Electronic grant project. --The Committee has denied funding for the

electronic grant project due to budget constraints.

Acquisition management training. --The Committee has not provided

any funding for acquisition management training throughout the

department due to budget constraints.

Advanced vehicle technology consortia. --The Committee has provided

$5,000,000 so that RSPA can participate in a joint DOT/DOE initiative

that would support a public/private partnership to design, develop, and

deploy alternative fuels and propulsion systems focusing on medium and

heavy vehicles. The budget request included an appropriation of

$10,000,000 within the FHWA's limitation on general operating expenses.

The Committee recognizes the work of the Northeast Alternative

Vehicle Consortium to reduce vehicle emissions in the northeast, and

encourages the consortium to compete for funding made available under

this program.

Hazmat Training. --The Committee believes that the transportation of

hazardous material presents serious safety and health risks to those

workers who are not properly trained in such activities as hazardous

materials classification, the use of placarding and labeling, general

handling procedures, loading and unloading methods, and personal

protection techniques in the event of release or damage during

transportation of hazardous materials. The Committee recognizes the need

for highly qualified instructors who can train front line employees to

reduce the risk factors associated with the transportation of hazardous

material, and encourages RSPA to consider awarding grants for this

purpose authorized under section 5107(e) of title 49, U.S.C.

PIPELINE SAFETY

(Pipeline Safety Fund)

(Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)

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

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998\1\ $28,000,000 $3,300,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 32,163,000 3,300,000

Recommended in the bill 28,973,000 4,475,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +973,000 +1,175,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 -3,190,000 +1,175,000

\1\Excludes reductions of $44,000 for TASC.

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

grants-in-aid for state pipeline programs.

The bill includes $33,448,000 to continue pipeline safety operations,

research and development, and state grants-in-aid in fiscal year 1999.

The bill specifies that, of the total appropriation, $4,475,000 is to be

derived from the oil spill liability trust fund and $28,973,000 is from

the pipeline safety fund. In addition, the Committee has included

language that permits the office of pipeline safety (OPS) to use

$1,300,000 from its reserve fund for one-call notification grants,

emergency notification, and public education.

The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation by

budget activity and funding source:

Budget activity Pipeline safety fund Oil spill liability trust fund Reserve fund\1\ Total

Personnel, compensation, and benefits $7,620,000 $587,000 $8,207,000

Administrative expenses 3,613,000 45,000 3,658,000

Contracts: 900,000 400,000 1,300,000

Oil Pollution Act 2,443,000 2,443,000

Research and development 1,919,000 1,919,000

Grants: 12,600,000 400,000 13,000,000

---------------------- -------------------------------- ----------------- --------------

Total 28,973,000 4,475,000 1,300,000 34,748,000

\1\Funding derived from the reserve fund is not directly appropriated.

Authorized level. --For the past two years, the department has

submitted a budget request that, in total, is below the authorized level

but exceeds the authorized level for fees. As a result, the Committee

has had to reallocate the request to fit within the authorized

components. The Committee expects the department to submit future budget

requests that fall within the authorized level, both in their components

(pipeline safety fund, oil spill liability trust fund, and reserve fund)

and in total.

Oil spill liability trust fund. --The budget request sought

$3,300,000 from the oil spill liability trust fund; however, the

Committee has increased this amount to $4,475,000 because there are a

number of program activities that could be more suitably funded from

this source instead of funded by new user fees. These changes are

reflected in the table above.

Information and analysis. --The Committee has taken a slight

reduction from the budget request for information and analysis

(-$65,000). This funding was to be used to apply the concepts and

lessons learned from the pilot risk management demonstration project.

However, this demonstration project began slower than anticipated and

not all of the companies have been selected. As a result, two years of

data will not be available for RSPA to analyze by the end of fiscal year

1999.

Compliance program. --The Committee has held the compliance program

to the fiscal year 1998 enacted level (-$150,000). At this level, the

Committee believes that there is sufficient engineering support staff

available to oversee regular inspections and monitor remediation

activities.

State grants. --The Committee has provided $13,000,000 for state

grants, an increase of $1,000,000 (8 percent) above the fiscal year 1998

enacted level. Due to budget constraints, the Committee could not

appropriate the 12.5 increase requested (-$500,000).

EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS

(Emergency Preparedness Fund)

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $200,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 200,000

Recommended in the bill 200,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999

The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act of 1990

(HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a reimbursable

emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor public sector

emergency response training and planning and provide technical

assistance to states, political subdivisions and Indian tribes; and (3)

develop and update periodically a mandatory training curriculum for

emergency responders.

The bill includes $200,000, the same amount requested for fiscal year

1999, for activities related to emergency response training curriculum

development and updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of

HMTUSA.

LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS

Bill language is included that limits the obligation of emergency

preparedness training grants. RSPA intends to increase the annual

funding under the Hazmat Registration Program from $7,372,000 to

approximately $14,300,000 in 1999. However, the agency has not yet

issued a notice of proposed rulemaking identifying ways to increase

collections to this level. The Committee is concerned about doubling the

program's collections in one fiscal year, and as such, has limited the

amount RSPA can collect for the emergency preparedness grants program to

$9,600,000.

In 1995, RSPA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking recommending a

graduated fee structure that would increase the total fees collected to

$19,200,000. This is the level authorized by the 1990 Hazardous

Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act. However, there was

considerable industry opposition to the graduated fee structure, and

after considering these comments, RSPA decided not to increase these

fees without further consultation.

Since then, the Inspector General (IG) has audited RSPA's hazardous

materials registration program, and found that, among other things, the

administration has not identified all shippers and carriers that are

potentially subject to its regulations and does not follow up to ensure

that covered entities register as required. Based on these two findings,

the IG projected that by better identifying hazmat entities and by

following up with those who do not respond, RSPA could generate

additional registration and processing fees of between $960,000 and

$2,200,000 annually. The Committee believes that after RSPA acts upon

the IG's recommendations, RSPA should be able to collect additional

fees. Only after this is completed should the administration begin its

negotiated rulemaking to establish a graduated registration fee. The

Committee does not believe that this action could responsibly occur

prior to fiscal year 2000.

