caltrain 
Extension Project, California, instead be distributed to the 
Caltrain San Francisco-San Jose-Gilroy service to Pajaro, 
Castroville and Salinas in Monterey County, California.
    Somerset County, Pennsylvania.--The Committee directs that 
amounts to be distributed under this heading for fiscal year 
2002 to the Somerset County Transportation System buses should 
instead be distributed for Somerset County Accessible Raised 
Roof Vans ($90,000) and to Somerset County Buses and Bus 
Facilities ($146,000).
    Community Medical Centers, California.--Funds made 
available for the Community Medical Centers Intermodal facility 
in Fresno, California, shall be made available for the City of 
Fresno for the same project. The availability of such funds for 
obligation shall be extended through fiscal year 2004.

                      FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION

    The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 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:

            FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Fiscal year
                           State                           ------------------------------------    Change from
                                                                  2003          2004 estimate   fiscal year 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska....................................................         2,275,498         2,319,574            44,076
Arizona...................................................         2,576,616         2,612,495            36,334
California................................................       146,247,070       147,696,762         1,449,712
Colorado..................................................         2,934,066         2,975,025            40,959
Connecticut...............................................        40,310,522        40,445,001           134,479
District of Columbia......................................        52,404,061        53,132,445           728,384
Florida...................................................        19,096,161        19,352,512           256,351
Georgia...................................................        24,974,158        25,304,065           329,907
Hawaii....................................................         1,148,189         1,164,990            16,801
Illinois..................................................       130,987,530       131,538,057           550,527
Indiana...................................................         8,933,175         8,982,688            49,513
Louisiana.................................................         2,959,087         2,967,450             8,363
Maryland..................................................        28,561,203        28,792,929           231,726
Massachusetts.............................................        74,595,418        74,954,059           358,641
Michigan..................................................           653,975           663,817             9,842
Minnesota.................................................         6,225,814         6,307,551            81,737
Missouri..................................................         4,505,207         4,565,470            60,263
New Jersey................................................       104,063,042       104,471,490           408,448
New York..................................................       367,272,491       369,033,091         1,760,600
Ohio......................................................        17,057,145        17,131,843            74,698
Oregon....................................................         4,457,988         4,520,661            62,673
Pennsylvania..............................................        99,622,792        99,950,443           327,651
Puerto Rico...............................................         2,417,921         2,450,605            32,684
Rhode Island..............................................            90,174            91,312             1,138
Tennessee.................................................           318,044           323,616             5,572
Texas.....................................................         8,416,760         8,525,074           108,314
Virginia..................................................        17,042,175        17,277,259           235,084
Washington................................................        23,567,344        23,882,868           315,524
Wisconsin.................................................           812,198           822,828            10,630
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total Apportioned...................................     1,194,525,369     1,202,256,000         7,730,631
Oversight (1 percent).....................................        12,065,064        12,144,000            78,936
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Grand Total.........................................     1,206,590,433     1,214,400,000         7,809,567
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               NEW STARTS

    The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 for new 
starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering, 
right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and 
construction of new systems and extensions. Funds made 
available in this Act for new starts are to be supplemented 
with $23,000,000 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 unexpended sums from the following projects 
which were provided in previous appropriations Acts, the fiscal 
years of which are noted in parentheses:

          Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail Project (2001)
          Stamford, Connecticut, Fixed Guideway Corridor (2001)
          Hawaii Ferry Project (2001)
          Boston--South Boston Piers Transitway Project (2001)
          Massachusetts North Shore Corridor Project (2001)
          MARC Expansion--Penn-Camden Lines Connector & Midday Storage 
        (2001)
          Greater Albuquerque, NM Mass Rail Transit Project (2000)
          Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque, NM Mass Transit Project 
        (2001)
          Clark County, Nevada, RTC Fixed Guideway Project (2001)
          Dallas Southeast Corridor Light Rail (2001)

    New starts report.--The Committee was satisfied with the 
timely submission of FTA's fiscal year 2004 annual report on 
new starts projects. TEA-21 required this report to be 
submitted in conjunction with the budget, yet year after year, 
this report was submitted months late. Without a timely 
submission of this information, the Committee cannot make well-
informed decisions about new starts projects. To ensure that 
this report continues to be submitted on time, the Committee 
has continued bill language included in fiscal year 2003 that 
requires FTA to submit its annual new starts report with the 
initial submission of the President's budget request. In 
addition, the Committee encourages FTA to develop a more 
regular process for submitting supplementary new starts reports 
throughout the fiscal year.
    Ratings for new starts projects.--The Committee is 
encouraged that FTA implemented new, and more focused, ratings 
process for the fiscal year 2004 annual new starts report. 
However, the Committee calls on FTA to continue to develop more 
stringent measures by which to rate new starts projects. Not 
only should all transit projects be subject to improved 
performance measures, it is crucial that more focused attention 
be given to criteria such as congestion relief and future 
operational costs. The large investment that transportation 
users on the nation's roads continue to devote to transit 
infrastructure should most certainly be evaluated on criteria 
that will show tangible benefits to those who pay for the 
system, as well as those who use it.
    The Committee is concerned that sufficient weight and 
review are not being given to the earliest stage of the new 
starts projects, namely the alternatives analysis undertaken by 
local communities. The FTA does not appear to be providing 
critical oversight of that process, to assure that such 
analyses are not designed to reach pre-determined conclusions, 
but instead are objective efforts to analyze transportation 
needs and to determine optimal solutions. The Committee directs 
the FTA that it should not consider any new starts, or 
expansions of new starts, unless it determines that the 
underlying alternatives analysis supports the chosen 
alternative as the superior choice.
    Further, the abolition of ``cost-per-new-rider'' as a 
factor in New Starts decision-making removes an important tool 
from the evaluation process. The use of ``time savings per 
rider'' is a useful measure, but it should not supplant the 
``cost-per-new-rider'' measurement. This criterion should be 
restored in all future FTA evaluations. It is also important 
that measurements of benefits should look deeper than system-
wide numbers, and should also include measurements of riders 
and benefits for each sub-segment of a proposed new start 
(i.e., a breakout of the projected ridership and benefits 
between the individual stations). The FTA should also include 
relief of traffic congestions as a highly significant criterion 
in evaluating proposals.
    Seattle Sound Transit Intitial Segment.--The geography and 
other conditions create great challenges for this project, and 
there is no inexpensive solution. The level of local commitment 
is very noteworthy. However, the proposal provides only minimal 
relief of the current traffic congestion in the Seattle area. 
Of 42,000 projected daily riders, only 16,000 would be new 
transit riders. About 26,000 riders would change to light-rail 
from the current bus systems, and only 16,000 from the 
congested roads. That means the cost-per-new-rider is about 
$150,000 (with the federal cost being about 1/5th of this). The 
Committee shares the concerns, noted in the report by the 
Inspector General, that the voter-approved I-776 referendum--if 
upheld by Washington State's Supreme Court--could dramatically 
impact the non-federal funding base, essentialy causing the 
collapse of significant funds upon which its proposal relies. 
Before any FFGA is approved, Sound Transit's governing board 
msut make a formal and binding commitment that is more detailed 
and specific than its resolution dated July 17, 2003, and must 
include a more-detailed amended financial plan that dedicates 
other funds in the even I-776 is upheld. As also indicated by 
the Inspector-General, a key part of that commitment must be 
that the current level of other transit services will be 
maintained (such as Sounder Commuter Rail and Regional Express 
Bus), and will not be reduced to fill any financial gap for the 
light-rail service. Further, the Committee is aware that Sound 
Transit has made earlier and potentially-conflicting 
commitments, specifically including sub-area equity. In this 
additional action by its governing board, Sound Transit must 
also state explicitly whether its commitment to fund an FFGA 
supercedes its earlier commitment to sub-area equity, as well 
as any other prior commitments.
    New starts projects.--The Committee takes special note that 
the Central Arizona East Valley Corridor, which was only one of 
two projects that achieved a ``Highly Recommended'' rating from 
the FTA, New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, and 
Washington, DC, Dulles Corridor Rapid System projects are 
important activities to their respective regions. The Committee 
anticipates further consideration and attention to these 
projects.
    Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before 
passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation 
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), there were less than 10 new starts 
projects with full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since 
1992, a total of 51 FFGAs have been signed or recommended in 
Presidential budgets. Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs. 
The total capital cost for these projects is $13,680,000,000 
and the federal commitment is $7,090,000,000.
    The number of potential new starts projects is expanding 
rapidly. As of June, 2003, FTA is: (1) tracking over 130 
current transit capital investment planning studies that are 
estimated to cost over $24,000,000,000, if funded to their 
completion; (2) working with 39 projects in the preliminary 
engineering (PE) phase of project development, that have a 
total capital cost of $39,360,000,000; and (3) working with 17 
projects in the final design phase of project development, that 
have an estimated capital cost of $10,824,000,000. 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.
    Since demand has too quickly outstripped available 
resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in 
this area. The Committee recommendation adheres to the 
following guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund 
every project that has a current FFGA, at the schedule six 
amount. Second, specific allocations have been provided for 
other new start projects. These projects shall be subject to a 
dollar-for-dollar cost-share with non-federal funding and 
applies to all projects where a full funding grant agreement is 
not in force. Third, the Committee has continued to provide no 
funding for projects currently in the alternatives analysis 
phase, as in previous years. Local project sponsors of new rail 
extensions or busways can use section 5307 formula funds or 
section 5303 metropolitan planning funds for these activities 
rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Fourth, 
the Committee reiterates its direction originally agreed to in 
the fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign 
any FFGAs that have a maximum federal share of higher than 
sixty percent. Based on this earlier direction, significant 
appropriations have been provided for those projects in final 
design or preliminary engineering that have a federal share of 
no more than sixty percent. The Committee agrees with the 
administration that underlying law should be changed to 
prohibit a federal share of more than fifty percent. Less 
funding, or in some instances no, funding has been provided for 
those projects that have a federal share above sixty 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.
    In total, the $1,214,400,000 provided in this Act, together 
with previous appropriations, is to be distributed as follows:

        Project                                  Recommended in the bill
Baltimore, MD, Central Light Rail Double Track Project..      40,000,000
BART San Francisco Airport (SFO), CA Extension Project..     100,000,000
Boston, MA Silver Line Phase III........................       3,000,000
Charlotte, NC South Corridor Light Rail Project.........       4,000,000
Chicago Transit Authority, IL Douglas Branch 
    Reconstruction......................................      85,000,000
Chicago, IL Metra Communter Rail Expansions and 
    Extensions..........................................      52,000,000
Chicago, IL Ravenswood Reconstruction...................      45,000,000
Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension..........      30,161,283
Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT (T-REX)..............      80,000,000
East Side Access Project, NY Phase I....................      70,000,000
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Project......      18,410,000
Las Vegas, NV Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway............      15,000,000
Los Angeles, CA Eastside Light Rail Transit System......      10,000,000
Memphis, TN Medical Center Rail Extension...............       9,247,588
Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit 
    (LRT)...............................................      74,980,000
New Orleans, LA Canal Street Streetcar Project..........      23,921,373
New York, Second Avenue Subway..........................       3,000,000
Newark, NJ Rail Link (NERL) MOS1........................      22,566,022
Northern, NJ Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (MOS2)............     100,000,000
Phoenix, AZ Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail 
    Transit Project.....................................      13,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II Light Rail Transit 
    Reconstruction......................................      32,243,422
Portland, OR, Interstate MAX Light Rail Extension.......      77,500,000
Raleigh, NC, Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail 
    Project.............................................       3,000,000
Salt Lake City, Medical Center LRT Extension............      30,663,361
San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit 
    Extension...........................................      65,000,000
San Diego, CA, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project.........      48,000,000
San Francisco, CA Muni Third Street Light Rail Project..      10,000,000
San Juan, PR Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System...........      43,540,000
Seattle, WA Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment..      15,000,000
Washington, DC/MD, Largo Extension......................      65,000,000
Washington, DC/VA Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project.      25,000,000
Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats...........................      10,296,000
Oversight set-aside.....................................      12,144,000

    San Francisco, CA Muni Third Street Light Rail Transit 
Project.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the San 
Francisco Muni's Third Street Light Rail Transit Project and 
has included a provision that requires the Secretary of 
Transportation to include all non-new starts contributions made 
towards phase 1 of the two-phase project for engineering, final 
design and construction. The Committee understands that the 
project received a ``not recommended'' rating from the Federal 
Transit Administration in this year's 3j report due, in part, 
to the submission of incomplete transportation system user 
benefit data. The project sponsor is expected to submit 
complete transportation system user benefit data to the Federal 
Transit Administration, which FTA shall review, taking into 
account non-seciton 5309 funds committed to on phase 1 of the 
project, and issue expeditiously a rating for fiscal year 2004. 
The funds provided in this Act shall not be made available for 
the project if the Federal Transit Administration assigns a 
rating of ``not recommended'' for fiscal year 2004.
    Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority.--The 
Committee understands the referendum referred to in section 163 
to be considered by the voters in the Harris County 
Metropoolitan Transit Authority (Houston, TX Metro) service 
area will be a referendum on bonding authority for a 
comprehensive transit system plan.
    The final placement or location of each rail segment may be 
adjusted within each corridor in the future as required by 
unforeseen or unavoidable factors such as right of way 
requirements or environmental impact studies. The Committee 
does not intend to convey or require that Houston Metro submit 
separate ballot propositions within the same referendum 
election for each segment of the light rail system.
    Further, the Committee does not intend for this section to 
operate as a restriction or prohibition on the use of funds 
appropriated for Houston Metro in this Act for any transit 
purpose other than light rail in the event a majority of 
Houston voters do not approve of the light rail system 
submitted to them in such a referendum.

                 Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...............................     $29,805,000    ($119,220,000)    $149,025,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004..............................  ..............  ................  ..............
Recommended in the bill.......................................      17,000,000      (68,000,000)      85,000,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...........................     -12,805,000     (-51,220,000)     -64,025,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..........................     +17,000,000     (+68,000,000)     +85,000,000


    For fiscal year 2004, the job access and reverse commute 
(JARC) grants program is funded at a total level of 
$85,000,000, with no more than $17,000,000 derived from the 
general fund and $68,000,000 derived from the mass transit 
account of the highway trust fund.
    The program makes competitive grants to qualifying 
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental 
authorities, agencies, and non-profit organizations in 
urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants 
may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No 
more than $10,000,000 may be provided for reverse commute 
grants.
    The Committee has transferred $65,000,000 to the bus and 
bus facilities program due to higher prioritization within that 
category of funding. The Committee recommends the following 
allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program 
funds in fiscal year 2004:

AC Transit Welfare to Work, CA..........................      $1,215,000
ADA Mobility Planning, Wichita, KS......................         365,000
Akron, OH Metro Regional Transit Authority Job Access 
    and Reverse Commute Program.........................         243,000
Bay Area Transit, VA....................................         300,000
Bedford Ride, Virginia..................................          60,000
Bowling Green, KY Housing Authority Reverse Access 
    Commute.............................................         318,000
Broome County Transit--JARC, NY.........................         100,000
Capital District Transportation Authority Jobs Access/
    Reverse Commute Project, NY.........................         500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority......         500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Job Access & Mobility 
    Management Program..................................         500,000
Chatham Area Transit Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC), 
    GA..................................................       1,000,000
City of El Paso--Job Access Program, TX.................         200,000
City of Irwindale, CA Senior Transportation Services....          55,000
City of Lubbock/Citibus JARC, TX........................         230,000
City of Poughkeepsie, NY Underserved Population Bus 
    Service.............................................          25,000
CityLink public transportation services, TX.............         100,000
Community Transportation Association of America's 
    National Joblinks Program...........................       2,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX, Job Access and Reverse Commute......         375,000
Delaware Welfare to Work................................         750,000
Detroit, MI Job Access Reverse Commute..................       1,600,000
Flint, MI Mass Transportation Authority Job Access-
    Reverse Commute Program.............................         608,000
Galveston Job Access Reverse Commute Program, TX........         450,000
Georgetown, Washington, DC--Metro Connection............       1,000,000
Grand Rapids/Kent County, MI Job Access Plan............       1,200,000
Guaranteed Ride Home, Santa Clarita, CA.................         410,000
Holyoke Community Access to Employment and Adult 
    Education, MA.......................................          75,000
IndyFlex Program, IN....................................         600,000
Jackson-Josephine Job Access Reverse Commute Program, OR         200,000
Jacksonville, FL Transportation Authority, Community 
    Transportation Coordinator Program..................       5,200,000
Jaunt, Inc., City of Charlottesville, Virginia..........         440,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute program, MidAmerica 
    Regional Council, Kansas City, KS...................         490,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute program, Unified 
    Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS......         488,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute, CT......................       3,176,000
Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC), OK......       6,000,000
Jobs Access/Reverse Commute Projects, RI................       1,000,000
Kansas City Job Access Partnership, MO..................         800,000
Key West, Florida, Job Access and Reverse Commute.......       1,000,000
Knox County, TN, Community Action Committee 
    Transportation Program..............................         500,000
Knoxville, TN Area Transit Job Access Service...........         750,000
Maricopa Association of Governments Job Access/Reverse 
    Commute Grant Projects, AZ..........................       2,250,000
Maryland Job Access and Reverse Commute Program.........       4,000,000
Mendocino Transit Authority Job Access Reverse Commute, 
    CA..................................................          50,000
Metropolitan Council Job Access, MN.....................         850,000
Monroe County, TN Job Access and Reverse Commute Program         150,000
New Jersey Community Development Corporation 
    Transportation Opportunity Center, Paterson, NJ.....         300,000
New Jersey Job Access/Reverse Commute Program...........       5,000,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department..         500,000
New York State-Job Access/Reverse Commute Project.......       1,000,000
Niles/Trumbull Transit, OH..............................         200,000
North Country County Consortium, NY.....................       5,000,000
North Oakland Transportation Authority, MI..............         150,000
Operation Ride DuPage, DuPage County, IL................         500,000
Orange County, NY, transportation initiative............         100,000
Pioneer Valley Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute 
    Program, MA.........................................         405,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, PA--JARC............       3,520,000
Portland, OR Region Jobs Access-Reverse Commute.........         800,000
Ray Graham Association for People With Disabilities, IL.         125,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority Job 
    Access and Reverse Commute, NY......................         750,000
Sacramento, CA Region Job Access and Reverse Commute 
    Project.............................................       2,000,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--Job Access Reverse Commute......         175,000
San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Transit Authority--Job 
    Access Program......................................         400,000
SEPTA Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, PA........       4,000,000
South East Texas Transit Facility Improvements and Bus 
    Replacements........................................         150,000
State of Maine Job Access and Reverse Commute Program...         423,000
State of Wisconsin, Job Access and Reverse Commute 
    Grants..............................................       2,600,000
Tennessee Statewide Jobs Access Program.................       6,000,000
Texas Colonias JARC Initiative..........................       2,400,000
Toledo, OH Job Access/Reverse Commute...................         324,000
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, NY..................          75,000
Topeka, KS Metropolitan Transit Authority Access to Jobs         500,000
Ulster County, NY Area Transit Rural Feeder Service.....          50,000
Virginia Regional Transportation Association............         200,000
VoxLinx Voice-Enabled Transit Trip Planner..............       1,500,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority..........         800,000
Washington State Transit car-sharing job access.........         800,000
Ways to Work, CA........................................       1,220,000
West Memphis Transit Service, AR........................         410,000

           GENERAL PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

    Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations 
from limitations on obligations.
    Section 161 allows funds for discretionary grants of the 
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except 
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by 
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries to be used for other 
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 162 allows transit funds appropriated before 
October 1, 2002, that remain available for expenditure to be 
transfered.
    Section 163 prohibits funds for design or construction of a 
light rail system in Houston, Texas, unless certain specified 
conditions are met.
    Section 164 clarifies transit Buy American Act requirements 
in their application in conjunction with manufactured products 
requirements.
    Section 165 allows funds made available for the Roaring 
Fork Transportation Authority, Colorado, to be made available 
for the Roaring Fork Valley Bus Rapid Transit project.

             SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

                       Operations and Maintenance

                    (HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $13,994,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        14,400,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        14,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +706,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................          +300,000


    The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the 
Corporation) is a wholly owned government corporation 
established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The 
Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and 
development of the United States portion of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie, including the two Seaway 
locks located in Massena, NY and vessel traffic control in 
areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission 
of the Corporation is to serve the United States intermodal and 
international transportation system by improving the operation 
and maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and 
environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The 
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability, 
trade development, management accountability, and bi-national 
collaboration with its Canadian counterpart.

                        Committee Recommendation

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$14,700,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the 
Corporation, which is $300,000 above the requested amount. 
Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and 
revenues from non-federal sources finance the operation and 
maintenance of the Seaway for which the Corporation is 
responsible.
    The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the 
commercial use and competitive position of the St. Lawrence 
Seaway. The bill continues language, carried for many years, 
that will provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to 
available resources needed to finance costs associated with 
unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe, secure, 
and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the 
Corporation to use, for emergency purposes, sources of funding 
not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public 
Law 99-662. These sources would be derived primarily from prior 
year revenues received in excess of costs, unused borrowing 
authority, and miscellaneous income--for emergency purposes.
    Infrastructure maintenance.--The recommended increase in 
appropriation will ensure that the SLSDC is able to complete 
its annual infrastructure maintenance program at the two U.S. 
locks. Many of these infrastructure improvements and 
replacements projects were deferred in recent years for the 
agency to fund post-9/11 security improvements, and include 
several electrical, mechanical, and fendering improvements that 
have a direct impact on the agency's key performance area of 
ensuring system availability. Addressing these infrastructure 
improvements is critical to ensuring the safe and efficient 
transit of commercial vessels through the waterway and 
maintaining the Corporation's current timeline for its five-
year capital plan. Throughout its history, the Corporation has 
been able to offset any shortfalls in funding with its non-
federal revenues to fund its operation and maintenance 
activities. Due to the current state of the economy, continued 
reduction in investment income caused by lower interest rates, 
and lower concession revenues, non-federal revenues have 
decreased by approximately one-third, to an estimated $600,000. 
Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $300,000 to 
mitigate the lost of revenue and prevent further deferrals to 
already delayed maintenance projects.
    Security.--The Committee recognizes the efficient and cost-
effective steps the Corporation has taken with respect to 
securing the U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The 
Committee encourages the Corporation to continue its efforts in 
establishing collaborative solutions to the Seaway's security 
challenges amongst the other federal and local stakeholders 
such as the U.S. Coast Guard, New York State Power Authority, 
and New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic 
Preservation.

                        MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

    The overall mission of the Maritime Administration (MARAD) 
is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate, 
well-balanced United States merchant marine, sufficient to 
carry the nation's domestic waterborne commerce and a 
substantial portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and 
capable of serving as to naval and military auxiliary in time 
of war or national emergency. MARAD also seeks to ensure that 
the United States enjoys adequate shipbuilding and repair 
services, efficient ports, effective intermodal water and land 
transportation systems, and reserve shipping capacity in time 
of national emergency.
    MARAD is primarily an advocacy and promotional agency with 
particular interests in U.S.-flag shipping and shipbuilding, 
maritime security, sustainability of a U.S. citizen mariner 
workforce, and development of domestic ports and intermodalism 
to meet the demands of seaborne trade. MARAD has a strong 
national security component that is served by available 
commercial maritime industry. The work of the agency is often 
conducted not by establishing policy, but rather by aiding and 
promoting U.S. maritime interests before government agencies 
that more directly influence the maritime domain, such as the 
Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland 
Security, and the Department of State.
    Given the transfer of the Coast Guard outside of the 
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Committee is interested 
in the examination of MARAD's current role and future 
development. The Committee is especially interested in 
sustaining U.S.-flag maritime commercial viability while 
ensuring that maritime priorities are well articulated within 
the safety and infrastructure mission of the DOT. The Committee 
directs MARAD to conduct a maritime policy review, to include 
an examination of the agency's mission and its long-term goals 
in the context of the reorganized department. Given the 
confluence of national security and homeland security issues 
within the nations' strategic ports and vital waterborne 
commercial routes, this maritime policy review should include a 
particular emphasis on maritime security and how it has 
refocused MARAD's mission and impacted the shipping industry. 
The Committee directs MARAD to submit the report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 31, 2004.

                       Maritime Security Program


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $98,058,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        98,700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        98,700,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriaiton, fiscal year 2003...................          +642,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Committee recommends $98,700,000 for the Maritime 
Security Program (MSP), consistent with the budget request. 
This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD and 
assumes that MARAD will confine to administer the program with 
support and consultation from the Department of Defense. The 
purpose of the MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag 
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the 
United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flag 
ship operators engaged in U.S.--foreign trade. Participating 
operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial 
service and are required to provide intermodal sealift support 
to the Department of Defense in times of war or national 
emergency. During Operation Iraqi Freedom the vessels called 
upon from the MSP performed superbly. The Committee recognizes 
and applauds the efforts of the mariners that provided a vastly 
improved sealift capability to the U.S. Armed Forces. MSP 
activities in this bill are funded under budget category 054 
(miscellaneous national security programs). The Committee's 
recommendation provides funding for payments to U.S. carriers 
for 47 ships, limited to $2,100,000 annually per ship. The 
recommendation will provide the necessary resources for the 
operation of the MSP through fiscal eyar 2004.
    10-year age criterion for vessels entering the MSP.--The 
Committee notes with concern MARAD's efforts to waive the 10-
year rule for foreign vessels re-flagging to enter the MSP. The 
Committee considers this eligibility criterion to be a 
necessary component of the standards of safe operation for the 
U.S. merchant fleet and encourages adherence to section 1137(a) 
of P.L. 104-324 if less than 10 years of age on the date of 
documentation or compliance with chapter 31 of title 46, United 
States Code, if over 10 years of age on the date of 
documentation. While it is understandable that a given vessel 
may offer necessary military utility, the 10-year rule should 
only be relaxed in those rare situations of where the military 
function fulfilled by the subject vessel is needed and 
otherwise unavailable.
    The Committee supports the growth of the U.S. fleet, but 
encourages such expansion via newer vessels with superior 
levels of safety. While there are currently older ships in the 
U.S. merchant marine, the majority of these vessels was 
originally built to a higher safety standards under U.S. 
regulations and have been inspected and monitored throughout 
their life by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee is concerned 
about any compromise to the standards of safety of the U.S. 
fleet and encourages MARAD to continue its collaborative 
efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard and the International 
Maritime Organization toward the progressive improvement of 
such standards.

