[House Hearing, 106 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




 
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 2000
_______________________________________________________________________

                                HEARINGS

                                BEFORE A

                           SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                         HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                       ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
                              FIRST SESSION
                                ________
 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES 
                             APPROPRIATIONS

                    FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia, Chairman

 TOM DeLAY, Texas                  MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky           ED PASTOR, Arizona
 RON PACKARD, California           CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama           JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas               JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 KAY GRANGER, Texas                 

                                   
  NOTE: Under Committee Rules, Mr. Young, as Chairman of the Full 
Committee, and Mr. Obey, as Ranking Minority Member of the Full 
Committee, are authorized to sit as Members of all Subcommittees.
 John T. Blazey II, Richard E. Efford, Stephanie K. Gupta, and Linda J. 
                        Muir, Subcommittee Staff

                                ________
                                 PART 3
                                                                   Page
 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION:....................................
     Coast Guard..................................................  509
     Office of Inspector General..................................  895
     Office of the Secretary......................................  145
     Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation................  927
     Secretary of Transportation..................................    1
 RELATED AGENCIES:................................................
     Architectural and Transportation Barriers....................
         Compliance Board.........................................  987
     U.S. General Accounting Office...............................  509

                                ________
         Printed for the use of the Committee on Appropriations
                                ________
                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
 59-403                     WASHINGTON : 2000


                  COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

                   C. W. BILL YOUNG, Florida, Chairman

 RALPH REGULA, Ohio                   DAVID R. OBEY, Wisconsin
 JERRY LEWIS, California              JOHN P. MURTHA, Pennsylvania
 JOHN EDWARD PORTER, Illinois         NORMAN D. DICKS, Washington
 HAROLD ROGERS, Kentucky              MARTIN OLAV SABO, Minnesota
 JOE SKEEN, New Mexico                JULIAN C. DIXON, California
 FRANK R. WOLF, Virginia              STENY H. HOYER, Maryland
 TOM DeLAY, Texas                     ALAN B. MOLLOHAN, West Virginia
 JIM KOLBE, Arizona                   MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio
 RON PACKARD, California              NANCY PELOSI, California
 SONNY CALLAHAN, Alabama              PETER J. VISCLOSKY, Indiana
 JAMES T. WALSH, New York             NITA M. LOWEY, New York
 CHARLES H. TAYLOR, North Carolina    JOSE E. SERRANO, New York
 DAVID L. HOBSON, Ohio                ROSA L. DeLAURO, Connecticut
 ERNEST J. ISTOOK, Jr., Oklahoma      JAMES P. MORAN, Virginia
 HENRY BONILLA, Texas                 JOHN W. OLVER, Massachusetts
 JOE KNOLLENBERG, Michigan            ED PASTOR, Arizona
 DAN MILLER, Florida                  CARRIE P. MEEK, Florida                   JAY DICKEY, Arkansas                  DAVID E. PRICE, North Carolina                                                              
JACK KINGSTON, Georgia                CHET EDWARDS, Texas
 RODNEY P. FRELINGHUYSEN, New Jersey  ROBERT E. ``BUD'' CRAMER, Jr., 
 ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi          Alabama                           
 MICHAEL P. FORBES, New York          JAMES E. CLYBURN, South Carolina
 GEORGE R. NETHERCUTT, Jr.,           MAURICE D. HINCHEY, New York
Washington                            LUCILLE ROYBAL-ALLARD, California
 RANDY ``DUKE'' CUNNINGHAM,           SAM FARR, California
California                            JESSE L. JACKSON, Jr., Illinois 
 TODD TIAHRT, Kansas                  CAROLYN C. KILPATRICK, Michigan
 ZACH WAMP, Tennessee                 ALLEN BOYD, Florida
 TOM LATHAM, Iowa
 ANNE M. NORTHUP, Kentucky
 ROBERT B. ADERHOLT, Alabama
 JO ANN EMERSON, Missouri
 JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire
 KAY GRANGER, Texas
 JOHN E. PETERSON, Pennsylvania     
                                    
                                    

                 James W. Dyer, Clerk and Staff Director

                                  (ii)


 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR 
                                  2000

                              ----------                              

                                          Thursday, March 18, 1999.

                      SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION

                                WITNESS

RODNEY E. SLATER, SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                            Opening Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Slater. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. During the past several weeks we have conducted a 
series of hearings and have heard from a number of the 
witnesses, including witnesses from the General Accounting 
Office, the Inspector General, the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard, the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration 
and many public witnesses.
    During these hearings we covered a broad range of issues, 
including motor carrier safety, aviation financing, Amtrak and 
the Coast Guard's drug interdiction and capital requirements. 
These hearings revealed significant management and funding 
problems that must be addressed by your administration.
    We learned, for example, that the Office of Motor Carriers 
enforcement activities are severely deficient and must be 
improved immediately to stem the rising tide of fatalities 
resulting from truck crashes; and I know you share that 
concern. I saw your testimony the other day over on the Senate 
side. We learned that the FAA has a long way to go to control 
the costs of its operations, and it must spend and manage 
whatever resources it receives more efficiently than it has in 
the past.
    We learned from the Commandant that he is very concerned 
that funding increases included in AIR21 for aviation programs 
will no doubt crowd out the Coast Guard as well as Amtrak in 
the budget process, and his agency will likely see steep 
reductions as a result of passage of AIR21. We learned from the 
recent Amtrak accident that we need to do more about rail and 
motor carrier safety. These issues need to be addressed by the 
administration.
    The Committee is anxious to hear from you. We would ask, 
since we are going to have to end this hearing at about 1:00 
o'clock because of other meetings, that you summarize your 
statement; and the full written statement will be in the 
record.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. And now I would recognize Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Welcome. We are anxious to hear from you.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Chairman, Congressman Sabo, other members of the 
Committee, I want to thank you, along with members of my senior 
staff who are here with me today, for the opportunity to appear 
before you to discuss the importance of transportation to the 
quality of life of the American people and to talk about how 
we, working together, can invest resources in transportation so 
as to improve the safety of the system, improve our environment 
as we invest in the system, and rebuild America and rebuild 
communities at the same time.
    I would like to submit my written statement for the record 
and just summarize them----
    Mr. Wolf. Sure.

                 DOT Opening Statement--Budget Request

    Mr. Slater [continuing]. In my statement before you.
    Our record $50.5 billion budget is vital to keeping America 
moving as we move into a new century and a new millennium. The 
President said in his State of the Union Address that ``how we 
fare as a Nation far into the 21st century depends on what we 
do as a Nation today.'' One of the most important things we can 
do as a Nation, as you and the other Members of the Committee 
know, is to invest appropriately in transportation.
    Our 2000 budget, though, as you would appreciate, is about 
more than funding concrete, asphalt and steel. It is about 
meeting the total transportation needs of the American people, 
and that means many, many things other than just the system 
itself. It means the efficient operation of that system. It 
means making the system as safe as possible, and it means 
improving that system in ways that enhance the environment.


                          dot strategic goals


    These needs are addressed by the Department through our 
strategic goals: safety, mobility, economic growth, the 
environment and security. Let me just briefly make a point or 
two about each of these goals.


                                 safety


    As it relates to safety, today we have the safest 
transportation system in the world; and our system is as safe 
as it has ever been in our Nation's history. But this is not a 
time to rest. It is a time to build and to make improvements.
    Let me say at the outset that our hearts go out to those 
who lost loved ones and those who were injured in the grade 
crossing crash just this week in Illinois. I will do everything 
in my power, working with the members of my staff and the NTSB, 
to ensure that the causes of the crash are identified and that 
steps are taken to prevent them in the future.
    We will also work with you to continue to invest needed 
resources for improving the safety at at-grade rail crossings. 
And I am pleased to say that, notwithstanding what we pause to 
reflect on this week, we know that we have to do a better job 
in responding to prevent these kinds of crashes. Because of our 
work over the past 6 years we have made a 30 percent 
improvement in the number of fatalities and crashes occurring 
at-grade rail crossings and also a significant reduction in 
injuries. But, again, our work is not about statistics, it is 
about people; and we must do better.
    Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that in every aspect of our 
investment in transportation, we provide record level dollars 
for safety, since safety is the top transportation priority of 
this administration. Our proposed 2000 budget includes $3.4 
billion for transportation safety purposes, and I am sure that 
over the course of this hearing we will get into some of the 
discussions in that regard.


                                mobility


    Also, our proposed 2000 budget provides a record $36 
billion for transportation infrastructure investment. This 
includes a record $6.1 billion for transit programs and a 
record $27.3 billion, a 7 percent increase, for highway 
infrastructure investment programs. It also includes $8.4 
billion for proposed aviation investments in operations and 
modernization, a 9 percent increase. And we continue to provide 
much-needed resources for Amtrak--$571 million for capital 
funding.
    We also are working hard to deal with the Y2K issue, and I 
am sure that we will have some discussion about that as well.


                       economic growth and trade


    As it relates to economic development and growth, clearly 
transportation is key to this end; and during this period when 
we have enjoyed the longest peacetime economic expansion in the 
country, some 30 percent of that growth has been attributable 
to international trade. Therefore, transportation as the tie 
that binds becomes very, very important in that regard.
    But even though we talk about economic expansion and 
economic growth and even an economic renaissance, all too few 
people have access to jobs; and so we request $150 million, 
double last year's amount, for our access to jobs program.


                     human and natural environment


    As it relates to the environment, $3.9 billion is requested 
for DOT environmental programs, particularly the CMAQ Program. 
And earlier the President, joined by the Vice President, talked 
about our Livability Agenda. The Vice President said that we 
must build an America for our children that is not just better 
off, but better. So we believe that we can invest resources to 
improve the livability of our communities and improve the 
safety of those communities. We request a total of $1.8 billion 
for the CMAQ Program and also double the amount for the 
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot 
Program.


                           national security


    My last comment deals with national security. Our national 
security goals, protecting of our borders and keeping us from 
harm, really helps to tie us together and make our society more 
secure. Just last January, I joined the Coast Guard in Houston 
as they seized nearly 5 tons of cocaine, an amount that could 
provide one dose for every school child in America. Again, the 
Coast Guard does a great job.
    We appreciate the funding that we received in the past, 
especially the supplemental appropriations last year; and this 
year we ask for $566 million for the Coast Guard drug 
interdiction programs. Again, I know we will get into this more 
as we go forward.
    We also request $100 million for the purchase of airport 
explosives detection equipment for the FAA.

                           Closing Statement

    In closing, let me just say again, that, we appreciate the 
support that we have gotten from this Committee over the past 6 
years. We have been able to make significant improvements in 
the quality of our transportation system. We have been able to 
improve the safety of that system. But, as has been said by the 
President and by others, this is not a time to rest but a time 
to build. And so we appreciate the opportunity now to talk 
about not just what we have done but what we have yet to do as 
we go into a new century and a new millennium together.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Slater follows:] 

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
 
   aviation reauthorization--air21 transportation and infrastructure

    Mr. Wolf. On March 10, you wrote the Transportation and 
Infrastructure (T&I) Committee about your concerns over their 
reported bill, the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 
21st Century, called AIR21. This bill would provide an 
additional $40 billion for aviation over the next 5 years, 
compared to current funding levels. What are your main concerns 
with the bill?
    Mr. Slater. Well, first of all, we seek, like most, record-
level investment for aviation, much like we achieved with 
surface transportation last year. But it is very important that 
all of these considerations be taken into the context of the 
challenges we face in dealing with the unified budget 
challenges of the Nation. While we propose record-level 
investment, there has to be a recognition of how you achieve 
that within the context of an overall commitment on the part of 
the Congress and the administration to fiscal responsibility.
    When it comes to the programmatic aspects of AIR21, there 
is a lot there to be applauded. As a matter of fact, many of 
the provisions are in our proposed bill. But when it comes to 
the budgetary provisions, we have serious concerns; and those 
have been expressed, as you noted, to Chairman Shuster and to 
members of the T&I Committee, through my letter to them.
    At the end of the day, we are hopeful that we can again 
provide record-level investment for aviation modernization to 
continue the work that is so desperately needed on safety, to 
invest in the infrastructure through the Airport Improvement 
Program (AIP). But all of this has to be done in the context of 
our overall governmentwide budgetary constraints, and to take 
the trust fund off budget would be something that would be 
counter to that end, and that is what was expressed in my 
letter to the Chairman.

                   social security surplus for air21

    Mr. Wolf. Your letter claims that the funding in the bill 
would spend part of the surplus that the administration, and 
soon the Congress, has reserved for Social Security. How does 
the bill do this?
    Mr. Slater. Well, to apply as much as is requested would 
necessarily require either a lifting of the caps or some 
busting of the caps--if you don't have appropriate offsets--
because the President has made it an administration desire, and 
the Congress has actually responded, by saying we should fix 
Social Security first and should reserve all the surplus, at 
least initially, for that purpose--roughly 62 percent of it.
    Any increase in the caps without appropriate offsets would 
actually cut into the surplus that has been reserved to deal 
with the Social Security issue and the Medicare issue first; 
and that is why we have expressed our opinion in the way that 
we have.

                 air21 impact on coast guard and others

    Mr. Wolf. We have talked to the Commandant of the Coast 
Guard, and he is very concerned over the bill's potentially 
severe effect on Coast Guard funding.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you agree that the Coast Guard is likely to be 
negatively impacted by the AIR21 funding, and how?
    Mr. Slater. Not only the Coast Guard but quite possibly 
Amtrak as well as other interests within the Department would 
be impacted because, as appropriators, you only have so much 
money to work with. If within the context of those resources 
there is no appropriate offset for increasing the amounts so 
significantly for one mode as opposed to another, that will 
necessarily involve choices being made. And in this instance, 
it would mean a likely reduction in the amount of money that we 
could provide for the Coast Guard, Amtrak and maybe even other 
DOT-needed investments.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman; and, again, welcome to 
the Secretary.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you.
    Mr. Sabo. I think you do an outstanding job. One of the 
remarks is I just simply don't hear criticism.
    Mr. Slater. Is that a criticism?
    Mr. Sabo. No. One normally does. And I think you have a 
smooth-running operation.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir.

                       aviation funding resources

    Mr. Sabo. Let me follow up to the Chairman's question. As 
one considers the appropriate use of the Aviation Trust Fund, 
is funding the operations of FAA a legitimate expenditure from 
that fund--funding air traffic controllers?
    Mr. Slater. Yes. Now, as you know, we have offered our own 
proposal in that context, which involves the possibility of the 
use of more user fees, and also all of this has to be balanced 
at the end of the day with the fact that we collect a lot of 
funds for the FAA from the general fund.
    We have offered a proposal that provides a way for funding 
all of the activities of the FAA. We think that that is a more 
appropriate strategy for doing so, because it does not then 
force a trade-off between other competing transportation 
interests.
    Mr. Sabo. Am I accurate that today we put significant 
general fund revenues into the FAA----
    Mr. Slater. We do.
    Mr. Sabo [continuing]. For operations?
    Mr. Slater. We do.
    Mr. Wolf. A related question to the problems our Committee 
will face, does the bill that passed the authorizing committee 
indicate their support for any of the fees that are assumed in 
the administration's budget?
    Mr. Slater. No. But, again, at the end of the day, we are 
going to have to figure out how we address this issue.
    Mr. Sabo. I would just say that we remain open to visit 
over what I expect will be incredibly restrictive funding----
    Mr. Slater. I agree.
    Mr. Sabo [continuing]. Obligations for this committee.

                    truck safety at border crossings

    Let me briefly just raise one other issue that I hear about 
regularly.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Sabo. And that is a concern on truck safety and 
expanding on the long-standing concern that Chairman Wolf has 
had, in particular, as it relates to truck crossings at the 
Mexican-U.S. border and all the reports of trucks coming today 
that don't meet our standards, either for equipment or for 
drivers. And there is, and my understanding is, that under 
NAFTA at some point there is discretion that lifts some of 
those barriers, and there is concern that that might be 
prematurely lifted. Where are we at on that issue today?
    Mr. Slater. Well, let me just say, Congressman, that our 
chief focus and consideration as it relates to NAFTA from a 
transportation vantage point is ensuring the safety of the 
American people and putting in place, along with the Mexican 
government, a very strong, comprehensive safety regime. We will 
not open the border further until those matters are fully 
addressed. We are moving forward, though, in trying to address 
them.
    I should also say, to be very specific in response to a 
matter that has come before this committee, that I am looking 
very closely at offering a proposed amendment that would 
significantly increase the amount of resources that we expend 
on our motor carriers operation, with a significant amount of 
those resources going to a focus on the border--a much more 
comprehensive focus. But I think that this committee, through 
the leadership of the chairman and all of you, have done a 
great job in raising concern and sensitivity to this issue; and 
we as a Department can no longer find comfort in the fact that 
we have served in a time when we have seen a significant drop 
in the fatality rate.
    We have gone from about 3.7 fatalities for every 100 
million vehicle miles traveled down to about 2.8. But, beyond 
the statistics are people, and we have actually seen an 
increase in the number of fatalities and injuries. It then is 
incumbent upon us to respond in a way that is forthright, that 
is comprehensive and that is performance-based and results-
oriented to take that number down. We are committed to that 
end.
    And, as I said, I am preparing with my staff a proposal 
that would address more appropriately concerns along the 
border, but also motor carrier concerns throughout the country.
    Mr. Sabo. I thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. DeLay.
    Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I, too, want to welcome you to the 
Committee. My questions, at least the first few, are directed 
to the FAA, you and Administrator Garvey.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.