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998\1\ $42,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 42,491,000

Recommended in the bill 43,495,000

Bill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +1,495,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 +1,004,000

\1\Excludes reductions of $59,000 for TASC.

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 full and currently informed

of problems and deficiencies in the administration of such programs and

operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the Inspector

General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of Transportation and

to the Congress.

The Committee recommendation provides $43,495,000 for activities of

the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,004,000 above the

administration's request and $1,495,000 (3.5 percent) above the level

for comparable activities during fiscal year 1998.

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.

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998\1\ $13,853,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\2\ 16,000,000

Recommended in the bill 16,000,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +2,144,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999

\1\Excludes $2,000,000 in user fees and reductions of $3,000 for TASC.

\2\Represents $16,000,000 in user fees, which offset the appropriation as 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

certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway

Administration. The Board is specifically responsible for regulation of

the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-licensing regulations

of motor carriers and water carriers. The new law empowers the Board

through its exemption authority to promote deregulation administratively

on a case-by-case basis and continues intact the important rail reforms

of the Staggers Rail Act of 1980, which have helped substantially

improve rail service and the profitability of the railroad industry.

The Committee recommends a total appropriation of $16,000,000, the

same amount as requested by the Board. Included in this total is an

estimated $2,600,000 in user fees, which will offset the appropriated

funding.

User fees. --The Committee disagrees with the budget request to fund

the entire operation of the Surface Transportation Board, or

$16,000,000, from the collection of user fees. Current statutory

authority, under the Independent Offices Appropriations Act (31 U.S.C.

9701), grants the Board the authority to collect user fees; however, not

to the level provided in the budget estimate. Legislative change to the

Board's authorizing statute to mandate an industry assessment program of

$16,000,000 would require Congress to enact such authority prior to

October 1, 1998. Even assuming that Congress approves legislation that

would authorize the Board to recover the full costs of administering its

programs, the Board would have to undertake necessary rulemakings to

determine the appropriate level of these assessments. These rulemakings

could not be completed in a timely manner to ensure adequate funding for

the Board in fiscal year 1999.

Instead of fully funding the Board through user fees, the Committee

believes that $2,600,000 is a reasonable sum, based on current

collections and carryover balances of $625,000 from fiscal year 1997.

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. The Board has told the Committee that it would prefer language

that would allow the user fees to be credited to the appropriation as

offsetting collections because the tracking of the collection would be

simplified.

The Committee has retained the bill language that provides that any

fees received in excess shall remain available until expended but shall

not be available for obligation until October 1, 1999. The carryover

provision allows the Board to capture and utilize the fees from prior

year filings during periods of shortfall. This language is necessary as

long as there is a dollar cap associated with offsetting collections.

During fiscal year 1999, the Committee suggests that the Board

revisit its user fee collection schedule to see if these fees should be

altered to better reflect the Board's costs of providing these services.

The Board did this type of analysis in 1996 when it increased its fees

from $1,900,000 to $3,000,000 per year. Any analysis that the Board

undertakes should reflect a gradual increase in fees, not to recoup all

the operating costs of the Board in fiscal year 2000.

Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger. --The Committee is aware that

the Board has continuing jurisdiction over the Union Pacific/Southern

Pacific merger in connection with the STB Finance Docket No. 32760. If

it becomes necessary for the Board to issue a rule regarding the

environmental mitigation study for Wichita, Kansas, the Board shall base

its final environmental mitigation conditions for Wichita on verifiable

and appropriate assumptions. If there is any material change in the

bases of the assumptions on which the final mitigation for Wichita is

imposed, the Committee expects the Board to exercise that jurisdiction

by reexamining the final environmental mitigation measures. Also, if the

Union Pacific Corporation, its divisions, or subsidiaries materially

changes or is unable to achieve the assumptions the Board based its

final mitigation measures on, then the Board should reopen Finance

Docket 32760, if requested, and prescribe additional mitigation properly

reflecting these changes, if shown to be appropriate.

TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES

ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $3,640,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 3,847,000

Recommended in the bill 3,847,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 +207,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999

The Committee recommends $3,847,000 for the operations of the

Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, an increase

of $207,000 over the 1998 enacted level, and the same as the budget

request.

The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance with the

standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers Act; ensuring that

public conveyances, including rolling stock, are readily accessible to

and usable by physically handicapped persons; investigating and

examining alternative approaches to the elimination of architectural,

transportation, communication and attitudinal barriers; determining what

measures are being taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum

guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and providing

technical assistance to all programs affected by Title V of the

Rehabilitation Act.

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

SALARIES AND EXPENSES

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998\1\ $53,771,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999\2\ 47,200,000

Recommended in the bill 53,300,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1997 -471,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1998 +6,100,000

\1\Includes $5,400,000 contained in the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1998.

\2\The President's budget request also included an appropriation of $6,000,000 in user fees.

Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National Transportation

Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving transportation safety

by investigating accidents, conducting special studies, developing

recommendations to prevent accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of

the transportation safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing

appeals of adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and

licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of

Transportation.

The bill includes an appropriation of $53,300,000 for salaries and

expenses, which is $6,100,000 more than requested in the President's

budget, and does not assume the collection of $6,000,000 in user fees.

The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1998 program level,

the President's fiscal year 1999 request, and the Committee's

recommendations:

Program Fiscal year 1998 enacted Fiscal year 1999 estimate Recommended in bill

Staff years Budget authority\1\ Staff years Budget authority\2\ Staff years Budget authority

Policy and direction 91 $11,703,000 91 $12,150,000 91 $12,150,000

Aviation safety 139 15,943,000 139 19,065,000 139 19,065,000

Surface transportation 96 11,465,000 96 12,155,000 96 12,255,000

Research and engineering 66 7,902,000 66 8,420,000 66 8,420,000

Administrative law judges 10 1,358,000 10 1,410,000 10 1,410,000

-------------- --------------------- -------------- --------------------- -------------- ------------------

Total 402 48,371,000 402 53,200,000 402 53,300,000

\1\Does not include $5,400,000 supplemental emergency appropriations. That funding was appropriated for rental payments of the Calverton facility in New York.