                        Operations and Training


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $92,093,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       104,400,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       105,897,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriaiton, fiscal year 2003...................       +13,804,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +1,497,000


    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,897,000 
to fund programs under the Operations and Training account of 
MARAD, an increase of $13,804,000 (14.9 percent) above the 
fiscal year 2003 appropriation and $1,497,000 above the budget 
request. Funds provided for this account are to be distributed 
as follows:

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                FY04          House
                 Activity                   Request \1\  Recommended \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
    Salary and benefits...................      $20,981        $22,000
    Midshipmen program....................        6,274          6,274
    Instructional program.................        3,431          3,431
    Program direction and administration..        2,931          2,931
    Maintenance, repair, & operating              6,298          6,298
     requirements.........................
    Capital improvements..................       13,000         13,000
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal, USMMA.....................       52,915         53,934
                                           =============================
State Maritime Schools:
    Student incentive payments............        1,200          1,200
    Direct schoolship payments............        1,200          1,200
    Schoolship maintenance and repair.....        7,063          9,063
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal, State Maritime Academies..        9,463         11,463
                                           =============================
MARAD Operations:
    Base operations.......................       37,425         36,000
    Strategic ports evaluation and                    0            500
     provision............................
    Enterprise architecture & IT security         4,597          3,000
     upgrades.............................
    Maritime security professional                    0          1,000
     training.............................
                                           -----------------------------
      Subtotal, MARAD Operations..........       42,022         40,500
                                           =============================
      Subtotal, Operations and Training...      104,400        105,897
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures do not contain accruals for retiree CSRS and health
  benefits, estimated at $4,305,000.

    Specific adjustments to the Operations and Training budget 
estimate are discussed below:
    United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The Committee 
recommendation includes $53,934,000 for the operation and 
maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), which 
is $1,019,000 above the budget request. The Committee 
recommendation includes $22,000,000 for salaries and benefits 
of Academy personnel. The Committee is aware of the substantial 
personnel needs of the Academy and provides $1,019,000 above 
the requested amount to help address this need. The increase 
above the budget request for salaries at USMMA will allow the 
Academy to meet current staffing demands in addition to filling 
positions that are approved, but vacant. The Committee expects 
the Academy to make strategic hires, and preference shall be 
given to filling vacancies that deal specifically with core 
competencies relating to the Academy's mission of producing 
merchant marine officers. The Committee recommendation also 
includes $13,000,000, to remain available until expended for 
the continuation of an initiative to maintain and repair the 
Academy's infrastructure. MARAD has previously submitted to the 
Committee a master plan to address the Academy's long-term 
maintenance and renovation needs. The Committee has approved 
this allocation to address specific capital improvement needs, 
including the elimination of lead in Academy drinking water, 
renovations to bring buildings into compliance with the 
Americans with Disabilities Act, renovations to the Mallory 
pier and bulkhead, and the completion of architectural and 
engineering design to renovate the barracks buildings. The 
$13,000,000 provided for fiscal year 2004 will enable the 
Academy to pursue additional capital improvements consistent 
with the facilities master plan. The Committee reminds MARAD 
and the Academy that deviations from the approved spending plan 
are subject to reprogramming requirements.
    State Maritime Schools.--The recommendation includes 
$11,463,000 for the six State Maritime Schools (SMS). This 
recommendation includes $9,063,000 for schoolship maintenance 
and repair, which is $2,000,000 above the requested amount. 
This additional $2,000,000 is intended to expedite the 
maintenance and modernization of the active SMS training 
vessels as well as to help purchase new technologies to train 
students in accordance with the International Maritime 
Organization's Standards of Training Certification and 
Watchkeeping. The subdivision of the $9,063,000 provided for 
schoolship maintenance and repair is detailed below:

             State Maritime Academy Schoolship M&R; Program

EMPIRE STATE (NY) RRF...................................      $2,680,000
ENTERPRISE (MA) RRF.....................................       2,380,000
GOLDEN BEAR (CA) RRF....................................       1,086,000
STATE OF MAINE (ME).....................................       1,080,000
TEXAS CLIPPER II (TX)...................................       1,280,000
STATE OF MICHIGAN (MI)..................................         557,000
                    --------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________
      Subtotal, Schoolship M&R..........................;       9,063,000

    The Committee also notes that MARAD has again requested 
$1,200,000 under this activity to maintain the Student 
Incentive Payment program at the current level. The Committee 
directs MARAD to report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations by November 30, 2003, with a justification for 
the annual target for new reservists in relation to documented 
emergency requirements that cannot be met from other sources.
    MARAD Operations.--The Committee recommendation includes 
$40,500,000 for operating programs and general administration 
of MARAD, including $36,000,000 for MARAD's base operations, an 
increase of $456,000 above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level. 
The $40,500,000 recommended in the bill is intended to support 
958 full-time equivalent staff years, upgrade information 
technology security, modernize MARAD's enterprise architecture, 
and provide additional funding for the 14 strategic ports and 
maritime security professional training in support of section 
109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
    Enterprise architecture and information technology 
upgrades.--The Committee notes the considerable request of 
MARAD for funds to support modernization of its enterprise 
architecture in accordance with Office of Management and Budget 
Circular A-130, regarding management of federal information 
resources. The Committee supports the efforts of MARAD to 
modernize its information technology resources and expand its 
e-government capabilities. Despite being $1,597,000 below the 
requested amount, the recommended appropriation of $3,000,000 
constitutes a $1,800,000 (150 percent) increase over MARAD's 
fiscal year 2003 expenditure on enterprise architecture and IT 
security. The Committee directs MARAD to conduct an assessment 
of its interoperability of information resources among the 14 
U.S. strategic commercial ports. This assessment should include 
a specific emphasis on MARAD's ability to share information 
with other federal, state, and local port and border security 
agencies. The Committee directs MARAD to submit this assessment 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later 
than January 31, 2004.
    Port and intermodal development.--The Committee recognizes 
and applauds the work of MARAD in assisting the Transportation 
Security Administration in the evaluation and award of port 
security grants, especially the work being done to secure the 
14 strategic commercial ports against terrorism and to improve 
their military utility. To further MARAD's efforts to evaluate 
the throughput of military supplies (e.g. ammunition, explosive 
ordnance, and military vehicles) at the 14 strategic commercial 
ports, the Committee recommends an additional $500,000 above 
the $9,455,000 requested. The Committee directs MARAD to report 
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no later 
than November 30, 2003, on the performance of the intermodal 
system with respect to the efficiency of the most congested 
ports. Within this report, particular emphasis should be placed 
on summarizing the performance of the 14 strategic commercial 
ports during the military force build-up for Operation Iraqi 
Freedom and on identifying the most glaring deficiencies of the 
intermodal system as a whole. This report is to contain a 
thorough comparison of the most congested ports in terms of 
operational efficiency; identification of significant 
intermodal obstacles associated with each port; and a summary 
of future actions MARAD plans to take to address and improve 
the throughput of cargo in America's ports.
    Maritime security professional training.--The Committee 
supports the intent of section 109 of the Maritime 
Transportation Security Act of 2002 and strongly encourages the 
MARAD Administrator to direct funds and resources towards the 
initiatives specified within this Act, as practicable. The bill 
contains $1,000,000 in additional funding to initiate training 
opportunities for any federal, state, local, and private law 
enforcement or maritime security personnel as specified in the 
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The Committee 
expects MARAD to coordinate with the state maritime academies, 
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and the Appalachian 
Transportation Institute in the facilitation of this training. 
Furthermore, the Committee encourages MARAD to seek assistance 
from the Department of Homeland Security in the implementation 
of this training.

                             Ship Disposal


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $11,088,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        11,422,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        14,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +2,912,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +2,578,000


    The Committee recommends $14,000,000, an increase of 
$2,578,000 (22.6 percent) above the budget request, for 
necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete vessels 
in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Committee 
recognizes the work and efficiency of MARAD with respect to 
disposing of high priority vessels with the funds provided in 
fiscal year 2003. The Committee encourages MARAD to continue to 
seek a comprehensive and robust solution to the challenging 
problem that is the proper, environmentally responsible 
disposal of the obsolete vessels of the NDRF. Specifically, the 
Committee supports international disposal of vessels to the 
extent that similar standards of domestic disposal are applied 
at international facilities. In the instances of foreign 
disposal, the appropriate offices of the Maritime 
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the 
U.S. State Department shall make a collaborative, qualifying 
determination on the proposed international facility. Vessels 
that are determined to be a substantial transit risk are 
presumed to be better candidates for either reefing or for 
domestic disposal. The Committee disapproves of expending funds 
to improve the seaworthiness of vessels that are beyond their 
serviceable life solely for the purpose of overseas disposal 
and notes the significant improvement of the economic 
competitiveness of domestic scrapping operations with that of 
foreign entities. However, the Committee believes that the 
application of various disposal options provides the best value 
to the taxpayer while ensuring the swift, responsible removal 
of obsolete NDRF vessels that pose threats to the environment. 
The Committee encourages MARAD to promote aggressive 
competition amongst the domestic scrapping industry and 
international disposal facilities for funds appropriated for 
disposal. MARAD is directed to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than November 30, 
2003 detailing the agency's competitive bid process for ship 
disposal. Specifically, this report should highlight any 
changes to the agency's proposal review process and compare the 
proposals from domestic and international ship scrapping 
entities over the last five years.

                    Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    \1\ $4,099,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         4,498,000
Recommended in the bill...............................               ---
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -4,099,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -4,498,000

\1\ Does not include the $25,000,000 appropriated in H.R. 1559,
  Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003.

    The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account, pursuant to title XI 
of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, received 
$25,000,000 in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental 
Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-11), to remain available 
until September 30, 2005. The Committee directs MARAD to use 
funds from this supplemental appropriation to cover its 
estimated administrative costs for fiscal year 2004. These 
costs are estimated at $4,498,000. Funds appropriated in P.L. 
108-11 were intended to cover both administrative expenses as 
well as the cost of guarantees loans. This bill includes a 
general provision (sec. 171) to clarify that intent. 
Expenditure of funds from the fiscal year 2003 supplemental 
appropriation for the purposes of loan guarantees is contingent 
upon receipt by the Committee of certification from the 
Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOTIG) that the 
Maritime Administration has adopted and is implementing the 
recommendations of report #CR-2003-031 to his satisfaction. 
This certification is not, however, applicable to funds drawn 
from the appropriation for administrative purposes, up to 
$4,498,000. The Committee notes that MARAD's title XI program 
has responded positively to recent audits by the DOTIG and the 
General Accounting Office and has taken a proactive, 
responsible approach to adopting the recommended reforms. Using 
this response and the recently adopted reforms as indicators, 
the Committee is optimistic about the improvement of the title 
XI program. It is expected that MARAD will work closely with 
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that vessels approved for 
title XI loan guarantees by the Secretary of Transportation not 
only provide commercial viability, but also exhibit military 
utility, such as tank vessels capable of transporting refined 
product as a business commodity and jet fuel in time of war or 
roll-on/roll-off vessels capable of carrying automobiles during 
peacetime and light military vehicles in time of armed 
conflict.

              General Provisions--Maritime Administration

    The Committee continues a provision (Sec. 170) that allows 
the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services 
and make necessary repairs in connection with any lease, 
contract, or occupancy involving government property under 
control of the Maritime Administration and apply payments 
received for such agreements as a credit to the Treasury.
    The Committee includes a new provision (Sec. 171) that 
amends chapter 10 of P.L. 108-11 by allowing funds in that Act 
to be used for administrative costs for fiscal year 2004.

              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.

                     Research and Special Programs


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $40,714,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        50,723,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        47,018,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +6,304,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -3,705,000


    RSPA's research and special programs administers a 
comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the 
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of 
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2) 
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's 
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation 
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the 
department's research and development policy, planning, 
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy, 
legal, financial, management and administrative support for 
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a program level for research and 
special programs of $47,018,000. Budget and staffing data for 
this appropriation are as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal year 2003  Fiscal year 2004   Recommended  in
                                                                 enacted           estimate         the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety................................       $22,767,000       $24,981,000       $23,558,000
    (Positions)...........................................             (137)             (155)             (143)
Research and technology...................................         2,822,000         2,737,000         2,139,000
    (Positions)...........................................               (9)              (11)               (9)
Emergency transportation..................................         1,926,000         3,616,000         2,463,000
    (Positions)...........................................               (9)              (26)              (15)
Program support...........................................        12,965,000        19,389,000        18,858,000
    (Positions)...........................................              (59)              (62)              (62)
                                                           -----------------------------------------------------
      Total, Research and Special Programs................        40,714,000        50,723,000        47,018,000
      (Positions).........................................             (212)             (262)             (229)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding for 35 requested hazmat, emergency 
    preparedness, and emergency transportation positions 
    and associated administrative costs.................     -$2,037,000
Reduce funding for hazmat-misuse research and 
    development.........................................        -223,000
Reduce funding for hydrogen fuel research activities....        -606,000
Reduce funding for emergency transportation regional 
    equipment and training..............................        -614,000
Reduce funding for real estate administrative support...        -136,000

    New positions.--The President's fiscal year 2004 budget 
requests a $10,200,000 increase for Research and Special 
Programs, from $40,500,000 in FY 2003 to $50,700,000, including 
the addition of fifty new positions. While the Committee fully 
supports the goals of the program, the Committee questions some 
of these new positions.
    Eight of the positions would be used to restore funding to 
the hazardous materials program (OHMS) after diverting staff 
resources to hazmat security matters in the wake of the 
terrorist attacks of September 11th. The Committee provided two 
requested personnel for this purpose in fiscal year 2003. The 
Committee recognizes RSPA's need to transfer staff as a short-
term measure due to the critical need, but positions cannot 
continue to be transferred as a substitute for hiring new 
employees. The Committee has provided funding associated with 
four new positions.
    Ten new positions were requested to supplement OHMS' 
current staff of five to upgrade the ability to manage demands 
created by the anticipated increased transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level radioactive waste (HLW). The 
Department of Energy expects to make 300 to 400 shipments of 
SNF and HLW annually by 2010. While this is significant 
activity, those shipments will only account for less than one 
percent of all hazmat shipments. The Committee recognizes the 
importance of safety on America's roads as this increase 
begins, but questions the fervor with which RSPA is addressing 
it. One engineering position and one enforcement position are 
approved and appropriate funding has been provided. $500,000 
has been provided in research and development funds to review 
and analyze the transport regulations governing the transport 
of SNF and HLW. RSPA shall report to the appropriate committees 
of Congress on this review one year from the date of enactment 
of this Act.
    In addition, two positions were requested for RSPA's Office 
of Chief Counsel to handle SNF issues. The Committee questions 
whether the dedication of these staff to SNF/HLW issues is 
warranted at this time given other hazardous materials demands 
and backlogs that currently exist. Funding for these positions 
is denied.
    Two positions and contract funding was requested for 
research regarding the transport of hydrogen fuel. Before 
permanent staff is hired, RSPA shall perform an assessment on 
the safety and technology status of the infrastructure 
supporting hydrogen fuels transportation and report to the 
Committee no later then November 3, 2003 on the findings. 
Funding is denied for additional positions. However, $50,000 is 
provided for necessary research.
    Thirteen positions were requested for the Crisis Management 
Center, which monitors the nation's transportation network. Ten 
to twelve rotational employees on temporary assignment from 
other DOT modes, who each stay three to twelve months, 
currently operate the CMC. The Committee believes that it is 
important for the many administrations of the Department to 
fully understand and utilize the CMC. The current rotational 
system will ensure that a degree of coordination and 
information flow throughout the department. Funding is provided 
for three permanent CMC positions that shall be responsible for 
the day-to-day operations of the Center and for ensuring that 
the process is used for all modes to gain a better 
understanding of the role and importance of the CMC. Funding 
for one continuity of operations officer position is denied.
    Funding for five positions and resources for contractual 
staff were requested for the relocation of twenty program 
databases. One data manager position and funding for other 
proposed activities are provided. Further, the Committee 
requests that RSPA keep the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations informed of activities related to these 
infrastructure upgrades with bi-annual reports, due in August 
and February.
    In addition, RSPA requested two new positions to oversee 
contracts and procurement policies and two positions for budget 
and finance. The Committee approves funding for one position 
for contract policies and one position for budget.
    Emergency response training.--RSPA requested $500,000 for 
training regional emergency response teams, as well as State 
and local government and industry personnel. The Committee 
supports RSPA's initiative in this arena and encourages RSPA to 
coordinate any emergency response training with local response 
training that the Department of Homeland Security is currently 
undertaking to ensure that there is no duplication and that all 
federal emergency training is focused on uniform methods. 
Funding is provided in fiscal year 2004 for the three requested 
regional coordinator positions from the emergency 
transportation program. RSPA does not have a strong history of 
quickly hiring employees, and as the current regional 
coordinators have insufficient time to devote to developing the 
necessary national security skills, as stated in the RSPA 
budget justification, the Committee denies funding for this 
training until such time as the new coordinators are hired. 
$100,000 is provided for response equipment, instead of 
$217,000 as requested.
    The Volpe Center.--The Committee is concerned that the 
administration of the Volpe National Transportation Systems 
Center has been negligent in oversight of programs or contracts 
that the Center carries out for the department. The contract 
for NHTSA's Artemis project has run over budget by millions of 
dollars. This is unacceptable. Therefore the Committee has 
directed the Inspector General to perform an audit of all the 
work currently being undertaken at the Volpe Center. The audit 
shall address the following issues: (1) How has Volpe's role 
and function changed over the years and do the current 
activities meet the needs of DOT; (2) Does Volpe have the 
necessary financial controls in place to assure that its 
service fees are appropriate; and (3) What is DOT's role in 
overseeing Volpe and is it adequate to ensure that cost 
effective services are being provided. This report is to be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations 
by December 1, 2003.
    Research and technology.--The Committee strongly urges RSPA 
and OST to evaluate the extent to which the agency can be more 
effective in research, eliminating duplicative programs, and 
implementing certain GAO recommendations included in a report 
the Committee requested. An implementation plan must be 
submitted to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations 
by October 1, 2003.
    Regulatory backlog and support.--RSPA has an extensive 
regulatory backlog, which is of concern to the Committee. 
Currently, RSPA has over forty-one open rulemaking dockets, 
including eight that are designated as ``significant.'' Several 
of these proceedings have been the subject of NTSB reports. The 
Committee strongly encourages RSPA to address this backlog as 
expeditiously as possible.
    Hazardous materials training and outreach.--One of the 
greatest successes of the hazardous materials program is the 
technical and training resources given to the regulated 
community by RSPA. These services and products are either 
provided free or at comparatively nominal cost, and are an 
effective defense for protection against threats to public 
safety, health, property, and the environment resulting from 
hazardous materials incidents. It should be noted that the non-
federal leadership involved in the Cooperative Hazardous 
Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) program have 
abandoned RSPA as a sponsor and have joined with the Commercial 
Vehicle Safety Alliance to continue this valuable program. The 
decision was made following meetings with RSPA that many 
believed would have significantly altered this program. The 
Committee encourages RSPA to continue to work with COHMED to 
enhance RSPA's coordination of compliance services.

                            Pipeline Safety

                         (PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)

                    (OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)

                                               (Oil Spill
                                  (Pipeline     Liability       Total
                                Safety Fund)   Trust Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year       $56,370,000    $7,473,000   $63,793,000
 2003.........................
Budget request, fiscal year       48,336,000    18,741,000    67,077,000
 2004.........................
Recommended in the bill.......    55,054,000     9,000,000    64,054,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year    -1,316,000    +1,527,000      +261,000
     2003.....................
    Budget request, fiscal        +6,718,000    -9,741,000    -3,023,000
     year 2004................


    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The bill includes $64,054,000 to continue pipeline safety 
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid 
in fiscal year 2004. This is a one percent increase above the 
level enacted for fiscal year 2003. The bill specifies that of 
the total appropriation, $9,000,000 shall be derived from the 
oil spill liability trust fund and $55,054,000 shall be from 
the pipeline safety fund.
    The Committee recommends the following changes to the 
budget request:

Reduce funding for information databases................       -$125,000
Reduce funding for increased compensation and 
    administrative expenses.............................      -2,252,000
Reduce funding for controller study.....................        -300,000
Restore funding for one-call grants.....................      +1,000,000

    Pipeline safety activities.--The last three fiscal years 
have seen a dramatic increase, from $36,681,000 in fiscal year 
2000 to $63,793,000 in fiscal year 2003, in the Office of 
Pipeline Safety budget. This 43 percent increase was needed to 
address near-term safety deficiencies and recommendations. 
However, budgetary constraints make it impossible to let this 
office continue to grow at such an astonishing speed, 
especially when so many other major challenges face the 
Department and RSPA. Therefore, the Committee reduces funding 
for the proposed increases for fiscal year 2004, with the 
exception of mandatory increases.
    State one-call grants.--The Committee is concerned that 
RSPA proposed a $1,000,000 decrease for state one-call grants 
in fiscal year 2004. States use these grants to help prevent 
excavation-related damage to underground pipelines, as well as 
fiber optic cable, and voice and data transmissions. According 
to RSPA, excavation-related damage was the cause of 41% of all 
pipeline incidents in 2001. The Committee believes that these 
grants are an important program to help reduce the number of 
pipeline incidents. This proposed decrease is denied.
    Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee is concerned 
with the significant increase in the request of funds from the 
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 
requires that these trust funds be used for oil spill 
prevention and response activities, and the Committee strongly 
encourages the Office of Pipeline Safety to allocate oversight 
activities between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and 
to factor the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund into the 
allocation formula that determines the hazardous liquid 
pipeline user fee assessment to accurately reflect the amount 
and type of oversight activities being conducted by the office 
consistent with the Trust Fund. The fiscal year 2005 budget 
justification should adequately address this issue.

                     Emergency Preparedness Grants

                     (EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)

                                                                      (Emergency      (Emergency
                                                                     preparedness    preparedness       Total
                                                                         fund)      grant program)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................................      $199,000    ($14,300,000)   $14,499,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................................       200,000     (14,300,000)    14,500,000
Recommended in the bill............................................       200,000     (14,300,000)    14,500,000
Bill compared to:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................................        +1,000  ...............        +1,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004...............................  ............  ...............  ............


    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $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 2003 \1\...................       $54,912,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        55,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        56,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,088,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +1,000,000

\1\ Excludes $2,509,000 appropriated to this office, but subsequently
  transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.

    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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommendation provides $56,000,000 for 
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of 
$1,088,000 (2 percent) above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
and $1,000,000 above 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 $7,874,000 from 
other agencies in this bill, as noted below:

Federal Highway Administration..........................      $3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration..........................       2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration.........................       2,250,000
National Transportation Safety Board....................         100,000

    The OIG's total funding of $63,874,000 is essentially 
unchanged from the $63,786,000 provided, from all sources, in 
fiscal year 2003. Funding in the bill is sufficient to finance 
380 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years under direct funding 
and 59 under reimbursable funding, for total FTE of 439.
    Motor fuel tax evasion.--Within the additional $1,000,000 
provided, the Committee expects the OIG to give a high priority 
to providing additional resources to address the continuing 
problem of motor fuel tax evasion. To the extent possible, the 
OIG should work in multi-agency teams, including representation 
from the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of 
Justice, to ensure the most effective investigative and 
prosecutorial results.
    Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language 
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to 
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive 
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and 
ticket agents.
    Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector 
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to 
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to 
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review 
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major 
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant 
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from 
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or 
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Time to complete audit reports.--The Committee is concerned 
that the average time to complete OIG audits has risen 
substantially over the past few years. In fiscal year 2000, the 
average audit required 10 months for completion. In fiscal year 
2002, that has increased 40 percent, to 14 months. The 
Committee urges the OIG to investigate the causes of this 
change and compare their issuance time to those of similar OIGs 
to help determine whether the process could be expedited.

                      SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................       $19,323,575
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\..................        19,521,000
Recommended in the bill \2\...........................        19,521,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +197,425
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $126,425 pursuant to section 601 of
  Public Law 108-07. Of this total, $1,000,000 is offset through the
  collection of user fees.
\2\ Assumes collection of $1,050,000 in user fees, to offset the
  appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.