                           aip grant criteria

    Mr. DeLay. The City of Houston is in the process of 
developing an application for an AIP grant. This is a grant 
that is going to cover a huge project, $250 million of nearly 
$1.6 billion expansion of Houston Intercontinental and Hobby 
and Ellington Field, and this expansion is necessary to ensure 
that Houston is able to continue in its extreme growth of its 
air cargo and commercial services, particularly, to Central and 
South America. Eighty-five percent of that capital improvement 
program will be supported by locally generated sources and 
revenues.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. DeLay. We are seeking that $250 million over 5 years 
from FAA in the form of a letter of intent (LOI). And it is 
widely--it is widely understood in the aviation community, 
anyway, that the FAA routinely denies letters of intent to 
airports that don't institute a passenger facility charge (PFC) 
to fund capital improvements. However, the FAA doesn't have the 
authority to dictate to local communities how they raise their 
revenues for the capital improvements.
    Mr. Slater. That is right.
    Mr. DeLay. Does the FAA give preferential treatment to 
airport improvement applications that utilize PFCs?
    Mr. Slater. Well, I wouldn't say that they give 
preferential treatment to those applications. But they do, and 
I think appropriately, look at how communities will meet their 
financial obligations when it comes to supporting the projects. 
And, in this instance, you have shared that some 85 percent of 
the funding commitment to the project will come from local 
sources. I am sure that the FAA would take that into account in 
making a judgment about the quality of the application. But 
there is no preference per se given to PFC commitment. There is 
the consideration given to how local communities will meet 
their financial obligations. And I think that is what the FAA 
would be looking at in this instance.
    I can tell you that we are actually more and more impressed 
with the innovative financing efforts of airports around the 
country when it comes to trying to put together the proper mix 
of local support and private sector support for these kinds of 
needed infrastructure expansions; and we are looking forward to 
continuing to work with them in that regard, much as 
Administrator Garvey and I had had the pleasure of working with 
many communities on innovative financing efforts while we were 
at the FHWA.
    Mr. DeLay. So I guess what you are saying is it is not a 
policy of the DOT or the FAA to impose or to pressure local 
airports to impose PFCs?
    Mr. Slater. That is correct.
    Mr. DeLay. But if the FAA doesn't routinely require a PFC 
in order to qualify for letter of intent, then could you tell 
me why 23 of the 24 air carrier airports that currently have 
LOIs also have PFCs?
    Mr. Slater. Because they may have on their own initiative 
chosen that as the most appropriate way for them to meet their 
financial obligation for project expansion, or project 
improvements.
    As you know, in our own proposal for FAA reauthorization, 
we, in the administration, have suggested giving local 
communities the option of raising their PFCs from $3 to $5, but 
that is merely an option that they themselves can employ if 
they choose to do so.
    Again, they may choose other means for financing major 
infrastructure expansions and investments. And we would look at 
that and make a judgment about it, but it is not necessary that 
they have PFCs.

         sugar land, texas, airport and contract tower program

    Mr. DeLay. Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. My hometown of Sugar 
Land has a reliever airport, and it is trying to get into the 
contract tower program. Unfortunately, Sugar Land has had 
problems working with the FAA's regional office in Fort Worth. 
This office is responsible for determining if Sugar Land meets 
the criteria for inclusion into the contract tower program. Is 
there any reason why Sugar Land has not had a response from the 
Fort Worth office, despite the fact that they were assured they 
would have had one as far back as last October?
    Mr. Slater. They haven't had a response since last October? 
Then there is no reason for that.
    Mr. DeLay. Could you have Administrator Garvey at least 
respond to the airport's phone calls?
    Mr. Slater. Sure. We can take care of that. As a matter of 
fact, I am sure that Administrator Garvey would welcome the 
opportunity to work with you in responding to your 
constituents.
    Mr. DeLay. Thank you.

                  fy 1999 aip grants process and texas

    As you know, the State of Texas is one of a handful of 
States that receives funding for general aviation and reliever 
airports through a block grant under the Aviation Improvement 
Program. As of this week, Texas has not received any portion of 
its 1999 funding. Why has the FAA not released the AIP block 
grants to the State of Texas?
    Mr. Slater. That process is under way as we speak, and you 
should be getting some notice very, very soon.
    Mr. DeLay. Okay. Even if the AIP funding expires on March 
the 31st, is there any reason why the FAA couldn't fund at 
least half of Texas' block grant now and half after Congress 
passes an extension?
    Mr. Slater. I don't know exactly what the breakdown will 
be, but I do know that Texas is going to get some resources, 
and we will do as much as we can with the resources available.
    Mr. DeLay. Okay.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. DeLay. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Olver.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. I, too, will join 
those and welcome you to the Committee.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir.

                         passenger rail safety

    Mr. Olver. What can we do--I know in your testimony you 
have indicated how much safety is an important question and 
that there has been great reduction in rail fatalities in the 
past couple of years. What do we have to do to avoid what 
happened in Illinois the other day on Amtrak?
    Mr. Slater. Yes, I understand.
    Mr. Olver. It really just puts into question the 
credibility of a major rail system, the Amtrak system, when 
that continues to happen.
    Mr. Slater. Sure. Well, Congressman, thank you for the 
question and the opportunity to elaborate further on comments 
made earlier. Again, we all offer our condolences to the 
families of individuals who were lost and offer our prayers to 
those who may have had family members injured.
    We have worked very hard through a coordinated effort 
involving the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal 
Highway Administration, our Research and Special Programs 
Administration, along with the Federal Transit Administration, 
to improve highway/rail at-grade crossings. We have actually 
closed a number of those crossings over the last 6 years or so. 
We made a significant request for additional resources in this 
area in 1999, and we have similar requests for an increase this 
year. Through those efforts and education, we have seen a 30 
percent reduction in fatalities, 30 percent reduction in 
crashes at least--probably a bit more I think as it relates to 
crashes--and a 30 or so percent reduction in injuries.
    But that only takes you so far when you have the backdrop 
of what occurred just this week. That was such a tragedy. I 
think that there is more that we can do.
    Now we are examining what actually happened in Illinois. We 
don't know whether it was driver error or whether there was 
some equipment problem. We are getting preliminary reports, but 
I don't want to speak publicly until all of that is confirmed.
    Just last evening, we actually had sort of a reenactment, 
if you will, of the crash to get a better understanding of what 
might have occurred. We have had interviews with the driver. 
There have been some interviews of people who were involved in 
the crash, others who may have seen it, and we are working with 
NTSB to get a clear understanding of what occurred. But if it 
comes to a realization that, as in a lot of instances, the 
crash resulted from someone who actually tried to beat the 
train and who may have actually gone around the barrier gates, 
then you know the only counter you have to that is better 
education.
    Clearly, when you see that this happens, you can have stiff 
fines and enforcement. But most--a great majority of these 
kinds of crashes occur because people are trying to beat the 
train. Fortunately, we have got organizations like Operation 
Lifesaver and others working with us to try to educate the 
public; and we have seen, again, significant reductions. But we 
do have situations where we have crashes and lives are lost and 
individuals are injured.

                      highway-rail grade crossings

    Mr. Olver. Do we have any unsignalled--any unguarded 
crossings of our major--well, Amtrak I would say major, but 
other major passenger systems, how many unguarded ones do we 
now have? Do you have any idea?
    Mr. Slater. I don't know the exact number. But I can tell 
you that there are a lot of them.
    Mr. Olver. Unguarded, no signals and no bars?
    Mr. Slater. That is true.
    Mr. Olver. There are a lot of them.
    Mr. Slater. But we have made, again, considerable progress 
on this front over the past 6 years or so. The Department has 
been closing a number of these crossings and also providing 
good equipment at many of the crossings.
    We have also started to focus on States where you have a 
higher incidence of crashes to bring some focus to those areas. 
But there are just a lot of crossings out there.
    Mr. Olver. And you had mentioned or inferred certainly that 
there was at least bars and these may be double bars or a bar 
that come most of the way across at least and someone might 
have slipped around the bars. Shouldn't it be possible--to 
separate the grades would be an enormous and probably 
unjustified expense given the total amount, if you put it 
together. But shouldn't it be possible to end up with piers and 
a bar system that essentially are kind of locked in place and 
is electronically then releasable but where it really isn't 
possible to get around those bars?
    There is only--on these kinds of things, they can't be more 
than, basically, two-laned roads. I can't imagine we have got 
anything that would view itself as Federal highway, 
superhighway, whatever it is, that is more than a two-lane road 
doing this.
    Mr. Slater. Well, let me just say that we have eliminated a 
lot of the at-grade crossings. We do have considerable 
investment going on around the country with overpasses and 
underpasses. And we do have some new technology--new 
equipment--where the arms are longer, making the potential for 
moving around the bars much more difficult. We do have some of 
that equipment now, in use. And we have a lot of people 
continuing to work to help to provide even better advancements 
in technology, to provide improvements.
    Mr. Olver. I would hope that this incident would lead us to 
examine what are the possibilities reasonably, you know 
efficient dollarwise possibilities of dealing with something 
which is, obviously, very tragic when it happens. This one was 
an especially large number of people; and, of course, it was 
exacerbated by the fact that, apparently, the truck was 
extremely heavily loaded as well. So it was like hitting a 
wall, a very hard wall, rather than some of the others which 
are--which do not cause as much damage to maybe the train if it 
is a small and light vehicle or something.
    Mr. Slater. Sure.
    Mr. Olver. Anyway, that is all I have.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, Congressman. I will assure you that 
we are using every opportunity to better understand how these 
things occur and respond accordingly. But we are also, as you 
know, acting proactively, not waiting for something like this 
to happen.
    And there again, I want to thank the leadership of my team. 
I mentioned FRA, FHWA, General Wykle, Administrator Molitoris, 
Administrator Coyner, Administrator Linton and others who have 
worked on this.
    But I also join them in thanking you for giving us the 
resources in years past to devote more money for these 
purposes. We appreciate it.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, it is good to see you.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir, good seeing you.

                    revenue-aligned budget authority

    Mr. Rogers. There is a provision in TEA21 that says that 
any additional revenue collected by the Highway Trust Fund 
during the prior fiscal year would be automatically 
redistributed back to the States by way of the highway funding 
formula. Last year, the trust fund collected an additional $1.5 
billion.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Of this, Kentucky is set to receive $22 million 
in fiscal year 2000 for construction dollars. But the 
administration is proposing I think to ignore that language and 
use that extra funding to promote what is being called a 
Livability Agenda. Instead of distributing money back to the 
States, through the funding formula, you would use that money 
to increase funding for clean air programs, community planning 
projects and increased funding for safety research; and, in 
doing that, you would further the disparity between donor and 
donee States. For example, Kentucky would lose 61 percent of 
the so-called extra money that it would normally receive under 
TEA21; California would only lose 16 percent.
    Now, you would have to change that law, would you not, in 
order to do this new formula?
    Mr. Slater. Well, Congressman, we believe that what we 
propose is consistent with the law. There was the guarantee 
that was provided, when the law was passed, and all States will 
receive those amounts. It is only the increase that we propose 
dealing with, as you have noted. This is not just, though, for 
a livability program but to focus on priorities that were 
identified in TEA21, including the environment.
    Mr. Rogers. Do you agree that section 1105 of TEA21 
specifically says that these extra monies are to be 
redistributed to the States based on the highway funding 
formula? Does it not specifically say that?
    Mr. Slater. Well, again----
    Mr. Rogers. Of course it does.
    Mr. Slater. Again, though, our interpretation is that the 
$1.5 billion, that is extra--and not anticipated--are resources 
that can be divied up as we have proposed, with a significant 
portion of those flowing through the formulas. About $388 
million would flow through the highway formula, and about $290 
million would flow through transit.
    Mr. Rogers. If you insist on doing that, you are going to 
break that chain you have got going of not being criticized.
    Mr. Slater. Yes, sir. I should have said a few minutes ago, 
I have been criticized.
    Mr. Rogers. I think you hit a little bit of a brick wall 
there, and I would hope that that would be reconsidered. States 
like Kentucky would benefit by the law that we passed, that the 
Congress passed, that you are clearly trying to avoid, are 
going to not be happy.
    Mr. Slater. Well, if I may, Congressman, I hope that at the 
end of the day as well we can work through this. As you know, 
one of the great strides of TEA21 was bringing about greater 
balance between donor and donee States. So your concern in that 
regard is one that we will look at closely as we work with you 
to resolve this matter.

               highway discretionary grants for kentucky

    Mr. Rogers. Now Kentucky applied for about $50 million in 
discretionary grant requests for the fiscal year 1999 funding 
cycle.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Rogers. Each of those projects met the established 
eligibility criteria. None were selected for discretionary 
funding by the Federal Highway Administration. As a result, 
Kentucky's share in the half billion dollars of funds 
distributed on November 3, 1998, was zero. Governor Patton 
called you about that, because we were only one of three States 
that didn't get any.
    Mr. Slater. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. He called you for an explanation. Apparently, 
he was told that Kentucky had not applied for those funds, 
which is absolutely, patently false. They had. What happened?
    Mr. Slater. Well, you have identified one other instance 
where I have been criticized, sir. Governor Patton did call, 
and he was pretty direct. I acknowledge that. And what I did 
was to tell him that I would look into the matter and that we 
would follow up with members of his staff and with him and that 
we would do better the next time around.
    We have recently had an opportunity to work with Kentucky 
on a number of discretionary matters, and I think we have done 
a much better job in that regard. Much of this was frankly, a 
matter of a misunderstanding on my part. I did not believe that 
Kentucky had made a specific request. But after talking to the 
Governor, I was corrected in that understanding, and I 
committed to him that, working with my staff, we would address 
this issue in the future.
    Mr. Rogers. Well, he and I have a very common interest in 
that, even though we are different political persuasions, 
because most of those applications were for projects in a 
certain part of the State that I hold dear.
    Mr. Slater. Right.
    Mr. Rogers. And I would hope that we could get back on 
track.
    The State's transportation secretary met with Administrator 
Wykle in early December of last year to better understand why 
Kentucky's projects were not deemed meritorious. They left that 
meeting feeling as though Kentucky projects had only received 
cursory examination.
    Well, I am here to tell you that we don't like to be 
treated cursorily. Now, we have got a request for quarterly 
planning and development of I-66, which is the centerpiece of 
the State's future; and I would hope that we could get more 
than a cursory examination. And if there is any need for 
further clarification on any point in that application, you 
have my telephone number.
    Mr. Slater. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. And the Governor's.
    Mr. Slater. Right. I think you have been pretty clear 
today. I think we have gotten the message here, sir. And I am 
sure that we will have an occasion where we say at the end of 
the day that we are glad we were able to work this out.

                           border inspections

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Pastor.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Slater. Good morning, Congressman.
    Mr. Pastor. The Inspector General was here a couple of 
weeks ago, and we talked about the lack of officers to do 
adequate inspections on the border.
    Mr. Slater. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Pastor. And they gave us three alternatives at that 
time. At the hearing, I suggested to the Inspector General that 
NAFTA was a national policy that is having an impact at the 
local level, especially on those border States.
    Mr. Slater. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. And the third alternative, basically, would 
have the Federal Government up front to increase the personnel 
in Texas and California and New Mexico. I guess California was 
the State that was----
    Mr. Slater. California has done pretty well.
    Mr. Pastor. And as time went by, the States would take over 
more responsibility and more resources. And I heard you say 
this morning that you are addressing or will address that 
problem.
    Mr. Slater. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Pastor. I would just like to hear a little bit of 
detail so I have a better understanding of what you are 
proposing.
    Mr. Slater. Congressman Pastor, you raise a very important 
issue. And as I noted earlier, we at the Department really 
appreciate you and other members of the committee and also the 
chairman for focusing a lot of attention on this question--
motor carrier safety. While we have seen a leveling off in this 
area of crashes and fatalities involving motor carriers, we 
still have a lot to do in this area. And when you add to that 
the challenges that we face on the border with the potential of 
moving forward and opening up our borders, there is really no 
way to stand still and to believe that we have all of these 
issues appropriately addressed.
    And for that reason, we have been working internally to put 
together a very comprehensive motor carrier program that 
involves a number of modes, including the Office of the 
Secretary. We will come back very soon with what I think will 
be a very significant increase, as a proposal for enhancements 
in the motor carrier safety program. This will necessarily 
involve more resources targeted at the border, and the ability 
to work with States to hire more inspectors to bring on more 
inspectors internally to DOT when it comes to safety 
assessments.
    We also appreciate the increased authority that we received 
under TEA21 which allows us to get unsafe trucks off the road 
and to actually levy significant fines on motor carriers that 
are not operating properly.
    With the collection of all of these improved authorities, 
as well as the proposal that I am going to offer, I think we 
are going to see that we can do a much better job in this area.
    Mr. Pastor. I think the report said that in these States at 
the border--New Mexico, Arizona and Texas--what was needed were 
basically two things, more inspectors----
    Mr. Slater. That is right.
    Mr. Pastor [continuing]. And facilities where the 
inspection could be carried out.
    Mr. Slater. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. Now I am assuming by your response to me that 
you are saying that a proposal is going to have more Federal 
inspectors to be assigned at the border.
    Mr. Slater. Right.
    Mr. Pastor. And you will assist the States in building 
facilities so that the inspections can occur. The reason I 
think that we need to have a greater Federal presence in 
resources is that NAFTA is a national policy.
    Mr. Slater. That is correct.
    Mr. Pastor. And yet we want to send the obligation, or 
responsibility to the States, and in many cases they don't have 
the resources. So I think that we need to start with a 
cooperative attitude to say the Federal Government developed 
this policy, it is a Federal policy, and we know that the brunt 
is going to be taken at these border States, so that we need to 
send some Federal resources so that we have enough inspectors 
and also have the facilities so the safety of Americans 
prevails.
    Mr. Slater. Congressman, you are absolutely correct. And 
that is a commitment that the administration shares with you 
and with others who represent border States and communities 
that, as you have noted, have had to bear the brunt of this. A 
policy that is good for America should also be good for them.
    We also again thank the Congress for the resources made 
available to us with our trade corridor provisions of TEA21 and 
also our border crossing provisions. We will soon have 
announcements dealing with grant applications for discretionary 
funds in those areas, and I am sure that we will have a number 
of border States that will offer successful applications. So we 
join you in a commitment to help those communities deal with 
the impact of NAFTA, and to help them benefit as the Nation 
benefits from this very important piece of trade legislation.
    Mr. Pastor. Well, reading between the lines, then I can 
encourage Arizona to make the proposal to get a facility and 
also to get more inspectors.
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Pastor. So thank you for that.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you.