\2\Includes $6,000,000 in user fees.

The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes to deviate

in any way from the staff year allocations or by more than five percent

from the funding allocations listed above.

Truck and bus accidents. --The Committee is concerned about the

growing number of truck and bus accidents. After years of declining

vehicle crash rates and fatalities rates, both large trucks and

intercity passenger buses are experiencing an upswing in crash and

fatality rates. The Committee directs the Safety Board to monitor the

bus situation carefully and include it as part of the Board's special

investigation of bus crashworthiness and survivability. In addition, the

Committee directs the Board to closely monitor commercial motor vehicle

accident and fatality rates to determine whether or not these accident

rates are growing as a result of increased speeds on the nation's

highways. The Committee has provided $100,000 above the budget request

to do this additional work.

User fees. --The Committee has denied the request to collect

$6,000,000 in user fees. This request was based on the assumption that

legislation authorizing a commercial aviation accident investigation fee

would be enacted, and available for expenditure. The Committee does not

have the jurisdiction to authorize the collection of this fee and is

opposed to such a fee because it makes certain transportation sectors

(i.e. the aviation industry) responsible for paying accident

investigation costs while other sectors (i.e. rail, highway, marine,

etc.) would not be responsible for these costs. In addition, such fees

do not appear to meet existing definitions of user fees, and might, upon

further analysis, be defined as new taxes.

EMERGENCY FUND

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998 $1,000,000

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999 1,000,000

Recommended in the bill 1,000,000

xlBill compared with:

Appropriation, fiscal year 1998

Budget estimate, fiscal year 1999

The bill includes an appropriation of $1,000,000 for the emergency

fund. Under Public Law 97 257, Supplemental Appropriation Act, 1982,

Congress provided a $1,000,000 emergency fund to be used for accident

investigation expenses when investigations would otherwise have been

hampered by lack of funding. By adopting this request, the Committee is

doubling the size of the emergency fund to $2,000,000. At this level,

sufficient funds should be available for unanticipated or unusually

expensive accident investigations. The Committee directs that this fund

should continue to be used only for accident investigation expenses when

investigations would otherwise have been hampered by a lack of funding.

New activities, such as providing assistance to families of victims of

transportation disasters, are not eligible. The Committee has provided

ample funding for family assistance activities under the Safety Board's

salaries and expenses account.

TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS

(including transfers of funds)

The Committee concurs with the general provisions that apply to the

Department of Transportation and related agencies as proposed in the

budget with the following changes:

The Committee does not approve the requested deletion of the

following sections, all of which were contained in the fiscal year 1998

Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act

(section numbers are different):

Section 314 prohibits the use of funds to award multi-year contracts

for production end items that include certain specified provisions.

Section 317 prohibits funds to compensate in excess of 350 staff

years under the federally funded research and development contract

between the Federal Aviation Administration and the Center for Advanced

Aviation Systems Development.

Section 318 reduces funding for activities of the Transportation

administrative service center of the Department of Transportation and

limits obligation authority of the center to $89,124,000. The fiscal

year 1998 bill limited obligation authority of the center to

$118,800,000.

Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or

promulgate any regulation pursuant to title V of the Motor Vehicle

Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average fuel

economy standards for automobiles as defined in such title, in any model

year that differs from standards promulgated for such automobiles prior

to enactment of this section.

Section 323 prohibits the use of funds for any type of training which

(a) does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing

directly on the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly

stressful or emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior

notification of content and methods to be used during the training; (d)

contains any religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a

person's values or lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training,

except for raising awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and

workplace rights.

Section 324 prohibits the use of funds in this Act for activities

designed to influence Congress on legislation or appropriations except

through proper, official channels.

Section 325 limits necessary expenses of advisory committees to

$1,000,000 of the funds provided in this Act to the Department of

Transportation.

Section 327 requires compliance with the Buy American Act.

Section 329 prohibits funds to implement or enforce regulations that

would result in slot allocations of international operations to any

carrier at O'Hare International Airport in excess of the number of slots

allocated to and scheduled by that carrier as of October 31, 1993, if

that slot is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing regulations.

The Committee included the following general provisions as requested

with modifications:

Section 305 prohibits funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of

more than 88 political and Presidential appointees in the Department of

Transportation and includes a provision that prohibits political and

Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail outside the

Department of Transportation.

Section 315 allows funds for discretionary grants of the Federal

Transit Administration for specific projects, except for fixed guideway

modernization projects, not obligated by September 30, 2001, to be used

for other projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.

Section 322 provides that funds received from the sale of data

products of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may be credited to

the Federal-aid highways account for reimbursing the Bureau for such

expenses and that such funds shall be subject to the obligation

limitation for federal-aid highways and highway safety construction.

Section 331 credits to appropriations of the Department of

Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the Department from travel management centers,

charge card programs, the subleasing of building space, and

miscellaneous sources. Funds shall remain available until December 31,

1999.

The Committee included the following new provisions:

Section 321 conveys Coast Guard lights at Tchefuncte River and Pass

Manchac in Louisiana to non-federal parties.

Section 333 rescinds unobligated balances of funds made available in

previous appropriations Acts for the National Civil Aviation Review

Commission and for the Urban Mass Transportation Administration's

``urban discretionary grants.''

Section 334 conveys land from the former Coast Guard reserve training

facility in Jacksonville, Florida, to non-federal parties.

Section 335 establishes a blue-ribbon panel to study the future

capital requirements, roles, and missions of the Coast Guard.