    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 
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.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a total appropriation of 
$19,521,000, equal to the budget request. Included in the 
recommended amount is an estimated $1,050,000 in fees, which 
will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level, 
the Board will be able to accommodate 145 full-time equivalent 
staff years.
    User fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C. 
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The 
Committee agrees with the budget request that $1,050,000 in 
user fees is reasonable. 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--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

                          DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES

                         Salaries and Expenses

                     (including Transfer of Funds)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $157,669,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       166,875,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       175,809,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +18,140,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +8,934,000


    The Departmental Offices' function in the Treasury 
Department is to provide basic support to the Secretary of the 
Treasury, who is the chief operating executive of the 
Department. The Secretary of the Treasury also has a primary 
role in formulating and managing the domestic and international 
tax and financial policies of the Federal Government. The 
Secretary's responsibilities funded by the salaries and 
expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing 
United States domestic and international economic and tax 
policy; fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of the 
Government; maintaining foreign assets control; managing the 
public debt; managing development of financial policy; 
representing the United States on international monetary, trade 
and investment issues; overseeing Treasury Department overseas 
operations; directing the administrative operations of the 
Treasury Department; and providing executive oversight of the 
bureaus within the Treasury Department. This account also 
includes funding for the Office of Professional Responsibility.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $175,809,000 
for Departmental Offices, Salaries and Expenses, an increase of 
$18,140,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an 
increase of $8,934,000 above the President's request. The 
Committee has removed the travel limitation on these funds and 
directs the Secretary to provide to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on travel 
expenditures funded through this account and summarized by 
office, including travel charges incurred and paid for 
protection. In addition, each report shall contain specific 
details regarding international travel by the office of 
international affairs. The bill includes $3,000,000 for 
information technology, $150,000 for official reception and 
representation expenses, $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies, 
$21,855,000 for the Office of Foreign Assets Control, 
$2,900,000 for grants to fight money laundering, and $3,393,000 
for Treasury-wide financial statement audits.
    Changes to the President's request include a decrease of 
$3,480,000 to reflect reductions enacted for fiscal year 2003 
but not included in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget 
request (-$27,000 for Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
(FECA) costs, -$2,854,000 to reflect savings from prior year 
Congressional priorities, and -$599,000 for a business strategy 
adjustment) as well as an increase of $3,480,000 for 
unanticipated administrative cost increases resulting from 
proposed transfers to the Department of Homeland Security and 
other developments that require Treasury participation and 
involvement. In addition to the increase noted above, the 
Committee recommends an additional $2,919,000 to support this 
function. The Committee understands that a portion of these 
funds may be used to support personnel that had been expected 
to be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security but 
were not transferred.
    The rest of the increase above the President's request 
($6,015,000) is for a variety of budget needs recently 
recognized. The largest single increase ($2,730,000 and no more 
than 10 FTE) is for the Office of International Affairs and is 
provided to better address the requirements facing the 
Department regarding international trade, global economic 
markets, and world-wide financing and investments. The 
Committee also recommends an increase of $2,285,000 and no more 
than 14 FTE for the new Office of Terrorist Financing and 
Financial Crimes that was recently created within the 
Department as the lead for the Administration. In addition, the 
Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 for Treasury-
wide certificate-based internet security initiatives. The 
recommended funding is distributed as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal year
                                          Fiscal year          2004
                                          2004 request     recommended
                                             (000)            (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Policy.......................           $4,145           $4,145
International Affairs.................           25,151           27,881
Tax Policy............................           13,955           13,955
Domestic Finance......................            9,448            9,448
Terrorist Financing & Financial Crimes  ...............            2,285
Foreign Asset Control.................           21,855           21,855
Management and CFO Programs...........           14,275           14,275
Executive Direction...................           17,168           17,168
Treasury-wide Financial Statement                 3,393            3,393
 Audits...............................
Administration........................           57,485           61,404
                                       ---------------------------------
      Total...........................          166,875          175,809
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSFERS

    The Homeland Security Act, 2002, created the largest 
reorganization of the Federal Government in recent history. As 
part of this reorganization, most Treasury law enforcement 
bureaus (the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and the 
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) were transferred to 
the new Department of Homeland Security. Accompanying these 
major bureau transfers were to be transfers of functions and 
personnel that provided headquarters management and oversight 
support. In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for 
Treasury Departmental Offices, a total of 226 full-time 
equivalent staff years were noted to have transferred to the 
Department of Homeland Security along with $28,000,000 to 
support these positions during fiscal year 2003. The Committee 
is concerned about the status and accuracy of these ancillary 
management and oversight support transfers and directs the 
Secretary to provide a report to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the enactment of 
this Act details regarding all transfers from this account 
(both dollars and positions) to the Department of Homeland 
Security.

                     OFFICE OF TERRORIST FINANCING

    During fiscal year 2003, a new executive office was created 
within Treasury to coordinate and lead the Department's efforts 
to combat terrorist financial and other financial crimes 
committed within the United States and abroad. The new Office 
for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes highlights the 
priority that has been placed on this issue by this 
Administration. The Committee commends this emphasis and 
strongly supports the goal of working with others to identify, 
block, and dismantle sources of financial support for terror 
and other criminal activities.

             U.S. CURRENCY POLICIES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS

    The Committee directs the Secretary of the Treasury to 
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, 
within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, a report examining 
the U.S. currency policies of any trading partners that create 
an anti-competitive advantage by deliberately devaluing their 
currencies relative to the U.S. dollar in order to encourage 
exports, suppress imports, and attract foreign investment. The 
report shall describe each occurrence and the effect of each 
such action on U.S. industries and commercial enterprises; the 
extent to which such actions are disallowed by international 
law; and the actions being taken by the United States 
government in response to such actions. The report shall 
include comment on the extent to which China, by requiring 
Chinese companies to sell the dollars they accrue to its 
central bank at a fixed rate, alters the value of the yuan 
relative to the dollar to create anti-competitive advantages.

                  CERTIFICATE-BASED INTERNET SECURITY

    The Committee is aware of the need for security in 
permitting secure internet communication for the Department of 
the Treasury to prevent cyber attacks and protect against 
identity theft in key information systems. The Committee 
strongly supports fully implementing certificate-based internet 
security capabilities as appropriate to provide standards-based 
e-mail encryption and digital signatures; permit 
interoperability with the Federal Bridge and other government 
public key infrastructure systems and applications; demonstrate 
proven scalability; support multiple platforms; and include 
automated, secure key and certificate management. To help meet 
this need, the Committee has recommended an additional 
$1,000,000 beyond funds already recognized and slated to be 
used for Treasury-wide certificate-based internet security 
requirements during fiscal year 2004. The Committee also 
directs the Secretary of the Treasury to provide a report to 
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later 
than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, on departmental 
actions to ensure this security and on the level and sources of 
funding involved as well as an assessment of and timeline for 
remaining requirements across the Department of the Treasury.

                        FINANCIAL SERVICES ISAC

    The Committee is concerned about the technological 
capabilities of the Financial Services Information Sharing and 
Analysis Center (ISAC). Each ISAC is organized within the 
private sector along industry lines to facilitate information 
exchange and improve the management of operational risks from 
physical and cyber disruption. As the federal lead agency for 
the Financial Services ISAC, Treasury is to assist in 
organizing and planning protection and continuity-of-operation 
efforts, in identifying and promoting effective risk-management 
policies and protection practices and methodologies, and in 
information sharing. The Committee directs the Secretary of the 
Treasury to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations, not later than 90 days after the enactment 
of this Act, which evaluates the technological capabilities of 
the Financial Services ISAC and discusses options for how these 
functions could be improved.

                     REVIEW OF DEBT CEILING EFFORTS

    In February 2003, the Treasury Department began to take a 
series of steps to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling. Through a 
series of accounting devices, including holding back certain 
federal employee investments and reinvestments, the Department 
was able to temporarily remain under the debt ceiling. After 
the debt ceiling crisis was averted, the Treasury Department 
said they would restore all due interest and principal to the 
affected accounts. The Committee directs the General Accounting 
Office (GAO) to review the steps taken by the Department of the 
Treasury to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling. As part of this 
report, the GAO should determine whether all major accounts 
that were used for debt ceiling relief have been properly 
credited or reimbursed.

             PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR SERVICES AND COMPLIANCE

    The Committee is aware that the Treasury Department has 
begun distributing $10 billion in temporary fiscal relief 
payments to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and 
territories provided under Title VI, Section 601 as added by 
Section 401(b) of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation 
Act (Public Law 108-27) signed into law on May 28, 2003. As 
that legislation states, these funds were provided to cover the 
cost of essential government services, or to cover the cost to 
a state to comply with federal intergovernmental mandates where 
the Federal Government has not provided funds to cover the 
costs, and may only be used for certain types of expenditures 
permitted under the most recently approved state budget. To 
assure that funds have been used for the intended purposes, the 
Committee directs that the Secretary of the Treasury, within 60 
days of enactment of this Act, compile and submit to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on 
Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance Committee a detailed 
report itemizing the specific purpose and amount for which each 
state, the District of Columbia, and each territory has 
expended the funds provided under Section 601 and Section 401 
of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.

         RESPONSIVENESS OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSET CONTROL

    The Committee is extremely concerned by the poor 
performance of the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) in 
complying with the licensing deadlines for implementing the 
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of 
2000. The Committee further understands that the office has 
been consistently late in submitting required reports and has 
not submitted reports on the processing of licenses for the 
first and second quarters of 2003. A lack of transparency and 
an apparent disinterest in customer service have made the 
process extraordinarily burdensome for license applicants. Such 
performance is unacceptable; these delays have resulted in lost 
opportunities for American agricultural and medical exporters. 
The Committee directs OFAC to immediately: (1) remedy any 
staffing shortfalls that have contributed to the backlog; (2) 
submit overdue licensing reports to Congress as required by 
Section 906(b) of TSRA; and (3) provide the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations, by December 31, 2003, a report 
detailing how the growing backlog of license applications will 
be expeditiously remedied and how customer service will be 
enhanced.

        Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $36,653,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        36,928,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        36,653,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................          -275,000


    This appropriation funds the modernization of Treasury 
business processes and increases in Department-wide systems 
efficiency through technology investments for systems that 
involve more than one Treasury bureau or Treasury's interface 
with other governmental agencies.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,653,000 
for Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs, 
the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease 
of $275,000 below the President's request. The decrease below 
the President's request is to be allocated to the HR Connect 
effort. The following table reflects the distribution of these 
funds by project:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Fiscal year 2004
                                      Fiscal year 2004   recommendation
                                        request  (000)        (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR Connect..........................           $25,989           $25,714
Treasury Architecture...............               200               200
Treasury-wide Critical                           8,993             8,993
 Infrastructure.....................
Treasury Back-up/Disaster Recovery..             1,746             1,746
                                     -----------------------------------
      Total.........................            36,928            36,653
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      Office of Inspector General

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $11,092,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,792,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,700,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +12,792,000


    This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and 
investigative functions to identify and correct operational and 
administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides program, contract, 
and financial statement audit services. Contract audits provide 
professional advice to agency contracting officials on 
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation, 
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. 
Program audits review and evaluate all facets of agency 
operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial 
statements fairly present the agency's financial condition and 
results of operations, the adequacy of accounting controls, and 
compliance with laws and regulations. The investigative 
function provides for the detection and investigation of 
improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel, 
and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,792,000 
for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,700,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of 
$12,792,000 above the President's request. The President's 
budget request proposed to combine this function and account 
with the function and account for the Treasury Inspector 
General for Tax Administration, creating a new entity. Such 
action requires extensive new legislation that has yet to be 
enacted. The increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
(+$1,700,000) is for operational support to maintain current 
levels of service. The bill includes $2,000,000 for official 
travel expenses, up to $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies, and 
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses.

           Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $124,198,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       128,034,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +3,836,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................      +128,034,000


    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform 
Act of 1998 established the Office of Treasury Inspector 
General for Tax Administration and abolished the IRS Office of 
the Chief Inspector. The Office was established in January of 
1999 as required by that legislation. The Treasury Inspector 
General for Tax Administration conducts audits, investigations, 
and evaluations to assess the operations and programs of the 
IRS and its related entities, the IRS Oversight Board and the 
Office of Chief Counsel. The purpose of those audits and 
investigations is to: (1) promote the economic, efficient, and 
effective administration of the nation's tax laws and to detect 
and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations; and 
(2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and other serious 
problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and 
operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,034,000 
for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, an 
increase of $3,836,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
and an increase of $128,034,000 above the President's request. 
The President's budget request proposed to combine this 
function and account with the function and account for the 
Office of Inspector General account, creating a new entity. 
Such action requires extensive new legislation that has yet to 
be enacted. The increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted 
level (+$3,836,000) is for operational support to maintain 
current levels of service. The bill includes up to $6,000,000 
for official travel and up to $500,000 for unforeseen 
emergencies.

                Air Transportation Stabilization Program


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $6,002,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         2,538,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,538,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -3,464,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Air Transportation Stabilization Board was authorized 
in the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act to issue 
$10,000,000,000 of federal credit instruments to air carriers. 
The purpose is ``to compensate air carriers for losses incurred 
by the air carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the 
United States that occurred on September 11, 2001'', providing 
among other criteria, that ``such agreement is a necessary part 
of maintaining a safe, efficient, and viable commercial 
aviation system in the United States''.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,538,000 for 
the Air Transportation Stabilization Program, a decrease of 
$3,464,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request. The Committee directs the 
Department of the Treasury to submit a report 90 days after the 
enactment of this Act on the status of this effort, a 
description of the credit instruments issued, and the ongoing 
management activities of the Air Transportation Stabilization 
Board to monitor and review the financial performance of each 
borrower.

           Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $28,744,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        25,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        25,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -3,744,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation funds the repairs, selected 
improvements, and construction necessary to renovate and 
maintain the Main Treasury, the Treasury Annex, and other 
Treasury buildings.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000 
for Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration, a 
decrease of $3,744,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
and the same as the President's request.

                  FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK

                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $51,416,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        57,571,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        57,571,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +6,155,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is 
responsible for implementing Treasury's anti-money laundering 
regulations through administration of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31 
U.S.C. section 5311, et seq. (BSA). It also serves as a United 
States Government source for the systematic collection and 
analysis of information to assist in the investigation of money 
laundering and other financial crimes. FinCEN supports law 
enforcement investigative efforts by federal, state, local and 
international agencies, and fosters interagency and global 
cooperation against domestic and international financial 
crimes. It also provides U.S. policymakers with strategic 
analyses of domestic and worldwide trends and patterns. It 
prevents money laundering through its regulatory and outreach 
programs, including setting policy for and overseeing BSA 
compliance by financial institutions, and by providing BSA 
training for law enforcement, bankers, and bank regulators. 
Pursuant to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, FinCEN was made a 
Treasury Bureau in recognition of its key role in supporting 
investigations and other government efforts to identify and 
stop the financing of terrorist organizations and activity. The 
Patriot Act also gave FinCEN substantial new responsibilities 
for collecting, sharing, and managing financial and other 
information as part of its counter-terrorism mission.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $57,571,000 
for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an increase of 
$6,155,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request. The Committee has recently 
become aware of an issue surrounding the main FinCEN database 
that may impact future FinCEN operations; and the Committee 
directs Treasury and the bureau to review the current custodial 
situation as well as long-range plans, and to spend whatever 
level of funding is deemed appropriate from whatever source is 
available, including potentially the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, 
to begin addressing related location, ownership, and management 
issues. The bill includes up to $14,000 for official reception 
and representation expenses.

                      FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE

                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $220,634,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       228,606,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       228,558,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +7,924,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................           -48,000


    The Financial Management Service (FMS) is responsible for 
the management of federal finances and the collection of 
federal debt. As the Federal Government's central financial 
agent, FMS receives and disburses public monies, maintains 
government accounts, and reports on the status of the 
government's finances. FMS is also accountable for developing 
and implementing the most reliable and efficient financial 
methods and systems to manage and improve the Government's cash 
management, credit management, and debt collection programs. 
Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, FMS 
became the primary agency for the collecting of federal non-tax 
debt that is due and owed to the government. Through FMS, there 
is a coordinated effort to collect debt from those who have 
defaulted on agreements with the Federal Government.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $228,558,000 
for the Financial Management Service, an increase of $7,924,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of 
$48,000 below the President's request. The decrease below the 
President's request is for a proposal, first made in the 
President's fiscal year 2002 request and retained in the 
President's fiscal year 2003 request, to integrate the benefits 
and administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation 
Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been enacted. The bill 
includes up to $9,220,000 for information systems modernization 
initiatives and up to $2,500 for official reception and 
representation expenses.

                ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU

                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $79,480,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        80,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        80,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +520,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is 
responsible for the enforcement of laws designed to eliminate 
certain illicit activities and to regulate lawful activities 
relating to distilled spirits, beer, wine and nonbeverage 
alcohol products, and tobacco. Its responsibilities are focused 
on collecting revenue; reducing taxpayer burden and improving 
service while preventing diversion; and protecting the public 
and preventing consumer deception in certain regulated 
commodities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000 
for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, an increase 
of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request. The bill includes up to $6,000 
for official reception and representation expenses and up to 
$50,000 for cooperative research and development programs.

                    BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING

    The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) designs, 
manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve notes, various 
public debt instruments, as well as most evidences of a 
financial character issued by the United States, such as 
postage and internal revenue stamps. The BEP also executes 
certain printings for various territories administered by the 
United States, particularly postage and revenue stamps.
    The operations of the BEP are financed by a revolving fund 
established in accordance with the provisions of Public Law 
656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the BEP to 
be reimbursed by customer agencies for all costs of 
manufacturing products and services performed. The BEP is also 
authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital equipment and 
provide for working capital needs. The anticipated work volume 
is based on estimates of requirements submitted by agencies 
served. The following table summarizes BEP revenue and expense 
data for fiscal years 2002 through 2004:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               2002 (actual)
                                                                               2003 (estimate)   2004 (estimate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total revenue.............................................      $391,000,000      $424,000,000      $517,000,000
    Revenue from currency.................................       327,000,000       370,000,000       465,000,000
    Revenue from stamps...................................        51,000,000        45,000,000        34,000,000
    Other revenue.........................................        13,000,000         9,000,000         6,000,000
Cost of operations........................................       436,000,000       453,000,000       525,000,000
Net revenue \1\ (to Treasury).............................       -45,000,000       -29,000,000        -8,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capital investments will be less than depreciation, a non-cash expense, in each of these years. In order to
  avoid accumulating working capital in excess of Bureau needs, currency prices are set at a level that will
  result in an annual loss (on paper). This loss will not exceed the depreciation expense, ensuring the solvency
  of the Bureau's revolving fund.

                           UNITED STATES MINT

               United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund

    The United States Mint manufactures coins, receives 
deposits of gold and silver bullion, and safeguards the Federal 
Government's holdings of monetary metals. For fiscal year 1997, 
Congress established the United States Mint Public Enterprise 
Fund (Public Law 104-52), which authorized the U.S. Mint to use 
proceeds from the sale of coins to finance the costs of its 
operations and which consolidated all existing Mint accounts 
into a single fund. Public Law 104-52 also provides that, in 
certain situations, the levels of capital investments for 
circulating coins and protective services shall factor into the 
decisions of the Congress such that those levels compete with 
other requirements for funding.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a spending level for capital 
investments by the U.S. Mint for circulating coinage and 
protective services of $40,652,000, an increase of $5,752,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 spending level and the same as the 
level included in the President's request. The Committee has 
included language in the bill that would reimburse the General 
Accounting Office up to $375,000 for the cost of a contract 
study on the potential and cost-effectiveness of expanded, 
including full, use of ``blanks'' by the U.S. Mint in the 
production of circulating coins. The contract study should 
examine the costs and benefits of such expanded use and examine 
whether such use would be compliant with Administration's goal 
to privatize non-governmental functions. In addition to 
including a pure cost-benefit analysis of the issue, the study 
should examine the practicality and desirability of such a 
change, methods of adopting such a change without negatively 
effecting production and with as little an effect on Mint 
employees as possible, and the ``blanking'' procedures and 
costs of major foreign mints. Among the potential benefits to 
be assessed in the contract study are the reduced security 
costs and/or concerns, reduced need for external storage and 
handling areas as well as potential overall cost savings. The 
completed contract study should be provided to both House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the appropriate 
authorizing committees in a reasonable timeframe. This bill 
provides that amounts reimbursed to the Comptroller General for 
this work are to be deposited in the appropriate appropriations 
of the General Accounting Office where they will remain until 
expended. The following table provides basic information on the 
revenues, costs, and products of the Mint for fiscal years 2002 
through 2004:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Commemorative
                                  Circulating coins        quarters        Numismatic coins       Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (actual):
    Number of coins............  11.5 billion.......  3.6 billion.......  17 million........  ..................
    Cost of operations.........  $156 million.......  $172 million......  $376 million......  $29 million.
    Revenue....................  $460 million.......  $904 million......  $440 million......
    Net revenue (to Treasury)..  $304 million.......  $732 million......  $64 million.......  ($29 million).
2003 (est.):
    Number of coins............  13.8 billion.......  4.4 billion.......  16 million........  ..................
    Cost of operations.........  $206 million.......  $226 million......  $439 million......  $35 million.
    Revenue....................  $493 million.......  $1,098 million....  $451 million......  ..................
    Net revenue (to Treasury)..  $287 million.......  $871 million......  $12 million.......  ($35 million).
2004 (est.):
    Number of coins............  13.8 billion.......  4.5 billion.......  16 million........  ..................
    Cost of operations.........  $208 million.......  $237 million......  $440 million......  $36 million.
    Revenue....................  $490 million.......  $1,125 million....  $454 million......  ..................
    Net revenue (to Treasury)..  $282 million.......  $888 million......  $15 million.......  ($29 million).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT

                     Administering the Public Debt

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $188,833,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       173,698,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       173,652,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -15,181,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................           -46,000


    This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all 
public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S. 
securities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a net appropriation of 
$173,652,000 for administering the public debt, a decrease of 
$15,181,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a 
decrease of $46,000 below the President's request. The decrease 
below the President's request is for a proposal, first made in 
the President's fiscal year 2002 request and retained in the 
President's fiscal year 2003 request, to integrate the benefits 
and administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation 
Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been enacted. The bill 
assumes offsetting collections of $4,400,000 from security 
issue fees and account maintenance fees. The bill includes up 
to $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses 
and up to $2,000,000 for systems modernization. The Committee 
supports the efforts of the Bureau of Public Debt to modernize 
and reduce costs associated with the savings bond program 
including the utilization of an internet based system that 
permits investors to purchase savings bonds online; the 
Committee believes, however, that it may be useful to continue 
in the short-term the issuing of printed savings bonds for 
those who may not yet access the internet.

                         SAVINGS BOND MARKETING

    The Committee is supportive of plans outlined in the 
President's budget for the Bureau of the Public Debt to 
discontinue its focused savings bond marketing program, but it 
is also aware that a need remains for certain savings bond 
customer information support functions, some of which had been 
formerly supported by the marketing program. Therefore, the 
Committee directs the bureau to submit a report, no later than 
45 days after the enactment of this Act, which identifies and 
describes those information support functions for savings bond 
customers previously conducted by the marketing program, their 
staffing levels, budget, and justification for continuance.

                         COST COMPARISON MODEL

    Over the past several years, the Committee has raised 
questions concerning the validity of the model used by the 
bureau to compare federal borrowing costs among certain debt 
instruments. The model results had been used by the bureau to 
support its contention that selling paper-based savings bonds 
to fund federal debt was more cost effective than selling 
marketable securities. In July 2002 the Committee requested 
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) examine the model. In 
June 2003 the GAO completed a study of the model and reported 
that the model contains errors, does not provide valid cost 
comparisons, and had not been subject to independent external 
review. The bureau, while acknowledging some of the errors, 
disagreed with the GAO conclusion that the model's comparisons 
were invalid. This disagreement stems from a fundamental 
difference regarding the development and use of appropriate and 
accurate present value calculations.
    The Committee notes that this substantive disagreement, 
which strikes at the heart of the Committee's concerns, might 
have been resolved years ago had the model been subjected to a 
full and rigorous independent external review. The recent GAO 
study referenced above does not constitute such a full review, 
which would also need to assess the accuracy or completeness of 
the input data. The Committee is particularly disappointed in 
Treasury's long-standing failure to provide such a basic 
external review and its use of the model's results in the 
absence of such a review.
    Nevertheless, as noted by the bureau in its response to 
GAO, even if accurate this model would not provide useful cost 
comparisons among the emerging debt instruments of Treasury, 
such as electronically based savings bonds. Given that the 
development and implementation of electronically based savings 
bonds and marketable securities in a single internet accessed 
retail system is the current focus of the bureau and the 
department, the bureau reports that it plans to ``shelve'' the 
existing model. Attempts to construct a new model would serve 
little useful purposes, due to the discontinuance of marketing 
for savings bonds. The Committee concurs with the view that the 
bureau should focus its attention on the transition into an 
electronic environment for all Treasury securities issued 
directly to the public. However, the Committee does believe 
that the transition should include a specific program which 
recognizes that a noticeable number of Americans either do not 
have access to the internet, or do not want to make electronic 
financial transactions.
    Therefore, the Committee directs the bureau and the 
department to provide to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations within 60 days of the enactment of this Act a 
report outlining its plan for achieving an electronic 
environment for the retail issuance and servicing of savings 
and marketable securities made available directly to the 
public, while offering non-electronic options to those 
purchasers who prefer them. Furthermore, the Committee fully 
expects the department to continue to pursue the policy it has 
articulated of financing the public debt at the lowest cost, 
over time.

                        INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

    The Committee notes the recent confirmation of a new IRS 
Commissioner and looks forward to growing a strong working 
relationship with him. As part of that relationship, the 
Committee hopes that the new Commissioner will ensure that the 
IRS responds to Committee directives for information in a 
timely fashion. In that regard, the Committee notes with 
concern that two reports requested by the Committee last year, 
updates to earlier reports on IRS compliance and its earned 
income tax credit initiative, are months overdue. The Committee 
also recognizes the role of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) 
Oversight Board in reviewing the annual budget request of the 
IRS. The Committee appreciates its analysis of the IRS budget 
and looks forward to strengthening its working relationship 
with the Board. The Committee urges the Commissioner of the 
IRS, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the 
Office of Management and Budget to consider the recommendations 
of the Board during deliberations on future IRS budgets.

                 Processing, Assistance, and Management


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $3,930,064,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     4,074,694,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     4,037,834,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +107,770,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -36,860,000


    This appropriation provides for processing tax returns and 
related documents; processing data for compiling statistics of 
income; assisting taxpayers in correct filing of their returns 
and in paying taxes that are due; overall planning and 
direction of the Internal Revenue Service; and management of 
financial resources and procurement.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,037,834,000 
for Processing, Assistance, and Management, an increase of 
$107,770,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a 
decrease of $36,860,000 below the President's request. Of the 
decrease below the President's request, a portion (-$2,560,000) 
is for a proposal, first made in the President's FY 2002 
request and retained in the President's FY 2003 request, to 
integrate the benefits and administrative costs of the Federal 
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been 
enacted. The remainder of the reduction below the President's 
request (-$34,300,000) is a general decrease, but the Committee 
notes a number of requested increases (such as enterprise 
performance awards, certain service-wide labor costs, and a 
variety of corporate expenses) that appear to be of lesser 
value and lower priority. The appropriation also includes 
$8,000,000 in support of low-income tax clinics, $4,250,000 for 
the tax counseling for the elderly program, and up to $25,000 
for official reception and representation expenses.