                        office of motor carriers

    Mr. Pastor. Also, your Inspector General, as part of that 
hearing, talked about how the morale at the Office of Motor 
Carriers certainly was down and it showed a very high 
percentage that they felt that they were not carrying out their 
duties in terms that the mission had changed from enforcement 
to that of outreach. And, in doing that, we are faced with a 
situation that there is a very little enforcement, and so that 
we have unsafe motor carriers who have unsafe equipment but yet 
they are on the roads, that many of the drivers aren't even 
meeting minimum qualifications.
    And the Chairman also pointed out, and the Inspector 
General confirmed, that last year when there was a move to move 
the responsibilities from OMC to another agency that, in fact, 
at high levels I am assuming, Federal personnel were involved 
in a lobbying effort to stop that.
    I just wondered where we are at, what we have done with 
those people that were involved in the lobbying, and also what 
have we done to correct the attitude, I guess, that some of the 
employees have, they are not doing their job because of other 
things that are coming in the way.
    Mr. Slater. Well, clearly, we had some dark and difficult 
moments within the Office of Motor Carriers. But the light is 
back on, and we are doing better.
    While I'm not defending the actions that are inappropriate, 
let me just say that I personally think we have got some very 
dedicated employees within the Office of Motor Carriers. If 
anything, they do want to do their jobs and have the 
opportunity to do them better. And they are asking the 
leadership of the office, the leadership of FHWA and the 
Secretary and all the others involved in motor carrier activity 
to give them the resources, to empower them, and to put 
together the kind of program that will allow them to do their 
jobs, because they know that that job is very important.
    These are individuals who have seen a significant increase 
in the presence of motor carriers in undergirding the economy 
of the country--growing from about 190,000 motor carriers 10 
years ago to more than 450,000 today. As a result of that 
significant increase, along with the advent of a just-in-time 
logistical philosophy, I think the agency has been somewhat 
overwhelmed by it all. And in the process of dealing with those 
dynamics, we started to work with the industry to work with 
States in different ways that may have taken a little more 
focus than necessary away from enforcement.
    And now that that has been tried, we have seen where it may 
have worked in certain instances--for the last 3 years we have 
had a leveling off of the fatality rate involving motor 
carriers from about 3.7 for every 100 million vehicle miles 
traveled to about 2.8.
    But we have seen an increase in the numbers, and we have 
got to address that. So what we have done is to put together 
really a seven point comprehensive plan that focuses on the 
driver, the vehicle, and the system itself--meaning the highway 
system itself.
    We focus also on issues involving HAZMAT and other 
concerns. Our seventh point deals with preparing for the 
future; and we have enlisted one of your former colleagues, 
Congressman Norm Mineta, to work with us and to work with the 
safety community and the industry to do a comprehensive review 
of our program. We have asked Mr. Mineta to bring to bear the 
recommendations by GAO, IG and other interested parties, 
including this committee, and at the end of the day fashion a 
program that will give us the kinds of results that we seek.
    As I said earlier in my comments, we are willing to put 
resources into this effort as well, and we will have a little 
bit more to say about that as we go forward. But this is an 
area where we can do better. We must, and we will.

                location of motor carrier safety program

    Mr. Pastor. During the dark days I guess, there was a move 
to relocate, to go from Federal Highway Administration to 
NHTSA.
    Mr. Slater. Yes, I can speak more specifically on that.
    Mr. Pastor. Let me ask the question. We had a panel of 
safety advocates, including the trucking industry, as well as 
people from the State levels, at the State level, who were 
concerned about the safety issue. And there were a number of 
them who felt that the answer to the debate or the answer to 
the problem that we may be facing is to create a separate 
agency----
    Mr. Slater. Yes.
    Mr. Pastor [continuing]. That would have the responsibility 
over the motor carrier. And because it would be focused, that 
would be, the responsibility, enforcement, et cetera, that 
would be a better way to go. And it is my understanding that a 
former Secretary also pushed that idea. But now what are your 
thoughts on either a separate agency or the move from where 
they are at to NHTSA?
    Mr. Slater. Let me respond specifically to this point. And 
also in your previous question, you asked one other point 
dealing with actions that we have taken as it relates to 
employees within the Office of Motor Carriers.
    What I would like to do in that regard is just simply say 
that we are continuing to review that situation. We are poised 
to take the appropriate action very, very soon. I have been 
informed of what that action is likely to be. But until the 
effort is totally assessed and concluded, I would like not to 
try to address the specifics of that. But I can assure you that 
the appropriate action will be taken. This is a matter that the 
chairman and I have talked about as recently as yesterday.
    On the issue of the placement of motor carriers, let me 
just say that when the issue first arose, my position was that 
this was but a part of the discussion. Ultimately, we have to 
deal with how we put together the appropriate program and 
empower the employees responsible for carrying it out, wherever 
they are located within the Department, before the matter of 
location is something that can be effectively addressed. I 
personally am open on that issue.
    And one of the questions that we will ask Mr. Mineta to 
give us some insights on will be this question of where we can 
appropriately locate these responsibilities. It could involve 
staying where they are, it could involve a move to NHTSA or it 
could involve either a separate motor carrier operation or a 
separate safety operation that would include motor carriers--
that, or quite possibly some other configuration. I personally 
am open to that.
    Now however that plays out, there are certain things that 
we have to focus on--including more money for enforcement. I 
think we still have to work collaboratively with industry, but 
not to the extent that we lose our credibility when it comes to 
carrying out our stewardship responsibility. But I do think 
that there are certain things that we can do working with 
industry, where they stand with us in a commitment to safety, 
as we stand in a commitment to providing quality transportation 
service to the American people. We found the leadership of 
industry receptive to that.
    Also, I think that this partnership should include the 
safety community, because then you have the players who can 
challenge us, meaning the administration, the Congress and 
industry. We want to work very closely with the safety 
community in addressing these questions as well.
    I have read the synopsis of the hearing, heard a lot about 
it, and read a lot about it in the papers. Frankly, I think a 
lot of the issues that were raised were very constructive and 
insightful. And I can assure you that as we try to come to 
closure on our thoughts internally, all of those points will be 
taken into account.
    Mr. Pastor. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

                      motor carrier safety review

    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, sir.
    Before I recognize Mr. Callahan, just a comment on that. I 
appreciate Mr. Pastor bringing it up.
    There was what I termed an incestuous relationship between 
the trucking industry and OMC. The Department was lax. Having 
said that, though, I want to just second what the Secretary 
said. We have had extensive conversations both with the 
Secretary and his representatives, and I believe the Department 
is committed, and I think it was a good move to ask former 
Congressman Norm Mineta to come on board.
    And I am confident that, whatever the outcome is, and I am 
not willing to predict anything either, like no one is, but 
that working with the safety groups and with the people that 
you have designated in the Department, when the year is over 
there will be a good program that the American people can be 
confident in. So I do want the record to show that. I do 
appreciate that. You have responded and your people have been 
very, very good.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Callahan.
    Mr. Callahan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Good morning, Mr. Secretary.
    Mr. Slater. Good morning, sir.

                      coast guard funding request

    Mr. Callahan. The dimming of the lights was just a little 
premature. It is a well-known fact that I stay in the dark most 
of the time; and, as soon as I start, generally they just dim, 
dim.
    I want to talk just briefly about the Coast Guard. I am 
disappointed at the request that has been submitted for Coast 
Guard funding, really about one-half of 1 percent increase. And 
that is in appearance only, because when you take out the 
proposed fees, that we are not going to adopt, it is 
unrealistic in my opinion to ask this agency to do some of the 
things we are asking them to do and to increase their 
responsibilities in immigration activities, drug activities, 
search and rescue.
    My real concern, though, Mr. Secretary, overall, is the--
and incidentally, the Coast Guard prepared a very professional 
budget explanation, which I commend them for doing that. But in 
the operating expenses chart and in the distribution of the 
monies, they want to spend 11.44 percent for marine and 
environmental protection and 15 percent of their requested 
budget on living marine resources.
    And it is true these things are important. We talk about 
navigation, and the administration seems to think that the way 
to adequately fund navigation is to increase fees on someone. 
But when we talk about policing fisheries laws or fisheries 
rules and regulations, no one talks about money or where it is 
going to come from. They just start taking it out of the 
operational expenses that we need for search and rescue, that 
we need for drug interdiction, and when you total up the 
environmental and the marine resources protection, you are 
looking at 27, 28 percent of their budget, which is fine if 
that is what we want to do. If we think that that is that 
important, more important than drug interdiction, more 
important than search and rescue and navigation, well, then we 
ought to find a source of funding for that.
    What happens, very simply, is NOAA or the Department of 
Commerce each year just promulgate rules, some with or without 
justification. We have had bitter arguments with--not NOAA, 
national marine fisheries service. We have had bitter argument 
with respect to the rationale behind some of the rules that 
they send to you to enforce, and that is wrong.
    You should go to Secretary Daly and you should tell the 
Department of Commerce that if indeed they want the United 
States Coast Guard to be the meter maid for the fishing 
industry or fishing problems at the national marine fisheries 
service, that they ought to send you the money; and you, Mr. 
Secretary, ought to insist to the Coast Guard that they 
prioritize their needs.
    When we are spending this percentage, the orange percentage 
in marine environmental protection, 11.4 percent, and this red 
section here, living marine resources, 15 percent, and then you 
get into drug interdiction, 17 percent, there is something 
wrong here. And if we want to be the policing agency, the meter 
maids of the environmental community with respect to trying to 
determine the length of a snapper--and now the latest 
indication is that even though the sports fisherman industry 
probably releases 99 percent of all the sailfish that they 
catch, now the national marine fisheries service, I understand, 
are considering a rule and they are going to call the 
commandant and say: ``Well, good news, Mr. Commandant; we are 
writing a new rule. We don't think any more sailfish ought to 
be caught during the month of August and September,'' or 
something like that. ``Take your Coast Guard cutters, distract 
them from their drug interdiction activities, from their 
navigational responsibilities, from the search and rescue 
efforts and go out there in the Gulf of Mexico and see if they 
are catching any sailfish during the month of August or 
September.''
    That is fine if that is what the United States wants to do. 
That is fine, but do not take vital resources away from the 
United States Coast Guard to implement these rules and 
regulations unless Commerce wants to give you the money to do 
so.
    So I think you ought to have a long sitdown talk with 
Secretary Daly and I think you ought to tell Secretary Daly, 
``Look, we are spending a great, huge percentage of our money 
that we use for Coast Guard activities, policing the rules and 
regulations that are not law, that are rules and regulations 
that the Commerce Department promulgates. So if you believe, 
Secretary Daly, if you want us to be your police force, then 
you pay us the money to do that; that we can no longer continue 
to provide this percentage of the monies that are available for 
the United States Coast Guard without some compensation from 
the agency that is writing the rules and regulations.''
    I think it would be an encouragement to them to think about 
what they are doing, rather than just to have a bunch of 
bureaucrats sitting down in Tampa, writing something on paper 
and faxing it to you, and then you telling the Coast Guard 
Commandant--Commandant, you go out and you enforce this new 
rule. So it is something we should very seriously consider.
    I would recommend that the Coast Guard and that you as 
Secretary next year submit to this Congress a prioritization of 
your needs. You tell us what you need for navigation marine 
safety. You tell us what you need for drug interdiction, you 
tell us what you need for ice operations and aids to 
navigation, and then you tell us how much you need to run the 
police department of the Department of Commerce and we will 
then give you, based upon your prioritized needs, the monies 
that you will need to effectively operate the Coast Guard.
    Yesterday I was pleased to see that Congress, with over 400 
votes, voted to increase the suggested appropriation by giving 
us authorization to provide about $400 million or nearly 10 
percent more for the United States Coast Guard. And somewhere 
during this process, Mr. Chairman--I know you don't know how 
much money we are going to have to allocate to the Coast Guard 
at this point and I don't know, if you did know, what you would 
be recommending for the Coast Guard--but somewhere during this 
process I am going to be pushing for the entire $400 million 
authorized increase for the Coast Guard during this process; or 
either I am going to try to reduce some of this money that is 
being spent, in some cases these needless hours and times and 
millions of dollars, policing the size of a fish that has been 
caught in the Gulf of Mexico by these professional people in 
the United States Coast Guard.
    I don't suppose that requires a response. That is sort of a 
filibuster, Mr. Secretary, but I want you to know, I want the 
Chairman to know, that I am coming after that $400 million. And 
you have been very generous to me on your highway projects, so 
I have nothing to complain about there, and I don't want to 
have to be complaining next year just because I am trying to 
increase the Coast Guard's money this year.
    But the $400 million is going to have to come from 
somewhere, probably elsewhere in your jurisdiction. I am going 
to, either in this committee or in full committee or on the 
floor of the House or in the conference committee, I am going 
to do everything I can to get the $400 million additional 
dollars that has been authorized by the House, and I am going 
to do everything I can to eliminate any new fees that might be 
suggested by the administration.
    Thank you, sir.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you, sir. I appreciate your comments 
about the Coast Guard and you have been a strong champion for 
the Coast Guard. They do a great job and I know they appreciate 
your strong statements of support as well. We are working to 
try to balance all of these concerns as you have noted.
    One of our efforts--to try to get to the difficult issue of 
funding--was the fees. We appreciate the fact that we might 
have differences of opinion on that. But at the end of the day, 
I am just very hopeful that we will be able to work with you, 
with members of the committee, and the Chairman, to provide the 
kinds of resources needed by the Coast Guard so they can 
continue to do the very important work that they do.
    Mr. Callahan. I might suggest that you contact Secretary 
Daly.
    Mr. Slater. I heard that.
    Mr. Callahan. That you tell Secretary Daly that we need 
some money from the Commerce Department to enforce the burdens 
they are placing on us. So I imagine $50 million would be 
sufficient.
    Mr. Wolf. In response to that, when the Coast Guard was 
here the other day, they said fisheries enforcement had 
dropped, I believe, from 18 percent down to 14 percent and they 
have moved funding into interdiction.
    The point that Mr. Callahan is making reiterates the other 
point with respect to the Coast Guard. If the aviation trust 
fund is taken off budget, funding pressures on the Coast Guard 
and its activities become even greater than they are today.
    Lastly, the Coast Guard is torn because there is a Senator 
from Alaska on the other side who, on these fisheries issues, 
is pulling just the other way. So I think the Coast Guard does 
a good job. The Committee has been very, very sensitive, but 
this is an indication, particularly if the caps are kept in 
place and that Aviation Trust Fund is taken off budget, that it 
is going to be absolutely impossible.
    Ms. Kilpatrick.

                               user fees

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Secretary, 
welcome. I think I want to pick up where our Chairman left off; 
and I think Mr. Callahan, as he leaves, issued an edict. If the 
fees are not enacted, if the caps are not broken, how are you 
going to accommodate not just this committee but the others 
who--435 plus a hundred of us--what other alternatives do you 
have?
    Mr. Slater. Well, Congresswoman, you pose really the 
question that we wrestled with internally. Frankly, our 
response to that challenge was to propose user fees for those 
functions that are uniquely provided by any one of the various 
modes of the Department that bring about a direct benefit to an 
identified recipient--generally some element of the 
transportation community. It is our belief that that is a 
reasonable request to make of those who benefit from the 
services provided by the FAA, the Coast Guard, the Maritime 
Administration or others. We would just ask the Congress to yet 
again consider this issue.
    This is not the first time we have made such a proposal. We 
have been successful in some instances, and all too often not 
successful. But we still think it is a good way to address the 
very difficult challenge that we have.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Do you feel the resistance from this 
Committee for the fees that you are proposing?
    Mr. Slater. Some of you have been very specific in 
expressing your opinion. But at the end of the day you are 
going to have to come together, as we did, and figure out how 
you make it all measure and balance. And at that point in time, 
who knows? I mean, you may be in a position where you are 
willing then to reconsider the question. What we wanted to do 
was to just make it clear that we had gone to that point, and 
we are willing to offer this as a recommendation for you to 
consider.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That you must, and I think you have done 
that. Something has to happen. Either some of the fees have to 
be enacted, not all, or the caps have to be broken. And much of 
the leadership on both sides has said that is not going to 
happen. But really to get some of the things I have been 
listening to, and you too for the last hour or so, we do have 
to come to some agreement.

                     motor carrier safety transfer

    On the motor carrier question and there has been some--that 
is another advantage of being late. A lot of the questions have 
already been answered. We did have a hearing on it and you 
spoke eloquently on it, and the Chairman has also said I think 
now that you have accepted the arguments or the concerns, that 
you were looking at them, and he is not wedded to either side. 
I think that is a milestone. During that hearing I thought we 
were going straight motor carrier to the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration, but I hear from you and our 
Chairman now, that that may or may not happen as you look at 
the situation. Is that the case?
    Mr. Slater. That is correct. I think we are saying the best 
location to meet the challenge will be identified as a result 
of this process.