Section 336 provides $250,000 for activities and operations of a

Centennial of Flight Commission.

Section 337 authorizes the Secretary to waive repayment of any

federal-aid highway funds expended on high occupancy lanes or auxiliary

lanes on I 287 in the State of New Jersey.

Section 338 allows previously appropriated funds for a

railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, Georgia, for other

projects in Augusta, Georgia.

Section 339 restricts funding provided in the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century for Pennsylvania Station in excess of the

$100,000,000 federal commitment to fire and life safety repairs in the

North River and East River tunnels of Pennsylvania Station.

Section 340 prohibits the Coast Guard from enforcing regulations

regarding animal fats and vegetable oils.

Section 341 makes funding available for emergency railroad

rehabilitation and repair available from September 1996 to July 10,

1998.

Section 342 relates to evaluating environmental impacts of the toll

road in Orange and San Diego counties, California.

Section 343 provides for the conveyance of a decommissioned Coast

Guard vessel to the University of South Alabama that is determined to be

appropriate by the Commandant and the University.

Section 344 amends item 1132 in section 1602 of Public Law 105 178

relating to Mississippi.

Sections 345 and 346 make technical corrections to Public Law 105 178

on transit and highway guarantee funding levels.

The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the budget:

(1) pertaining to exemptions to the Federal-aid highways limitation

on obligations; (2) allowing additional transfer authority not to exceed

5 percent between discretionary appropriations; (3) authorizing the

collection of fees resulting from the siting of mobile service antennas;

(4) allowing the Secretary of Transportation to exempt any class of

vehicle deemed appropriate under 49 CFR part 580.6; and (5) authorizing

new railroad safety fees.

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 2(1)(4) of rule XI 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.

RESCISSIONS

Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of Representatives,

the following table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended

in the accompanying bill:

Federal Aviation Administration, Grants-in-aid for airports (airport and airway trust fund) (rescission of contract authorization) -$5,000,000

xlTitle III, General Provisions:

Section 334, National Civil Aviation Review Commission -752,000

Section 334, UMTA Urban discretionary grants -3,918,000

TRANSFERS OF FUNDS

Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of Representatives,

the following statement is submitted describing the transfers of funds

provided in the accompanying bill.

The Committee recommends the following transfers:

Under Coast Guard, Reserve training: Provided, That no more than

$20,000,000 of funds made available under this heading may be

transferred to Coast Guard ``Operating expenses'' or otherwise made

available to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial support of the

Coast Guard Reserve.

Under Federal Highway Administration, Limitation on general operating

expenses: Provided, That $52,530,000 shall be transferred to the

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to carry out the

functions and operations of the office of motor carriers.

Under Federal Transit Administration, Administrative expenses:

Provided further, That of the funds in this Act available for the

execution of contracts under section 5327(c) of title 49, United States

Code, $750,000 shall be transferred to the Department of Transportation

Inspector General for costs associated with the audit and review of new

fixed guideway systems.

Under the general provisions:

Sec. 316. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds

appropriated before October 1, 1998, under chapter 53 of title 49

U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be transferred to and

administered under the most recent appropriation heading for any such

section.

Sec. 338. Funds made available in previous appropriations Acts for a

railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, Georgia shall be available

for other street, rail and related improvements in the vicinity of the

grade crossing of the CSX railroad and 15th Street in Augusta, Georgia.

COMPLIANCE WITH CLAUSE 3 OF RULE XIII

In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of

Representatives, changes in existing law made by the bill, as reported,

are shown as follows (existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in

black brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which

no change is proposed is shown in roman):

TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

* * * * * * *

TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS

Subtitle A--Authorizations and Programs

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1102. OBLIGATION CEILING.

(a) General Limitation.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law

but subject to subsections (g) and (h), the obligations for Federal-aid

highway and highway safety construction programs shall not exceed--

(1) $21,500,000,000 for fiscal year 1998;

(2) $25,431,000,000 $25,511,000,000 for fiscal year 1999;

* * * * * * *

Subtitle F--High Priority Projects

* * * * * * *

SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.

Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the amount

listed for each high priority project in the following table shall be

available. (from amounts made available by section 1101(a)(13) of the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century) for fiscal years 1998

through 2003 to carry out each such project:

No. State Project description (Dollars in millions)

1. Georgia I 75 advanced transportation management system in Cobb County 1.7

* * * * * * *

1132. Mississippi Construct I 20 interchange at [Pirate Cove] Pirates' Cove and 4-lane connector to Mississippi Highway 468 0.75.

* * * * * * *

* * * * * * *

TITLE VIII--TRANSPORTATION DISCRETIONARY SPENDING GUARANTEE

AND BUDGET OFFSETS

Subtitle A--Transportation Discretionary Spending Guarantee

SEC. 8101. DISCRETIONARY SPENDING CATEGORIES.

(a) * * *

(b) Offsetting Adjustment in Discretionary Spending Limits.--

(1) Adjustment of nondefense category for fy1999.--The discretionary

spending limit set forth in section 251(c)(3)(B) of the Balanced Budget

and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as adjusted in conformance

with section 251(b) of that Act, is reduced by $859,000,000 in new

budget authority and $25,173,000,000 $25,144,000,000 in outlays.

(2) Adjustment of discretionary category for fy2000.--The

discretionary spending limit set forth in section 251(c)(4)(A) of the

Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as adjusted

in conformance with section 251(b) of that Act, is reduced by

$859,000,000 in new budget authority and $26,045,000,000 $26,009,000,000

in outlays.

* * * * * * *

(f) Technical Amendments.--Section 250(c)(4)(C) of the Balanced

Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as amended by

subsection (c) of this section) is amended--

(1) by striking ``Century and'' and inserting ``Century or'';

(2) by striking ``as amended by this section,'' and inserting ``as

amended by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,''; and

(3) by adding at the end the following new flush sentence:

``Such term also refers to the Washington Metropolitan Transit

Authority account (69 1128 0 1 401) only for fiscal year 1999 only for

appropriations provided pursuant to authorizations contained in section

14 of Public Law 96 184 and Public Law 101 551.''.