            ELECTRONIC TAX FILING AND THE FREE FILE ALLIANCE

    The Committee is encouraged by the first-year results of 
the Free File Alliance initiative, and commends the IRS and the 
tax software industry for the success of their public-private 
partnership. The 2.7 million electronic tax returns and e-
filings achieved through this initiative was of great benefit 
to the American public, far exceeded expectations, and was 
achieved while avoiding cost incurrence to the Federal 
government. However, some issues arose suggesting the need for 
specific program improvements.
    Accordingly, the IRS shall ensure that the mission and 
execution of the initiative is first and foremost to provide 
electronic federal tax return preparation and e-filing services 
at no cost to the working poor, and other disadvantaged and 
underserved taxpayers. The IRS Electronic Tax Administration's 
related marketing and promotional activities shall be 
consistently carried out in a manner to advance this key 
mission objective.
    The IRS also shall ensure in its agreements with industry, 
that program implementation shall be carried out in a manner 
that protects the privacy of the taxpayer's return data and 
continues the independence from government of the software 
service employed. Program implementation shall likewise 
continue to provide that the federal tax return and filing 
service donations do not require other product or service 
purchases from citizens.
    The IRS is further directed to work in cooperation with 
industry to implement appropriate policies and procedures to 
ensure that the sponsored tax software services have the 
necessary business credentials, relevant commercial track 
records, corporate integrity, and financial and technical 
capabilities, in which taxpayers can have confidence.
    With these types of governance standards and program focus, 
the public-private partnership strategy being pursued by the 
IRS will fulfill its great promise, and the Committee looks 
forward to regular reports from the IRS on progress being made 
to achieve the program objectives and these specific 
improvements.

                   IRS MANUAL SUBMISSIONS PROCESSING

    The Committee is concerned that the transition into the 
electronic age is not being managed properly by the IRS. As 
part of this transition, the specific staffing needs of the 
bureau are likely to require extensive modifications including 
a reduction in the manual submission processing workforce. 
However, the Committee understands that certain downsizing 
efforts at manual processing facilities may not be adequately 
planned or appropriately thought out prior to the actual 
reductions. Therefore, the Committee directs the IRS to submit 
a report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations no 
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act that 
addresses the timing of downsizing efforts at manual processing 
facilities, projections for manual processing requirements in 
future years and a description of the IRS' plans for achieving 
the remaining manual processing requirements in light of the 
proposed downsizing plans. Furthermore, the Committee strongly 
suggests that the IRS refrain from initiating any premature and 
illconsidered reductions in force until such time as the report 
stipulated above has been reviewed by the Committees and 
adequate and appropriate planning has been completed.

                          Tax Law Enforcement


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $3,849,884,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     4,227,808,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     4,221,408,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +371,524,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -6,400,000


    This appropriation provides for the examination of tax 
returns, both domestic and international; the administrative 
and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination 
findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans; 
determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt 
status; examining tax returns of exempt organizations; 
enforcing statutes relating to detection and investigation of 
criminal violations of the internal revenue laws; collecting 
unpaid accounts; compiling statistics of income and compliance 
research; securing unfiled tax returns and payments; and 
expanded efforts to reduce overclaims and erroneous filings 
associated with the earned income tax credit.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,221,408,000 
for Tax Law Enforcement, an increase of $371,524,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $6,400,000 
below the President's request. The decrease below the 
President's request is to be taken against low priority items, 
and the Committee suggests that such items might include the 
proposed increases related to tax law enforcement related to 
exempt organizations (examinations, establishment of a contact 
unit, and other compliance issues). The bill includes up to 
$1,000,000 for research and up to $10,000,000 to reimburse the 
Social Security Administration. The Committee is pleased that 
the IRS is taking steps to pre-certify eligibility for persons 
seeking payments under the earned income tax credit (EITC), and 
that the IRS sought broad input in designing its pre-
certification process. The Committee intends to monitor these 
measures closely, and is hopeful that they will significantly 
impact the payments of billions of dollars annually in wrongful 
EITC payments.
    The Committee remains interested and concerned with the 
level of progress being made by the IRS to develop and use 
actuarial expertise and related computer software and required 
hardware to assist in audits involving tax reserves, encourages 
the IRS to further explore whether other situations might also 
benefit from this effort, and directs that the IRS continue all 
aspects of this project at no less level of support than was 
identified and provided for fiscal year 2003, $4,000,000. In 
support of this effort, a portion of these funds as well as 
prior-year funding may be used for travel as it relates to 
training, testing, and implementation requirements.

                            PATENT DONATIONS

    The Committee is encouraged by recent compliance efforts 
undertaken by the IRS to address abusive tax shelters and 
deceptive business practices in the area of patent donations. 
Consistent with e-government directives for modernization of 
its systems, the IRS should continue its investment in reliable 
and reproducible systems to detect, investigate, and quantify 
violations of the internal revenue laws in this area, and to 
collect unpaid accounts.

                      PRIVATE COLLECTION AGENCIES

    The IRS proposes to contract with the private sector for 
assistance in collecting delinquent tax debt. The Committee is 
fully supportive of proposed efforts that are in keeping with 
safeguards utilized in other federal debt collection and that 
will cost-effectively increase compliance and reduce the size 
of the budget deficit. The Committee urges the IRS to continue 
working with Congress in pursuit of these initiatives to 
improve the government's capabilities for tax debt collection 
while safeguarding taxpayer data and rights.

                          Information Systems


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $1,621,833,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     1,670,039,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     1,628,739,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +6,906,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -41,300,000


    This appropriation provides for Service-wide data 
processing support, including the evaluation, development, and 
implementation of computer systems (including software and 
hardware) requirements.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,628,739,000 
for Information Systems, an increase of $6,906,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $41,300,000 
below the President's request. The decrease below the 
President's request is for certain corporate expenses 
(-$1,300,000), legacy investments (-$5,000,000), and a portion 
of the tier III hardware/software replacements (-$5,000,000). 
The Committee has included an additional decrease of 
$30,000,000 to legacy investments.

                     Business Systems Modernization


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $363,621,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       429,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       429,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +65,379,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides for funding of the PRIME 
Systems Integration Services Contractor to modernize the 
business systems of the Internal Revenue Service.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $429,000,000 
for Business Systems Modernization, an increase of $65,379,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the 
President's request. The release of funding from this account 
is governed by the same statutory conditions that governed the 
funds appropriated into this account in previous years.

               Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $69,545,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        35,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        35,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -34,545,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides contractor support to develop 
and administer the advance payment option for the health 
insurance tax credit included in Public Law 107-210, the Trade 
Act of 2002.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000 
for health insurance tax credit administration, a decrease of 
$34,545,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request.

             GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made 
available to the IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to 
prior Congressional approval.
    Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that 
requires the IRS to maintain a training program in taxpayer's 
rights, dealing courteously with taxpayers, and cross cultural 
relations.
    Section 203. The Committee continues the provision that 
requires the IRS to institute policies and procedures, which 
will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
    Section 204. The Committee continues the provision that 
makes funds available for improved facilities and increased 
manpower to provide sufficient and effective 1-800 help line 
service for taxpayers.
    Section 205. The Committee continues the provision that 
allows the Department of the Treasury to purchase uniforms, 
insurance, and motor vehicles without regard to the general 
purchase price limitation, and enter into contracts with the 
State Department for health and medical services for Treasury 
employees in overseas locations.
    Section 206. The Committee continues with modifications a 
provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between 
Departmental Offices--Salaries and Expenses, Office of the 
Inspector General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and 
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement 
Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt appropriations under 
certain circumstances.
    Section 207. The Committee continues the provision that 
authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal 
Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration under certain circumstances.
    Section 208. The Committee continues the provision that 
prohibits the Department of the Treasury from undertaking a 
redesign of the $1 Federal Reserve note.
    Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that 
provides for transfers from and reimbursements to the Salaries 
and Expenses appropriation of the Financial Management Service 
for the purposes of debt collection.
    Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that 
requires Congressional approval for the construction and 
operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
    Section 211. The Committee includes a new provision 
establishing a permanent, indefinite appropriation to allow the 
Department of the Treasury to reimburse financial institutions 
directly for services they provide as depositaries and 
financial agents of the United States. Use of this 
appropriation will generally replace the compensating balance 
mechanism for funding these services.
    Section 212. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting contracts with certain foreign incorporated 
entities.

                       TITLE III--POSTAL SERVICE

                   Payment to the Postal Service Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $76,120,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        60,014,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        60,014,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -16,106,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    Funds provided to the Postal Service in the Payment to the 
Postal Service Fund include the costs of revenue forgone on 
free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters; 
reconciliation adjustments for amounts appropriated for free 
and reduced rate mail and the actual amounts required; and 
partial reimbursement for losses which the Postal Service 
incurred as a result of insufficient appropriations in fiscal 
years 1991 through 1993 and the additional revenues it would 
have received between 1993 and 1998 in the absence of certain 
rate phasing provisions of the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,014,000 in 
fiscal year 2004 for Payment to the Postal Service Fund, a 
decrease of $16,106,000 from amounts appropriated in fiscal 
year 2003 and the same as the President's request. Of the funds 
provided for fiscal year 2004, the Committee includes 
$29,000,000 as reimbursement for prior year shortfalls due to 
insufficient appropriations and the rate phasing provisions of 
the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993. The balance of $31,014,000 of 
fiscal year 2004 funds reflects the advance appropriation for 
free mail for the blind and overseas voters for 2004 provided 
in the Treasury and General Government appropriations act for 
fiscal year 2003. The Committee also recommends an advance 
appropriation of $36,521,000 for fiscal year 2005 for free mail 
for the blind and overseas voters, to be made available on 
October 1, 2004; this is the same amount as requested by the 
President.

                           LEVERAGED LEASING

    The Committee is aware that given its financial outlook, 
the U.S. Postal Service needs to find ways to reduce its costs. 
The Committee encourages the Postal Service to use innovative 
cost reduction techniques and has recently learned of one such 
technique currently employed in the transportation industry, 
particularly within transit agencies, referred to as leveraged 
leasing. Leveraged leases have been implemented over a variety 
of capital assets in the public transit sector, such as rolling 
stock, buses, and rail signal equipment. The Committee 
understands that overseas, similar transactions have been 
structured over an even broader range of assets, including 
postal sorting equipment.
    The Committee believes that leveraged leasing might prove 
to be an effective cost reduction tool and directs the Postal 
Service to report to the Committee, no later than 180 days 
following enactment of this act, the Postal Service's 
experience with similar transactions (if any) in the past five 
years, the Postal Service's initial evaluation of leveraged 
leasing, areas of Postal Service operations and types of 
capital assets where its use might be applicable, the 
feasibility for the Postal Service to implement a leveraged 
leasing pilot program, the estimated level of financial benefit 
that could be generated by leveraged leasing, the level of 
private sector participation in leveraged leasing, and the 
potential impact of leveraged leasing on the Postal Service's 
financial status, control and reporting responsibilities.

                        IRRADIATION OF THE MAIL

    The Committee is aware that the U.S. Postal Service, in 
order to help protect the mail from bioterrorist threats, is 
having mail destined for Federal Government operations in the 
Washington, DC area irradiated at a facility in Bridgeport, New 
Jersey. The Committee is also aware that the location of this 
facility results in delays of mail delivery, and that the 
original intended purpose of this facility, for irradiating 
materials other than mail, sometimes results in damage to the 
mail processed there. The Committee highly encourages the 
Postal Service to seek a long term solution to its mail 
irradiation requirements using a facility that is tailored to 
irradiating mail and is within or closer to the Washington, DC 
metro area. The Committee directs the Postal Service to provide 
it with a report, no later than 60 days after enactment of this 
Act, which describes the Postal Service's plan for addressing 
this issue.

                         RIVER ROUGE, MICHIGAN

    The Committee is concerned for the postal needs of the 
citizens of River Rouge, Michigan, and supports the U.S. Postal 
Service's decision to assign a high priority to the 
construction of a new postal facility there. Progress on the 
new facility has been slowed because of the freeze imposed on 
new construction and rehabilitation. The Committee encourages 
the Postal Service to continue working with the community of 
River Rouge to address the city's needs for a new facility, and 
directs the Postal Service to report to the Committee on the 
status of this facility no later than 90 days after enactment 
of this Act.

                             PAHOA, HAWAII

    The Committee is aware of concerns that the current postal 
facility in Pahoa, in the district of Puna on the Island of 
Hawaii, is inadequate to meet current needs, much less future 
needs in what is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the 
state. The Committee is also aware of concerns that the current 
structure cannot be remodeled and that a new facility must be 
built, and directs the Postal Service to report on the 
feasibility of building such a facility no later than 90 days 
after the enactment of this Act.

                            KAHULUI, HAWAII

    The Committee is concerned about the situation regarding 
the Kahului Airport Postal Facility on the Island of Maui. The 
Postal Service has already engaged in relocating principal mail 
operations from the current facility to a location closer to 
Kahului International Airport in order to make the reception 
and distribution of mail more efficient for the entire Island 
of Maui. The Committee directs the Postal Service to report on 
its plans regarding the situation at Kahului no later than 90 
days after enactment of this Act.

 TITLE IV--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
                             THE PRESIDENT

    These funds provide for the compensation of the President 
as well as official expenses of the Executive Office of the 
President, as authorized by Title 3 U.S.C.

                     Compensation of the President


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................          $450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................           450,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           450,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    These funds provide for the compensation of the President, 
including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for 
Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance 
of $50,000. These are the same as amounts appropriated for 
fiscal year 2003 and the same as requested by the President. 
The bill specifies that none of the funds for official expenses 
shall be considered as taxable to the President, and any unused 
amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C. 
1552.

                           White House Office

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $50,385,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\ \2\..............        70,268,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        66,057,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +15,672,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -4,211,000

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

\2\ Includes $8,331,000 for the Office of Homeland Security, funded in
  fiscal year 2003 under a separate appropriation.

    The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office 
supports staff and administrative services necessary for the 
direct support of the President, including costs for the 
Homeland Security Council. This account also includes 
reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $66,057,000 
for the White House Office, a reduction of $4,211,000 below the 
amounts requested by the President. The Committee's 
recommendation reduces funding for the Homeland Security 
Council (formerly the Office of Homeland Security) from 
$8,331,000 to $4,120,000, as discussed below.
    Homeland Security Council.--On October 8, 2001, the 
President signed Executive Order 13288, establishing the Office 
of Homeland Security (OHS). As identified by Executive Order 
13288, the primary responsibilities of OHS are to coordinate 
the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent, 
protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks 
within the United States. The Order established broad areas of 
functional responsibility for OHS, including the development of 
a national strategy; prioritizing and coordinating detection 
efforts; coordinating national preparedness efforts; 
coordinating prevention efforts; coordinating efforts to 
protect critical infrastructure; coordinating efforts to 
respond to and promote response and recovery; coordinating 
incident management response efforts; reviewing plans and 
preparations for the continuity of government; coordinating the 
executive branch strategy for communications and public 
affairs; encouraging the cooperation of state and local 
governments and private entities; reviewing legal authorities; 
and reviewing agency and department budgets for homeland 
security efforts. It is clear that most of these 
responsibilities have now been assumed by the Secretary of the 
Department of Homeland Security. Although the Administration 
has changed the ``Office of Homeland Security'' to the 
``Homeland Security Council'', it is not clear what work 
remains that cannot be effectively performed by the Department 
of Homeland Security. Although the Committee understands the 
President's need for policy support and advice, it is not clear 
why that would require 66 staff, given the existence and 
support of the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, 
after submission of the fiscal year 2004 budget, the 
President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board was 
eliminated. The Committee recommendation assumes savings from 
that action of $1,100,000.
    White House tours.--In the statement of the managers 
accompanying the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2003, the Committee directed the Executive Office of the 
President to report on the ``status of efforts underway to 
safely reopen public tours of the White House.'' On March 24, 
2003, the Executive Office of the President provided a cursory, 
four-sentence ``report'' that said very little about the status 
of efforts in this regard. The Committee reiterates its concern 
over the administration's apparent disinterest in resuming 
anything beyond very limited tours of the White House. In 2002, 
according to the National Park Service data, only 178,092 
visitors passed through the White House. Data through mid-May 
of this year indicates that even fewer people will tour the 
White House in 2003. (Only 43,434 had visited as of May 14th). 
Although the security considerations are certainly different 
today, the Committee notes that nearly 1 million fewer visitors 
will get to tour the White House annually under the current 
tour policy. The Committee notes that the White House has 
historically been maintained, at extra expense to taxpayers, in 
a manner befitting its role as a destination for visiting 
citizens as well as its role as the principal residence and 
office of the Chief Executive. The Committee again requests, 
within 30 days of enactment of this Act, a detailed report on 
the status of efforts to safely resume public tours of the 
White House.
    Renovations of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.--
On repeated occasions, the Committee has sought specific 
answers to questions about the use of non-federal funds for 
renovating and furnishing GSA facilities occupied by agencies 
of the Executive Office of the President. In particular, the 
Committee believes more information is needed on the use of 
non-federal funding for renovation and furnishing efforts for 
the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, for which $65,757,000 
is included in this bill. The Committee directs EOP to review 
and report on the use of non-federal funds for renovation and 
furnishings in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The 
report should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees 
on Appropriations no later than November 15, 2003, and should 
identify the federal agency that coordinated the work funded by 
non-federal sources, the specific sources and amounts of non-
federal funding used, a description of each project, and an 
explanation of why non-federal funds were used in each specific 
instance. Finally, the report should determine which agency's 
gift authority was used to accept the contribution of non-
federal funds and whether this authority was used properly. 
Given EOP's reluctance to provide information on this subject 
thus far, a provision is included in the bill prohibiting the 
obligation of more than $35,000,000 on this project until this 
report is submitted to the Congress.

                 Executive Residence at the White House

                           OPERATING EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $12,149,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................        12,501,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        12,501,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +352,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    These funds provide for the care, maintenance, and 
operation of the Executive Residence.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,501,000 
for the operating expenses of the Executive Residence, an 
increase of $352,000 from the amounts appropriated in fiscal 
year 2003 and the same as the amounts requested by the 
President. The bill includes the same restrictions on 
reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive Residence as 
were enacted for fiscal year 2003.

                   White House Repair and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $1,192,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................         4,225,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,225,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +3,033,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    To provide for the repair, alteration, and improvement of 
the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate account 
was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track 
expenditures for capital improvement projects at the Executive 
Residence at the White House.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,225,000 for 
White House Repair and Restoration, an increase of $3,033,000 
above the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as 
the amount requested by the President. These funds will finance 
the ongoing restoration of the east and west wing exterior 
($3,500,000), replacement or repair of various electrical, 
mechanical, and control system components ($530,000), and 
replacement of computer servers and backup power supplies 
($195,000).

                      Council of Economic Advisers

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $3,739,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................         4,502,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +261,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national 
economy and its various segments, advises the President on 
economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth 
and stability, appraises economic programs and policies of the 
Federal Government, and assists in preparation of the annual 
Economic Report of the President to Congress.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for 
the Council of Economic Advisers, an increase of $261,000 from 
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as 
requested by the President.

                      Office of Policy Development

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $3,230,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................         4,109,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,109,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +879,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    The Office of Policy Development supports the National 
Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying 
out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President 
in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of 
economic and domestic policy. The Office of Policy Development 
also provides support for other domestic policy development and 
implementation activities, as directed by the President.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,109,000 for 
the Office of Policy Development, an increase of $879,000 above 
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as 
requested by the President.

                       National Security Council

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $7,770,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................        10,551,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         9,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,230,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -1,551,000

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    The National Security Council advises the President on the 
integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies 
relating to national security.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 for 
the National Security Council, an increase of $1,230,000 from 
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and $1,551,000 
below the amount requested by the President.

                        Office of Administration

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $90,910,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................        77,164,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        82,826,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -8,084,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +5,662,000

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    The Office of Administration is responsible for providing 
cost-effective, administrative services to the Executive Office 
of the President. These services, defined by Executive Order 
12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel, library and 
records services, information management systems support, and 
general office services.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,826,000 
for the Office of Administration, a decrease of $8,084,000 from 
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and an increase of 
$5,662,000 above the amount requested by the President. The 
Committee's recommendation maintains funding to continue the 
core enterprise pilot program in this account (+$8,258,000) and 
acknowledges program savings for security guard services 
provided to the Office of Science and Technology Policy 
(-$1,096,000) and for information technology contract services 
provided to the Homeland Security Council (-$1,500,000).

 PILOT PROJECT ON CENTRALIZED PROCUREMENT OF COMMON GOODS AND SERVICES

    In fiscal year 2003, Congress authorized the EOP to begin a 
pilot project to determine whether economies of scale could be 
achieved through centralized procurement of certain common 
goods and services. The Committee transferred and consolidated 
funding from several EOP agencies to establish a pilot project 
for centralized procurement and management of information 
technology, rent, printing and reproduction, supplies and 
materials and equipment. To date, this project is still in the 
formative stages, and no conclusions can be drawn. For that 
reason, the Committee recommends a continuation of the project 
at this time. The Committee continues to believe that this 
activity is best suited for the Office of Administration, not 
the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, funds have been 
transferred back to this office.

                    Office of Management and Budget

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $62,394,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        77,417,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        62,772,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +378,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -14,645,000


    The Office of Management and Budget assists the President 
in the discharge of budgetary, economic, management, and other 
executive responsibilities.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,772,000 
for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), essentially the 
same as the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and 
$14,645,000 below the amount requested by the President.
    Report on competitive sourcing targets.--The statement of 
the managers accompanying the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2003 directed OMB to ``provide a report to 
the Committees on Appropriations no later than 30 days 
following the announcement of those [competitive sourcing] 
goals, targets, or quotas, specifically detailing the research 
and sound analysis that was used in reaching the decision.'' 
Although the 15 percent competitive sourcing target has been 
reiterated on several occasions since the enactment of that 
Act, OMB's position is that the reporting requirement has not 
been triggered because no new target has been announced. The 
Committee notes that the 15 percent target is government-wide, 
and separate targets could be established for individual 
agencies depending on their circumstances. To the extent that 
OMB establishes individual agency targets in its internal 
guidance, the agency is directed, within 30 days of 
establishing such targets, to submit a report to the House and 
Senate Committees on Appropriations that indicates each 
agency's competitive sourcing target. The report should 
specifically detail the research and analysis that was used in 
determining each agency's individual target, goal or quota. To 
the extent that such targets change over time, OMB is directed 
to maintain an up-to-date record of such changes and convey the 
changes periodically to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations and the appropriate legislative committees.
    Report on association dues.--The Committee directs OMB to 
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations, not later than April 1, 2004, detailing the 
amount of federal funds used by federal grantees to pay dues, 
fees, or other types of membership costs to national 
associations or other types of professional organizations.
    Core enterprise pilot project.--As discussed under ``Office 
of Administration'', the recommendation transfers $8,258,000 
back to the Office of Administration, where the project was 
funded in fiscal year 2003.
    Discretionary initiatives.--The Committee defers proposed 
discretionary initiatives, without prejudice, due to budget 
constraints. This results in a savings of $2,387,000.
    Staffing reduction.--The recommendation assumes 20 fewer 
staff years than budgeted, reflecting estimated reductions in 
fiscal year 2003 base staffing. This results in savings of 
$1,500,000.
    Reception and representation expenses.--The bill limits 
reception and representation expenses to $1,500, a reduction of 
$1,500 below the budget estimate. The Committee believes this 
will be adequate, based upon a review of spending from previous 
years.
    Office of information and regulatory affairs.--The 
Committee bill includes a reduction of $2,500,000 in proposed 
funding for the office of information and regulatory affairs.
    Program assessment rating tool.--The Committee is impressed 
with OMB's development of the program assessment rating tool 
(PART) to rate the effectiveness of federal programs. The 
Committee believes this kind of analysis is critical to 
ensuring that federal programs do not received continued 
funding simply because of inertia--that programs must 
continually justify their need for resources. In that regard, 
the Administration's efforts must be linked with the oversight 
of Congress to maximize the utility of the PART process. If the 
Administration treats as privileged or confidential the details 
of its rating process, it is less likely that Congress will use 
those results in deciding which programs to fund. The OMB 
Director testified the following before the Subcommittee this 
year:

          The PART process that we operate is very interactive 
        between OMB and the agencies at every step. It will not 
        be effective if not. We cannot be sitting there like 
        school marms passing judgment and grading everybody. 
        There has to be very much a mutuality about it * * * 
        Could we evolve quickly and further to involve Members 
        of Congress? I would open the door to that. I am very 
        excited when I trip over Members stall who want to get 
        serious about this process, and we would be glad to 
        look for ways to have that interaction as well.

    The Committee appreciates the (now-former) Director's 
testimony, and expects OMB to involve the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations in the development of PART ratings 
at all stages in the process. This involvement will be a 
significant change from past OMB practices, but the Committee 
believes the funds provided for the PART process are not well 
spent without this involvement

                 OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $26,284,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        27,290,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        28,790,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +2,506,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +1,500,000


    The Office of National Drug Control Policy, established by 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, is charged with developing 
policies, objectives and priorities for the National Drug 
Control Program as defined by the Act and Executive Order 
12880, and by the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Reauthorization Act of 1998.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,790,000 
for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), an 
increase of $2,506,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level 
and $1,500,000 above the President's request. The $1,500,000 
increase above the President's request is for the National 
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL), for which the 
President requested no funds. NAMSDL received $994,000 in 
fiscal year 2003 through this account. The bulk of the 
remaining $1,006,000 increase above the fiscal year 2003 
enacted level is for 10 additional FTE for functions previously 
performed by detailees from the Department of Defense who have 
been withdrawn. The Committee directs ONDCP to report within 
180 days of the enactment of this Act on new hires to replace 
these detailees, including (1) the number of detailees that 
have been withdrawn and the offices to which they were 
detailed; and (2) the number of hires or expected hires, the 
offices to which they will be assigned, and the pay levels at 
which they were hired or are expected to be hired.

                Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $47,688,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        40,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        40,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -7,688,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy 
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of Division C of Public 
Law 105-277), the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center 
serves as the central counterdrug research and development 
organization for the United States Government.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000 
for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, $7,688,000 
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the 
President's request. Included in the appropriation are 
$18,000,000 for counternarcotics Technology Research and 
Development, and $22,000,000 for the Technology Transfer 
Program. The Committee has included continued funding for 
neuroimaging studies and genomic research into the relationship 
between genetic predisposition and environmental factors 
bearing upon drug addiction in the amount for counternarcotics 
Technology Research and Development.