                        illinois amtrak accident

    Ms. Kilpatrick. We had one of our hearings on truck and 
truck safety: training, schedules, rest areas, and the like 
that contribute to some of the tragedies and things that we 
have been hearing and you alluded to this morning. The jury is 
still out on the Amtrak tragedy that just happened. I heard you 
say that as well. I did hear--I don't know if it was 
incorrectly reported--that the driver may have had a limited 
license or not an adequate license; let's put it like that.
    If you find that the trucker is in fact at fault, and any 
of these things that we have been hearing about this year in 
this committee have contributed to the accident, and not 
equipment failure but human error, what will be the role, what 
will your agency do to address that?
    Mr. Slater. Well first of all, I would want to have the 
benefit of recommendations from the NTSB and from the Federal 
Railroad Administration, Administrator Molitoris and her team, 
Federal Highway Administration, Administrator Wykle and his 
team, and other members of our team who are involved in this 
process with the NTSB. I would like to reserve comment on this 
matter but use the occasion, if I may, to speak to the broader 
issue of human factors as relates to traffic crashes, 
fatalities, and injuries.
    We have made significant improvements over the years when 
it comes to making our automobiles safer, our trucks and other 
vehicles safer, and we continue to make improvements. We have 
also made significant improvements to the system itself: for 
example, the highway system, with better lighting and shoulders 
and signage and the like; and rail grade crossings, with gates 
and lights--those kinds of things. In almost all instances we 
have come to the conclusion that human factors are really at 
the core of many of our challenges that have to be addressed 
today, whether it is aggressive driving, the failure of someone 
to use a seat belt or to put children in the back seat, failure 
to use the child safety seats properly, or drinking and 
driving. All of these things are judgments that people make.
    Even as it relates to the motor carrier community and 
specifically hours of service, we see the issue of fatigue. It 
is the same with hours of service for pilots--again, the 
question of fatigue. We are starting to really hone in on these 
questions and, as I said, we have a 7-point comprehensive plan 
to address them. The first point deals with the driver. This is 
in the motor carrier area. It focuses on the individual so that 
we can get to the heart of these human factors questions. I 
think that is really where we need to make the greatest 
improvement and give the greatest amount of attention--by 
addressing those concerns.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. You are particularly looking at that with 
your senior staff to see what we can do better?
    Mr. Slater. Yes. We have brought many of our 
recommendations to this committee and to the Congress, and 
again you have responded with record-level investment in 
safety. A lot of those dollars go to addressing these 
questions. So for that we thank you.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I appreciate that. We do need that safety. 
You mentioned that earlier, that is one of your missions.

              transit coordination--livability initiative

    I will move a bit to transit. Most transit in America, and 
where I come from in Michigan included, the farebox does not 
take care of the transit dollars needed. In my largest city, 
$50 million of the general budget went into our transit. Most 
of the jobs, as you know, are in the suburbs in urban America, 
and urban America has a hard time getting to those jobs because 
the DOTs in those local communities don't get out. So we have a 
regional authority as well, and most places do across the 
country. They are working together and they both get Federal 
dollars, DOT as well as the regional authority, but they don't 
seem able to coordinate their schedules well enough so in fact 
we have a comprehensive, coordinated transportation effort that 
would move citizens to the jobs and back.
    Is there a role for your agency to play on that? What can 
we do--I am not talking language necessarily. Maybe we need 
stronger--my region, for example, and we are three of the 
largest counties in Michigan, cannot get together. Whatever the 
reasons are, some political, some a drain on whichever resource 
you look at, but the fact remains the jobs, people can't get to 
them. Employers are looking and looking and looking, and 
transportation remains a major concern. What can you do in your 
transit agency to help us address this?
    Mr. Slater. Well, we are actually doing a lot currently, 
and I would like to commend Administrator Linton and Deputy 
Administrator Fernandez for their work in this regard. A part 
of the Vice President's livability agenda actually speaks to 
this question. It is designed to get communities to work more 
closely together in coordinating and fashioning programs to 
deal with their transportation needs but, beyond that, to deal 
with challenges related to development.
    In many instances in the past, we have been of the mind 
that if we build it, they will come; or, secondly, we have 
given developers basically total freedom to build it wherever 
they build it and then to have us come, whether that is fire 
protection, police protection, transportation facilities or 
other services and infrastructure. And what that has done is to 
hollow out central core cities, creating problems there. But it 
also creates problems along the countryside as more and more 
land is being taken up for these kinds of developments, with 
little attention given to quality-of-life consideration or not 
enough consideration being given to those concerns.
    So now what we face is longer and longer commutes. We face 
more congestion, more sprawl, and degradation to the 
environment. The whole livability agenda is designed to address 
those questions in a comprehensive way, bringing together the 
parties who have a lot of say about the livability of their 
communities and who have a lot of decisions that they make on a 
daily basis affect those communities.
    Now, we have a lot to learn here. And, as you know, we are 
going to hold a sustainability conference in Detroit in early 
May, and a number of other preparatory conferences leading up 
to that national conference. With the appropriate parties, we 
hope to thoroughly examine this question and figure out how to 
best address it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I appreciate all of that. I don't want my 
Chairman to cut me off.
    Mr. Wolf. It is okay.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be 
participating in that livability conferance. I think it is May 
1 or 4 or something. I will be participating in that. Politics 
is usually what prevents most of the things from happening that 
I am talking about now in that those Federal agencies get 
Federal assistance. I want a hammer or something in there to 
make them work to achieve what I need them to achieve, which is 
getting people to the jobs and back. I don't know how we do 
that.
    Mr. Slater. Actually, there are some hammers and a few 
nails. There is an opportunity in the legislation as currently 
constructed--TEA21--which requires involvement of local 
communities along with State leaders in the metropolitan 
planning process. There are also provisions in the law that 
require the involvement to a greater extent of people who live 
in rural areas----
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Same problem.
    Mr. Slater. That is right. These people in many instances 
are as underserved by transportation getting them to the 
location of the jobs, as are those in urban areas. Our Job 
Access and Reverse-commute grants program, which again was 
provided with the assistance of the Congress, will help us to 
address this issue as well. We seek $150 million in our 2000 
budget, which is double the amount requested in the 1999 budget 
for this purpose. And we are very hopeful that we can address 
this critical issue, where transportation is the tie that binds 
people--to a job, health care facilities, schools for their 
children, day care facilities and the like--rather than serving 
as something that divides one community from another, or a 
person from job opportunities. Transportation is an enabling 
investment, not something that denies access. It is supposed to 
guarantee it and provide it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Without it, you do get the isolation in all 
respects that you just mentioned.
    Mr. Slater. That is true.

                   state/local authority under tea21

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Finally, you refer to TEA21. The Federal 
program, as you know, has been quite controversial from time to 
time, but in TEA21 there are goals and requirements and some 
dollars. An administrative rule has now come out of your 
Department that we are most concerned about, that we give much 
of that authority to local--States in many instances--
authorities, and we don't feel that would be adequate, it would 
serve the population intended initially. Any response? Are you 
looking at it? Have you received some concern from some of us?
    Mr. Slater. Oh, yes. We have had a number of briefing 
sessions with Members of Congress, following up on commitments 
that we made during the TEA21 development process when we asked 
Congress to give us the opportunity to show that we can meet 
the President's challenge to us--to mend and not end these 
programs, and also your challenge to do it in a way that 
recognizes the higher standards proposed by the United States 
Supreme Court in the Adarand case. You actually gave us, 
through large majorities involving both Republicans and 
Democrats and majorities in both the House and the Senate, the 
ability to do that. And what we have come forth with is a 
redesign of our regulations that is an attempt to do that, to 
meet that end.
    Now, it is true that we give State and local authorities 
the ability to work with us to redesign their programs, but 
they have to work with us.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And to meet your goals.
    Mr. Slater. And to meet our goals, that is right.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. That is what I want to hear, and we want to 
make certain of that.
    Mr. Slater. That is right. That is why we are reaching out 
to the members, getting your insights, and also making 
assurances that we will work with you to ensure that the 
programs are quickly administered.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.

                    opening statement of mr. tiahrt

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Tiahrt.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous 
consent that my opening statement be placed in the record.
    Mr. Wolf. It will, without objection.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Tiahrt follows:]
 
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           proposed user fees

    Mr. Tiahrt. I have some questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Just go ahead.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Welcome, Mr. Secretary. I want to thank you for 
bringing Administrator Garvey to Wichita, Kansas, the air 
capital of the world. It was very important for you to 
highlight the importance of air travel, and with Raytheon's 
Beech facility there and Cessna's facility and Lear Jet's 
facility and the largest Boeing facility outside the State of 
Washington in Wichita, Kansas, I think we can say we are the 
air capital of the world.
    I am very pleased to have you there. I do want to make a 
comment about user fees. If I am not on your list in opposition 
to user fees, please place me at the top. A new Cessna 172 
costs about $120,000. A new car is about $30,000. If whenever 
we went on a public highway, we had to pay the same percentage 
as that ratio in a user's fee, it would certainly impact the 
travel patterns of Americans today. Some of the proposed user 
fees for air traffic are as high as $250 to $300 for takeoff 
and landing. If you had to spend $75 to $100 every time you 
drove your car, it would really change the pattern, or $25 
every time you got on a bus.
    I think we need to be very cautious in the impact it would 
have on those modes of travel that we want to see used to 
increase our economy and the strength of America.
    I have about half a dozen questions. I am just going to go 
through them real quick and come back and start at the 
beginning. I did want to talk to you about aviation regulations 
and certification funding, about the funding shortfall in the 
Airport Improvement Program, about rail crossing safety. We 
know about Amtrak.
    Last night in my district, a man was killed by a Burlington 
Northern train. Unfortunate. Sometimes these things seem 
unavoidable.
    Also the Traffic Collision Avoidance System, TCAS, ground 
proximity warning system, and just a basic commonality in 
safety regulations worldwide. The FAA has been a leader in 
setting the mark, and I hope that we can work to bringing those 
standards into play. That affects the ground proximity warning 
system and other things.

             aviation regulation and certification funding

    Let me go back to the aviation regulation certification 
funding. Raytheon, as you may have seen--I think you went to 
both Raytheon and Cessna there?
    Mr. Slater. I did.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Raytheon is building two new aircraft almost 
completely out of composites. They have one part number that 
has replaced about 10,000 part numbers, because this fuselage 
is made out of composites, and it is a marvelous step forward 
in new technology. Cessna has four new aircraft models. Lear 
Jet has begun deliveries on their all new designed aircraft.
    Part of the very important function that the FAA performs 
is the certification and safety regulation oversight on these 
aircraft. But this part of the FAA budget has been diverted in 
the past and because of that, there have been delays in getting 
these new safe products on the market, and there have been 
delays in seeing this new technology advancing. And I think 
there is a very common interest in all of America to see 
greater safety in air travel and to see new steps in 
technology.
    When this money is diverted, it slows that process 
considerably. Phone calls don't get answered. Products don't 
get approved. And I lived through some programs before I came 
to Congress in the certification of Air Force One, the new 747 
that the President flies on, and we had a very close working 
relationship with the FAA during that process. One of the 
engineers that worked on that project works for me in my 
Wichita office now, so we are familiar with the process. I hate 
to see that slowed down.
    If you can't fence that money off, we will try to figure 
out a way to do that from our side of the fence and it really 
should happen inside the FAA. So I ask that you dedicate that 
money to make sure we get these safe products on-line as soon 
as possible and see that new technology is in place. That may 
be more of a statement than a question.
    I have got a question related to that, but I will submit 
that in writing.
    Mr. Slater. Okay.

                  airport improvement program funding

    Mr. Tiahrt. The next thing I would like to talk about is 
the funding shortfall in the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). 
First of all, according to the national plan for integration of 
airport systems, there is about a $7 billion need out there to 
improve our airports. There is about a $2.7 or $2.8 billion AIP 
funding need just to meet the high priority needs. Last year we 
bumped up AIP funding. I have tried to protect that money the 
best I could, but in your budget you have cut it back about 
$350 million from what we spent last year. I have to tell you 
that is a move in the wrong direction.
    Part of the problem we have, you mentioned urban sprawl 
before, and we have these population areas that have a great 
deal of congestion. One of the things we can do to alleviate 
that is allow these rural communities to develop their 
economies. One of the things that is a very vital link to these 
smaller areas is the airport, the local airport, and if you 
can't get a safe airport, where people don't feel comfortable 
landing and taking off, then we are going to see this continued 
growth in these population centers and not the much-needed move 
to these rural areas. So this is one area where I think it is 
very shortsighted on our part to put a shortfall in AIP 
funding, and it is very good foresight for us to increase this 
amount of money and meet the critical needs. And I hope that 
you will work to help us get the much-needed money back in AIP.

                            railroad safety

    Let me just mention railroad safety--I have questions 
related to that that I will submit for the record.
    Mr. Slater. Okay.
    Mr. Tiahrt. I see that Ms. Molitoris is here. The railroad 
crossings, we talked about what we can do. When there are 
judgment errors on the part of people who are driving trucks--
we just lost a 64-year-old man last night. He had a perfect 
driving record, he is a truck driver, never had a traffic 
ticket. And yet in the lapse in judgment, I don't know whether 
he just didn't look, there were cross-bucks at the crossing, no 
flashing lights. It is a gravel road. You really can't justify 
a grade separation or lights, but reflective tape on the side 
of cars is good.
    We are doing some things, but I just want to encourage you 
to pursue this. I lost a personal friend, Doug Knight, at a 
railroad crossing within the last 2 years. It is tragic. We 
can't have a risk-free society, but there are things that we 
can do, and I appreciate your efforts and I want to help any 
way I can to make sure we have safe crossings. In a rural area 
like I have, we have a lot of gravel roads across the train 
tracks and a lot of train traffic because of the wheat and now 
cotton in Kansas, and moving aircraft products, so I hope that 
we can put that in place.

           aviation safety--traffic control avoidance system

    We had a near collision over Kansas with cargo air carriers 
and this traffic control avoidance system is common in many 
carriers; but we don't really have it in cargo and I don't know 
what the cost is. I just think it is important we consider 
getting that on board for these airplanes. These two carriers, 
Federal Express and American International Airways, I believe 
they came within 100 feet of each other. Now, it is hard to 
judge when you are in an airplane. I have flown on an airplane 
and seen an airplane off to the right that is probably 2 miles 
off. It is hard to judge. But when they are 100 feet, I think 
that is pretty close; that that is a near miss. This system 
would prevent that proximity.
    But that kind of goes into this whole overall how do you 
get common regulations worldwide. And again, I want to thank 
you for taking the lead on trying to bring the world into 
compliance. I want to encourage that, that when we have systems 
like TCAS and when we have systems that enhance, ground 
proximity warning system, those are important systems that we 
see are worldwide, especially when you consider the safety 
records.
    If you look at outside of North America and Europe, airline 
operators based outside of North America and Europe have two-
thirds of the accidents and have only one-fourth of the world's 
flights. Two-thirds of the accidents, one-fourth of the 
flights. That really speaks to the tremendous job you have 
done, you and Ms. Garvey, and I appreciate that. But if we 
could work together with these other parts of the world as you 
stated, I think we will have much safer airline travel 
worldwide.

                     aviation product certification

    Let me bounce back again to the certification. Is there a 
way that we can protect those funds so we can get safe products 
on the market in this new technology out there more quickly?
    Mr. Slater. Well, let me just say that we very much 
appreciate your words of commendation for Administrator Garvey 
and also Administrator Molitoris. I can tell you that on the 
regulation and certification front, this was a big issue that 
was discussed while we were in Wichita. And, frankly, through 
our reinventing government efforts and through a greater focus 
on ensuring the leadership role that we must maintain in this 
aviation industry, the FAA is looking at ways to continue to 
improve and streamline the certification process.
    It also came up in our first outreach meeting, a listening 
session in Seattle-Everett, Washington as well, which was the 
first; and then the one on general aviation, which was the 
seventh of 7 such sessions. So we definitely want to work with 
you in this area.