SEC. 8102. CONFORMING THE PAYGO SCORECARD WITH THIS ACT.

Upon the enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of

Management and Budget shall not make any estimates under section 252(d)

of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 of

changes in direct spending outlays and receipts for any fiscal year

resulting from this title or from section 1102 of this Act .

* * * * * * *

SECTION 250 OF THE BALANCED BUDGET AND EMERGENCY DEFICIT CONTROL ACT OF

1985

SEC. 250. TABLE OF CONTENTS; STATEMENT OF BUDGET ENFORCEMENT

THROUGH SEQUESTRATION; DEFINITIONS.

(a) * * *

* * * * * * *

(c) Definitions .--

As used in this part:

(1) * * *

* * * * * * *

(4)(A) * * *

* * * * * * *

(C) The term ``mass transit category'' refers to the following

budget accounts or portions thereof that are subject to the obligation

limitations on contract authority provided in the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century and or for which appropriations are provided

pursuant to authorizations contained in that Act (except that

appropriations provided pursuant to section 5338(h) of title 49, United

States Code, as amended by this section, as amended by the

Transportation Equity Act of the 21st Century, shall not be included in

this category):

(i) 69 8191 0 7 401 (Mass Transit Capital Fund).

(ii) 69 8350 0 7 401 (Trust Fund Share of Expenses).

(iii) 69 1129 0 1 401 (Formula Grants).

(iv) 69 1120 0 1 401 (Administrative Expenses).

(v) 69 1136 0 1 401 (University Transportation Centers).

(vi) 69 1137 0 1 401 (Transit Planning and Research).

Such term also refers to the Washington Metropolitan Transit

Authority account (69 1128 0 1 401) only for fiscal year 1999 only for

appropriations provided pursuant to authorizations contained in section

14 of Public Law 96 184 and Public Law 101 551.

* * * * * * *

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the

following statements are submitted describing the effects of provisions

in the accompanying bill which might be construed, under some

circumstances, as directly or indirectly changing the application of

existing law.

The bill provides that appropriations shall remain available for more

than one year for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing

legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended availability.

The bill includes limitations on official entertainment, reception

and representation expenses for the Secretary of Transportation and the

National Transportation Safety Board. Similar provisions have appeared

in many previous appropriations Acts.

The bill provides for transfer of funds that might be construed as

changing the application of existing law. Similar provisions have

appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These items are discussed

under the appropriate heading in the report.

The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase of

automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar limitations

have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.

Language is included in several instances permitting certain funds to

be credited to the appropriations recommended.

Language is included under Office of the Secretary, ``Salaries and

Expenses,'' which would allow crediting the account with up to

$1,000,000 in user fees.

Language is included that limits operating costs and capital outlays

of the Transportation Administrative Service Center of the Department of

Transportation and limits special assessments or reimbursable agreements

levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to

only those assessments or reimbursable agreements that are presented to

and approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses''

which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand at any one time

cannot exceed two hundred and twelve.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses''

which specifies that none of the funds appropriated shall be available

for pay or administrative expenses in connection with shipping

commissioners.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses''

that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation to the amount of

fees collected from yacht owners.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses''

that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both military and

civilian employment levels to comply with Executive Order No. 12839.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating expenses''

that prohibits funds to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that

would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically authorized by

law after the date of enactment of this Act.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,

construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received from the

sale of the HU 25 aircraft to this account to purchase new aircraft.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,

construction, and improvements'' that credits funds from the disposal of

surplus property by sale or lease and allows not more than $3,000,000 to

be credited as offsetting collections to this appropriation.

Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve training'' that

limits funds available for transfer to ``Operating expenses'' to no more

than $20,000,000 to reimburse the Coast Guard for financial support of

the Coast Guard Reserve.

Language is included under Coast Guard, ``Reserve training'' that

prohibits funds by the Coast Guard to assess direct charges on the Coast

Guard Reserves for items or activities which were not so charged during

fiscal year 1997.

Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research, development,

test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received from state and local

governments and other entities for expenses incurred for research,

development, testing, and evaluation.

Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' permitting the

use of funds to enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit

standard-setting organization to develop aviation safety standards.

Language is included under the Federal Aviation Administration,

``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds for new applicants of the

second career training program.

Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that prohibits the

use of funds for premium pay unless an employee actually performed work

during the time corresponding to the premium pay.

Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that prohibits

funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service

station in the contiguous United States.

Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations'' that limits FAA's

contribution to the Transportation Administrative Service Center.

Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that prohibits

multiyear leases greater than three years in length or greater than

$100,000,000 unless specifically authorized and contingent liabilities

fully funded.

Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that requires that

only overflight fees be used to support salaries or expenses of

personnel who carry out the essential air service program.

Language is included under FAA, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds

for FAA to sign a lease for satellite services related to the global

positioning system wide area augmentation system until the FAA

administrator certifies in writing that such lease will result in the

lowest overall cost to the agency.

Language is included under FAA, ``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 FAA, ``Facilities and equipment'' that

prohibits funds for additional bulk explosive detection systems until

the FAA administrator certifies in writing that major air carriers

responsible for providing security agree to specific stipulations.

Language is included under FAA, ``Facilities and equipment'' that

reimburses the sponsor of Louisville Standiford Field in Kentucky for

costs related to an instrument landing system.

Language is included under FAA, ``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 prohibiting funds for aircraft purchase loan

guarantees.

Language is included repealing the administrative service franchise

fund.

The bill includes a limitation on general operating expenses and

transportation research of the Federal Highway Administration.

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the planning or

implementation of any rulemaking on labeling passenger car tires for low

rolling resistance.

Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting obligations

for certain safety grant programs.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Office

of the administrator'' authorizing the Secretary to receive payments

from the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, credit them to the

appropriation charged with the first deed of trust, and make payments on

the first deed of trust.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,

``Railroad safety'' that allows reimbursement of states' employees

travel and per diem costs when directly supporting federal railroad

safety programs.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,

``Railroad Research and Development'' that allows FRA to sell old

aluminum reaction rail at the Transportation Technology Center in

Pueblo, Colorado, and credits such sale to this appropriation.

Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue fund

anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under sections 511

through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Rhode

Island rail development'' that specifies that the federal contribution

shall be matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis.

Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration, ``Capital

Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that withholds

funds to Amtrak until the deposit of funds provided under the Taxpayer

Relief Act of 1997 and the approval of an Amtrak capital funding plan by

the Secretary of Transportation, Director of the Office of Management

and Budget, and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,

``Administrative expenses'' that transfers funds to the Inspector

General for audit and review of new fixed guideway systems.

Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,

``Discretionary grants,'' specifying the distribution of funds for new

fixed guideway systems in this Act.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs

Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would allow up

to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C. 5108(g) to be deposited

in the general fund of the Treasury as offsetting receipts.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs

Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits certain

funds received for expenses incurred for training and other activities.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs

Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that allows up to $1,300,000 for

one-call notification systems to be funded from amounts previously

collected and held in a reserve account.

Language is included under Research and Special Programs

Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' specifying the

Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate funds provided

under this head.

Language is included under Surface Transportation Board, ``Salaries

and expenses'' allowing the collection of $2,600,000 in fees established

by the Chairman of the Surface Transportation Board; and providing that

fees collected in excess of $2,600,000 shall not be available until

October 1, 1999.

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.

Language is included in rescinding contract authority and other

unobligated balances of funds previously provided.

The bill contains a number of general provisions that place

limitations or funding prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and

which might, under some circumstances, be construed as changing the

application of existing law.

The bill contains a number of general provisions that allow for the

redistribution of previously appropriated funds.

Section 313 allows airports to transfer to the Federal Aviation

Administration instrument landing systems which conform to FAA

specifications and the purchase of such equipment was assisted by a

federal airport aid program.

Section 318 reduced funding for activities of the transportation

administrative service center of the Department of Transportation and

limits obligation authority of the center to $89,124,000.

Section 320 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose, or

promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle Information and

Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average fuel economy standards

for automobiles.

Section 321 includes language that conveys the Pass Manchac Light in

Tangipahoa Parish, Louisiana to the State of Louisiana and the

Tchefuncte River Rear Light in Madisonville, Louisiana, to the Town of

Madisonville.

Section 322 allows funds received by the Bureau of Transportation

Statistics from the sale of data products be credited to the Federal-aid

highways account for the purpose of reimbursing the Bureau for such

expenses.

Section 323 prohibits funds for any type of training which: (a) does

not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities bearing directly on

the performance of official duties; (b) could be highly stressful or

emotional to the students; (c) does not provide prior notification of

content and methods to be used during the training; (d) contains any

religious concepts or ideas; (e) attempts to modify a person's values or

lifestyle; or (f) is for AIDS awareness training, except for raising

awareness of medical ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights.

Section 330 limits the number of communities that receive essential

air service funding.

Section 331 credits to appropriations of the Department of

Transportation rebates, refunds, incentive payments, minor fees and

other funds received by the Department from travel management centers,

charge card programs, the subleasing of building space, and

miscellaneous sources.

Section 332 authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to allow

issuers to redeem or repurchase preferred stock sold to the Department

of Transportation.

Section 334 includes language that conveys land from the former Coast

Guard reserve training facility in Jacksonville, Florida, to non-federal

parties.

Section 335 provides funds for a blue-ribbon panel to study the

future capital requirements, roles, and missions of the U.S. Coast

Guard.

Section 336 provides funds for activities and operations of the

Centennial of Flight Commission.

Section 337 authorizes the Secretary to waive repayment of any

federal-aid highway funds expended on high occupancy lanes or auxiliary

lanes on I 287 in the State of New Jersey.

Section 338 allows previously appropriated funds for a

railroad-highway crossing project in Augusta, Georgia, for other

projects in Augusta, Georgia.

Section 339 limits funds made available for Pennsylvania Station

above the federal commitment of $100,000,000 to fire and life safety

repairs in the North River and East River tunnels.

Section 340 prohibits the Coast Guard from enforcing regulations

regarding animal fats and vegetable oils.

Section 341 makes funding available in Public Law 105 174 for

emergency railroad rehabilitation and repair available from September

1996 to July 10, 1998.

Section 342 relates to evaluating environmental impacts of the toll

road in Orange and San Diego counties, California.

Section 343 provides for the conveyance of a decommissioned Coast

Guard vessel to the University of South Alabama that is determined to be

appropriate by the Commandant and the University.

Section 344 amends item 1132 in section 1602 of Public Law 105 178

relating to Mississippi.

Sections 345 and 346 make technical corrections to Public Law 105 178

on transit and highway guarantee funding levels.

APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW

Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of Representatives, the

following lists the appropriations in the accompanying bill which are

not authorized by law:

United States Coast Guard

Federal Aviation Administration

Federal Railroad Administration

Research and Special Programs Administration

Surface Transportation Board

COMPARISON WITH BUDGET RESOLUTION

Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment

Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, requires that the

report accompanying a bill providing new budget authority contain a

statement detailing how the new authority compares with the reports

submitted under section 302(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed

to concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This

information follows:

[In millions of dollars]

302(b) allocation This bill

Budget authority Outlays Budget authority Outlays

Discretionary $11,939 $39,933 $11,939 $39,933

Mandatory 682 678 682 678

------------------- ---------- ------------------- ---------

Total 12,621 40,611 12,621 40,611

The bill provides new spending authority as defined under section

401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of

1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, as follows:

Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad rehabilitation and

improvement financing funds, authority is provided to issue notes

necessary to pay obligations under section 511 through 513 of the

Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has

been included at the request of the administration because the

government's financial obligations under this program are difficult to

determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of funds.