                     Federal Drug Control Programs

             High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $224,879,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       206,350,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       226,350,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,471,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +20,000,000


    The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program 
was established by the Director of ONDCP pursuant to section 
1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and now as 
reauthorized by section 707 of the Office of National Drug 
Control Policy Act of 1998 to provide assistance to Federal and 
State and local law enforcement entities operating in those 
areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $226,350,000 
for the HIDTA Program, an increase of $1,471,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $20,000,000 
above the President's request. The increase above the 
President's request is to meet requirements to fully fund 
existing HIDTA program activity, to expand existing HIDTAs 
where such expansion is justified, to fund new HIDTAs as 
appropriate, and to fund HIDTA activities through the Central 
Priority Organization Targets (CPOT) initiative, formerly known 
as the National Priority Targeting Project. The Committee 
directs that HIDTAs existing in fiscal year 2003 shall receive 
funding at least equal to the fiscal year 2003 initial 
allocation level, which does not include funding provided 
through the CPOT initiative.
    The Committee supports a vigorous HIDTA program and is 
aware of areas facing increased drug trafficking that may be 
appropriate candidates for designation as a HIDTA, inclusion in 
an existing HIDTA, or increased funding. As ONDCP reviews 
candidates for new HIDTA funding, the Committee recommends that 
it consider the following: increased funding for the Central 
Florida, Central Valley, Lake County, and Midwest (Platte and 
Madison counties, Nebraska) HIDTAs; and expansion of the 
Appalachian HIDTA (Letcher County, Kentucky). The Committee 
urges ONDCP to ensure that the Executive Board of the Southwest 
Border HIDTA treats all of its five partnerships (Arizona, 
California Border Alliance Group, New Mexico, South Texas, and 
West Texas) fairly and equitably in all of its budgeting and 
programming decisions. The Committee recognizes the strong 
pressure to add new HIDTAs and expand those currently existing, 
and underscores the need for performance-based management to 
ensure that HIDTAs demonstrating both effectiveness and need 
are provided adequate resources. The Committee wishes to 
emphasize that the HIDTA program does not exist to serve as an 
entitlement for State and local law enforcement, and that both 
performance measures and the CPOT initiative are important 
tools for maintaining the HIDTA program's proper focus on drug 
trafficking areas that have a significant national impact.

                  Other Federal Drug Control Programs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $221,749,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       250,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       230,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +8,251,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -20,000,000


    The Committee has changed the name of the Special 
Forfeiture Fund account to Other Federal Drug Control Programs 
as requested by the President, reflecting the fact that this 
account receives no forfeiture funds but only direct 
appropriations. The Special Forfeiture Fund was established by 
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, to be administered 
by the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy. 
While the fund was originally authorized to receive deposits 
from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the 
Treasury Forfeiture Fund, its current and sole source of 
funding is direct appropriations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $230,000,000 
for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, an increase of 
$8,251,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for the 
equivalent Special Forfeiture Fund account and a decrease of 
$20,000,000 from the President's request. The recommended 
appropriation includes $150,000,000 for the National Youth 
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, $70,000,000 for the Drug Free 
Communities Support Program, $4,500,000 for the Counterdrug 
Intelligence Executive Secretariat, $2,000,000 for Performance 
Measures Development, $1,500,000 for the U.S. Anti-Doping 
Agency, $1,000,000 for the National Drug Court Institute, and 
$1,000,000 for dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Within the 
amount provided for the Media Campaign, the Committee 
encourages ONDCP to explore options for using alternative media 
in schools as a way of utilizing traditional learning tools in 
non-traditional ways, such as children's books tailored with an 
anti-drug message, provided that such media can be utilized in 
a manner consistent with the goals and parameters of the Media 
Campaign.

                NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN

    The Committee's recommended appropriation of $150,000,000 
for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is an increase 
of $975,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a 
decrease of $20,000,000 from the President's request. The 
results of the ongoing evaluation of the Media Campaign, 
conducted under the auspices of the National Institute on Drug 
Abuse, continue to show no demonstrable impact on youth drug 
use as a specific result of the Media Campaign, although 
current youth drug use data show a downward trend.
    The Director of ONDCP has instituted several changes in the 
management and direction of the Media Campaign, such as 
reforming the creative/review process, ensuring the testing of 
all advertisements prior to airtime, shifting the age range 
focus toward older teens, putting a greater emphasis on the 
negative consequences of drug use, increasing the allocation of 
media buys to youth-oriented messages as opposed to parent-
oriented messages, and specifically targeting marijuana use. 
The Committee hopes that these changes will produce the 
demonstrable results that have so far failed to emerge.
    The Director has informed the Committee of his intention to 
extend the current evaluation of the Media Campaign for one 
year beyond December 2003, which is when the final report of 
the current series of data collection ``waves'' is to be 
issued. It is the Committee's understanding that the 
methodology of the evaluation, in the Director's estimation, 
fails to provide the prompt information ONDCP needs to judge 
the effectiveness of the changes that the Director has 
initiated. Specifically, the Director has identified the 
evaluation's inability to detect changes in drug use that are 
less than three percentage points in any given time period as a 
major shortcoming of the evaluation, given the changes 
inaugurated by the Director in the past year and the need to 
gauge the effect of those changes. The Committee understands 
the Director's need for prompt and usable information that is 
relevant to the management of the Media Campaign. The Committee 
also believes that without a convincing demonstration that the 
Media Campaign has had an impact on youth drug use that can be 
at least somewhat differentiated from the general trends in 
such use, any increase in funding for the Media Campaign cannot 
be justified at this time. The Committee further directs that 
the Director submit to the Committees on Appropriations an 
evaluation plan for the Media Campaign covering fiscal years 
2004-2008 no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act. 
In addition, to ensure that a minimum of Media Campaign funds 
are spent for their primary purpose, the Committee has included 
a provision requiring that no less than 77 percent of funds be 
spent on advertising time and space.

                          Unanticipated Needs

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................          $993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         1,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................            +7,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated 
exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or 
defense.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $7,000 more 
than appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and the same as the 
budget estimate.

 SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE 
                             VICE PRESIDENT

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $4,040,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         4,461,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,461,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +421,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    These funds support the official duties and functions of 
the Office of the Vice President.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,461,000 for 
the Office of the Vice President, an increase of $421,000 above 
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as 
requested by the President.

                           Operating Expenses

                     (INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................          $322,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\..................           331,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           331,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................            +9,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................

\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.

    These funds support the care and operation of the Vice 
President's residence and specifically support equipment, 
furnishings, dining facilities, and services required to 
perform and discharge the Vice President's official duties, 
functions and obligations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $331,000 for 
the Operating Expenses of the Vice President's residence, an 
increase of $9,000 above the amount enacted for fiscal year 
2003 and the same as requested by the President.

                     TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES


       architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $5,160,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         5,401,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,401,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +241,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance 
Board (the Access Board) is the lead federal agency promoting 
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was 
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992, 
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access 
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the 
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines 
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with 
rights or duties under titles II and III of the American with 
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum 
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public 
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities 
and vehicles, state and local government facilities, children's 
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board 
also provides technical assistance to government agencies, 
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses 
on the removal of accessibility barriers.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,401,000 for 
the operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers 
Compliance Board, the funding level requested by the 
administration.

                  NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $71,979,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        71,480,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        76,679,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +4,700,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +5,199,000


    Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National 
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving 
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting 
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent 
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation 
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of 
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and 
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of 
Transportation.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,679,000 
for salaries and expenses of the National Transportation Safety 
Board, an increase of $4,700,000 above the fiscal year 2003 
enacted level and $5,199,000 above the President's request. 
This includes funding to support 440 FTE and the operations of 
the NTSB Academy.

                              NTSB ACADEMY

    The NTSB Academy facility in Ashburn, Virginia is scheduled 
for completion by August 2003. NTSB has communicated to the 
Committee its intention to make the Academy self-sufficient, 
excluding capital costs, at some point in the future by relying 
on tuition, fees, rental of classroom space to other agencies, 
and other revenue-generating options, rather than direct 
appropriations. The Committee supports this intention and 
directs NTSB to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a 
proposal and timetable for making the NTSB Academy self-
sufficient in its general operations no later than 120 days 
after the enactment of this Act.

                       TRANSPORTATION SAFETY DATA

    The NTSB has called for improvements in the Department of 
Transportation's data collection programs in order to better 
monitor accident risks, support the analysis of risk factors 
and evaluate the effectiveness of accident prevention 
strategies. NTSB has issued 233 recommendations for 
improvements in data quality and analysis and the NTSB Database 
Study from September 2002 cites the need for a long-term 
program to improve the collection of data describing the 
exposure to transportation risks. Multiple databases across the 
transportation modes are currently used for accident and 
incident investigations. The Committee believes that this 
diffusion of information may constrain progress on 
transportation safety issues. The Committee therefore directs 
NTSB to report to the Committees on Appropriations on the 
required resources and projected timeframe for a comprehensive 
study to evaluate the benefits and determine the costs and 
feasibility of centralizing, streamlining, and enhancing all 
relevant transportation safety data bases. The Committee 
directs NTSB to report no later than 120 days after enactment 
of this Act.

                  DEPLOYABLE FLIGHT INCIDENT RECORDERS

    The Committee is aware of technology that makes flight data 
recorders, cockpit voice recorders, and Emergency Locator 
Transmitters more survivable and recoverable, such as through 
systems that integrate these devices into one unit combined 
with crash sensors, allowing them to eject automatically from 
an aircraft upon impact and thus delivering them safely away 
from the impact site. The Committee encourages the National 
Transportation Safety Board to investigate and consider 
recommending the incorporation of such a system into the 
commercial air traffic fleet. The Committee directs the NTSB to 
report to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this 
Act on the merits and feasibility of using such technology.

                             Emergency Fund


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................          $600,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           600,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +600,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $600,000 to 
the Emergency Fund, the same as the President's request. These 
funds are available only to the extent necessary to restore the 
fund to a balance of $2,000,000. The Committee directs that 
this fund should continue to be used only for accident 
investigation expenses when investigations would otherwise be 
hindered for lack of funding.

 COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $4,628,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         4,629,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         4,725,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................           +97,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................           +96,000


    The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or 
Severely Disabled was established by the Wagner-O'Day Act of 
1938, as amended. Its primary objective is to increase the 
employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other 
severe disabilities and, whenever possible, to prepare them to 
engage in competitive employment.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,725,000 for 
the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or 
Severely Disabled, an increase of $97,000 over the fiscal year 
2003 enacted level and an increase of $96,000 above the 
President's request to maintain current services.

                      FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $49,542,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        50,440,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        50,440,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +898,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Commission administers the disclosure of campaign 
finance information, enforces limitations on contributions and 
expenditures, supervises the public funding of Presidential 
elections, and performs other tasks related to Federal 
elections.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,440,000 
for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an increase of 
$898,000 from amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and the 
same as the President's request. The appropriated amount 
includes the requested funding to continue the implementation 
of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.

                     ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        10,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         5,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +3,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -5,000,000


    The Election Assistance Commission was established by the 
Help America Vote Act of 2002 and is charged with implementing 
provisions of that Act relating to the reform of Federal 
election administration throughout the United States, including 
the development of voluntary voting systems guidelines, the 
certification and testing of voting systems, studies of 
election administration issues, and the implementation of 
election reform payments to states as well as grant programs 
related to election reform.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for 
the Election Assistance Commission, an increase of $3,000,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level (appropriated in 
Division N of Public Law 108-007) and a decrease of $5,000,000 
from the President's request. These funds are being provided as 
a separate appropriation, consistent with Public Law 108-007, 
rather than being combined with Election Reform Programs as 
requested by the President. The Committee to date has received 
no justification for the President's request for the 
Commission, but has provided funding for the eventuality of the 
Commission's establishment.

                        Election Reform Programs


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $833,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       490,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       495,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      -338,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +5,000,000


    This appropriation provides for election reform 
requirements payments to states under Section 127 of the Help 
America Vote Act of 2002, as well as other grant programs 
authorized by that Act.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,000,000 
for Election Reform Programs, a decrease of $338,000,000 from 
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of 
$5,000,000 above the President's request. Funds for Election 
Reform Programs for fiscal year 2003 were provided in Division 
N of Public Law 108-007, and these funds will remain available 
in fiscal year 2004. The Committee notes that the expenditure 
of these funds remains contingent upon the establishment of the 
Election Assistance Commission, and urges the Administration to 
move swiftly to establish this Commission once nominations have 
been approved, in order that states and localities may receive 
funds in a timely fashion to move forward with mandated reforms 
for the 2004 Federal election cycle. The Committee also 
encourages the Help America Vote Foundation, for which funds 
were provided in Public Law 108-007, to enter into a 
cooperative agreement with Kids Voting USA in order to promote 
increased civic involvement and voter turnout.

                   FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY


                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $28,762,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        29,611,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        29,611,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +849,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), established 
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, serves as a neutral 
party in the settlement of disputes that arise between unions, 
employees, and agencies on matters outlined in the Federal 
Service Labor Management Relations statute, decides major 
policy issues, prescribes regulations, and disseminates 
information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor 
organizations, and the public. Establishment of the FLRA gives 
full recognition to the role of the Federal Government as an 
employer. Pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1980, FLRA 
also supports the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel and 
the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,611,000 
for the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), an increase 
of $849,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request.

                      FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION

                         SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $16,591,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        18,471,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        18,471,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,880,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in 
1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the 
regulation of shipping in the foreign trades of the United 
States. Specifically, the Commission protects shippers, 
carriers and others engaged in the foreign commerce of the U.S. 
from restrictive rules and regulations of foreign governments 
and from the practices of foreign-flag carriers that have an 
adverse effect on shipping in U.S. trades; investigates, upon 
its own motion or upon filing of a complaint, discriminatory, 
unfair, or unreasonable rates, charges, classifications, and 
practices of ocean common carriers, terminal operators, and 
freight forwarders operating in the foreign commerce of the 
U.S.; receives agreements among ocean common carriers or marine 
terminal operators and monitors them to assure that they are 
not substantially anticompetitive or otherwise violate the 
Shipping Act of 1984; reviews tariff publications under the 
access and accuracy standards of the Shipping Act of 1984; 
regulates rates, charges, classifications, rules, and 
regulations contained in tariffs of carriers controlled by 
foreign governments and operating in U.S. trades to ensure that 
such matters are just and reasonable; licenses U.S.-based 
international ocean transportation intermediaries; and issues 
passenger vessel certificates showing evidence of financial 
responsibility of vessel owners or charterers to pay judgments 
for personal injury or death or to repay fares for the 
nonperformance of a voyage or cruise.
    While the Commission's jurisdiction encompasses many facets 
of the maritime industry, it has no jurisdiction over vessel 
operations, navigation, vessel construction, vessel 
documentation, vessel inspection, licensing of seafaring 
personnel, or the maintenance of navigational aids or dredging. 
The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the 
Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq), the Foreign 
Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq), 
and section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 app. 876).

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,471,000 
for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), an increase of 
$1,880,000 (11.33 percent) above the fiscal year 2003 
appropriation and equal to the budget request. This 
considerable increase is intended to fund significant 
information technology improvements, a workforce of 137 full 
time equivalent staff years, and provide for unexpected rent 
escalations. The Committee supports and recognizes FMC's use of 
information technology and encourages continued, effective 
development in this regard. While substantial information 
technology improvements are long overdue, the Committee 
believes that savings can be realized through the consolidation 
and integration of many of the FMC's proposed technology 
initiatives. The FMC is directed to submit a report to the 
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than 
November 30, 2003, summarizing the FMC's current information 
technology improvement initiatives and long-term technology 
improvement plan. Specifically, the Committee is interested in 
the FMC's ability to realize greater efficiency through 
interoperability among the many technology needs of its 
offices.

                    GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

                         Federal Buildings Fund

Appropriations:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.....................        $373,269,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004................         217,000,000
    Recommended in the bill.........................         247,350,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.................        -125,919,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004................         +30,350,000
Limitations on Availability of Revenue
    Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003         (6,567,332,000)
 enacted to date....................................
    Limitation on availability, budget estimate,         (6,634,193,000)
 fiscal year 2004...................................
    Recommended in the bill.........................     (6,557,518,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to            (-9,814,000)
 date...............................................
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004              (-76,675,000)
 estimate...........................................


    The Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) finances the activities of 
the Public Buildings Service, which provides space and services 
for federal agencies in a relationship similar to that of 
landlord and tenant. The FBF, established in 1975, replaces 
direct appropriations by using income derived from rent 
assessments, which approximate commercial rates for comparable 
space and services. The Congress makes funds available through 
a process of placing limitations on obligations from the FBF as 
a way of allocating funds for various FBF activities. The 
Congress may also appropriate funds into the FBF as a way of 
covering the difference between the total revenues coming into 
the FBF and the total limitation on the expenditure from the 
FBF.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of 
$247,350,000 into the Federal Buildings Fund, a decrease of 
$125,919,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an 
increase of $30,350,000 above the President's request.

                      Construction and Acquisition


Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
 appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted      ($717,488,000)
 to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal        (400,568,000)
 year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill.............................       (406,168,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to          (-311,320,000)
 date...............................................
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004               (+5,600,000)
 estimate...........................................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $406,168,000 for 
construction and acquisition, a decrease of $311,320,000 below 
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of 
$5,600,000 above the President's request. Changes to the 
President's request include an increase of $10,600,000 for 
building purchase and relocation costs associated with 
providing additional office space in an annex adjacent to the 
Elbert P. Tuttle building in Atlanta, Georgia, and decreases of 
$4,000,000 for the Champlain Border Station (these funds were 
provided for fiscal year 2003) and $1,000,000 for non-
prospectus construction.

                        COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION

    The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 did not 
include any funds for courthouse construction. While the 
Committee notes that it was able to provide $392,364,000 in 
funds for 12 courthouse construction projects for the current 
fiscal year, the Committee is unable to include any courthouse 
construction funding in its recommendation for fiscal year 2004 
due to budget constraints. The Committee is aware of the needs 
identified by the Administrative Office of the Courts in its 
most recent 5-year plan, which totals almost $1 billion worth 
of courthouse construction projects ready to be awarded in 
fiscal year 2004. The Committee appreciates the actions of the 
courts to submit a priority ranking of courthouse construction 
project needs to the Committee and, without negating its 
continued concerns regarding courthouse project costs, 
reiterates its intention to follow this priority ranking in its 
future recommendations and its expectation that this ranking is 
sufficiently robust to accurately reflect all security concerns 
as well as any extenuating circumstances.

                      CHATTANOOGA, TN, COURTHOUSE

    The Committee understands that GSA and the City of 
Chattanooga have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding 
concerning a site for a new courthouse and that the city has 
exercised an option on the property and begun an environmental 
assessment. The Committee notes that this progress will allow 
the project to adhere to the dates set by the Five-Year 
Courthouse Project Plan, which reflects priorities approved by 
the Judicial Conference of the United States. GSA is urged to 
keep this project on schedule with site acquisition and design 
slated for fiscal year 2005 and construction in fiscal year 
2007. As part of the overall effort, the existing Solomon 
Building is to be renovated and used by the U.S. Bankruptcy 
Court currently in leased space. The Committee, therefore, 
directs GSA to begin any necessary preliminary studies and 
plans so that the repairs to the existing building can move 
forward in a timely fashion to best serve the needs of the U.S. 
Bankruptcy Court.

                    AMBASSADOR BRIDGE BORDER STATION

    The President has proposed providing $25,387,000 for 
completing a construction project for expanded inspection 
facilities at Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, MI. Ambassador 
Bridge is the busiest international commercial crossing in 
North America, and these improvements are much needed to speed 
commerce, improve safety, and enhance security. Consequently, 
the Committee fully supports the President's request for this 
project and directs GSA to move ahead in a timely and effective 
way. The Committee urges GSA not to delay the project for 
enhancing federal inspection booths, providing additional truck 
parking facilities at the bridge, constructing office space for 
new inspectors, and assisting the implementation of the gateway 
highway project designed to connect major access highways in 
Detroit to the Ambassador Bridge and facilitate the flow of 
truck traffic across the bridge.
    The Committee directs GSA to immediately work with the 
Homeland Security inspection services, the appropriate highway 
administrations, and the Ambassador Bridge Corporation to 
resolve any outstanding issues regarding facility enhancements 
and to move immediately to ensure that the much-needed 
improvements are made quickly, including all steps necessary to 
implement critical interim improvements. These improvements 
must allow the Homeland Security bureaus to fulfill their 
obligations to protect the country and facilitate trade. GSA is 
also directed to take all steps necessary to expedite the 
implementation of integrated border inspection areas, such as 
reverse inspection sites, at the Ambassador Bridge once 
agreements have been reached between the United States and 
Canada and operational details established by the respective 
border agencies.

              EL PASO, TX, BRIDGE AND INSPECTION FACILITY

    The Committee remains interested in plans concerning a new 
international bridge and related border inspection facilities 
at Fabens, near El Paso, in Texas. On March 27, 2003, the Texas 
Transportation Commission gave approval to El Paso County to 
proceed with the Presidential Permit application process, and 
GSA has been asked by the Department of State to review the 
application and submit its comments by June 30, 2003. In 
conjunction with the U.S. review, a review of the application 
by the Mexican government is progressing.
    The Committee urges GSA to continue working closely with 
the federal inspection service agencies through the Border 
Station Partnership Council on capital investments plans to 
ensure that it appropriately incorporates the anticipated needs 
at Fabens. GSA is encouraged to proceed with the necessary 
planning studies once a permit has been issued and to seek 
design authorization and funding at that time.

                        Repairs and Alterations


Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
 appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted      ($951,529,000)
 to date.............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal      (1,012,729,000)
 year 2004...........................................
Recommended in the bill..............................    (1,010,454,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to date      (+58,925,000)
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004               (-2,275,000)
 estimate............................................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,010,454,000 for 
repairs and alterations, an increase of $58,925,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $2,275,000 
below the President's request. Changes to the President's 
request include an increase of $6,725,000 in design funds for 
altering two buildings adjacent to the Elbert P. Tuttle 
building in Atlanta, Georgia, to provide additional office 
space and a decrease of $9,000,000 for repairing the Rogers 
building in Denver, Colorado (these funds were provided for 
fiscal year 2003).

                     REPAIRS AND ALTERATION BUDGET

    The Committee is concerned about the long-term implications 
of the repair status of Federal buildings. Despite a 
significant repair and alteration budget requested by the 
President, GSA has responded to the Committee in questions for 
the record (1) that the current size of the repair workload 
inventory is $5.6 billion (up from $4 billion for FY 1999), (2) 
that the Federal Buildings Fund cannot produce sufficient 
revenues from building rents to meet all of these requirements, 
and (3) that 1,190 buildings out of a total of 1,900 buildings 
in the inventory have clearly identified repair needs. (Of 
these, 875 buildings have repair needs below the prospectus 
threshold requirement of about $2 million, while 315 buildings 
have repair needs above the prospectus requirement.)
    One of the long-term consequences of this continuing 
massive backlog of repair needs is that as building conditions 
worsen, tenant agencies vacate the space and the asset becomes 
an even greater drain on the other revenue-generating buildings 
in the inventory. For instance, GSA reports that for fiscal 
year 2003 it will spend $13.6 million for operating expenses in 
non-performing assets available for disposal. This rise in the 
amount of vacant space is addressed in another part of this 
report.
    The redesigned portfolio strategy and its focus on the 
disposal of unneeded and non-performing assets will help 
improve the physical shape of the buildings in the inventory 
and the financial position of the Federal Buildings Fund. The 
Committee further directs that of the total funds made 
available for the basic repairs and alteration program, 
$1,300,000 is to be immediately spent on acquiring the parking 
lot adjacent to and behind the Solomon Courthouse in 
Chattanooga, TN, in advance of further repair and alteration 
requirements being sought for this building.

                    Installment Acquisition Payments


Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
 appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted      ($178,960,000)
 to date..............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal        (169,745,000)
 year 2004............................................
Recommended in the bill...............................     (169,745,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to date.      (-9,215,000)
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 estimate  ................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $169,745,000 for 
installation acquisition payments, a decrease of $9,215,000 
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the 
President's request.

                            Rental of Space


Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
 appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted    ($3,113,211,000)
 to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal      (3,388,187,000)
 year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill.............................     (3,308,187,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to          (+194,976,000)
 date...............................................
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004              (-80,000,000)
 estimate...........................................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $3,308,187,000 for 
rental of space, an increase of $194,976,000 above the fiscal 
year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $80,000,000 below the 
President's request.
    The Committee finds it disappointing that the GSA abandoned 
several leases in the Savannah, Georgia, area mid-term rather 
than allowing those leases to expire as prescribed in the lease 
agreements. The Committee is concerned that such actions caused 
the GSA to waste taxpayer money and incur unnecessary costs 
when the leases were prematurely terminated and new properties 
were leased.
    The Committee requests that the GSA investigate how the 
decisions were made and on what basis. The GSA investigation 
should report back to the Committee the results of the 
investigation and should determine:
     The total cost of the GSA's actions in terminating 
the leases.
     The total cost GSA and other government agencies 
incurred when new properties were leased.

                          Building Operations


Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
 appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted    ($1,526,459,000)
 to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal      (1,608,708,000)
 year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill.............................     (1,608,708,000)
Bill compared with:
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to           (+82,249,000)
 date...............................................
    Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004         ..................
 estimate...........................................


                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,608,708,000 for 
building operations, an increase of $82,249,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's 
request. The Committee notes that this activity used to fund 
the Federal Protective Service, which has been transferred from 
GSA to the Department of Homeland Security.