                              aip funding

    Let me also make a comment about the shortfall in AIP. I 
think your point is well taken as far as underscoring the 
importance of AIP funding, especially for medium and small 
airports. You know, the larger airports at least have the 
ability to raise revenues through the PFC opportunities that 
exist for them. What we have tried to do is to structure our 
proposed AIP program in such a way as to give greater emphasis 
to moderate and small airports. There would be a priority given 
to investing in those airports for the very reasons that you 
noted. Today, with the ability to actually work anyplace now 
because of the telecommunications systems we have, we can 
better help small- and medium-size communities attract 
manufacturing and other kinds of firms if their CEOs can get in 
and out of those communities through the use of aviation. And 
again I want to commend the FAA and our Office of Aviation and 
International Affairs, and also the Chief Counsel as well for 
their work on this proposal.
    We want to work with you, but I want to point out that our 
proposal focuses the limited amount of monies that we have in 
the AIP program more directly on access, especially for rural 
and small communities. We have a provision that deals with 
increasing the length of the runway for a number of these 
airports across the country over the 5-year period of our 
program.
    Also, we would ask you not to look just at what we have 
proposed for AIP, but also at the proposal to permit increases 
in passenger facility charges from $3 to $5. Our overall 
proposal is for record-level funding for aviation 
infrastructure investment and added capacity. With the $2 
increase in PFCs, we would expect to generate an additional 
$800 to $900 million annually. So when you add it all together, 
our proposal would provide record-level dollars.
    There is disagreement related to what we propose for AIP 
and what has been proposed by the Congress. But there is no 
disagreement when it comes to the importance of these kinds of 
investments. We appreciate your support there.

                              rail safety

    With rail safety, again thank you for your mention of 
Administrator Molitoris and her team at the FRA. We assure you 
that we want to work on these issues, and deal with questions 
pertaining to trespassing in particular. We haven't talked 
about that. We should. And also here I think we should mention 
transit and the safety standdown that Administrator Linton 
proposed when we had a series of injuries and some fatalities 
involving our transit system. There too we want to work with 
you.

          aviation safety--traffic collision avoidance system

    On TCAS, the FAA is working with the cargo industry to 
provide that system, and we want to continue to work with you 
there. On the issue of the common regulations, I want to 
commend our Administrator and also the Deputy Secretary who was 
recently in Montreal visiting with the leaders of the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), and also the 
International Air Transport Association (IATA). I also want to 
recognize Assistant Secretary Hunnicutt who, while about to 
leave, has played a very important role on the international 
front in aviation and international affairs along with Pat 
Murphy and Brad Mims. They've done a great job addressing these 
concerns.
    Near the end of the year we intend to host an international 
meeting of all of our aviation partners with whom we have 
entered into open sky agreements or liberalized aviation 
agreements, to continue to discuss issues pertaining to common 
regulations. At the beginning of this century, we had the 
Wright brothers who flew that 59 seconds. At the end of the 
century we have our participation in the construction of the 
international space station. And as we go into the second 
century of aviation, we have to do the kinds of things that you 
have mentioned to ensure that we are on the cutting edge.
    I have often said that what the railroads did for the 
country in the 19th century--tying us together, opening up 
Kansas and Arkansas and giving us access to the coast--the 
interstate system did to a greater extent in the second half of 
the 20th century. Aviation is what is going to give us access 
to the world in the 21st century. We are all challenged to 
provide the record-level investment and also the policy to get 
us there, and I want to thank you for your leadership and that 
of the Chair and the other members of the committee, including 
Congressman Sabo and Congressman Olver, in that regard as well.
    Mr. Tiahrt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. 
Secretary.

                    revenue-aligned budget authority

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Secretary, your budget proposes to allocate 
$1.5 billion of revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) to 
increase funding for several of your priorities, including the 
congestion mitigation and air quality program, transit formula 
grants, job access grants, highway research and the 
transportation and community and system preservation program 
which differs from existing law. In each case, RABA supplements 
existing funding levels. However, in the case of NHTSA's 
operations and research and rail safety, RABA funding replaces 
general fund appropriations. In fact, NHTSA's overall program 
is cut some 55 percent when the general fund component is 
eliminated. If safety is your ``north star,'' why are these 
critical safety programs not treated as well as transit grants 
and highway research in your budget? What if this proposal is 
not enacted?
    Mr. Slater. We are hopeful that it will. We view our RABA 
funding proposal as a part of our overall funding proposal 
which would bring roughly a 12 percent increase to NHTSA for 
their very, very important work. We would hope that at the end 
of the day, after working with you and the committee and the 
Congress, that we would provide NHTSA the kind of funding it 
needs. Not only is safety the ``north star'' by which we will 
be guided, I think it is appropriate to use it as the measure 
by which we will be judged. I understand clearly the sentiments 
of your question.
    Mr. Wolf. Have you identified alternative funding sources 
for the general fund components of NHTSA's operations and 
research account and rail safety activities, should RABA 
funding not materialize; and do you propose that your request 
for Amtrak, the Coast Guard, and FAA be reduced to cover the 
shortfall? I would hope not.
    Mr. Slater. That is right. We do not. And we have not 
looked at how we would replace the funding if our proposal for 
distribution of RABA is not passed. We are hopeful that the 
Congress will see the wisdom of our judgment--that given this 
additional $1.5 billion, it would be appropriate to use a 
considerable amount for safety, environment, research and 
development funding, and also transit funding.
    Mr. Wolf. But if at the end of the day----
    Mr. Slater. Then we have to do something--yes. We will work 
through it.

                          motor carrier safety

    Mr. Wolf. Hopefully we can work it out. I have a number of 
other questions on motor carrier safety. It has been discussed 
enough so I will just submit them for the record, although I 
would say, and I want the record to show this, this is an issue 
that is very, very important and I know what we are up against. 
We are up against a truck lobby that has large political action 
committees, and the moms and dads out there whose kids were 
killed don't have any political action committees. They don't 
hold fund-raisers.
    This is an issue that a lot of people care very, very 
deeply about. Speaking for myself, I care very deeply. I lost 
the first time I ran for Congress, I lost the second time I ran 
for Congress, and I won on the third time. I will stay with 
this issue, even going outside and holding a press conference. 
I saw the accident that Mr. Tiahrt was talking about. There was 
a man in a truck killed. I saw it on the news last night. When 
you see the letters that I receive from moms and dads and 
average people who feel somewhat helpless, who feel that the 
trucking lobby is so powerful that they are not able to deal 
with this issue squarely, and now they see some people speaking 
out, they are beginning to say, ``Please, do something.''
    I know you are committed, but I just don't want anyone to 
think that this is an issue that they can wait us out on, and 
come August or September or October or next year, that we will 
just walk away. I am going to stay with this issue, and if I 
fail and we fail in the House, we are going to keep coming back 
and coming back, and then we are going to ratchet it up and 
ratchet it up.
    If there is anybody out in this audience in the trucking 
lobby and they think it is going to be a kind of finessed issue 
that we talk about it--there is a story, and then it goes 
away--no way. All I can do is speak for myself. This issue will 
not go away until I and my conscience believe that we have done 
something where we don't have to hear from more of those moms 
and dads who have lost their kids, or husbands who have lost 
their wives, and wives who have lost their husbands. So we will 
submit these questions for the record. But this issue is going 
to be with us until fatalities are significantly reduced. I 
take you at your word that you are going to assist us in this 
effort too.
    Mr. Slater. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the general public may 
not have a strong lobby, but they have us. I am talking about 
the two of us and the members of this committee and our staffs, 
and we are going to do something about this and you have got my 
commitment on that. And I think we are going to have the 
industry step forward, because I think they know that this is 
not just a matter of the bottom line as it relates to profits. 
It is a matter of the bottom line as it relates to safety.
    Mr. Wolf. I think you are right. There are some in the 
industry that take the issue to heart; others, I have been a 
little bit concerned that maybe they think they can talk this 
issue to death. We had a provision in the omnibus bill, agreed 
to by all appropriate parties. They hired a prominent 
Republican lobbyist in this town to lobby the leadership and 
remove the provision over both the House and Senate 
Subcommittees' objections. If that activity takes place again, 
I am going to go to the floor and talk about it over and over 
and talk about names and dates and places. So as a result of 
that lobbying activity, I think more people will die on the 
highways this year. I am glad they have you, but we need to 
stay focused on this and not just talk it out.

                   perimeter rule at national airport

    We are near the end. National Airport. I hope you strongly 
support the perimeter rule and are opposed to lifting the 
perimeter rule at National Airport. I think Senator Dole put 
that in effect. It has worked very, very well. Both National 
and Dulles have prospered under the transfer over to a regional 
airport authority. You want to comment on that? How do you feel 
about the perimeter rule?
    Mr. Slater. Our position has been to work with the local 
leadership as they express themselves on that question and 
there has been strong expression. We would hope at the end of 
the day that again the parties would work through this and that 
safety, which is our top priority, would not be diminished. We 
will stand firm on that particular question.
    Mr. Wolf. I think this is a safety issue if you increase 
the slots there. There are some who would like an aluminum sky 
policy, just having aircraft landing constantly. The pilots 
will tell you the airport landing is so dangerous; it is safe 
because their adrenaline is pumping faster as they are coming 
down the river. But I think it also is a safety issue and not 
an economic competition issue.

                             y2k compliance

    On the issue of Y2K, we had some questions here which we 
will submit for the record but Congressman Horn did a grading. 
Your grade was not that great on the Y2K.
    Mr. Slater. Not that great at all?
    Mr. Wolf. Could you talk to us a little bit to reassure us?
    Mr. Slater. First of all, I think we had a very good 
hearing on the Hill this week on dealing with Y2K. 
Administrator Garvey participated along with Deputy Secretary 
Downey, and what we sought to do on that occasion was to give a 
more thorough assessment on our progress, and we are making 
considerable progress. We have tried very very hard to meet as 
much as possible the goal of mission critical systems assessed 
and tested by March 31. We will be very close to that; but 
because we have had our own timetable in effect for some time--
which we have been meeting at every step--it is going to take 
us until around June of this year to get everything completed. 
We will have a very important end-to-end test on April 10 in 
Denver, which will allow us to check not just the individual 
systems but how they relate to one another. We will assess our 
system from end to end.
    That will give us a lot of insight as to where we really 
are. But our objective is to be ready come the Year 2000, and 
we will have roughly 6 months, with the conclusion of our work 
in June, to test it out over the remainder of the year.
    We also have some challenges yet with respect to the Coast 
Guard and we are on-line with those. I think it will be 
probably October before we finish the last Coast Guard system, 
and we have a much smaller challenge as relates to BTS. But 
those are the three operating administrations within the 
Department where we still have some work. All the other systems 
are in good shape. But again we still test on a regular basis. 
I think the Congress was pleased to hear where we are, and I 
think we are going to get a much better grade the next time. At 
the end of the year, which is the real grade, we are going to 
be ready.
    Mr. Wolf. What about international flights? Will you be 
publishing a list that the average citizen can check to know 
whether or not it will be safe to fly there. Are they doing it? 
Will there be some way for the average citizen to know which 
countries and airports have operational systems?
    Mr. Slater. We will communicate in a way to be determined. 
I know that you and Administrator Garvey had this discussion 
the other day, and we will definitely be meeting our 
responsibility in that regard. The good thing is that in those 
countries where U.S. citizens travel most, we have made an 
assessment of their systems, and things look very good.
    Mr. Wolf. How about China?
    Mr. Slater. For China, we have some issues there. Frankly, 
we have got issues in all the developing world. We have got 
some concerns with smaller countries as well, but the thing 
about those countries is that they account for a much smaller 
portion of the air traffic community so while the concerns are 
important, the impact is not as great as it would be for some 
of these chief destination points for U.S. travelers and even 
for world travelers.
    We are working with the Chinese. We are working with all of 
our international partners through ICAO and working with the 
international aviation community through IATA. We also have the 
support of our U.S. industry because they have many, many 
relationships through co-chairing arrangements and the like 
with a number of international airlines. We still have some 
work to do. And our concern about the international community 
is one that I think is justified. But I think we are making a 
lot of progress even in that arena as we work together.
    Mr. Wolf. Could you submit for the record a list by 
countries of the number of people from the United States that 
have traveled overseas to each country? I know you surveyed the 
top 6 or 12, but I am concerned about the others. If we could 
have for the record how many Americans have visited the various 
countries.
    [The information follows:]

    The following table shows destination data for air 
travelers from the United States to all foreign countries in 
1997. The airline passengers include all nationalities, but the 
latest estimates from surveys indicates that about 50 percent 
are U.S. citizens. This data is collected by the Bureau of 
Transportation Statistics, Office of Airline Information.
    [The table follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                           transit new starts

    Mr. Wolf. TEA21 requires the FAA to develop overall project 
ratings of ``highly recommended,'' ``recommended,'' and ``not 
recommended'' for proposed new start projects based on 
evaluation criteria that include mobility improvements, 
environmental benefits, operating efficiencies, cost 
effectiveness, and other factors. A summary of FTA's new starts 
rating revealed that not a single project was rated as having 
both a high financial rating and a high project justification 
rating. Does this indicate to you that we are providing Federal 
resources to build only mediocre transit new start projects?
    Mr. Slater. No. We did still have a number of projects that 
were ranked high, and there are generally two conditions that 
have to be met before we actually do our reviews. Those were 
met with the ones that we reviewed, so we feel comfortable 
about the projects that we selected.
    Mr. Wolf. FTA evaluated 41 new start projects. That is one-
fifth of the projects authorized in TEA21. Why did the 
Department decide not to evaluate the other projects?
    Mr. Slater. When we evaluate projects or consider them, 
there are basically two considerations that we take into 
account. One is whether there is the evaluation of the project 
as an appropriate alternative, and the second is whether there 
is local funding that is adequate--those kinds of 
considerations. We found those two threshold issues to be 
addressed with the 41 projects that we considered. Some of the 
projects are ongoing projects, and because the initial 
assessment deals with whether we will participate as a funding 
source, with them being ongoing that is a judgment that had 
already been taken into account with some of the other 
projects.
    Mr. Wolf. We have a number of other questions on this 
issue. We are at the time we have to adjourn.
    Before I do, Mr. Olver, Mr. Sabo, do you have any 
questions.
    Mr. Olver. May I?
    Mr. Wolf. Sure.

                         transportation safety

    Mr. Olver. I had certainly a lot more time to think about 
the issue of safety I had raised earlier, and I know you do say 
that it is your ``north star'' and you have given quite an 
extensive section to the issue of safety here within. In the 
meantime, I have discovered that how many thousands--someone 
passed me a little note indicating how many thousands, and I 
guess I heard it before, 160,000 unguarded, unsignaled or 
whatever rail crossings, and to deal with those in what must be 
a fairly minimal kind of a way probably would cost $15 billion. 
Obviously we don't have those kinds of dollars for this sort of 
a situation.
    On the other hand for members who--we all have, and much of 
the discussion here has been about how tight dollars are. Is 
there something around that begins to look at all of the areas 
of transportation which really go highway and rail and air and 
what the Coast Guard does in safety and bike paths. Nothing is 
said about bike paths. All of them have fatalities. We have 
both public carriers and private carriers. Some, not all of 
them, have both. But there are several that have both public 
and private components to these sort of functions.
    Do we have any kind of overall developed plan that would 
say what are the safety implications in each of these--the 
safety problems in each of these areas? What are the fatalities 
as a function of the traffic, of the usage or whatever? Miles 
used, whatever are the measures, these are not necessarily 
equal. There is not a simple measure that probably covers all 
of them, but something that represents comparable measures. And 
then some effort to look at these in terms of the costs and 
benefits; how much benefit you can get for the expenditure of a 
billion dollars in one or another of these areas that would 
allow a group of relatively lay folks who have not had a chance 
to be part of all the development of such data, that might tell 
us where we should put our money, where we could have the 
greatest impact for some addition.
    I mean, one gets obviously greatly concerned when you see--
I made a particular pitch about doing something about the major 
passenger rail crossings and I have the feeling that if they 
set a thing like that, there ought to be a cooperative program 
between the States and Federal Government where they take some 
part in it, and a lot of this 160,000 probably ought to be 
closed, although there probably also would be a lot of usage--
using them anyway, just going ahead and using them. Do we have 
any sort of development of any plan that would--well, let me 
leave it there at the moment.
    Mr. Slater. Yes. Let me just say that for the first time in 
our Nation's history and clearly in the history of the 
Department, just 2 weeks ago we held the first National 
Transportation Safety Conference. This is the first time that 
has ever been done, where we brought together all of our 
partners across the various modes of transportation to work 
with us to an even greater extent. This is exactly what you are 
talking about. It was good for us because we were there as one 
DOT, which is a management strategy that we have underway where 
we work better together. But, more importantly, we had then the 
opportunity to interface with all of our partners across the 
various modes, them learning from one another, us learning from 
them, and them learning from us. We began the process of 
putting together a safety action plan where we start to 
streamline and focus to a greater degree on those areas that 
will give us the greatest return on investment.
    I can tell you that some of that work has already been done 
in bits and pieces, and in one instance just last year with the 
Vice President, Administrator Garvey and I announced a safe 
skies focused agenda for aviation which did as you suggested. 
We focused on those key areas and made a commitment with 
industry to reduce fatal aviation crashes by 80 percent over a 
decade.
    As you know and I know, in a recent hearing, Mr. Chairman, 
it was noted with some commendation, that last year we had zero 
fatal crashes involving U.S. commercial aircraft carriers. So 
we have a significant and good start on that commitment for the 
next decade.
    We have also discovered that 60 percent of the people who 
die in fatalities are not buckled up. A seat belt is the number 
one safety device, so we focused a lot on that. We have made a 
commitment through the President to have an 85 percent seat 
belt use rate by the year 2002. And we see a number of 
communities passing primary seat belt laws which give us a 
significant increase in enforcement and also in seat belt use.
    We also had the announcement earlier this month about the 
universal child passenger safety seat. Over 60 percent of the 
kids who die in automobile crashes aren't appropriately 
restrained through either a child safety seat or through a seat 
belt or booster seat. So we focused a lot of attention on those 
areas. And some forty percent of all crashes involving 
automobiles have some presence of drugs or alcohol. Last year 
for the first time, that was dropped to just over 38 percent.
    Mr. Olver. Some of these are clearly judgment calls and 
clearly things that involve personal decisions, and some of 
them are things that you can impose upon the system. And so the 
context, the whole matrix here of what I am talking about and 
what you suggested this plan might begin to do has to take into 
account those judgments versus systemic things that one can do, 
that one can impose versus what one has in each of the areas.
    You could ask, well, what are the options in air travel? 
Yeah, there is a series of options that might, as you believe, 
improve things. But it might be, if you are going to spend 
another billion dollars, it might not be that you use 
everything in air travel. It may be that it is a series of 
things taken from a number of different places, because there 
are diminishing returns that come in on some of these actions 
that you might impose. When can we expect any kind of results 
to come from a study like the development of the safety action 
plan?
    Mr. Slater. Very soon. What we will do, Congressman, is 
follow up with you and the members of the committee on that. 
Actually we have tried to strike that kind of balance with our 
transportation proposal with record-level investment for 
safety. But let us follow up----
    Mr. Olver. It is not an action plan that has the benefit of 
data behind it integrated from all these different services.
    Mr. Slater. The data is getting better every day, and it 
does include some focus on the areas where we get the greatest 
return. But we do not have the action plan that covers all of 
transportation that we are trying to design as a result of the 
safety conference.
    Mr. Olver. Thank you for your indulgence.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]



                                           Tuesday, March 16, 1999.