The Committee has received no indication to date that this authority

will be used in fiscal year 1998. Similar provisions have been included

in many previous appropriations Acts.

FIVE-YEAR OUTLAY PROJECTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the Congressional Budget

Act of 1974 (Public Law 93 344), as amended, the following information

was provided to the Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:

Budget authority $13,733,000,000

xlOutlays:

1999 16,313,000,000

2000 15,002,000,000

2001 6,351,000,000

2002 4,181,000,000

2003 and beyond 3,842,000,000

FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS

In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of Public Law 93 344, the

Congressional Budget Office has provided the following estimates of new

budget authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for

financial assistance to state and local governments:

Budget authority $1,098,,000,000

Fiscal year 1999 outlays 7,157,000,000

Offset Folios 191 to 204 Insert here

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. FRANK R. WOLF

For fiscal year 1999, the Committee has provided $3,922,000,000 for

Coast Guard operations and acquisition activities including $406,000,000

to support America's ``War on Drugs.'' As a result of the high priority

the Committee places on the eradication of illegal drug use by

Americans, and its youth in particular, the Committee has included over

$73 million more for this effort than was requested by the

administration. It is because I hold such strong views on this topic

that I have included these ``Additional Views'' in the Committee's

report urging the Coast Guard to use force to prevent drugs from

reaching our shores and to increase efforts to apprehend known drug

traffickers. With the additional funding provided in this bill the Coast

Guard must be allowed to be more aggressive in its pursuit of drug

traffickers. If America is going to be called upon to provide more for

drug interdiction, Americans should know that their money is being put

to its best and most effective use.

Every year I visit schools in my congressional district taking the

opportunity to spend time with teachers, administrators and students.

What I am hearing from them about illegal drug use is alarming. I have

hosted workshops and conferences on the drug problem and invited parents

and community leaders. What I see is a frustration that while we talk a

great deal about the elimination of drugs, not enough is being done. I

agree. The ``War on Drugs'' is truly a battle for the heart and soul of

our nation and simply throwing money at it will not win it.

There is a great deal of debate on how best to curb illegal drug use

in America. Some propose greater educational and rehabilitative programs

to curb demand. Other stress interdiction and the need to work with

source countries to eliminate supply.

In my opinion, education and treatment must be the foundation upon

efforts to eliminate illegal drug use are built. By educating our youth

about the perils of drug use and by extending a helping hand to those

afflicted by this scourge, America can prevail in the ``War on Drugs.''

Initiatives such as the ``Drug Free Communities Act'' and the ``Drug

Free Workplaces Act'' which support community-based educational efforts

can play an important role in this effort. So too must America's

families. We must provide parents with every tool necessary to assist in

this effort including the ability to speak frankly with clinicians and

physicians about their children's drug use, a right many parents today

do not enjoy.

In the mid to late 1980's, President and Mrs. Reagan provided

national leadership in America's effort to rid itself of illegal drugs,

and through the ``Just Say No'' campaign significantly reduced illegal

drug use in our nation. But no battle is won forever. In a recent

National Parents' Resource Institute for Drug Education (PRIDE) survey,

25 percent of senior high school students responded that they have used

drugs at least once a month. Each generation must remain vigilant in its

efforts. We must stress the importance of education and rehabilitation

as keys to eliminating the use of illegal drugs in America.

At the same time, congressional leadership has stressed the role of

interdiction in the ``War in Drugs'' and funding for the Coast Guard in

this bill provides more for this effort. It is in this regard that I

suggest that if America is going to spend more of its taxpayers' money

on interdiction, it must be more aggressive in combating illegal drug

suppliers. We must rethink our ``shoot-down'' policy as well as the

policy on apprehension of drug traffickers. By doing so, we send a

strong message to all engaged in the drug trade that America is serious

about winning this war.

This is not a new idea. In 1990, former Rep. Lawrence Coughlin of

Pennsylvania, who served as the ranking minority member of the

Transportation subcommittee, introduced the ``Airborne Drug Trafficking

Deterrence Act'' because the Coast Guard lacked the tools to adequately

engage drug traffickers using aircraft to transport their poison to

America.

In 1998, the situation remains much the same. Today, the Coast Guard

has the ability to fire warning shots, and disabling fire, at boats

suspected of transporting illegal drugs. It is a resource that is

available today, but in my opinion is not used enough. However, the

Coast Guard has virtually no power to deal with drugs being transported

via aircraft. Only in those narrow situation where an aircraft poses an

imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to any person may the

Coast Guard act. In addition, none of the Coast Guard's aircraft are

currently equipped with firepower.

As Rep. Coughlin said, the Coast Guard has ``enormous capability to

detect, monitor and follow drug smugglers but little ability to take any

action which might deter them . . . they follow drug smugglers with

expensive radars and chase planes. They watch them deliver their drugs,

and they escort them away from the drop site. They are well trained,

attentive to procedure, professional--and, unfortunately, they are

helpless, because they can take no action against such an aircraft.''

Coast Guard aircraft should be outfitted with the necessary firepower

or the resources of our armed forces should be made available at their

disposal to carry out this important mission.

Is not the delivery of drugs to America a threat of death or serious

bodily injury? In 1988, then Assistant Attorney General William Weld

stated that an argument for firing upon aircraft known to be

transporting illegal drugs could be made ``if sufficient nexus can be

established between air transportation of drugs and the physical harm

that might result when the drugs reach their intended.'' In my opinion,

the required nexus exists--illegal drugs of the sort being transported

via aircraft do pose a threat of death and serious bodily injury to

Americans.

A more aggressive shoot-down policy would also have the effect of

deterring drug smuggling via aircraft. A smuggler who knows that his

plane, and his life, could be lost in the delivery of drugs may think

again before making the run. In 1990, former Coast Guard Commandant Paul

Yost agreed, and in a letter to Congress wrote, ``In my view, the use of

force against airborne drug traffickers, under certain conditions, is

not only justified but necessary given the world we live in.''