                              VACANT SPACE

    On April 2, 2003, the Committee held a hearing on the cost 
drivers of the Federal buildings program of GSA. GSA controls 
about 335 million square feet of space, roughly 10 percent of 
the total Federal property inventory and 40 percent of Federal 
office space. It provides workspace for almost one million 
Federal employees in about 2,000 Federally owned buildings and 
in 6,400 leased locations. A variety of factors have 
contributed to a steady increase in costs associated with these 
buildings.
    The Committee is particularly concerned about the amount of 
vacant space included in the GSA inventory of Federal property. 
For fiscal year 2002, GSA has estimated that more than 26 
million square feet of its inventory--about 7.8 percent of its 
total inventory--did not generate any revenue and about 3.5 
percent was vacant. The bulk of this non-revenue-generating 
space is in its inventory of owned buildings (about 21 million 
square feet, or about 11.8 percent of the total owned 
inventory). This is a sizeable number, which appears to have 
grown substantially over the past decade.
    The consistently large amount of non-revenue-generating 
space in GSA's inventory warrants serious attention and creates 
substantial costs. In responses to questions asked by this 
Committee, GSA estimated that during fiscal year 2003 it will 
spend $13.6 million in operating expenses for 73 non-performing 
assets (containing about 3 million square feet) made available 
for disposal. These 73 assets represent 46 percent of the total 
non-performing assets (159) that were more than 40 percent 
vacant at the start of fiscal year 2003 and 42 percent of the 
total non-performing assets (172) that were more than 20 
percent vacant as of May 2003.
    The Committee is familiar with many of the reasons that 
have contributed to the size and growth of the unused inventory 
(such as changing space needs and workforce requirements as 
well as a lack of modern tools for managing the portfolio). One 
of the contributing factors is that many Federal buildings in 
the inventory are old (the average age is about 50 years) and 
in serious need of repair. Insufficient revenues have gone to 
keeping these buildings in good shape, and their dilapidated 
conditions have contributed to agency tenants relocating and 
abandoning specific buildings.
    The Committee directs GSA to provide a report to the House 
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of the 
enactment of this Act that describes its action plan for 
reducing the amount of truly vacant and non-performing assets 
in its inventory. The action plan shall fully describe the 
current building inventory, any actions needed to improve its 
data, and assign responsibilities for inventory improvements 
and maintenance. The action plan shall include a timeline with 
specific milestones and targeted performance measures for 
determining progress towards reducing vacancies and non-
performing assets. The action plan shall define the roles and 
responsibilities within GSA for adhering to the plan. The 
action plan shall note those factors external to GSA and the 
Public Building Service important to the effort and the 
relevant responsible parties.

                    USGS COASTAL AND MARINE FACILITY

    The Committee remains interested in ongoing deliberations 
between GSA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the 
University of California at Santa Cruz concerning plans to 
establish a Pacific Science Center in Santa Cruz, California. 
The Committee understands that the most viable alternative at 
this time for establishing such a center at the University 
involves GSA entering into a long-term lease for a facility to 
house the USGS coastal and marine program and to be built and 
owned by the University. The Committee encourages GSA to pursue 
the lease option with the appropriate Committees of 
jurisdiction with all speed, directs GSA to continue working 
with all interested parties, and expects GSA to fully assist 
the USGS in the development, planning, design, environmental 
reviews, and other facility-related aspects associated with the 
science center.
    The Committee understands independent investigations of MCI 
WorldCom have led GSA into a current investigation of the 
company. This investigation is a result of the largest 
corporate fraud in American history, constituting an $11 
billion misstatement of profits, and the disclosures by KPMG 
and Bankruptcy Examiner Richard Thornburgh that adequate 
internal controls are still not in place at MCI WorldCom. On 
July 17, 2003, the Committee met with the General Services 
Administration (GSA) to discuss the issue of MCI WorldCom's 
fitness to receive federal government contracts. At that time, 
the GSA agreed to complete a full investigation of MCI WorldCom 
within weeks.
    The Committee instructs the GSA to complete its internal 
investigation and provide a detailed report to the Committee 
outlining MCI WorldCom's status on federal contracts by August 
30, 2003. This detailed report should comment specifically on 
the GSA stated debarment and suspension regulations that 
require contractors to have a credible ``record of business 
integrity and business ethics, necessary organization, 
accounting and operational controls.'' The report must also 
specifically evaluate MCI WorldCom's ability to provide audited 
financial statements by certified accountants. Depending on the 
results of the investigation, the Committee expects GSA to 
outline specific actions it will take to ensure federal 
agencies are safeguarded from any potential liability that 
could arise from an agency's present or future contracts with 
MCI WorldCom and to also report these plans to the Committee by 
August 30, 2003.
    The Committee also suggests the GSA immediately and 
formally contact all federal agencies to alert the agencies 
that a formal investigation is being conducted into MCI 
WorldCom.
    The Committee also directs the General Accounting Office to 
perform a detailed study of GSA's treatment to date of MCI 
WorldCom. The study is to explain GSA's actions over the last 
year since MCI WorldCom's fraud was first disclosed and explain 
why GSA has failed to suspend MCI WorldCom. The study should 
also consider what precedent GSA's treatment of WorldCom has 
set and what impact it has had on the larger telecommunications 
industry.
    The Committee expects GSA to comply with these reporting 
requirements by the dates specified and, if necessary, the 
Committee will revisit the issue in future action.

                           GENERAL ACTIVITIES

                      Policy and Citizen Services

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $65,873,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................  ................
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       -65,873,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriations account provides for Government-wide 
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management 
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative 
services; Government-wide policy support responsibilities 
relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information 
technology management, and related technology activities; 
providing Internet access to Federal information and services; 
and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends no appropriation for Policy and 
Citizen Services, a decrease of $65,873,000 below the fiscal 
year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's 
request. The Committee notes that the mission and functions of 
this account are proposed to be provided through other GSA 
accounts.

                         Governmentwide Policy

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       $74,031,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        56,383,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +56,383,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -17,648,000


    This appropriations account provides for Government-wide 
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management 
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative 
services; Government-wide policy support responsibilities 
relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information 
technology management, and related technology activities; and 
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,383,000 
for Governmentwide Policy, an increase of $56,383,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $17,648,000 
below the President's request. Decreases to the President's 
request include $12,250,000 for Government-wide Interagency 
Council Support (the Committee recommends maintaining the 
general provision through which these functions were supported 
for the current and prior years), $2,500,000 for the Federal 
Enterprise Architecture (previously supported through funds 
made available through the same general provision), $2,120,000 
for the extensible markup language registry, and $778,000 for 
the E-Travel/Governmentwide Travel Management Office.
    The Committee notes that several of these disallowed items 
had been supported in past years through a different funding 
mechanism--a general provision proposed to be deleted by the 
President for fiscal year 2004--and that the Committee 
recommends that this provision be continued. While continuation 
of this general provision allows the Administration some 
flexibility in determining which efforts might receive support 
during fiscal year 2004, the Committee has serious concerns and 
reservations about several of the efforts as described in GSA's 
budget justification and through responses to Committee 
questions and expects the administration will fully review 
these and all efforts before assigning any fiscal year 2004 
funds made available through the general provision.

                          GSA TRAVEL SERVICES

    The GSA budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes a 
proposed increase of $2,778,000 in this account for eTravel and 
a governmentwide travel management office. The Committee 
funding recommendation for this account expressly denies a 
portion of this increase. In addition, the Committee includes a 
new general provision for GSA that prohibits the use of any 
funds in the Act for a mandatory purpose, if exclusive of 
exceptions, specifically included in the proposed increase.
    The proposed increase would be used in part to establish a 
standard booking engine as well as a consistent travel and 
voucher system for the Federal Government. Use of this standard 
booking engine and travel and voucher system would be made 
mandatory for all agencies, raising serious questions 
concerning competition within the private sector and its impact 
on small businesses. This competition concern is exacerbated by 
the fact that the eTravel Service procurement could result in a 
single Computer Reservation System/Global Distribution System, 
which may seriously impact the ability of small businesses to 
gain government business. In addition, GSA has not issued final 
eTravel standards and guidance; the eTravel Service project has 
not been verified or validated.
    The recent evolution of the activities of the General 
Service Administration has been from mandatory to optional 
participation on the part of agencies. A prime example has been 
the offering of long-distance telephone service, in which 
previously all agencies were required to participate in the GSA 
contract. Now, agency participation in the GSA-operated long-
distance telephone contract is optional. This has forced GSA to 
be cost conscious in its long-distance service contract and has 
contributed to substantial savings throughout the government. 
Similarly, the multiple award schedules have encouraged price 
competition among vendors, allowed broad private-sector 
business participation, and led to significant cost reductions 
on a voluntary basis throughout the Federal Government. The 
Committee applauds these developments and their impacts on 
competition and urges GSA to continue stressing agency choices 
and options in its services.

                    GSA SENIOR FEDERAL TRAVEL REPORT

    The Committee is concerned regarding the data contained in 
and public availability of the GSA Senior Federal Travel 
Report. OMB circular A-126 requires all agencies that use 
government aircraft to report to GSA semi-annually on all non-
mission travel by senior federal officials. These reports are 
to include the name of each such traveler, the official purpose 
of the trip, destination(s), and under certain circumstances 
the appropriate allocation of the full operating cost and the 
corresponding commercial cost. While GSA is afforded some 
leeway in establishing and revising the specific format of the 
data, the agencies themselves are required to maintain specific 
documentation regarding the tail number of each plane used, the 
date(s) of each trip, the purpose(s) of the flight, the 
route(s) flown, and the names of all passengers on the trip. 
The Committee cautions GSA to maintain effective and 
appropriate data standards that allow for consistent and 
continuing analysis of government aircraft usage. In addition, 
the Committee notes with alarm that several agencies failed to 
initially submit any data for the reporting periods between 
October 2001 and September 2002. The Committee directs GSA to 
continue its semi-annual reporting of these data, capturing all 
the data elements that are critical to monitoring the use of 
government-owned aircraft by senior federal officials. These 
reports, including an accounting of all agencies that refuse to 
comply with reporting requirements, should be made publicly 
available.

                           Operating Expenses


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $72,027,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        85,083,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        79,110,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +7,083,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -5,973,000


    This appropriations account provides for Government-wide 
activities associated with the utilization and donation of 
surplus personal property; disposal of real property; 
telecommunications, information technology management, and 
related technology activities; agency-wide policy direction and 
management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other 
support services; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and 
other related operational expenses.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $79,110,000 
for Operating Expenses, an increase of $7,083,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $5,973,000 
from the President's request. Changes to the request level 
include a decrease of $5,450,000 in savings realized by the 
non-recurrence of five fiscal year 2002 items (disallowed as 
part of the final fiscal year 2003 deliberations but whose 
funding was retained in the President's request for fiscal year 
2004) and a reduction of $1,123,000 associated with the 
President's pending proposal to integrate the benefits and 
administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act 
(also disallowed as part of the final fiscal year 2003 
deliberations, but the funding for which was retained in the 
President's request for fiscal year 2004). Changes to the 
request level also include an increase of $600,000 as a 
transfer to Web Wise Kids to further implement an out-of-school 
time Internet safety program. The Committee directs the General 
Services Administration to transfer, within available funds, 
$250,000 to the New York Historical Society for exhibitions on 
the enslaved north.

                      Office of Inspector General


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $37,670,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        39,169,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        39,169,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,499,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and 
investigative functions to identify and correct GSA management 
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for 
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and 
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit and 
contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional 
advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial 
matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration, 
repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review 
and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test 
internal control systems, and develop information to improve 
operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The 
investigative function provides for the detection and 
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving GSA 
programs, personnel, and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,169,000 
for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,499,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the 
President's request.

                       Electronic Government Fund


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $4,968,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        45,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -3,968,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -44,000,000


    The appropriation provides support for interagency 
Electronic Government (E-Gov) initiatives that utilize the 
Internet or other electronic methods as a means to increase 
Federal Government accessibility, efficiency, and productivity.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for 
the electronic government fund, a decrease of $3,968,000 below 
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of 
$44,000,000 below the President's request.

           Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $3,317,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         3,393,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         3,393,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................           +76,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions, 
office staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents 
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and 
Bill Clinton and for pension and postal franking privileges for 
the widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, this 
appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and 
travel related expenses for each former President and the 
spouse of a former President pursuant to Section 531 of Public 
Law 103-329.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,393,000 for 
allowances and office staff of former Presidents, an increase 
of $76,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the 
same as the President's request. The following table describes 
the distribution of the funds:

                    FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Ford     Carter    Reagan     Bush     Clinton   Widows     Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Compensation.....................        96        96        96        96       113         0       497
Personnel Benefits........................        24         6        34        52        56         0       172
Benefits for Former Presidents............       175       175       175       175       180        20       900
Travel....................................        50         2         2        55        41         0       150
Rental Payments to GSA....................       120       120       145       174       445         0       986
Communications, Utilities and
 Miscellaneous Charges:
    Telephone.............................        20        25        26        14        72         0       157
    Postage...............................        18        20        10        14        10         2        74
Printing..................................         4         5        12        14         8         0        43
Other Services............................        10        62        26        67       138         0       303
Supplies and Materials....................        16         6        13        13        17         0        65
Equipment.................................         2         9         2        14        19         0        46
                                           ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Obligations...................       535       508       541       688     1,099        22     3,393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          GENERAL PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

    Section 501. The Committee continues the provision that 
provides that costs included in rent received from government 
corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep, 
repair and improvement shall be credited to the Federal 
Buildings Fund.
    Section 502. The Committee continues the provision 
providing authority for the use of funds for the hire of motor 
vehicles.
    Section 503. The Committee continues the provision, with 
technical modification, providing that funds made available for 
activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred 
between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress.
    Section 504. The Committee continues the provision, with 
technical modification, prohibiting the use of funds for 
developing courthouse construction requests that do not meet 
GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial Conference.
    Section 505. The Committee continues the provision 
providing that no funds may be used to increase the amount of 
occupiable square feet, provide cleaning services, security 
enhancements, or any other service usually provided, to any 
agency which does not pay the requested rent.
    Section 506. The Committee continues the provision 
providing for Information Technology Fund repayment from 
sponsored projects that realize program savings.
    Section 507. The Committee continues the provision that 
permits GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) made against 
the government.
    Section 508. The Committee includes a new provision 
limiting the use of funds by GSA to develop or implement a 
mandatory system for federal agencies with respect to 
electronic travel services unless the system allows exceptions. 
This limitation is extended to the Department of 
Transportation.
    Section 509. The Committee includes a new provision giving 
the General Services Administration temporary authority to 
distribute election reform funds under Title II, subtitle D of 
the Help America Vote Act.
    Section 510. The Committee includes a new provision 
relating to the establishment of a quick response team 
processing center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.

                     MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $31,819,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        35,503,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        32,877,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,058,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        -2,626,000


    The Merit Systems Protection Board performs the 
adjudicatory functions necessary to maintain the civil service 
merit system. These include hearing appeals on adverse actions, 
reduction-in-force actions, and retirement. The Board reports 
to the President on whether merit systems are sufficiently free 
from prohibited personnel practices to protect the public 
interest.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,877,000 
for the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an increase of 
$787,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and 
a decrease of $2,626,000 below the President's request. The 
decrease from the President's request reflects the Committee's 
decision to continue the practice of appropriating funds to 
MSPB from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund 
rather than discontinuing this practice as requested by the 
President; this request has not been adequately justified. The 
Committee has instead made available the amount of no more than 
$2,626,000 for adjudicated appeals through an appropriation 
from the trust fund consistent with past practice.

 MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL 
                           POLICY FOUNDATION


 Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 
                           Policy Trust Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $1,983,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................           372,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,300,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          -683,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................          +928,000


    Public Law 102-259 established the Morris K. Udall 
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy 
Trust Fund. Federal payments to that fund are invested in 
Treasury securities. Interest earnings from the investments are 
used to carry out the activities of the Morris K. Udall 
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy 
Foundation. The Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships, 
and grants and funds activities of the Udall Center for Studies 
in Public Policy. Public Law 106-568 (section 817) established 
the Native Nations Institute as part of the Morris K. Udall 
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy 
Foundation. The purpose of the Native Nations Institute is to 
provide management and leadership training to Native American 
tribal leaders.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends $1,300,000 for the activities of 
the Morris K. Udall Foundation, a decrease of $683,000 below 
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $928,000 
above the President's request. The Committee includes, as 
proposed, bill language specifying that $100,000 shall be used 
to conduct financial audits. The Committee also modifies bill 
language to allow a higher percentage of the appropriation to 
be used for the Native Nations Institute.

                 Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $1,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................           700,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,300,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................  ................
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................          +600,000


    Public Law 105-156 established the United States Institute 
for Environmental Conflict Resolution as part of the Morris K. 
Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental 
Policy Foundation. It also established in the Treasury an 
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to be available to 
establish and operate the Institute. The purpose of the 
Institute is to conduct environmental conflict resolution and 
training.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,300,000 for 
the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, the same as the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $600,000 
above the President's request.

              NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION

                           Operating Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $248,251,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       294,105,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       255,191,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +6,940,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       -38,914,000


    This appropriations provides the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA) with funds for its basic 
operations dealing with management of the Government's archives 
and records, operation of Presidential libraries, and for the 
review for declassification of classified security information.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $255,191,000 
for the operating expenses of NARA, an increase of $6,940,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of 
$38,914,000 below the President's request. The decrease from 
the request is mainly a reflection of the creation of a new 
account for the electronic records archive. In addition to the 
decrease associated with the new account, the Committee 
recommends a further reduction of $3,000,000 from the 
President's request. The Committee has resisted identifying 
specific items in the request that are not to be funded in 
order to allow NARA some flexibility in managing its operating 
expenses, but would note that several proposed current and new 
items (such as development of a ``hot'' site, expansion of 
records services staff, and certain information technology 
efforts) appear to be of less priority. In this regard, the 
Committee directs NARA to report back to the House and Senate 
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the enactment of 
this Act on how it intends to achieve this reduction. In 
addition, the Committee encourages NARA to continue working 
closely with the private sector in the focused review and 
appropriate modification of standards for the storage of 
Federal records.

                       Electronic Records Archive

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................  ................
Recommended in the bill...............................       $35,914,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................       +35,914,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................       +35,914,000


    The electronic records archive appropriations supports all 
direct NARA actions and activities associated with this major 
project for preserving digitally created records for archival 
purposes, storing and managing them electronically, and 
ensuring appropriate long-term access. The appropriation 
supports a program office, research partnerships, and 
information technology analysis and design.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,914,000 
for the electronic records archive of the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA), an increase of $35,914,000 above 
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of 
$35,914,000 above the President's request. This function had 
been funded in past years as part of the operating expense 
account of NARA; this function received $13,614,000 for fiscal 
year 2003, and the President's request for fiscal year 2004 was 
$35,914,000 for this effort in that account. By placing the 
funding for this effort in a separate account, the Committee 
raises the visibility and strengthens the financial structure, 
accountability, management, and oversight of the electionic 
records archive project. A portion of the funds, $22,000,000, 
is made available for three years.

            ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVE (ERA) PROJECT ACTIONS

    The Committee urges NARA to further strengthen its ERA 
management capabilities by fully implementing an information 
technology investment management process, developing and 
refining an enterprise architecture, improving information 
security, and fully and appropriately staffing the ERA effort. 
As stated in the Committee's report for fiscal year 2003, NARA 
is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations quarterly reports on the cost, schedule, and 
performance of the ERA project. These quarterly reports should 
provide information on the status of the project's schedule, 
budget, and expenditures as measured against a reported 
baseline; a prioritization of project risks and their 
mitigation efforts; and corrective actions taken to manage 
identified schedule slippages, cost overruns, or quality 
problems should they occur.

                        Repairs and Restoration

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $14,116,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         6,458,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         6,458,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -7,658,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides for the repair, alteration, and 
improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries 
nationwide. It enables the National Archives to maintain its 
facilities in proper condition for visitors, researchers, and 
employees, and also maintain the structural integrity of the 
buildings.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,458,000 for 
repairs and restoration, a decrease of $7,658,000 below the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's 
request.

        National Historical Publications and Records Commission

                             Grants Program

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $6,458,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         5,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        10,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +3,542,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................        +5,000,000


    This program provides for grants funding that the 
Commission makes, nationwide, to preserve and publish records 
that document American history. Administered within the 
National Archives and Records Administration, which preserves 
Federal records, the NHPRC helps state, local, and private 
institutions preserve non-Federal records, helps publish the 
papers of major figures in American history, and helps 
archivists and records managers improve their techniques, 
training, and ability to serve a range of information users.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000 
for the National Historical Publications and Research 
Commission grants program, an increase of $3,542,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $5,000,000 
above the President's request.

                      OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $10,488,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        10,738,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        10,738,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................          +250,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), established by the 
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, provides overall direction of 
executive branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of 
interest and insure high ethical standards. The OGE discharges 
its responsibilities to preserve and promote public confidence 
in the integrity of executive branch officials by developing 
rules and regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, post 
employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and 
confidential financial disclosure in the executive branch. It 
monitors compliance with public and confidential financial 
disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 
and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, to determine possible 
violations of applicable laws or regulations and recommending 
appropriate corrective action. OGE also consults with and 
assists various officials in evaluating the effectiveness of 
applicable laws and the resolution of individual problems, and 
prepares formal advisory opinions, informal letter opinions, 
policy memoranda, and Federal Register entries on how to 
interpret and comply with the requirements on conflicts of 
interest, post employment, standards of conduct, and financial 
disclosure. Finally, OGE issues and amends regulations 
implementing the procurement integrity provisions relating to 
negotiating for employment, post employment, and gratuities in 
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of 
1988, P.L. 100-679.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,738,000 
for the Office of Government Ethics, an increase of $250,000 
above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level and the same as the 
President's request.

                     OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................      $128,644,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................       118,748,000
Recommended in the bill...............................       119,498,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        -9,146,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................          +750,000


    The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the Federal 
Government agency responsible for management of Federal human 
resources policy and oversight of the merit civil service 
system. Although individual agencies are increasingly 
responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a 
Governmentwide policy framework for personnel matters, advises 
and assists agencies (often on a reimbursable basis), and 
ensures that agency operations are consistent with requirements 
of law, with emphasis on such issues as veterans preference. 
OPM oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues 
regulations and policies on hiring, classification and pay, 
training, investigations, and many other aspects of personnel 
management, and operates a reimbursable training program for 
the Federal Government's managers and executives. OPM is also 
responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits 
and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees, 
retired Federal employees, and their survivors.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $119,498,000 
for the Office of Personnel Management, a decrease of 
$9,146,000 from the enacted fiscal year 2003 level and $750,000 
above the President's request. The Committee's recommendation 
includes $2,000,000 for Enterprise HR Integration, $2,500,000 
for payroll modernization, and $2,500,000 for program 
evaluation. The increase of $750,000 above the President's 
request is to provide additional funding for the ongoing 
``retirement readiness'' project being done by OPM in 
conjunction with the International Foundation for Retirement 
Education (InFRE). The outline of this project was provided in 
the joint explanatory statement accompanying Pubic Law 108-007. 
The Committee directs OPM to award this money to InFRE as a 
grant or contract, and to report to the Committee on the 
progress of this project no later than 60 days after enactment 
of this Act.

                       BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS

    The President has proposed that the Department of Defense 
transfer the investigative functions of the Defense Security 
Service (DSS) to OPM, a proposal involving approximately 1,855 
FTE. This proposal requires authorizing legislation and would 
not, according to OPM, have any net budgetary impact. The 
Committee is concerned, however, that transfer of DSS 
functions, which have had numerous problems in recent years 
involving both the timeliness and quality of background 
investigations, could have a negative impact on OPM's current 
investigation caseload. OPM reported that in 2002 the agency 
slipped below its 90 percent standard for timely turnaround on 
background investigations, largely as a result of the 
establishment of the Transportation Security Administration. As 
a result, OPM's caseload was more than twice what was 
projected. The Committee urges the Director of OPM to certify 
that any transfer of DSS functions to OPM will not have a 
detrimental impact on the ability of OPM to handle its current 
caseload.

                       PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS

    The Committee notes with approval the announced intention 
of OPM to increase oversight of pharmacy benefit managers 
(PBMs) who provide services to enrollees in the Federal 
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Effective oversight 
of PBMs, through which roughly $6,000,000,000 of FEHBP 
expenditures on prescription drugs pass, is crucial for 
ensuring that the 8.3 million people covered by FEHBP continue 
to receive high quality coverage. The Committee directs OPM to 
keep the Committees on Appropriations informed of ongoing 
activities to enhance oversight of PBMs, as well as the results 
of any audits or studies of PBMs. The Committee also encourages 
OPM to go beyond oversight and explore options for empowering 
Federal employee health care consumers to make more informed 
decisions when choosing among similar pharmaceuticals. The 
Committee further directs OPM to (1) notify the Committees if 
any research, audit, or investigation regarding PBMs has been 
delayed or terminated at the formal or informal request of 
another Federal agency; and (2) obtain a written letter of 
request from any such agency and provide a copy of such letter 
to the Committees. The Committee directs OPM to report on any 
such requests by September 1, 2003.

                        FEHEP COVERAGE MANDATES

    The Committee is concerned by the potential impact and cost 
of coverage mandates under the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program. By driving up premiums, such mandates can 
have a significant financial effect on both beneficiaries and 
taxpayers. The Committee is aware that the Director of OPM has 
already initiated a comprehensive outside audit to discern the 
true cost of mandated services. The Committee encourages OPM to 
complete this audit and promptly submit a report of the results 
to the Committee. The Committee further directs that this audit 
include any mandates or potential mandates resulting from the 
FEHB Program Carrier Letter of April 18, 2003.

                       UNINSURED FEDERAL WORKERS

    The Committee notes that while it is known that there is a 
certain segment of the Federal workforce that does not have 
health insurance through either the Federal Employees Health 
Benefits Program (FEHBP) or any other health insurance program, 
no current data exist on this particular uninsured population. 
The Committee therefore directs the Office of Personnel 
Management to conduct a study in both the aggregate and by 
State to: (1) determine the approximate number of Federal 
employees and retirees who are eligible to participate in the 
FEHBP, but who are not covered by this program or by any other 
health insurance program; (2) the principal reasons why these 
individuals do not obtain health insurance; and (3) by which 
agencies these people are employed and at which pay grades, 
levels, or rates of pay. The results of this study shall be 
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations no later than 
September 30, 2004.

               HAMPSHIRE/HAMPDEN COUNTIES, MASSACHUSSETTS

    The Committee is aware that Federal agencies located in 
Hampshire and Hampden counties, Massachusetts have been denied 
inclusion into the Hartford Locality Pay Area. The Committee is 
concerned about the difficulties some Federal agencies have 
documented in retaining and attracting Federal employees in the 
Connecticut River Valley area. Accordingly, the Committee 
directs OPM to consider Hampshire and Hampden counties for 
inclusion into the Hartford Locality Pay Area.