                       UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                               WITNESSES

JOHN H. ANDERSON, JR., DIRECTOR OF TRANSPORTATION ISSUES, RESOURCES, 
    COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, U.S. GENERAL 
    ACCOUNTING OFFICE
RANDALL B. WILLIAMSON, U.S. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
ADMIRAL JAMES M. LOY, COMMANDANT, UNITED STATES COAST GUARD

                          Introductory Remarks

    Mr. Wolf. Good morning. Welcome to the Committee. You can 
proceed. You can summarize your statements if you can, but we 
don't want to cut you short. Say what you want to say, but your 
full statements will be in the record.

                          GAO OPENING REMARKS

    Mr. Anderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the 
subcommittee. We are pleased to be here to provide information 
today on the Coast Guard's plans for acquiring new or 
modernized ships, aircraft, and other assets needed to carry 
out its mission. With me today is Randy Williamson. He is an 
assistant director at GAO who specializes in reviews of Coast 
Guard programs.

                           DEEPWATER PROJECT

    First I am going to discuss the Deepwater Project, which 
would replace or modernize many of the Coast Guard's ships and 
aircraft over the next 20 years. This project could cost as 
much as $9.8 billion, making it the largest procurement in the 
agency's history.
    We recently completed a comprehensive review of this 
program focusing on whether or not the Coast Guard had 
accurately portrayed the need for the project and how it 
planned to finance the nearly $500 million a year that may be 
needed each year starting in 2002 to pay for it. We found that 
the Coast Guard had substantially overstated when it needed to 
replace its deepwater aircraft and to a lesser extent its 
ships. We also found that the agency had not developed reliable 
data to support its estimates of capability gaps between its 
current and future deepwater needs. This data is critical for 
developing usable alternatives for addressing future needs.
    We cautioned the Coast Guard about moving too quickly in 
pursuing alternatives for replacing or modernizing its aircraft 
without good baseline data about their condition and mission 
requirements. Delays in obtaining and providing this data to 
contractors who are now designing concepts for alternative 
deepwater systems could adversely affect the quality of their 
proposals. We recommended that the Coast Guard gather and 
provide this data to contractors as soon as possible.
    While the Coast Guard has made progress in this area since 
we issued our report, more remains to be done. We will continue 
to monitor this project to ensure that contractors receive 
timely and accurate data to include in their proposals.
    Regarding its affordability, the agency could face major 
financial obstacles in proceeding with the project. If the 
Coast Guard needs to spend $500 million a year starting in 2002 
as it initially planned, this project alone would consume more 
funds than the agency currently spends for all of its capital 
projects. The Coast Guard believes that competition among the 
contractors will drive the project cost down; however, until 
the contractors submit their proposals and the Coast Guard 
prepares a new project justification about a year from now, we 
are not going to know whether or not the Coast Guard has 
adequately addressed our concerns about the project's 
affordability.
    The enormity of the Deepwater Project heightens the need 
for the Coast Guard to develop plans and strategies for funding 
it during these times of fiscal constraint. Based on the 
existing cap on discretionary spending governmentwide, OMB has 
set a budget mark for the Coast Guard's capital projects of 
$485 million a year through 2004.

                             CAPITAL NEEDS

    For fiscal year 2001, the Coast Guard's capital needs are 
estimated to be about $400 million, well under the OMB mark. 
This estimate includes $42.3 million for the Deepwater Project. 
However, the picture in 2002 could change dramatically if the 
project heads into production as planned. As the figure on page 
7 of my full statement shows, if the project requires the 
funding levels initially planned, the agency's capital needs 
would approach $800 million for 2002, and it would exceed OMB's 
target by about $200 million for each of the following 2 years.
    The Coast Guard is now developing a new capital planning 
process, and when completed, this process could provide a more 
workable approach for dealing with any future funding gaps, 
allowing the agency to acquire the assets it needs to 
effectively carry out its missions. The new process will 
include ways to better prioritize and manage the Coast Guard's 
capital projects and cost control techniques to prolong the 
useful life of ships or aircraft and shore facilities.

                Potential Cost Savings/Funding Resources

    Improved planning by itself, though, may not be enough to 
solve the agency's funding dilemma. The Coast Guard may have to 
look to other strategies for meeting its capital needs. For 
example, some agencies like DOD are identifying ways to cut 
operating costs and using those cost savings to help fund their 
capital needs. While such an approach may not eliminate the 
Coast Guard's funding gap for its capital projects, it is 
clearly worth examining. GAO has issued several reports on 
potential cost savings ideas the Coast Guard should study, but 
few of those ideas have been acted upon.
    Another option would be for the Coast Guard to secure 
additional funding resources. This option is more difficult for 
several reasons. First, spending caps limit the agency's 
ability to obtain funding through regular appropriations. The 
Coast Guard also proposed user fees in the past and again this 
year, but has not been successful in getting congressional 
approval. If the Coast Guard can't levy new user fees or 
otherwise obtain additional funding, their budget dilemma will 
be exacerbated. The $485 million capital budget mark is based 
upon obtaining about $165 million a year in user fees.
    In conclusion, the Coast Guard is facing the daunting task 
of meeting its capital funding needs in a constrained budget 
environment. To be successful, it must consider multiple 
approaches and strategies rather than simply asking for more 
money. While the modernization of its aircraft and ships may 
indeed require more funding, the Coast Guard should fully 
examine all strategies that have the potential to lower its 
funding requests.
    That concludes my summary statement. I would be glad to 
answer questions.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.
    [The prepared statement and biographies of John Anderson 
and Randall Williams follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


                      Coast Guard Opening Remarks


                             BUDGET REQUEST

    Mr. Wolf. Admiral?
    Admiral Loy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, ladies 
and gentlemen of the Committee. With your permission, sir, I 
will submit my written statement into the record and just make 
some opening comments.
    First, Mr. Chairman, I would like to publicly thank you and 
the Committee and Members on the Committee for their counsel 
and advice through the fiscal year 1999 process last year, 
which was unusual at best, as we approach the very end of a 
very difficult budget cycle and an omnibus bill that was 
unprecedented in our democracy's history. It was unique. The 
path you all helped me with, helped me follow, resulted in, I 
think, very strong funding for our service.
    I am concerned already, however, that the fiscal year 2000 
process will be an even more challenging effort for all of us 
with little prospect that year-end supplementals might make 
things right for agencies like the Coast Guard at the end of 
the day. The combination of very real caps and reduced budget 
authority flexibility can make your challenge very much a more 
difficult one, Mr. Chairman, and I again seek your support and 
advocacy to fund the Coast Guard properly this year.

                    FISCAL YEAR 1998 ACCOMPLISHMENTS

    Fiscal year 1998 was a very good year for Coast Guard 
productivity for America; sustained counterdrug excellence and 
productivity in that effort, which was keyed by this Congress 
and by the administration to be something that we should be 
putting an awful lot of our effort into. High-profile cases 
like the fishing vessel LA CONTE and the motor tanker COMMAND 
offered reinforcement to the quality of effort that Coast Guard 
people in the field are undertaking with respect to core 
mission areas that we have for this Nation; high seas drift net 
seizures in the Pacific; the establishment of the International 
Safety Management Code for port safety control for keeping 
substandard vessels from entering U.S. ports. The Marine 
Transportation System Conference highlighted an opportunity for 
us to bring to the fore that particular dimension of our 
transportation system, and solid performance in normal Coast 
Guard missions, core missions, if you will, such as search and 
rescue, aids to navigation, and marine safety, which were all 
over the landscape last year.
    On the management front, we are very proud to be a leader 
in the Government Performance and Results Act and National 
Performance Review (NPR) and other initiatives, including just 
yesterday having an opportunity to throw the switch on the 
National Differential Global Positioning System for our 
Nation's extrapolation of what has been a maritime system into 
a full national system for America. I am told applications will 
be coming our way in the future with respect to that basic 
systems capability.
    Aggressive in forging partnerships in many areas in and out 
of government so as to make certain we were not carrying the 
full burden of any particular idea, but rather leading by 
collaborative effort, the collective wisdom and efforts of many 
government agencies and people in and out of government, we 
have contributed significantly to Secretary Slater's One DOT 
concept of collaborative leadership.
    We are very proud of this record, ladies and gentlemen, but 
we also know that records are a part of yesterday, and we are 
looking for what you would have us do today.

                             BUDGET THEMES

    Mr. Chairman, there are really three basic themes for the 
2000 budget as it is submitted to you for consideration. One of 
them is to simply assure you that the basic services offered by 
the Coast Guard to the American people will be continued in 
2000, and then two concerns that I think are worthy of our 
discussion through the course of questions and answers this 
morning.
    First, counterdrug responsiveness. It was quite clear last 
year that this Congress had serious issues in mind with respect 
to what they wanted the Coast Guard to be doing in 
counterdrugs. I would be glad to talk about that momentarily. 
And readiness challenges, which I think are perhaps the most 
significant issue that I would bring to the Committee's 
attention this morning.
    As it relates to basic services, this budget will continue 
basic Coast Guard services for the American public, those 
services that have come to be counted on, if not actually even 
taken for granted, on the part of the American public. There 
is, however, what I would offer not a penny to spare in the 
budget as it relates to doing those basic services.

                       COUNTERDRUG RESPONSIVENESS

    As it relates to counterdrug responsiveness, against a 
backdrop of 14,000 American lives lost annually, $110 billion 
in annual social costs, this Congress last year provided 
significant plusups in last year's supplemental. You asked us 
to do more, and we are doing more. I am proud to discuss what 
we have already done with the support you have provided in 1999 
and look forward to continuing that activity level in 2000.
    This budget requests the initial follow-on funding to use 
the assets acquired in 1999 in the due course of that business 
that we will conduct for the Nation in 2000. The result will be 
significant capability improvement to our counterdrug effort.
    Mr. Chairman, my goals are very simple with respect to 
counterdrugs: Use the national drug control strategy and the 
Coast Guard's STEEL WEB strategy to do the very best we can 
given the assets that we are provided. We need to optimize the 
existing assets before asking for more. The challenge last year 
allowed us to begin to do that, and the budget for 2000 
requests continued effort in that regard.
    We need to focus on end game capability, because I feel, 
having visited the scene of particularly the Caribbean, that 
that is a hole in our arsenal currently being taken advantage 
of by the smuggler. The fast boat is currently the vehicle of 
choice for the smuggler in that business these days, and we 
must find a way to negate his advantage in that regard.
    We need to work hard to analyze real contributions toward 
the national drug control strategy goals of a 25 and 50 percent 
impact by 2002 and 2007. These are very real quantifiable 
goals, and we need to be doing the things necessary to reach 
them. The Coast Guard contribution to those goals is where I 
must concentrate: a 10 and 20 percent seizure rate improvement 
over the course of that same time frame.
    We express the requirements to meet these goals in 5-year 
drug budgets that are provided to General McCaffrey for his 
consideration and for his certification as part of the normal 
budget process. The assets offered in last year's legislation 
were right on target, and I will discuss specifics at your 
pleasure for Q and A. Our seizure rate should rise from a 
fiscal year 1996 baseline of 8.7 to 13 percent with the assets 
provided in 1999, en route to a 18.7 percent seizure rate in 
2002 and 28.7 in 2007.

                               READINESS

    Mr. Chairman, if I leave one word with you and the 
Committee today, it would be readiness. I am very seriously 
concerned about our organization's continuing ability to do 
what America asks of us. Much has been said in the last 6 to 8 
months about readiness. That dialogue has included all five 
military uniformed services, and, as you have seen, the 
President's budget submits significant plusups for DOD, and the 
Hill is already about the business of perhaps plusing those up 
even further.
    I would only offer that it is enormously important for this 
committee to understand the connectivity between a uniformed 
service and its capability to do what the Nation asks, and your 
actions as it relates to providing the budget to do that.
    All five services have endured significant reductions over 
the course of the last decade and now face increased 
operational tempo and personnel tempo challenges to getting the 
job done. The simple chart that I have arrayed over here, sir, 
is an algorithm that I am trying to bring to as many people's 
attention as possible. The lower current capability is the 
foundation of our organization's capacity to do things. If the 
Congress and the Administration would have us do more, it is 
simply through those three pillars of dealing with people, 
dealing with authorities, and dealing with modernization that 
one acquires an enhanced capability to do what the American 
public would have us do.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Admiral Loy. In the discussion over the course of the last 
6 or 8 months, the concept of readiness has been used in this 
town as a military defense readiness issue, and I would offer 
only for this committee's consideration that the Coast Guard's 
version of readiness widens across a much stronger foundation 
to do not only what we do for readiness as it relates to 
national defense, but with respect to everything else we do for 
America, the other 90 percent, if you will, of our annual work.

                               Personnel

    The 1999 budget makes a good down payment on people issues. 
It deals with compensation. It deals with housing. It deals 
with health care, and it must be sustained in 2000 to allow the 
people pillar of that structure to continue to be available.
    The most significant single issue I have on my plate in 
addition to Y2K this year is work force filling, to get my work 
force back to the point that we will have the numbers on board 
to do what is necessary. Again, I will be glad to answer 
questions in regard to that.

                             Modernization

    As it relates to modernization, our coastal forces are 
coming off the design boards and off assembly lines very, very 
well. My concern drifts, as we have already heard from Mr. 
Anderson, towards Deepwater and the key to recapitalizing the 
future of the organization to do business where the Nation 
would have us do it in the exclusive economic zone, in 
deepwater areas around this Nation and the Caribbean, and 
literally anywhere else in the world the Nation would have us 
do our business.
    We need to be able to clear the Acquisition, Construction, 
and Improvements (AC&I) decks, so to speak, so as to make room 
for what Mr. Anderson describes as a significant budget 
challenge for funding Deepwater down the line. But I would 
offer at the moment in the 2000 budget every penny of the 
budget in AC&I is enormously important.