In addition, the United States must be more aggressive in its effort

to apprehend known drug traffickers, regardless of their location.

Earlier this year, the Customs Service, Justice Department and Federal

Reserve Bank culminated a bold three-year investigation of drug-money

laundering with charges against bankers with 12 of Mexico's largest 19

banks. ``Operation Casablanca'' resulted in the seizure of two tons of

cocaine, four tons of marijuana, and most importantly, the arrest of

more than 100 individuals engaged in the drug trade.

While ``Operation Casablanca'' is a positive step in America's ``War

on Drugs,'' we cannot claim victory. In addition to seizing laundered

proceeds from the drug trade, the United States should consider

developing a program to seize individuals who perpetuate the sale of

narcotics in America. If foreign governments are not willing to

apprehend known drug traffickers in their countries, then the United

States should. With the funds provided by this Committee and others in

Congress to defeat drug use, intelligence gathered on the drug trade

should be put to the most productive use, including the seizure of

individuals.

The ``War on Drugs'' demands bold and innovative steps. It requires a

balance of strategies to eliminate supply and demand. Education and

rehabilitation can work as they have in the past and these important

efforts must continue. But if we are going to place a priority on

interdiction as the congressional leadership has, there is more we can

do. Firing upon known drug traffickers, and apprehending them wherever

they may be, would be a good start.

Frank R. Wolf.

ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HON. DAVID OBEY

WHY IS THE FEDERAL BUDGET BALANCED?

Fiscal Year 1998 will mark the first balanced budget in 29 years. On

July 15, 1998 the Congressional Budget Office revised its surplus

estimate once again predicting that the 1998 surplus will be $63

billion, and if the current policies remain unchanged, the surplus is

expected to rise to $80 billion in 1999. The OMB's Mid-Session Review

issued on May 26, 1998 predicts a 1998 surplus of $39 billion. This is a

remarkable turnabout given that as recently as FY 1992, the federal

deficit was $290 billion. This surplus is the culmination of six years

in a row of successively improved fiscal balances, the longest such

period of improvement in history; will cause the debt burden to shrink

for the fourth year in a row (i.e., debt held by the public as a share

of GDP; and will cause mandatory net interest payments to start

shrinking as a share of the budget and as a share of the

economy--leaving more room in the budget for productive activities.

Soon after May surplus projections were released, the Majority Party

issued a flurry of press releases making the claim that so-called

``Balanced Budget'' legislation and other bills enacted by Congress last

year are responsible for this turnabout. Such claims are simply not

credible. Just as it took years of fiscal imprudence in the 1980's and

early 1990's to build up a $290 billion deficit by 1992, it took years

of adhering to disciplined and responsible fiscal and monetary policies

since 1992 to dig out of this deficit position.

WHAT CAUSED THE 1998 SURPLUS?--CBO'S EXPLANATION

So what are the precise reasons for this dramatic turnaround since

President Bush left office with a $290 billion deficit? The CBO has

issued data that answers this question objectively and decisively.

According to the CBO data, the remarkable fiscal turnabout has been

due to three primary factors: An improved economy with six years of

sustained growth; legislation passed by the 103rd Democratic Congress in

1993 and 1994; and a slower rise in the cost of medical care (e.g.,

Medicare/Medicaid) than projected.

Conspicuously absent from CBO's analysis of reasons for the 1998

surplus is the fiscal effect of laws enacted by Republican congresses

between 1995 and the present date. The reason for this is that the CBO

actually totes up legislation enacted in the period that Republican have

been in control of Congress as raising the deficit by more than it cut

in 1998. The sum total of laws passed by the 104th and 105th Republican

congresses will cost the Treasury roughly $11,000,000,000 more in FY

1998 than they saved.

In January 1993 when President Clinton took office, CBO made the

alarming prediction that the federal deficit for the next five years

would go through the roof--to $357 billion by fiscal 1998. This was

despite the fact that the economy was expected to improve over that

five-year timeframe. Since then, we have been able to wipe out this $357

billion deficit and build a surplus of $43 billion--a net change of $400

billion.

The CBO attributes this astounding turnaround to the following major

reasons:

Major Reasons for the FY 1998 Surplus

CBO Estimate

Billions

Projected FY 1998 Deficit (Jan. 1993 CBO forecast)

$357

Major Factors for Fiscal Change Since 1992:

Improved economy (revenues higher/entitlement costs lower than 1993

forecast)

\1\-210

Democratic Congress (budgetary effect of legislation passed in 1993

and 1994)

-141

Health care costs (lower cost increases for Medicare/other health care

programs than 1993 forecast)

-60

Total Deficit Reduction

-411

Republican Congresses (budgetary effect of legislation passed

1995-present)

+11

Total Fiscal Change

-400

\1\Minimum.

Despite claims to the contrary, CBO data show that the combined

fiscal effect of the laws enacted by the 104th and 105th Republican

Congresses is to add $11,000,000,000 more to the deficit than it cut in

Fiscal Year 1998.

Clearly the CBO numbers confirm that the major credit for creating

the 1998 surplus must go to actions of the 103rd Democratic Congress,

which not only produced real net savings of $141 billion, but created

the conditions necessary to adopt pro-growth monetary policies that have

been very successful. The centerpiece of this effort, the deficit

reduction bill passed in 1993, was described as follows by Federal

Reserve Chairman Greenspan: ``There's no question that the impact of

bringing the deficit down [through the 1993 budget bill] set in place a

series of events--a virtuous cycle, if I may put it that way--which has

led us to where we are.'' (In testimony before the House Budget

Committee, March 4, 1998.)

The facts show that the 1998 budget is balanced despite Republican

legislative efforts, not because of them.

David Obey.

PAGE 7 105th Congress Legislation Index