                      Office of Inspector General

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................        $1,509,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................         1,498,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         1,498,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................           -11,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides agency-wide audit, 
investigative, evaluation, and inspection functions to identify 
management and administrative deficiencies, which may create 
conditions for fraud, waste and mismanagement. The audits 
function provides internal agency audit, insurance audit, and 
contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional 
advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and 
financial matters regarding the negotiation, award, 
administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts. 
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency 
operations, including financial statements. Evaluation and 
inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of 
agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of 
health and life insurance carriers, health care providers, and 
insurance subscribers. The investigative function provides for 
the detection and investigation of improper and illegal 
activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,498,000 for 
the Office of Inspector General of the Office of Personnel 
Management, a decrease of $11,000 from the fiscal year 2003 
enacted level and the same as the President's request.

      Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $6,853,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     7,219,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     7,219,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +366,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation covers: (1) the Government's share of 
the cost of health insurance for 1,851,000 annuitants as 
defined in sections 8901 and 8906 of title 5, United States 
Code; (2) the Government's share of the cost of health 
insurance for about 12,000 annuitants (who were retired when 
the Federal employees health benefits law became effective), as 
defined in the Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of 
1960; and (3) the Government's contribution for payment of 
administrative expenses incurred by the Office of Personnel 
Management in administration of the act.

      Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Life Insurance


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $34,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        35,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        35,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation finances the Government's share of 
premiums, which is one-third the cost, for basic life insurance 
for annuitants retiring after December 31, 1989, and who are 
less than 65 years old.

        Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund


Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................    $9,410,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................     9,987,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................     9,987,000,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................      +577,000,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    This appropriation provides for payment of annuities, 
including the payment of annuities under special acts for 
persons employed on the construction of the Panama Canal or 
their widows and widows of employees of the Lighthouse Service; 
payment of the government share of retirement costs of the 
unfunded liability resulting from any statute authorizing new 
or liberalized benefits, extension of retirement coverage, or 
pay increases; transfers for interest on unfunded liability and 
payment of military service annuities covering interest on the 
unfunded liability and annuity disbursements for military 
service; payments for spouse equity providing survivor 
annuities to eligible former spouses of annuitants who died 
between September 1978 and May 1986 and did not elect survivor 
coverage; and transfers for payment of FERS supplemental 
liability covering annual amortization payments financing 
supplemental liabilities for FERS.

                     Human Capital Performance Fund

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................  ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................      $500,000,000
Recommended in the bill...............................         2,500,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +2,500,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................      -497,500,000


    This appropriation provides for the establishment of a 
Human Capital Performance Fund within the Office of Personnel 
Management. Allotments from this fund will be transferred to 
other Federal agencies in amounts as may be determined by the 
Director of OPM within the guidelines established by 
authorizing legislation, provided that such agencies submit a 
performance pay plan for the Director's approval. Awards to 
individual employees from this fund for performance will become 
part of those employees' base pay.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000 
for the Human Capital Performance Fund, obligation of which is 
contingent upon authorizing legislation. In order to ensure the 
continuation of proper oversight and control over agency 
personnel budgets, the Committee has included language 
directing OPM to notify the relevant subcommittees of 
jurisdiction of the Committees on Appropriations of any 
performance pay plan that has been approved for any agency, 
including the amounts to be obligated or transferred, and that 
funds for any plan shall not be obligated or transferred 
without those subcommittees' prior approval. The Committee 
further directs OPM to report annually to the Committees on 
Appropriations on the performance pay plans that have been 
approved, and the amounts that have been obligated or 
transferred.

                       OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $12,368,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        13,504,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        13,504,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +1,136,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The Office of Special Counsel: (1) investigates Federal 
employee allegations of prohibited personnel practices 
(including reprisal for whistleblowing) and, when appropriate, 
prosecutes before the Merit Systems Protection Board; (2) 
provides a channel for whistleblowing by Federal employees; and 
(3) enforces the Hatch Act. The Office may transmit 
whistleblower allegations to the agency head concerned and 
require an agency investigation and a report to the Congress 
and the President when appropriate.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,504,000 
for the Office of Special Counsel, an increase of $1,136,000 
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the 
President's request.

                        UNITED STATES TAX COURT

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................       $37,063,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................        40,187,000
Recommended in the bill...............................        40,187,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................        +3,124,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The bulk of the Court's work is the trial and adjudication 
of controversies involving deficiencies in income, estate, and 
gift taxes. The Court also has jurisdiction to redetermine 
deficiencies in certain excise taxes; to issue declaratory 
judgments in the areas of qualification of retirement plans, 
exemption of charitable organizations and the status of certain 
governmental obligations; and to decide certain cases involving 
disclosure of tax information by the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,187,000 
for the U.S. Tax Court, an increase of $3,124,000 above the 
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's 
request. The bulk of this increase is for replacement and 
upgrade of the Tax Court's automation equipment ($1,471,000) 
and upgrade of the Tax Court's security system ($1,100,000).

      WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF REMEMBRANCE

                         Salaries and Expenses

Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................          $248,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................           250,000
Recommended in the bill...............................           250,000
Bill compared with:
    Appropriation, fiscal year 2003...................            +2,000
    Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................  ................


    The White House Commission on the National Moment of 
Remembrance, established by Public Law 106-579, was created to 
(1) sustain the American spirit through acts of remembrance, 
not only on Memorial Day, but throughout the year; (2) 
institutionalize the National Moment of Remembrance; and (3) to 
enhance the commemoration and understanding of Memorial Day.

                        COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION

    The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000, an 
increase of $2,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and 
the same as the level requested by the President.

                      TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                                This Act

    Section 601. The Committee continues the provision for the 
Department of Transportation allowing funds for aircraft; motor 
vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as 
authorized by law.
    Section 602. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in 
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
    Section 603. The Committee continues the provision for the 
Department of Transportation limiting appropriations for 
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for an 
Executive Level IV.
    Section 604. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more 
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the 
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and 
Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail 
outside the Department of Transportation or an independent 
agency funded in this Act.
    Section 605. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in 
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
    Section 606. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and 
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided 
herein.
    Section 607. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement 
contracts.
    Section 608. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of 
title 23, U.S.C.
    Section 609. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act to 
release personal information, including a social security 
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from 
a driver's license or motor vehicle record without express 
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and 
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any 
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
    Section 610. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal 
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration 
from states, counties, municipalities, other public 
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for 
training may be credited to each agency's respective accounts.
    Section 611. The Committee continues the provision 
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of 
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock 
sold to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 612. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act unless the Secretary 
of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on 
Appropriations not less than three full business days before 
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full 
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is 
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
    Section 613. The Committee continues the provision 
designating the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part 
of the Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area for fiscal 
year 2004.
    Section 614. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting 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 615. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds in this Act to be transferred without express 
authority.
    Section 616. The Committee includes a new provision for the 
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from 
certain sources to be credited to appropriations using fair and 
equitable criteria.
    Section 617. The Committee includes a new provision 
allowing that amounts from improper payments to a third party 
contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of 
Transportation shall be available to cover expenses incurred in 
recovery of such payments.
    Section 618. The Committee includes a new provision for the 
Secretary of Transportation authorizing the transfer of 
unexpended sums from ``Minority Business Outreach'' to ``Office 
of the Secretary, Salaries and expenses''.
    Section 619. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to engage in activities that would 
prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act.
    Section 620. The Committee continues the provision 
concerning employment rights of Federal employees who return to 
their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces.
    Section 621. The Committee continues the provision 
concerning compliance with the Buy American Act.
    Section 622. The Committee continues the provision 
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain 
available for certain purposes.
    Section 623. The Committee continues the provision 
restricting the use of funds for the White House to request 
official background reports without the written consent of the 
individual who is the subject of the report.
    Section 624. The Committee continues a provision regarding 
non-foreign area cost of living allowances.
    Section 625. The Committee continues a provision 
prohibiting the use of funds by any person or entity convicted 
of violating the Buy American Act.
    Sections 626 and 627. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for abortions under the 
FEHBP unless the life of the mother is in danger or the 
pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest.
    Section 628. The Committee includes a new provision 
directing the Secretary of Transportation, working with 
affected states, to develop and implement a fair competitive 
bid procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed 
competition to demonstrate whether competition will provide 
higher quality rail service at reasonable prices.
    Section 629. The Committee includes a new provision that 
establishes limitations on the reprogramming of funds made 
available in this Act.
    Section 630. The Committee includes a new provision 
prohibiting funds to require a state or local government to 
post a traffic control device or variable message sign, or any 
other type of traffic sign, in a language other than English, 
except in certain specified situations.
    Section 631. The Committee includes a new provision waiving 
restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles, 
materials, and supplies in the case of acquisition by the 
Federal Government of information technology.
    Section 632. The Committee includes a new provision 
providing a sense of the House of Representatives that 
empowerment zones within cities should have the necessary 
flexibility to expand to include relevant communities so that 
empowerment zone benefits are equitably distributed.
    Section 633. The Committee includes a new provision 
providing a sense of the House of Representative that all 
census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, either fully or 
partially, should be equitably accorded the same benefits.
    Section 634. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to 
the determination that real estate brokerage is a financial 
activity.
    Section 635. The Committee includes a new sense of the 
Congress provision related to reimbursements to general 
aviation ground support services at Reagan Washington National 
Airport.
    Section 636. The Committee includes a new sense of the 
House of Representatives provision related to public private 
partnerships for highway and transit projects.

                     TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS


                Departments, Agencies, and Corporations

    Section 701. The Committee continues the provision 
authorizing agencies to pay costs of travel to the United 
States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned 
to foreign duty in the event of a death or a life threatening 
illness of the employee.
    Section 702. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure 
that all of its workplaces are free from the illegal use of 
controlled substances.
    Section 703. The Committee continues the provision 
regarding price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the 
Federal Government.
    Section 704. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used 
for quarters allowances and cost-of-living allowances.
    Section 705. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the government, with certain specified exceptions, 
from employing non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be 
in the continental U.S.
    Section 706. The Committee continues the provision ensuring 
that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space 
renovation and other services.
    Section 707. The Committee continues the provision allowing 
agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention 
programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered 
through such programs.
    Section 708. The Committee continues the provision 
providing that funds may be used to pay rent and other service 
costs in the District of Columbia.
    Section 709. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting payments to persons filling positions for which 
they have been nominated after the Senate has voted not to 
approve the nomination.
    Section 710. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting interagency financing of groups absent prior 
statutory approval.
    Section 711. The Committee continues the provision 
authorizing the Postal Service to employ guards and give them 
the same special police powers as certain other federal guards.
    Section 712. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds for enforcing regulations 
disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S.
    Section 713. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
the pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees.
    Section 714. The Committee continues the provision limiting 
the amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of 
offices under certain circumstances.
    Section 715. The Committee continues the provision to allow 
for interagency funding of national security and emergency 
telecommunications initiatives.
    Section 716. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was 
not created solely or primarily to detail the employee to the 
White House.
    Section 717. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure 
that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual 
harassment.
    Section 718. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the payment of any employee who prohibits, 
threatens or prevents another employee from communicating with 
Congress.
    Section 719. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting Federal training not directly related to the 
performance of official duties.
    Section 720. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for implementation of 
agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions 
are included.
    Section 721. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive 
agency personnel in support or defeat of legislative 
initiatives.
    Section 722. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting any federal agency from disclosing an employee's 
home address to any labor organization, absent employee 
authorization or court order.
    Section 723. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting funds to be used to provide non-public information 
such as mailing or telephone lists to any person or 
organization outside the government without the approval of the 
Committees on Appropriations.
    Section 724. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds for propaganda and publicity 
purposes not authorized by Congress.
    Section 725. The Committee continues the provision 
directing agency employees to use official time in an honest 
effort to perform official duties.
    Section 726. The Committee continues the provision, with 
technical modifications, authorizing the use of funds to 
finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management 
Improvement Program.
    Section 727. The Committee continues the provision, with 
technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds 
to the Governmentwide Policy account of GSA to finance an 
appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement 
Program and other purposes.
    Section 728. The Committee continues the provision that 
permits breast feeding in a federal building or on federal 
property if the woman and child are authorized to be there.
    Section 729. The Committee continues the provision that 
permits interagency funding of the National Science and 
Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and 
resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The 
report should include the entire budget of the National Science 
and Technology Council.
    Section 730. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring documents involving the distribution of federal funds 
to indicate the agency providing the funds and the amount 
provided.
    Section 731. The Committee continues the provision with 
modification to extend the authorization for franchise fund 
pilots for one year in order to allow the Administration to 
evaluate their results and make a decision regarding permanent 
authority.
    Section 732. The Committee continues the provision 
prohibiting the use of funds to monitor personal information 
relating to the use of federal internet sites to collect, 
review, or create any aggregate list that includes personally 
identifiable information relating to access to or use of any 
federal internet site of such agency.
    Section 733. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide 
contraceptive coverage and provides exemptions to certain 
religious plans.
    Section 734. The Committee continues the provision 
providing recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the 
official anti-doping agency.
    Section 735. The Committee continues the provision 
requiring a report by the Inspectors General detailing policies 
and procedures for implementing portion of the Rural 
Development Act, 1972.
    Section 736. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an 
individual before issuing the individual a government travel 
charge card and limits agency actions accordingly.
    Section 737. The Committee includes a new provision that 
permits interagency funding of the National Oceanographic 
Partnership Program Office and the Coastal America program and 
requires a report.
    Section 738. The Committee includes a new provision 
extending the Federal Election Commission's administrative fine 
program through December 31, 2005.
    Section 739. The Committee includes a new provision 
allowing for the timely filing of reports with the Federal 
Election Commission using overnight delivery, priority, or 
express mail.
    Section 740. The Committee continues a provision, with 
modification, providing that the adjustment in rates of basic 
pay for employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in 
fiscal year 2004 shall be an increase of 4.1 percent.
    Section 741. The Committee includes a new provision 
requiring a report from each agency on competitive sourcing 
activities.

              HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS

    The following items are included in accordance with various 
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:

                        Constitutional Authority

    Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives states:

          Each report of a committee on a bill or joint 
        resolution of a public character, shall include a 
        statement citing the specific powers granted to the 
        Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed 
        by the bill or joint resolution.

    The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to 
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I 
of the Constitution of the United States of America which 
states:

          No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in 
        consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .

    Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to 
this specific power granted by the Constitution.

                  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:

                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Appropriations in
                                      Last year of      Authorization level      last year of     Appropriations
                                      authorization                             authorization      in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Title I--Department of
         Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration:
    Operations..................  2003................  $7,591,000.........  $7,022,648.........      $7,532,000
    Facilities & Equipment......  2003................  2,981,022..........  2,961,645..........       2,900,000
    Grants in Aid for Airports..  2003................  3,400,000..........  3,377,900..........       3,500,000
    Research, Engineering, and    2002................  249,000............  244,839............         108,000
     Development.
Federal Highway Administration:   2003................  30,245,605.........  31,593,300.........      33,385,000
 Federal-aid Highways.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
 Administration:
    Motor Carrier Safety          NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          47,000
     Operations and Programs.
National Highway Traffic Safety
 Administration:
    Operations & Research--       NA..................  NA.................  NA.................         134,178
     General Fund.
    Operations & Research--Trust  2003................  72,000.............  71,532.............          72,000
     Fund.
    National Driver Register....  2003................  2,000..............  1,987..............           3,600
    Highway Traffic Safety        2003................  225,000............  223,537............         225,000
     Grants.
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and Operations.......  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................         130,992
    Capital Grants to Amtrak....  2002................  955,000............  826,476............         580,000
Federal Transit Administration:
    Administrative Expenses.....  2003................  73,000.............  72,526.............          72,500
    Formula Grants..............  2003................  3,839,000..........  3,764,372..........       3,839,000
    University Transportation     2003................  6,000..............  5,961..............           1,200
     Research.
    Transit Planning and          2003................  122,000............  121,207............         122,000
     Research.
    Job Access and Reverse        2003................  150,000............  104,318............          85,000
     Commute.
    Capital Investment Grants...  2003................  3,036,000..........  3,110,647..........       3,106,500
Maritime Administration:
    Operations and Training.....  2003................  93,132.............  92,093.............         105,897
    Ship Disposal...............  2003................  20,000.............  11,088.............          14,000

   Title II--Department of the
            Treasury

Department Wide Systems and       NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          36,653
 Capital Investments.
Air Transportation Stabilization  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................           2,538
 Program.
Treasury Building and Annex       NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          25,000
 Repair and Restoration.
Financial Crimes Enforcement      NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          57,571
 Network.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and       NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          80,000
 Trade Bureau.

  Title IV--Executive Office of
          the President

Compensation of the President...  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................         450,000
White House Office, Salaries and  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................      66,057,000
 Expenses.
Executive Residence, Operating    NA..................  NA.................  NA.................      12,501,000
 Expenses.
Executive Residence, White House  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................       4,225,000
 Repair and Restoration.
Council of Economic Advisors....  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................       4,000,000
Office of Policy Development....  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................       4,109,000
National Security Council.......  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................      10,551,000
Office of Administration........  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................      82,826,000
Office of Management and Budget.  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................      62,772,000
Unanticipated Needs.............  NA..................  NA.................  NA.................       1,000,000
Special Assistance to the         NA..................  NA.................  NA.................       4,461,000
 President, Salaries and
 Expenses.
Special Assistance to the         NA..................  NA.................  NA.................         331,000
 President, Operating Expenses.
Office of National Drug Control
 Policy (ONDCP):
    ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses  2003................  NA.................  26,284.............          28,790
    ONDCP, Salaries and           NA..................  NA.................  NA.................           1,500
     Expenses, Model State Drug
     Laws.
    ONDCP, Counterdrug            2003................  NA.................  21,857.............          18,000
     Technology Assessment
     Center, Counterdrug
     Research and Development.
    ONDCP, Counterdrug            NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          22,000
     Technology Assessment
     Center, Technology Transfer.
    ONDCP, High Intensity Drug    2003................  NA.................  224,879............         226,350
     Trafficking Areas Program.
    ONDCP, Other Federal Drug     NA..................  NA.................  NA.................          10,000
     Control (except Drug-Free
     Communities).
    ONDCP, Other Federal Drug     2002................  195,000............  180,000............         150,000
     Control, Media Campaign.

  Title V--Independent Agencies

National Transportation Safety    2002................  72,000.............  68,650.............          76,679
 Board, Salaries and Expenses.
Federal Election Commission.....  1981................  9,400..............  9,662..............          50,440
Office of Government Ethics.....  1999................  Such sums..........  8,492..............          10,738
OPM, Human Capital Performance    NA..................  NA.................  NA.................           2,500
 Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           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 the Department of the Treasury, a number of transfers 
are allowed: (1) under Departmental Offices--Salaries and 
Expenses, $3,393,000 is allowed to be transferred to other 
Treasury offices for financial statement audits, (2) under 
Departmentwide Systems and Capital Investments Programs, 
$36,653,000 is allowed to be transferred to other offices in 
pursuit of specific projects, and (3) a number of General 
Provisions allow certain transfers among Treasury offices with 
the advance approval of the Committee.
    Under the Executive Office of the President, a number of 
transfers are allowed: (1) $1,350,000 may be transferred by the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to other federal 
departments from the salaries and expenses account, (2) the 
ONDCP Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center may transfer 
$22,000,000 to other federal departments and $26,000,000 to 
state and local entities, (3) the ONDCP High Intensity Drug 
Trafficking Area Program may transfer $226,350,000 to federal 
departments and to state and local entities, and (4) the ONDCP 
Other Federal Drug Control Programs may transfer funds to 
federal departments.
    Under Independent Agencies, a number of transfers are 
allowed: (1) The GSA Federal Buildings Fund may transfer 
$54,256,000 to the Federal Financing Bank to repay the 
principal on incurred debt, (2) the GSA Allowances and Office 
Staff for Former Presidents account may transfer $895,000 to 
the Department of the Treasury for certain pension benefits, 
(3) the GSA Electronic Government Fund may transfer $5,000,000 
to federal departments in pursuit of program goals, (4) certain 
trust funds may transfer money to the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) and its Inspector General, (5) OPM may 
transfer $15,000,000 from the Human Capital Performance Fund to 
other federal departments and agencies, and (6) the Civil 
Service Retirement and Disability Fund may transfer money to 
the Merit System Protection Board.
    Under general provisions:
    Title I, Sec. 161. The Committee continues the provision 
that allows funds for discretionary grants of the Federal 
Transit Administration for specific projects, except for fixed 
guideway modernization projects, not obligated by September 30, 
2005, and other recoveries to be used for other projects under 
49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Title I, Sec. 162. The Committee continues the provision 
that allows transit funds appropriated before October 1, 2002, 
that remain available for expenditure to be transferred.
    Title II, Sec. 201. The Committee continues the provision 
that allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made 
available to the IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to 
prior Congressional approval.
    Title II, Sec. 206. The Committee continues with 
modifications a provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2 
percent, between Departmental Offices--Salaries and Expenses, 
Office of the Inspector General, Financial Management Service, 
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes 
Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt 
appropriations under certain circumstances.
    Title II, Sec. 207. The Committee continues the provision 
that authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal 
Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax 
Administration under certain circumstances.
    Title V, Sec. 503. The Committee continues the provision, 
with technical modification, providing that funds made 
available for activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be 
transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the 
Congress.

         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 Departments of 
Transportation and Treasury Offices 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, Cl. 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 italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

SECTION 1105 OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF 
                                  1991

SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Identification of High Priority Corridors on National 
Highway System.--The following are high priority corridors on 
the National Highway System:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (42) The portion of Corridor V of the Appalachian 
        development highway system from Interstate Route 55 
        near Batesville, Mississippi, to the intersection with 
        Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway 
        system near [Fulton, Mississippi, and the portion of 
        Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway 
        system from near Fulton, Mississippi, to the 
        intersection with Interstate Route 65 near Birmingham, 
        Alabama.] Fulton, Mississippi.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (45) The United States Route 78 Corridor from 
        Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian 
        development highway system near Fulton, Mississippi, 
        and Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway 
        system extending from near Fulton, Mississippi, to near 
        Birmingham, Alabama.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) Provisions Applicable to Corridors.--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate 
        system.--
                  [(A) In general.--The portions of the routes 
                referred to in subsection (c)(1) subsection 
                (c)(3) (solely as it relates to the Kentucky 
                Corridor), in clauses (i), (ii), and (except 
                with respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of 
                subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), in 
                subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), in subsection 
                (c)(36), in subsection (c)(37), in subsection 
                (c)(40), and in subsection (c)(42) that are not 
                a part of the Interstate System are designated 
                as future parts of the Interstate System.] (A) 
                In general.--The portions of the routes 
                referred to in subsection (c)(1), subsection 
                (c)(3) (relating solely to the Kentucky 
                Corridor), clauses (i), (ii), and (except with 
                respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of 
                subsection (c)(5)(B), subsection (c)(9), 
                subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), subsection 
                (c)(36), subsection (c)(37), subsection 
                (c)(40), subsection (c)(42), and subsection 
                (c)(45) that are not a part of the Interstate 
                System are designated as future parts of the 
                Interstate System. Any segment of such routes 
                shall become a part of the Interstate System at 
                such time as the Secretary determines that the 
                segment--
                          (i) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (B) Routes.--
                          (i) Designation.--The portion of the 
                        route referred to in subsection (c)(9) 
                        is designated as Interstate Route I-99. 
                        The routes referred to in subsections 
                        (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated 
                        as Interstate Route I-69. A State 
                        having jurisdiction over any segment of 
                        routes referred to in subsections 
                        (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs 
                        identifying such segment that is 
                        consistent with the criteria set forth 
                        in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and 
                        (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, 
                        including segments of United States 
                        Route 59 in the State of Texas. The 
                        segment identified in subsection 
                        (c)(18)(D)(i) shall be designated as 
                        Interstate Route I-69 East, and the 
                        segment identified in subsection 
                        (c)(18)(D)(ii) shall be designated as 
                        Interstate Route I-69 Central. The 
                        State of Texas shall erect signs 
                        identifying such routes as segments of 
                        future Interstate Route I-69. The 
                        portion of the route referred to in 
                        subsection (c)(36) is designated as 
                        Interstate Route I-86. The Louie B. 
                        Nunn Parkway corridor referred to in 
                        subsection (c)(3) shall be designated 
                        as Interstate Route 66. A State having 
                        jurisdiction over any segment of routes 
                        and/or corridors referred to in 
                        subsections (c)(3) shall erect signs 
                        identifying such segment that is 
                        consistent with the criteria set forth 
                        in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and 
                        (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 66. 
                        Notwithstanding the provisions of 
                        subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and 
                        (e)(5)(A)(ii), or any other provisions 
                        of this Act, the Commonwealth of 
                        Kentucky shall erect signs, as approved 
                        by the Secretary, identifying the 
                        routes and/or corridors described in 
                        subsection (c)(3) for the Commonwealth, 
                        as segments of future Interstate Route 
                        66. The Purchase Parkway corridor 
                        referred to in subsection (c)(18)(E) 
                        shall be designated as Interstate Route 
                        69. A State having jurisdiction over 
                        any segment of routes and/or corridors 
                        referred to in subsections (c)(18) 
                        shall erect signs identifying such 
                        segment that is consistent with the 
                        criteria set forth in subsections 
                        (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as 
                        Interstate Route 69. Notwithstanding 
                        the provisions of subsections 
                        (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii), or any 
                        other provisions of this Act, the 
                        Commonwealth of Kentucky shall erect 
                        signs, as approved by the Secretary, 
                        identifying the routes and/or corridors 
                        described in subsection (c)(18) for the 
                        Commonwealth, as segments of future 
                        Interstate Route 69. The route referred 
                        to in subsection (c)(45) is designated 
                        as Interstate Route I-22.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                              ----------                              


   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.........
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
   4. Michigan                        Construct bike path         3.75
                                       [between Mount
                                       Clemens and New
                                       Baltimore] for the
                                       Macomb Orchard Trail
                                       in Macomb County....
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 230. New York                        [Monroe County                 6
                                       transportation
                                       improvements on Long
                                       Pond Road,
                                       Pattonwood Road, and
                                       Leyll road] Route
                                       531/Brockport-
                                       Rochester Corridor
                                       in Monroe County,
                                       New York............
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
 476. Louisiana                       [Expand Perkins Road        6.15
                                       in Baton Rouge]
                                       Feasibility study,
                                       design, and
                                       construction of a
                                       connector between
                                       Louisiana Highway
                                       1026 and I-12 in
                                       Livingston Parish...
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
1149. New York                        [Traffic Mitigation            3
                                       Project on William
                                       Street and Losson
                                       Road in Cheektowaga]
                                       Study and implement
                                       mitigation and
                                       diversion options
                                       for William Street
                                       and Broadway Street
                                       in Cheektowaga, I-90
                                       Corridor Study;
                                       Interchange 53 to
                                       Interchange 49, PIN
                                       552830 and
                                       Cheektowaga Rails to
                                       Trails, PIN 575508..
         *         *         *         *         *         *         *
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              ----------                              


TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART A--RAIL

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 111--OPERATIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBCHAPTER II--CAR SERVICE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 11123. Situations requiring immediate action to serve the public

  (a) When the Board determines that shortage of equipment, 
congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations, 
failure of existing commuter rail passenger transportation 
operations caused by a cessation of service by the National 
Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other failure of traffic 
movement exists which creates an emergency situation of such 
magnitude as to have substantial adverse effects on shippers, 
or on rail service in a region of the United States, or that a 
rail carrier providing transportation subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Board under this part cannot transport the 
traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the 
public, the Board may, to promote commerce and service to the 
public, for a period not to exceed 30 days--
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (3) prescribe temporary through routes; [or]
          (4) give directions for--
                  (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

                  (C) movement of traffic under permits[.]; or
          (5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or 
        commuter rail passenger transportation operations 
        caused by a cessation of service by the National 
        Railroad Passenger Corporation, direct the continuation 
        of the operations and dispatching, maintenance, and 
        other necessary infrastructure functions related to the 
        operations.
  (b)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) [When] (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), when a 
rail carrier is directed under this section to operate the 
lines of another rail carrier due to that carrier's cessation 
of operations, compensation for the directed operations shall 
derive only from revenues generated by the directed operations.
  (B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter 
rail passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation 
of service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the 
Board shall provide funding to fully reimburse the directed 
service provider for its costs associated with the activities 
directed under subsection (a), including the payment of 
increased insurance premiums. The Board shall order complete 
indemnification against any and all claims associated with the 
provision of service to which the directed rail carrier may be 
exposed.
  (c)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (4) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter 
rail passenger transportation operations caused by cessation of 
service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the 
Board may not direct a rail carrier to undertake activities 
under subsection (a) to continue such operations unless--
          (A) the Board first affirmatively finds that the rail 
        carrier is operationally capable of conducting the 
        directed service in a safe and efficient manner; and
          (B) the funding for such directed service required by 
        subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(3) is provided in 
        advance in appropriations Acts.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad 
Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail 
passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers 
subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
  (f) For purposes of this section, the term ``commuter rail 
passenger transportation'' has the meaning given that term in 
section 24102(4).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART C--PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 243--AMTRAK

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 24301. Status and applicable laws

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (c) Application of Subtitle IV.--Subtitle IV of this title 
shall not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11123, 11301, 
11322(a), 11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the preceding 
sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer 
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad 
Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax 
Act.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Sec. 5323. General provisions on assistance

  (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (j) Buy America.--(1) The Secretary of Transportation may 
obligate an amount that may be appropriated to carry out this 
chapter for a project only if the steel, iron, and manufactured 
goods used in the project are produced in the United States. 
The term ``manufactured goods'' as used in this paragraph means 
each individual item specified in each line item of a 
procurement. If the individual items to be procured are listed 
in the bill of materials and specifications rather than a line 
item, the term ``manufactured goods'' shall apply to each such 
item. The definition of ``manufactured goods'' shall not be 
applicable to the procurement of rolling stock as set forth in 
paragraph (2)(C).