                           Current Capability

    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I am very concerned about why I am 
seeing signals referring to frayed edges of the foundation that 
we simply already have as it relates to capability. These 
signals suggest to me that we may be for one of the first times 
in our history only barely ``Semper Paratus,'' and if we are, 
it is because of the superhuman efforts from our field 
commanders and the young American patriots in Coast Guard 
uniforms who answer the call to go in harm's way despite 
shortfalls in training, billet strength, spare parts, and 
antiquated and unreliable equipment and infrastructure. I hope 
we can spend some time today exploring that.
    Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your support and 
efforts in our regard last year. I look forward to your 
questions.
    Mr. Wolf. I thank you, Admiral. I appreciate your 
testimony.
    [The prepared statement and biography of James Loy 
follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                       FAA Reauthorization Impact

    Mr. Wolf. The recently reported bill, H.R. 1000, would 
double the FAA's budget, shielding it from cuts or so-called 
fire walls. In raw numbers it would raise aviation spending by 
$40 billion over the next 5 years. Those outlays would have to 
be financed by this Committee, and frankly, I don't know that 
we know where to find that kind of money.
    In a March 10 letter to the authorizing committee which I 
read the other day, the Secretary announced a strong opposition 
to H.R. 1000's financing provisions and saying, and I quote, 
``I am concerned about the implications of the bill for other 
modes of transportation. H.R. 1000 could have a negative effect 
on remaining transportation and related funding, notably for 
the Coast Guard and Amtrak.'' It is clear to me that deep cuts 
would be necessary in the Coast Guard and in Amtrak to finance 
that spending, and it appears that the Secretary agrees. Have 
you done any analysis of the potential impact on your programs 
if H.R. 1000 were enacted?
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Chairman, I haven't done any quantifying 
analysis. My review of that thought process is, as you 
suggested, thematic in nature. To whatever degree your budget 
authority flexibility is reduced by such activities, the 
potential implication for the Coast Guard is very real. I don't 
know that on a conscious mental level you or anyone else 
actually takes a dollar out of the Aviation Trust Fund and puts 
it into the Coast Guard budget, but the flexibility you have to 
do all that is called for you to do is certainly restricted as 
we watch fire walls fall into place inside the transportation 
appropriation.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, do you have any thoughts on that?
    Mr. Anderson. Clearly I do. I believe the Coast Guard would 
be at a real disadvantage along with Amtrak if, in fact, more 
fire walls are put up to protect the aviation side of things. 
With what happened last year on the surface transportation 
side, you are walling off parts of the budget, and it just 
leaves less flexibility for you in making the tough decisions 
that have to be made.
    Mr. Wolf. Admiral, the Secretary's letter is really 
important, though, but I think it is really going to take a 
major role for you to play. Are you going to do anything 
personally to get this word out to talk about the harmful 
nature? Because if you look at it in just a slice, anyone can 
say, I want to plusup this or plusup that, but knowing that 
apparently the budget caps are not going to be raised, or that 
is the indication now, certainly, after Senator Daschle was on 
television about 2 weeks ago, this decision was made, I think 
both parties seem to be in agreement as of this moment not to 
raise the caps.
    This thing is moving down the pike rapidly. I think unless 
you personally get involved--do you have any plans to 
personally speak out, to talk to Members about this issue?
    Admiral Loy. No, sir. After our good session last week, 
sir, I have had an initial opportunity to think through very 
carefully the focus on readiness that this Congress has the 
opportunity to take. I have chatted with Chairman Young 
already, as you suggested that I do, and we will extend those 
conversations to others to point out the reality of what will 
likely occur inside function 400 and the requirement that if, 
in fact, our service is to be supported in the same fashion 
that it was clearly the Congress's intent to do last year, and 
the administration's for that matter, that the funding levels 
be reached by whatever means must be necessary to make that 
happen.
    The readiness issue at the moment is one that I think 
offers a vehicle of choice for some folks to take. The simple 
realities of the five services having been part of the dialogue 
to deal constructively with readiness for all five services 
offers us an opportunity to make that clear to as many voices 
on the Hill and in the administration as is possible, and I 
intend to do that.
    Mr. Wolf. I would urge you to do that. I think what you 
have here--and I am going to recognize Mr. Sabo next. I have 
many, many questions, but just to recognize Mr. Sabo next.
    I think the problem is that, quite frankly, the highway 
lobby, which has gotten involved in this now, is so powerful in 
making its case that the lobby for the Coast Guard, which is 
basically--I don't think you have a political action committee 
the last time I checked.
    Admiral Loy. Not that I am aware of.
    Mr. Wolf. Enlisted men and women that serve in Bosnia have 
no political action committee, and enlisted men and women who 
served in Desert Storm and Desert Shield and Haiti and Somalia 
have none. I really think it is important for the Coast Guard 
to make this case. I think the same thing holds true with 
regard to the Defense Department.
    I think, fortunately, the Joint Chiefs last year before the 
Armed Services Committee for the first time said publicly that 
they needed $22 billion to make themselves whole. There is a 
potential deployment if there is an agreement signed in 
Rambouillet with regard to Kosovo, of another 4,000 troops. 
They are just stretched to the maximum point. I saw a report 
that Congressman Hunter put out the other day. If my memory 
serves me, I think he said there were 55 aircraft accidents 
last year in the military and, I think, 75 deaths.
    Admiral Loy. Seventy-five deaths, yes, sir. I saw that.
    Mr. Wolf. I just really worry that you all will be 
reluctant to speak out, being reticent as you are wearing the 
uniform, but I think you are going to have to come up and make 
this case.

                         Deaths on Active Duty

    One quick question on an issue. How many Coast Guardsmen 
died in active duty last year?
    Admiral Loy. At our meeting last Friday, sir, you asked 
that question, and Commander Bernard leaned over and indicated 
the number was 36. I need to take that to ground, but I will 
let you know that for a fact.
    Mr. Wolf. Could you do that, and if you can submit that for 
the record and show how and what happened in those cases.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. I will very much do that.
    [The information follows:]

    During fiscal year 1998, 25 members of the Coast Guard died 
while serving on active duty: two deaths were operationally 
related, four were suicides, two were caused by domestic 
accidents, four were due to auto accidents, three were 
apparently due to non-operational foul play (gun shot), and 10 
deaths were due to natural causes.

                         Coast Guard Visibilty

    Admiral Loy. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that as you recall 
hearing on the occasion of the change of command back in May, 
one of the things that I have left right square in the middle 
of my blotter on a daily basis is the challenge to raise the 
visibility of what this organization does for America on a 
daily basis. We have taken almost a perverse pride in keeping a 
bushel over our light over the course of our last 200 years. We 
need to get rid of that basket and let the world know exactly 
what America gets by way of her U.S. Coast Guard, and we are 
working very hard to do that.
    Mr. Wolf. You know, that is Biblical, too. Jesus says, 
don't hide your lamp under a bushel, so you really are 
following the Scripture when you do that, too, so you can't go 
wrong when you do that.
    Mr. Sabo.

                               Recruiting

    Mr. Sabo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am just curious on 
personnel. What is happening with you in recruiting new people?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, we have the same challenges that the 
Defense Department services have, perhaps just a little bit 
less intense because of what I would almost call a 
gratification index associated with the kinds of things we do 
for a living.
    A quick quantitative comparison: it takes an Army recruiter 
sitting across a desk from 140 qualified eligible young 
Americans today to get one soldier to go to boot camp. Our 
numbers are around 100 or 102 or 103 for that same dimension. 
So the first issue on the table is how difficult recruiting is 
in this very robust economy and in a culture that is sort of 
stepping away from the days of the draft even as a halo hanging 
over public service for young people. So our challenge with 
respect to recruiting is very, very real.
    The second issue on the table for us, sir, is that over the 
course of our version of downsizing--what we referred to as our 
streamlining effort from 1994 to 1998--we overshot the mark 
literally as it relates to watching people leave the service 
and have therefore inherited a shortfall of around 1000 
enlisted people. The 1999 budget is the first opportunity we 
have had to significantly reinvest in that.
    We had designed an array of alternative interventions that 
we thought might be enormously helpful in the process. They 
proved not to be, and I am of the mind that the bottom line is 
recruiters on the street, and so we have invested in recruiters 
on the street and some advertising commitments on the basis of 
the monies provided by this Congress last year. That need is 
sustained in 2000, and my goal is by the end of 2000, we will 
have refilled our work force to the point we need to have it. 
The dots along the curve so far are encouraging with respect to 
that end.

                       officer-to-enlisted ratio

    Mr. Sabo. On your force, what percentage is officer and 
nonofficer?
    Admiral Loy. Roughly we have about 33,000 34,000 enlisted 
for an officer corps of about 5,000, a little fewer than 5,000. 
So that is the rough ballpark, sir. An awful lot of our marine 
safety mission area is very officer-intensive. It includes 
relationships and negotiations on a daily basis with executive-
level people and shipping companies and that kind of thing, 
which calls for an unusually high officer-to-enlisted profile 
in that particular mission area. The rest is very much akin to 
the U.S. Navy.

                    military-to-civilian conversions

    Mr. Sabo. Let me ask you this question. One of GAO's 
recommendations was that you had certain functions that can be 
used, should be used, administrative functions, where civilians 
can serve the role rather than uniformed personnel.
    Admiral Loy. We have examined that--I am sorry.
    Mr. Sabo. It seems to me if you are short in trying to 
build up personnel, that would be the ideal time to look at 
that alternative.
    Admiral Loy. We have looked at that very carefully and, in 
fact, have made military-to-civilian conversions over the 
course of the last several budget cycles. I think we have 
plumbed that well pretty dry at this point, but we continue to 
look for opportunities where it makes sense. Most especially 
the civilian represents continuity over time in a given 
business or in a given place, and where we can provide that and 
still meet military essentiality in terms of all the other 
things that we do, we very much take that into consideration, 
sir.

                       personnel serving 20 years

    Mr. Sabo. How many of your personnel served 20 years?
    Admiral Loy. I would have to get back to you with a raw 
number, but there certainly is an encouragement that once we 
have our people past the first reenlistment point, that the 
next significant goal for them is to earn retirement that is 
earned at the point of 20 years in the service. I will provide 
you for the record, sir, a harder number in terms of what 
percentage of, for example, in entering boot camp class or 
whatever----
    Mr. Sabo. Or beginning officer?
    Admiral Loy. Actually, the officer side is very, very 
strong. The only reason I know that, there was a review the 
other day inferring from the Merchant Marine Academy that they 
had a more lasting--I think Kings Point was on one end and the 
Air Force Academy was on the other end, where 6 percent of the 
entering force of graduates from the Air Force Academy were 
actually still around at the 20-year point. As it related to 
transportation careers or maritime careers, Kings Point was at 
the other end of the line. I can't validate those numbers, but 
the Coast Guard Academy graduate was still around at a far more 
significant--like 55, 56 percent--still around at the 20-year 
point.
    [The information follows:]

    Approximately 17 percent of Coast Guard enlisted and 40 
percent of Coast Guard officers serve 20 years or more.

                         military pension plan

    Mr. Sabo. Is your pension plan similar to the other armed 
services?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely identical, sir. We are covered by 
the same legislation.
    Mr. Sabo. I just have to say, I may be one of the few 
people here who thinks that conventional wisdom around this 
place on changing redux is absolutely wrong, and what I find 
totally unacceptable is what we do to thousands of young men 
and women who enter the service and serve less than 20 years. I 
find that virtually unconscionable.
    Admiral Loy. By not providing them some kind of lifelong--
--
    Mr. Sabo. If we are going to increase resources going into 
pensions, we don't allow anyone else in the country to have a 
pension plan that provides no benefits for somebody who served 
less than 20 years. In the private sector, we require vesting 
after 5 years, and so we literally have--in the regular--in all 
the services, the bulk of people don't serve 20 years, and for 
all of them who serve more than 5 and less than 20, they have 
accumulated zero benefits for age 62 or age 65 or whatever age 
it is, and for us to put significant resources to have an 
immediate pension for somebody at around age 40 while ignoring 
in total any benefit for somebody who serves in less than 20 
years I find just total misplaced priorities. That is 
apparently what is going to happen.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                         OPERATIONAL READINESS

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Rogers.
    Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Commandant, speak to us about your current level of 
operational readiness, and is it optimum or low or needs to be 
improved, or how would you categorize it?
    Admiral Loy. I would say it is very much on the low end of 
the spectrum, sir, given the options you just gave me between 
optimum and low and needs to be improved.
    My concern, Mr. Rogers, is this: Over the course of the 
last several years, I have watched what I will call red flags 
go up around the base of that pyramid over there with respect 
to current capability of our organization. We have an ethic in 
our organization. It all comes from our motto, ``semper 
paratus.'' I gave a speech a little while ago referring to it 
as the ``curse of semper paratus'' which puts us all in a 
position of saying yes too often, and sometimes without having 
been provided the wherewithal to actually deal with the yes.
    For example, in the last couple of years, that particular 
44-footer that you see in the upper left-hand corner was the 
result of a case off of Quillayute, Washington, where the crew 
was asked to go into a raging storm across the bar. The 44-
footer ended up where you see it. Three of the four crew 
members were killed in that particular case. So the concern 
that I have is did we have an adequate training investment, an 
adequate command and control investment in terms of 
decisionmaking, which is part of the foundation of readiness 
that our organization has.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Admiral Loy. Here we are 3 years later, and wherein I would 
have expected that we had upped the number of qualified surfmen 
at that particular location and others in the Pacific 
Northwest, we still have about the same qualification level as 
we did back in 1997 when that particular case occurred.

                            morning dew case

    The pleasure vessel MORNING DEW off Charleston offered us 
another opportunity to look and see real carefully whether or 
not the communications infrastructure that has been placed in 
our groups and district offices as early as 1970 without 
replacement is adequate to the task of safekeeping the American 
recreation boating public and commercial public as they ply the 
waters of the United States. In that particular instance, four 
people were killed. On the basis of, potentially at least in 
part, a watchstander with questionable training making a 
judgment as to whether or not the Coast Guard should sortie to 
that particular case when it was initially reported, and the 
communications capability there, offered us the opportunity to 
see whether or not direction-finding equipment and the simple 
ability to rerun the tape of conversations that were held on 
the radios would have allowed us to do a better response job 
there.

                        fishing vessel accidents

    I am very concerned about the spate of fishing vessel 
accidents that we have seen off both the east coast and in the 
Bering Sea and the Gulf of Alaska this past winter. The fishing 
vessel ADRIATIC went down off New Jersey. Again, some 
significant questions as to whether or not the communications 
capability at our stations was adequate to the task of the day.

                         operational readiness

    There are numerous others, sir. Our 41-foot utility boats 
and 44-foot motor lifeboats have watched sustainable 
availability rates decline from percentages in the forties to 
percentages in the teens. These are serious reflections of 
whether or not as we speak today sailors and airmen of this 
organization are as able and as capable to respond to the 
missions asked of them by this Nation as they have 
characteristically been in the past. I am very, very concerned 
about it, sir.

                       pay and compensation raise

    Mr. Rogers. Given the 4.4 percent pay raise, the $5 million 
targeted--the $5 million targeted pay raise and the $5 million 
basic housing allowance that is proposed in your budget 
request, in your opinion will that meet all of the Coast 
Guard's needs; and if not, how much more would the Coast Guard 
need, briefly?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, it is a mix of people and modernization 
issues. The people end, I think, is well served by the budget 
that is on the Hill in front of you. As I indicated in my 
opening statement, there is a down payment thought process 
there with respect to the legitimacy of the people end. The 
modernization end remains of great concern to me.
    I might ask you to, Mr. Rogers, if you refer to page 28 in 
the budget in brief which we have placed in front of you, there 
is a table at the top which talks about the funding history of 
this organization just over the course of the last couple of 
years. And if you look at the total line, you can see from 1998 
through actually enacted, plus supplemental assets provided in 
1999, to the submission of the 2000 budget. There is an 
inference there, sir, that last year the Congress felt it 
necessary to enact those particular funding levels for this 
organization, and as you can see, a couple-hundred-million-
dollar differential between that and this year at this point.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Admiral Loy. I think that is, if you will, this uniformed 
service's slice of what has been going on in the national 
security arena both in the administration and on the Hill over 
the course of the last 6 to 8 months. It appears that there 
will be a significant DOD plusup. If that is the case, and if 
the same circumstances exist for this uniformed service, I 
would hope that the attention would be forthcoming in that 
regard.

                   support of drug interdiction needs

    Mr. Rogers. I am going to quickly during my time here get 
to the drug interdiction. Maybe you can weave your readiness 
into those questions as well. Do you have what the Coast Guard 
needs to perform drug interdiction activities to the best of 
your abilities?
    Admiral Loy. To the best of my abilities is an interesting 
way to phrase the question, sir. Let me say that the national 
drug control strategy offers us an opportunity and requires us, 
as a matter of fact, to submit a 5-year game plan to General 
McCaffrey as it relates to our contribution to meeting the 
goals as established in his strategy.
    As I mentioned again in my opening remarks, our slice of 
that contribution is all about the noncommercial maritime 
trafficking in the Caribbean, both in the air and on the water. 
The 1999 plusup offers us the chance to focus on surface end 
game capability, increasing the capability of my current 
forces, and to focus specifically on maritime patrol aircraft 
shortfalls that are in the Caribbean at the moment. We have 
documented in last year's array of discussions with the 
Director, General McCaffrey, continuing shortfalls, from my 
hat, when I have it turned around, as the U.S. interdiction 
coordinator for the Nation. In that particular set of 
deliberations, it continues to be clear that if we are to meet 
the 2002 and 2007 goals, we will have to be provided additional 
assets to do that.
    So as I again mention, sir, my goal is to optimize the 
forces I have available to do the job at the moment and----

                  drug interdiction needs and threats

    Mr. Rogers. Let me interrupt you. Specifically what do you 
need in the Caribbean that you don't have now that will help us 
stop cocaine and marijuana from coming into the country? Very 
practical, briefly.
    Admiral Loy. We need the capacity to detect go-fast boats 
as they leave.
    Mr. Rogers. What do you need to do that with? How do you 
detect--how could you detect them?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. As you know, sir, systems being 
provided in the way of sensors to our aircraft will help us do 
that a lot better. There is a documented shortfall of hulls in 
the Caribbean and a documented shortfall of maritime patrol 
aircraft.
    Mr. Rogers. What threat are we facing in the Caribbean that 
may be new that you are unable to counter presently funded, 
briefly?
    Admiral Loy. I believe the most specific threat, sir, is 
the go-fast boat, sir, carrying 50 percent of the cocaine out 
of the source countries toward our Nation.
    Mr. Rogers. Last year you seized 82,623 pounds of cocaine.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. So far this year you seized what?
    Admiral Loy. On a par for about the same amount to be dealt 
with.
    Mr. Rogers. You headed toward about the same amount.
    Admiral Loy. About 40 tons plus.
    Mr. Rogers. How much are you missing?
    Admiral Loy. I think what we are missing, sir, is the flow 
rate is about 530 metric tons that is produced and sent in our 
direction. The habit of the United States with respect to 
cocaine is around 300 metric tons, sir. So we try to get the 
difference, not just from the Coast Guard.
    Mr. Rogers. You are missing a bunch.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, absolutely.
    Mr. Rogers. A lot is getting through, and a lot is getting 
through at nighttime?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. When you do have the capability to look at 
night, and the fast boats just say, okay, we can wait until 
dark, and we won't be seen, correct?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, you need more nighttime sight capability?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. If you see them at night, what are you going to 
do with them? Are you going to catch them? What are you going 
to catch them with? Do you have the adequate resources to catch 
them once you see them?
    Admiral Loy. We don't have the wherewithal to do that 
today, sir. That is my focus on end game capability. That is 
why I am reviewing a use of force from aircraft doctrinal 
change. That is why I am asking for deployable pursuit boats 
and the wherewithal to be able to beat the difference in speed 
that the go-fast boat has as an advantage on us now.
    Mr. Rogers. How much money do you need just to adequately 
have, as you call it, the end game on seizing the fast boats at 
night as well as daytime?
    Admiral Loy. Frankly, sir, I think we remain about--in 
terms of the 1999 investment, that was a terrific step in the 
right direction, and we are probably $100 million short of what 
would be required to meet our 2002 goals at the other end of 
the day.
    Mr. Rogers. You need 100 million more this coming year?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. To get toward that projection.
    Admiral Loy. But let me offer, sir, I think that is a set 
of very difficult priorities that both the Administration and 
the Congress have to come with. Last year was quite clear as a 
result of the supplemental legislation that Congress had 
spoken, and we have----