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  (3) When issuing a waiver based upon a public interest 
determination under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall 
produce a detailed written justification as to why the waiver 
is in the public interest. The Secretary shall publish this 
justification in the Federal Register and provide the public a 
reasonable period for notice and comment.
  [(3)] (4) In this subsection, labor costs involved in final 
assembly are not included in calculating the cost of 
components.
  [(4)] (5) The Secretary of Transportation may not make a 
waiver under paragraph (2) of this subsection for goods 
produced in a foreign country if the Secretary, in consultation 
with the United States Trade Representative, decides that the 
government of that foreign country--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(5)] (6) A person is ineligible under subpart 9.4 of chapter 
1 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, to receive a 
contract or subcontract made with amounts authorized under the 
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 
(Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) if a court or department, 
agency, or instrumentality of the Government decides the person 
intentionally--
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

  [(6)] (7) The Secretary of Transportation may not impose any 
limitation on assistance provided under this chapter that 
restricts a State from imposing more stringent requirements 
than this subsection on the use of articles, materials, and 
supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in foreign countries 
in projects carried out with that assistance or restricts a 
recipient of that assistance from complying with those State-
imposed requirements.
          [(7)] (8) Opportunity to correct inadvertent error.--
        The Secretary may allow a manufacturer or supplier of 
        steel, iron, or manufactured goods to correct after bid 
        opening any certification of noncompliance or failure 
        to properly complete the certification (but not 
        including failure to sign the certification) under this 
        subsection if such manufacturer or supplier attests 
        under penalty of perjury that such manufacturer or 
        supplier submitted an incorrect certification as a 
        result of an inadvertent or clerical error. The burden 
        of establishing inadvertent or clerical error is on the 
        manufacturer or supplier.
          (9) Application of waivers.--The Secretary may grant 
        a waiver under paragraph (2) for a microprocessor, but 
        not for microcomputer equipment. For purposes of this 
        paragraph ``microprocessor'' means a computer processor 
        on a microchip.
          (10) Administrative review.--A party adversely 
        affected by an agency action under this subsection 
        shall have the right to seek review under section 702 
        of the Administrative Procedure Act, title 5, United 
        States Code.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


               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 proposed in the 
accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain 
circumstances, to change the application of existing law, 
either directly or indirectly. 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 provides, in some instances, for funding 
of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been 
finalized. In addition, the bill carriers language, in some 
instances, permitting activities not authorized by law, or 
exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which 
has been carried in appropriations acts for many years.
    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.
    In Title V of the bill, in connection with the General 
Services Administration, certain limits on availability of 
revenue in the Federal Buildings Fund and certain legislative 
provisions have been carried forward from last year.
    The bill continues a number of general provisions applying 
to agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions 
applying Government-wide. These provisions have been carried in 
the prior year appropriations bill, and some have been carried 
for many years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number 
of new general provisions.

                 TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

    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 under the Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses'' limiting the use of funds available 
for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for 
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and 
specifying transfer authority among offices.
    Language is included under Office of the Secretary, 
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be 
used for business opportunities related to any mode of 
transportation.
    Language is included that limits operating costs and 
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for 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 Committee.
    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 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 for 
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting 
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' prohibiting funds to operate a manned auxiliary 
flight service station in the United States.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' requiring the Secretary of Transportation to 
issue regulations pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8335 relating to 
mandatory retirement for air traffic controllers.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' providing $4,000,000 only for costs to raise the 
level of air traffic control supervisors at the agency to the 
level of 1,726.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' prohibiting funds to sign, revise, execute, or 
implement a memorandum of understanding or agreement unless 
such document is filed in a central registry in FAA 
headquarters.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Operations'' prohibiting funds for any FAA employee to 
purchase a store gift card or gift certificate through use of a 
government-issued credit card.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Payments to air carriers'' that prohibits funds to approve, 
revise, or execute any contract that would cause federal 
obligations to exceed the $41,500,000 under this heading.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Payments to air carriers'' that prohibits funds to subsidize 
any air service to a point less than 210 highway miles from the 
nearest hub airport.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' providing $7,000,000 for contract 
audit services provided by the Defense Contract Audit Agency 
and $20,000,000 for the Houston area air traffic system.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Facilities and equipment'' that prohibits funds to implement 
section 106 of H. R. 2115 as it passed the House of 
Representatives on June 12, 2003.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' allowing funds to be used for 
implementation of section 203 of Public Law 106-181 
(authorizing the small community air service development pilot 
program).
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' providing $20,000,000 for the 
small community air service development pilot program.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``General Provisions'' allowing airports to transfer to FAA, 
without consideration, certain navigation and lighting systems 
that were procured or assisted by a federal airport grant.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``General Provisions'' limiting technical staff years at the 
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 350 during 
fiscal year 2004.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``General Provisions'' relating to the provision of without-
cost space, construction, maintenance, utilities, or other 
expenses to FAA at airports.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``General Provisions'' allowing FAA to receive funds from an 
airport sponsor under certain conditions relating to capacity 
enhancement projects.
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``General Provisions''
    Language is included under the 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 limits funds available for 
the planning or execution of programs with delegations in 
excess of $3,400,000,000,
    Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration, 
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides not more than 
$62,820,000 for administration.
    Language is included prohibiting the use of funds to change 
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro 
Airport in Teterboro, New Jersey.
    Language is included allowing the use of funds for 
participation in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot 
program.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' that 
provides limitation on administrative expenses of the FHWA.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Federal-aid Highways'' that provides a 
limitation on obligations for the Federal-aid Highways program 
and a limitation on research programs.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Liquidation of Contract Authorization'' that 
provides liquidating cash.
    Language is included under the Federal Highway 
Administration, ``Public Private Partnership Pilot Program'' 
that provides funding for this program.
    Section 110 distributed obligation authority among the 
Federal-aid highway programs.
    Section 111 specifies an administrative take-down for the 
Federal Highway Administration.
    Section 112 provides that funds received by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics may be credited to the Federal-aid 
Highways account.
    Section 113 designates a future Interstate in Mississippi 
and Alabama.
    Section 114 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
carry out 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(2).
    Section 115 allows changes to be made to the table in 
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity ACt for the 21st 
Century with regard to plans in New York and Louisiana.
    Section 116 that amends the Transportation Equity Act for 
the 21st Century and allows ITS funds already appropriated to 
the State of Wisconsin in prior laws to be used for the 
installation of intelligent transportation infrastructure 
elements in the metropolitan areas of Wausau and Superior.
    Section 117 allows ITS funds already appropriated for use 
in specified locations within Wisconsin to be spent in 
additional locations within the state.
    Section 118 requires the Department of Transportation to 
restructure an existing loan with ACTA to allow financing of a 
1.7 mile truck expressway linking the ports of Long-Beach and 
Los Angeles to Alameda Street.
    Section 119 requires the Secretary to enter into an 
agreement to provide a method of funding for the Hoover Dam 
Bypass Bridge.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety'' that provides funding 
for motor carrier safety.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' that 
provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of 
contract authorization.
    Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, ``Border Enforcement Program'' that provides 
funding for truck inspection stations on the Southern border.
    Section 130 specifies an administration takedown for the 
FMCSA.
    Section 131 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to 
apply Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350 to operators of utility service 
vehicles.
    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.
    Section 132 subjects funds appropriated or limited in this 
Act to the terms and conditions of Public Law 107-87.
    Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting 
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
    Language is included under the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' 
prohibiting the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation 
or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local, 
or private buildings.
    Language is included under the National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' 
limiting the amount of funds available for technical assistance 
to the states under section 410.
    Section 140 allows states to use funds provided under 
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway 
safety public service messages.
    Section 141 prohibits the use of funds for the purpose of 
enforcing compliance with 49 CFR section 579.24 with respect to 
trailers of a certain weight.
    Language is included under the Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Safety and operations'' that provides funding 
for safety and operations.
    Language is included under the Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Railroad research and development'' that 
provides funding for railroad research and development.
    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 the Federal Railroad 
Administration, ``Next generation high speed rail that provides 
funding for this program.
    Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, 
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that 
provides quarterly apportionment for capital funding and 
requires non-federal entities to provide payments on lines that 
have a greater than $200 passenger loss based on procedures 
developed by the Secretary of Transportation.
    Section 150 amends Section 11123 of title 49, U.S.C., to 
ensure that emergency rail service is continued if Amtrak 
should cease operations.
    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, 
``Administrative expenses'' that the Secretary of 
Transportation will transmit to Congress the annual report on 
new starts.
    Language is included under the Federal Transit 
Administration, ``Formula grants'' reducing funds for each day 
that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to 
Congress.
    Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations 
from limitations on obligations.
    Section 161 allows funds for discretionary grants of the 
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except 
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by 
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries to be used for other 
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
    Section 162 allows transit funds appropriated before 
October 1, 2002, that remain available for expenditive to be 
transferred.
    Section 163 prohibits funds for design or construction of a 
light rail system in Houston, Texas, unless certain specified 
conditions are met.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration 
requiring a review of maritime policy and the agency's mission 
and long-term goals within the reorganized Department of 
Transportation.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Operations and Training'' that requires that additional funds 
provided for the United States Merchant Marine Academy salaries 
and benefits above the budget request, totaling $1,019,000 be 
spent on filling vacancies directly related to the Academy's 
mission.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Operations and Training'' requiring the agency to submit a 
report of justification for the annual target for new 
reservists in relation to documented emergency requirements 
that cannot be met from other sources.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Operations and Training'' directing the agency to submit an 
assessment of interoperability among the information technology 
resources at the fourteen U.S. strategic commercial ports.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Operations and Training'' directing the agency to submit a 
report on the performance of the intermodal system with respect 
to the efficiency of the most congested ports.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Ship Disposal'' directing the agency to submit a report 
detailing the agency's competitive bid process on ship disposal 
contracts.
    Language is included under the Maritime Administration, 
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account'' allowing the agency to 
draw upon the supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 108-
11 for administrative expenses up to $4,498,000 without 
certification of such administrative costs by the Department of 
Transportation Inspector General.
    Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to apply 
payments received for services as a credit to the Treasury.
    Section 171 allows the Maritime Administration to draw upon 
the supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 108-11 for 
administrative expenses up to $4,498,000.
    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 $1,050,000 
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.

                  TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

    Language has been included for Departmental Offices, 
Salaries and Expenses, that provides funds for operation and 
maintenance of the Treasury Building and Annex; hire of 
passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, repairs, and 
improvements of, and purchase of commercial insurance policies 
for real properties leased or owned overseas; official 
reception and representation expenses; unforeseen emergencies 
of a confidential nature; grants to state and local law 
enforcement groups to help fight money laundering; and 
Treasury-wide financial audits and the transfer of these funds.
    Language has been included for the Departmentwide Systems 
and Capital Investments Program that provides funds for the 
development and acquisition of automated data processing 
equipment, software, and services; and providing transfer 
authority.
    Language has been included for the Office of Inspector 
General that provides funds to carry out the provisions of the 
Inspector General Act of 1978, the hire of vehicles, official 
travel expenses, and unforeseen emergencies.
    Language has been included for the Treasury Inspector 
General for Tax Administration that provides for the purchase 
and hire of motor vehicles, services by 5 U.S.C. 3109, travel 
expenses, and unforeseen emergencies.
    Language has been included for the Financial Crime 
Enforcement Network that provides funds for hire of vehicles 
and official reception and representation expenses; the travel 
of non-federal personnel attending conferences or meetings 
involving financial law enforcement, intelligence, and 
regulation; the purchase of personal services contracts; and 
assistance to federal law enforcement agencies with or without 
reimbursement.
    Language has been included for the Financial Management 
Service that provides multiple year availability for systems 
modernization funds and funds for official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax 
and Trade Bureau that provides funds for the hire of passenger 
motor vehicles; official reception and representation expenses; 
cooperative research and development; and laboratory assistance 
to state and local agencies with or without reimbursement.
    Language has been included for the U.S. Mint that 
identifies the source of funding for the operations and 
activities of the U.S. Mint; specifies the level of funding for 
circulating coinage and protective service capital investments; 
and provides reimbursement to the General Accounting Office for 
a contract study.
    Language has been included for the Bureau of the Public 
Debt that provides funds for reception and representation 
expenses. Language also has been included that provides that 
appropriations from the General Fund will be reduced as fees 
are collected, and that a portion of the funds are to be 
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for 
administration of the Fund.
    Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service 
processing, assistance, and management that provides funds for 
management services, rent and utilities, services authorized by 
5 U.S.C. 3109, and official reception and representation 
expenses. Language also has been included that provides funds 
for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program and for low-
income taxpayer clinic grants.
    Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service tax 
law enforcement that provides funds for the purchase and hire 
of vehicles; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; research; 
and reimbursement of the Social Security Administration.
    Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service 
information systems that provides fund for the hire of motor 
vehicles.
    Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service 
business systems modernization that provides for the capital 
asset acquisition of information technology, including 
management and related contractual costs of said acquisitions, 
including contractual costs associated with operation 
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and that restricts the use of the 
funds.
    Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service 
health insurance tax credit administration to implement the 
health insurance tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2003 
(Public Law 107-210).
    Section 201 allows the transfer of 5 percent of any 
appropriation, made available to the IRS, to any other IRS 
appropriation with prior Congressional approval.
    Section 202 requires the IRS to maintain a training program 
in taxpayer's rights, dealing courteously with taxpayers, and 
cross cultural relations.
    Section 203 requires the IRS to institute policies and 
procedures, which will safeguard the confidentiality of 
taxpayer information.
    Section 204 requires the IRS to maintain and improve a 1-
800 help line service for taxpayers.
    Section 205 allows the Department of the Treasury to 
purchase uniforms, insurance, and motor vehicles without regard 
to the general purchase price limitation, and enter into 
contracts with the State Department for health and medical 
services for Treasury employees in overseas locations.
    Section 206 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between 
Departmental Offices, Office of the Inspector General, 
Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade 
Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of 
the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances.
    Section 207 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between 
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General 
for Tax Administration under certain circumstances.
    Section 208 prohibits the Department of the Treasury from 
undertaking a redesign of the $1 Federal Reserve note.
    Section 209 provides for transfers from and reimbursements 
to the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of the Financial 
Management Service for the purposes of debt collection.
    Section 210 requires authorization for the construction and 
operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
    Section 211 establishes a permanent indefinite 
appropriation for reimbursing financial institutions in their 
capacity as depositaries and financial agents of the United 
States.
    Section 212 prohibits contracts with certain foreign 
incorporated entities.

                       TITLE III--POSTAL SERVICE

    The Committee has continued language that prohibits funds 
made available to the Postal Service from being used to close 
or consolidate certain post offices, from charging employees of 
local and child support agencies a fee for information, 
provides funds for free mail for the blind and overseas voters, 
and for six day mail delivery and rural delivery of mail at 
existing levels. The Committee continues language regarding the 
availability of funds.

 TITLE IV--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO 
                             THE PRESIDENT

    The Committee has continued language that mandates that 
unused amounts of the President's expense allowance will revert 
to the Treasury and not be taxable to the President and which 
provides funds for service authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, 
subsistence expenses, hire of vehicles, newspapers, 
periodicals, teletype news service, travel, and official 
entertainment expenses. The Committee has continued language 
making funds available for reimbursement to the White House 
Communications Agency.
    The Committee has included new language that provides funds 
for the Office of Homeland Security, pursuant to Executive 
Order 13288.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for operation and maintenance of the White House for Official 
entertainment expenses; language specifying the authorized use 
of funds; language specifying that reimbursable expenses are 
the exclusive authority of the Executive Residence to incur 
obligations and receive offsetting collections; language 
requiring the sponsors of political events to make advance 
payments; language requiring the national committee of the 
political party of the President to maintain $25,000 on 
deposit; language requiring the Executive Residence to ensure 
that amounts owed are billed within 60 days of a reimbursable 
event and collected within 30 days of the bill notice; language 
authorizing the Executive Residence to charge and assess 
interest and penalties on late payments; language authorizing 
all reimbursements to be deposited into the Treasury as a 
miscellaneous receipt; language requiring a report to the 
Committee on the reimbursable expenses within 90 days of the 
end of the fiscal year; language requiring the Executive 
Residence to maintain a system for tracking and classifying 
reimbursable events; and language specifying that the Executive 
Residence is not exempt from the requirements of subchapter I 
or II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Executive 
Residence at the White House.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for operation and maintenance of the official residence of the 
Vice President, the hire of vehicles, official entertainment 
expenses and provides for the transfer of funds as necessary. 
The Committee has continued language that enables the Vice 
President to provide assistance to the President, services 
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, subsistence, and the hire for 
vehicles.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for the expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses of the Office of Policy Development.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses of the National Security Council.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses of the Office and the hire of vehicles and funds 
for a capital investment plan that provides for the continued 
modernization of the information technology infrastructure. The 
Committee has continued and modified language regarding 
information technology within the Executive Office of the 
President, requiring the submission of a report that includes a 
current description of (1) the Enterprise Architecture, as 
defined in OMB Circular A-130 and Federal Chief Information 
Officer guidance; (2) the Information Technology (IT) Human 
Capital Plan; (3) the capital investment plan for implementing 
the Enterprise Architecture; and (4) the IT capital planning 
and investment control process. The Committee has continued and 
modified language requiring that this report be reviewed and 
approved by OMB and reviewed by the General Accounting Office.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses, the hire of vehicles, carrying out provisions of 
chapter 35 of 44 U.S.C., directs that funds shall be applied 
only to items for which appropriations were made, prohibits the 
review of agricultural marketing orders and the alteration of 
certain testimony. The Committee has continued language funding 
a representational allowance and has continued language 
prohibiting the use of funds for the purpose of OMB 
calculating, preparing, or approving any tabular or other 
material that proposes the sub-allocation of budget authority 
or outlays by the Committees on Appropriations.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses, research, official reception and representation 
expenses, participation in joint projects, and allows for the 
acceptance of gifts. The Committee has continued language 
providing funds for model state drug law conferences and policy 
research and evaluation and making these funds available until 
expended.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for counternarcotics research and development and the 
technology transfer program.
    The Committee has continued language that provides a 
certain level of funding for State, local and Federal drug 
control efforts, and requires obligation of funds within a 
specified period of time. The Committee continues language 
regarding the availability of funds.
    The Committee has continued language that provides a 
certain level of funding for the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act, 
for the Drug-Free Communities Act, and to provide a grant to 
the National Drug Court Institute, and for the Counterdrug 
Intelligence Executive Secretariat and the US Anti-Doping 
Agency. The Committee has continued language providing funding 
for performance measures development and for membership dues to 
the World Anti-Doping Agency.
    Language is included providing that a minimum amount of 
Media Campaign funds be spent on advertising time and space.

                     TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES

    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 Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses of the Committee for Purchase.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for expenses of the Federal Election Commission and specifying 
a level of funding for internal automated data processing 
systems and reception and representation expenses.
    The Committee has continued language providing that no 
territory shall receive more than a certain percentage of 
election reform funds.
    Language is included under the Federal Maritime Commission 
directing the agency to submit a report summarizing current 
information technology improvement initiatives and the 
Commission's long-term technology improvement plan.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for the expenses of the authority, including authorized 
services, hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger 
motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the District 
of Columbia and elsewhere. The Committee has also continued 
provisions on compensation for public members of the Federal 
Service Impasse Panel and of the use of fees charged to 
participants at labor-management relations conferences.
    Language has been included for the General Services 
Administration Federal Buildings Fund that specifies the 
conditions under which funds made available can be used and 
designates certain projects that can be undertaken. Many 
technical provisions have been included regarding use of funds 
in the Federal Buildings Fund that are not specifically 
authorized by law. Language has been included that limits 
project funds available for construction and repair and 
alteration of buildings not authorized by law. A more detailed 
analysis of the Federal Buildings Funds can be found in the 
General Services Administration chapter of this report.
    Language has been included for General Services 
Administration government-wide policy that provides funds for 
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management 
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative 
services; support responsibilities relating to acquisition, 
telecommunications, information technology management, and 
related technology activities; and services authorized by 5 
U.S.C. 3109.
    Language has been included for General Services 
Administration operating expenses that provides funds for 
expenses for activities associated with personal and real 
property; technology management and activities; information 
access activities; agency-wide policy direction and management; 
other support services; and official reception and 
representation expenses.
    Language has been included for the GSA Office of Inspector 
General that provides funds for information and detection of 
fraud; and for awards in recognition of efforts that enhance 
the office.
    Language has been included for the GSA electronic 
government fund that allows these funds to be transferred.
    Language has been included for allowances and office staff 
for former Presidents that allows a portion of these funds to 
be transferred.
    Section 501 provides that costs included in rent received 
from government corporations for operation, protection, 
maintenance, upkeep, repair and improvement shall be credited 
to the Federal Buildings Fund.
    Section 502 authorizes the use of funds for the hire of 
motor vehicles.
    Section 503 provides that funds made available for 
activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred 
between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress.
    Section 504 prohibits the use of funds for developing 
courthouse construction requests that do not meet GSA standards 
and the priorities of the Judicial Conference.
    Section 505 provides that no funds may be used to increase 
the amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning 
services, security enhancements, or any other service usually 
provided, to any agency which does not pay the requested rent.
    Section 506 provides for Information Technology Fund 
repayment from sponsored projects that realize program savings.
    Section 507 permits GSA to pay small claims (up to 
$250,000) made against the government.
    Section 508 prohibits GSA from developing or implementing a 
mandatory system requiring agencies to use a specific 
electronic travel solution or the eTravel Service. This 
limitation is extended to the Department of Transportation.
    Section 509 provides the General Services Administration 
with temporary authority to distribute election reform funds 
under Title II, subtitle D of the Help America Vote Act.
    Section 510 prohibits the establishment of a quick response 
team processing center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the rental of 
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the 
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the direct procurement of 
survey printing.
    Language has been included for the Morris K. Udall 
scholarship and excellence in national environmental policy 
trust fund that provides for financial audits and provides for 
transfers related to the Native Nations Institute.
    Language has been included for the environmental dispute 
resolution fund pursuant to the Environmental Policy and 
Conflict Resolution Act of 1998.
    Language has been included for National Archives and 
Records Administration operating expenses for the hire of 
passenger motor vehicles; authority to use excess funds for 
holding storage; and preservation of the records of the 
Freedmen's Bureau.
    Language has been included for the electronic records 
archive that provides for all direct project costs associated 
with its development.
    Language has been included for repairs and alterations that 
provides funds for the repair, alteration, and improvement of 
archives facilities and presidential libraries.
    Language has been included for national historical 
publications and records commission grants that provides for 
activities authorized by 44 U.S.C. 2504.
    The Committee has continued language that provides funds 
for the Office of Government Ethics, including the rental of 
conference rooms in the