                   impact of funding on seizure rate

    Mr. Rogers. How much more tonnage--poundage of cocaine 
could you seize if you had this extra money?
    Admiral Loy. We would be on-line to meet our contributions, 
sir.
    Mr. Rogers. Just be practical. Tell me the number.
    Admiral Loy. The number would probably rise towards around 
80 tons or so.
    Mr. Rogers. Of cocaine?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. That is the principal commodity 
being brought across the Caribbean.
    Mr. Rogers. That would be roughly double of what you are 
seizing now?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Our goal is to increase our seizure 
rate by 10 percent towards 2002 and 20 percent by 2007. So you 
are asking me to stretch my capability out towards the 10-year 
horizon here.
    Mr. Rogers. Now, I am asking you, if we gave you the 100 
million more that you need next year, how much more tonnage of 
cocaine or poundage of cocaine would you seize next year?
    Admiral Loy. My sense is, sir, we would make--I don't have 
a number for you. Let me get that for the record.
    Mr. Rogers. Give me a good estimate here. You have got the 
microphone, for God's sake.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Currently at a seizure rate of where 
we are, and attempting to add to our goal, we would probably go 
from a 40-ton effort closer towards a 55- or 60-ton seizure 
rate in the Caribbean.
    Mr. Rogers. And for marijuana? Right now you are on a--
roughly looks like 151,000-pound year.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Marijuana as it relates to that 
threat coming across the Caribbean is almost incidental sir. As 
you know, we are growing more in the United States than is the 
U.S. habit. So it is almost incidental to our focus on cocaine 
that we encounter marijuana in the Caribbean.
    Mr. Rogers. Mr. Chairman, I have a lot more questions, but 
I will--I realize the time--
    Mr. Wolf. Why don't you go a few more minutes.

                       operation frontier shield

    Mr. Rogers. I appreciate it.
    In Operation FRONTIER SHIELD, we saw record levels of 
illegal drugs interdicted. The increased emphasis that was 
placed on drug interdiction was one reason. Another important 
factor, I think, was that you caught the smugglers, many of 
them, by surprise; is that correct?
    Admiral Loy. I think that is absolutely correct, sir.
    Mr. Rogers. But they are now becoming more accustomed to 
your presence in the Caribbean, and they are finding ways to 
get around you, such as nighttime fast boats, correct?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, and overflying the Hispaniola area.
    Mr. Rogers. And your seizure rate is leveling off?
    Admiral Loy. Our seizure rate has leveled off with the 
resource investments, sir. FRONTIER SHIELD was a very 
dramatically successful operation largely because, I think, we 
caught the bad guy by surprise, and our challenge is to get 
inside his or her decision cycle and find our way to where they 
are going to be, not where they are.
    Mr. Rogers. So is that what you need the extra money for?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. The whole thought process of 
Campaign STEEL WEB, which is the Coast Guard's contribution to 
this effort, is to systematically take pieces of the Caribbean 
area of responsibility away from the bad guy like we did in 
FRONTIER SHIELD, leave a sustaining force there, and move to 
the next place that the bad guy is going. We did that with 
Operation FRONTIER LANCE. We have done that again with 
Operation FRONTIER SABER up in the Bahamas when it became 
obvious that he was overflying Hispaniola.
    Mr. Rogers, if I could refer you to this chart I think you 
have seen before. Those represent the boxes of effort that we 
would mount as we fill out Campaign STEEL WEB and make it as 
inclusive as we can possibly make it in both Eastern Pacific 
and in the Caribbean.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Mr. Rogers. What is the distinction between the white and 
the yellow boxes?
    Admiral Loy. The yellow boxes are currently resourced 
adequately in my mind, and the white ones are not.

                  intelligence capability and support

    Mr. Rogers. Well, if we give you this money and you are 
able to deploy as you suggest, what is to keep the bad guys 
from finding a way around whatever we do next?
    Admiral Loy. I think that is all about having an 
intelligence capability, sir, that must underpin whatever we 
are doing operationally. We need to find, as I indicated a 
moment ago, a way to get inside the decision cycle of the bad 
guy. If at the moment the vehicle of choice is the go-fast boat 
because he is so successful with it, you are absolutely right, 
he will attempt to find the path of least resistance when we 
take that away. We need to anticipate where he is going next 
and be there when he chooses to move.

                           m/v cannes seizure

    Mr. Rogers. You don't have adequate intelligence coming to 
you from DEA, the military, or other sources?
    Admiral Loy. The intelligence underpinning at the moment is 
very strong. I would offer that probably around 65 or 70 
percent of the seizures that we get in the Transit Zone are as 
a result of intelligence in one way or the other. Perhaps the 
most graphic case of recent vintage, the motor vessel CANNES 
that you perhaps watched gain an awful lot of publicity, had a 
very strong intelligence foundation as to where it was going to 
be; we encountered it on the high seas and ended up with about 
a 6-ton seizure.

                           intelligence needs

    Mr. Rogers. What do you need in the way of intelligence 
that you are not getting now from the regular agencies?
    Admiral Loy. My concern is an awful lot of the products 
from what was designed to be an integrated intelligence effort 
remained fragmented to a degree, even today. We need tactically 
actionable intelligence; as opposed to the strategic-level 
intelligence, and when we get it and put it in the hands of our 
sailors and airmen, they pull off the seizures.
    Mr. Rogers. What do you need to do that? Just practically 
what do you need to do what you need done in intelligence 
gathering?
    Admiral Loy. In intelligence gathering, sir, my discussion 
with Mr. Goss indicated that it would be possible for the Coast 
Guard on an individual basis to find its way to a wider 
foundation. Now, I don't know what the dollar value of that is 
because I don't want to be taking away intelligence capability 
from the DEA, Customs, or anyone else. But if we are dealing 
with the potential for the Maritime Transit Zone to be more 
productive, it will at least include a better foundation in 
intelligence.
    Mr. Rogers. You have lost me. I don't know what you are 
saying. What do you mean?
    Admiral Loy. You want a dollar value, sir?
    Mr. Rogers. No. I am just looking for something practical. 
What do you mean a wider intelligence base?
    Admiral Loy. It is about HUMINT, it is about SIGINT--human 
intelligence and signals intelligence--that will literally 
provide us insight as to the intention of the enemy.
    Mr. Rogers. But are you looking for those within the Coast 
Guard or better access to existing HUMINT?
    Admiral Loy. Both is the answer, sir, on a small measure 
with the Coast Guard, but a more integrated effort nationwide, 
so to speak, with the Intelligence Community. General McCaffrey 
has a game plan in mind which I think if implemented will serve 
us all very, very well.

                    adequacy of intelligence support

    Mr. Rogers. But he and the administration have been saying 
now for these several years, look, we can't interdict drugs. We 
have got to fight it on our home turf. We have got to fight 
people's urge to use drugs and the like, which most of us agree 
you have to fight. But a lot of us agree we have to try to 
interdict the huge quantities coming in so at least the price 
will be prohibitive to a lot of potential users here.
    So I have some nervousness about trusting this interdiction 
effort to people who want to abolish it or cut it way back; 
i.e., the administration. Are you receiving from the other 
agencies that do intelligence work, are you receiving 
information from them that is inadequate for you to cut off the 
supply in the Caribbean?
    Admiral Loy. We are receiving actionable intelligence, sir. 
I mean adequate is a spectrum, and we want to do better. I 
agree with you that the interdiction piece of the national game 
plans has to be a strong, robust effort. I also agree that if 
we are going to end up with a solution to this nightmare at the 
other end of the day, it will come from the demand side. It 
will come from some generation of young people who have the 
moxie to say no rather than to continue consuming drugs.
    In the meantime, we cannot let our guard down as it relates 
to the interdiction end of the balanced effort. And I am just 
offering that it is enormously important for us to have the 
intelligence underpinning to do that well.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Obey has another hearing.

                      mackinaw replacement status

    Mr. Obey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not take long. I 
only have two questions. I appreciate the courtesy.
    Admiral, in 1977, the Senate Appropriations Committee, 
working on the fiscal 1978 appropriations bill, directed the 
Coast Guard, and I quote, ``to update its conceptual design 
characteristics of March 1, 1976, for a suitable Great Lakes 
icebreaker, such statement of design and operating 
characteristics shall be fully developed and made available to 
the Congress by September 30, 1977.''
    Last year, this Committee's report instructed the Coast 
Guard to, and I quote, ``issue a report to the Committee on the 
status of the MACKINAW replacement project, including the 
recommended replacement alternative in fleet mix, with 
supporting data as well as an update on the design process no 
later than January 1, 1999.''
    In February, we received a two-page letter indicating the 
Coast Guard is still studying the various alternatives. The 
Coast Guard is the damnedest student I have ever seen. They 
have been going to school for 20 years on this subject, and 
they still do not have a response to a congressional request.
    Last year, as I understand it, your own schedule called for 
DOT approval of the preferred alternative for the MACKINAW 
replacement by September 30, 1998. This year your schedule 
apparently calls for DOT approval of the preferred alternative 
by August 1999, nearly 1 year delay from the schedule set by 
the Coast Guard last year, which was only 21 years later.
    Why is the Coast Guard so behind schedule on this project, 
and what assurance can you give me that this project will 
remain on schedule?
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Obey, as the Commandant of this 
organization, I am embarrassed by that time line.
    Mr. Obey. Well, you ought to be.
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I am, and I can assure you on a very 
personal level that we will meet this time line this spring and 
summer. The course of our review continues. There are all kinds 
of reasons that people can offer, but the bottom line is we 
will have a preferred alternative identified in the late 
spring, and we will have that through the A-109 process that I 
think is very important for us to continue to follow as it 
relates to the Transportation Acquisition Review Council 
passing judgment on that by midsummer. So, I would ask you to 
hold me to that time line, sir.

                 mackinaw replacement versus deepwater

    Mr. Obey. I have two other questions and one comment that I 
want to insert in the record at this point, Mr. Chairman, and 
one other question. And I want to explain what my concern is on 
this timetable. I think there is a very narrow window of 
opportunity to get this job done because of the Coast Guard's 
deepwater priorities.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Obey. Let me walk through why I say that. It is clear 
to me that the Deepwater Project is one of the Coast Guard's 
highest priorities and that the Great Lakes icebreaker is not. 
The Deepwater Replacement Project is essentially at the same 
stage that the MACKINAW replacement is at in concept 
exploration. The committee has provided planning funds for both 
projects over the last several years, but there are some 
significant differences between the two projects as I see them.
    One is that the Coast Guard has been studying alternatives 
for the Great Lakes for more than 20 years. Planning for 
Deepwater essentially began just a few years ago. Another 
distinction is that at 55 years of service for the MACKINAW, we 
don't know how much longer that boat can be sustained. And in 
contrast, GAO testimony today as I understand it, is that the 
Coast Guard, ``has not sufficiently justified the Deepwater 
Project and that accurate and complete information is lacking 
on the performing shortcomings of its ship and aircraft and 
resources needed to fulfill its missions.'' And also they 
indicate that the Coast Guard has apparently understated the 
remaining useful life of its deepwater aircraft and to a lesser 
extent its ships.
    Yet in the budget you are requesting $44 million for the 
project, and the GAO has criticized that because your internal 
planning is expected to be followed by a $300 million request 
for 1 year and 19 successive years of 500 million bucks apiece. 
That is a huge capital project. I cannot imagine that OMB is 
going to wind up giving you all of it. But if they give you a 
significant share of it, my concern is that it is going to 
squeeze out all other capital projects in your budget, and we 
have a narrow window of opportunity to get this Great Lakes 
project.
    If you were sitting in my chair, wouldn't it be a cold day 
in hell, or maybe a hot day on Lake Superior, before you would 
support those kind of budget priorities or anything else that 
the agency that is doing this is interested in?
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Obey, I understand your concern and 
frustration, sir, and all I can do as a first-time Commandant 
sitting at this table is let you know that my intention is to 
follow this time line without fail, and that the 2001 window is 
that narrow window for us to be dealing significantly with the 
Great Lakes icebreaker, and that is what we are going to do, 
sir.
    Mr. Obey. Well, Mr. Oberstar and I, we often have 
disagreements, as the Chairman knows, on transportation issues 
because of jurisdictional issues, but on this one we are 
absolutely together, and I hope that I can count on what you 
just said.
    Admiral Loy. You can, sir.
    Mr. Obey. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                       drug interdiction funding

    Mr. Wolf. Ms. Kilpatrick.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Congressman Rogers was following something that I would 
like to continue on. You mentioned the 100 million more to be 
where the Coast Guard wants to be in terms of interdiction and 
the drug trafficking that we see happening. I think you said in 
your remarks that the Caribbean and another area of the 
country--which was that?
    Admiral Loy. Eastern Pacific.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Eastern Pacific.
    Admiral Loy. The channels, if you will, of pathways, so to 
speak, from source countries into the United States.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Understanding that some of the 100 million 
would go for the fast boats that you mentioned, I am assuming, 
what kind of personnel numbers are also included in that? How 
much more man-womanpower would you need to meet those goals?
    Admiral Loy. I could give you a better answer for the 
record, but the reality to me there is severalfold, and it has 
a bit to do with executability. That is why I was a little bit 
reserved in my answers to Mr. Rogers.
    I don't want to indicate that the AC&I numbers for X number 
of vessels, aircrafts, boats, whatever, is in the realm of the 
possible because of that question that you asked. It also 
involves people and training and getting the work force to the 
point where we need it. So my concern is that I don't 
overadvertise capability that I don't have. But at the same 
time, I need to be on a methodical track towards reaching the 
2002 and 2007 goals that have been set by General McCaffrey and 
his policy.

                          work force strength

    Ms. Kilpatrick. And along the same lines, in your remarks 
you mentioned that you needed nearly 1,000 more men and women 
in your corps.
    Admiral Loy. That is just to get us to the billeted 
strength that is already a part of our structure, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And has nothing to do with the additional 
that you need to do interdiction?
    Admiral Loy. That is correct.

                     priority of drug interdiction

    Ms. Kilpatrick. Mr. Rogers was also asking how you felt in 
terms of your ability to meet the Coast Guard needs and STEEL 
WEB and other initiatives. On a scale of 1 to 10, how well are 
you doing to reach the goal that we want you to reach? And I am 
for eradication, I heard him say interdiction. I think I 
heard--the Congressman left early--saying that that is not 
where the emphasis should be placed, and I think you said 
something along the same lines, although I was not clear. On 
interdiction, is it a top priority or not?
    Admiral Loy. For the Coast Guard it is the top priority 
because it is the way we contribute to the national effort. The 
national effort is basically a three-legged stool. One of the 
legs is demand reduction, which is all of the education and 
prevention efforts undertaken. The second leg of the stool is 
to deal with the source countries as it relates to those who 
are actually producing the crop down there. And it has a lot to 
do with eradicating and substitute crops, et cetera. And the 
third leg of the stool is interdiction, which is to say not 
only the transit zone interdiction which we are responsible for 
in the Coast Guard in part, in conjunction with Customs and 
other agencies, but also has to do with local police efforts 
here at home.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. All of that, it has to work concurrently.
    Admiral Loy. They all have to work hand in glove, yes, 
ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I wasn't sure, and I am happy to hear that 
eradication, which is where I stand--I mean, eliminating drugs 
in America and the world if we can. I worked with the General 
on several projects as it relates to this whole drug thing. He 
tells me you guys know where they manufacture the drugs in 
other countries and sometimes in this country as well. I am of 
the opinion, and my staff always says you can't say that, but 
if you know where it is, you ought to get rid of it.
    Drugs is the cancer of America, and until we deal with 
this--and I joined the Drug Caucus in this conference, and they 
told me that 850 tons left Mexico, Bolivia and Peru, and 650 
tons got in. You were using some of the tonnages in your 
remarks as well that you seize and some that you don't seize.
    I don't think America will ever be the great country that 
it has to become as we move to this new millennium until we 
deal with the drug problem. I commend you for what you have 
already done. I believe in giving you the resources that you 
need to make sure that it makes a difference, because if we 
don't, I don't think our children have a chance. It is just 
that important to me, and I have seen too much decay and 
degradation from it. I commend you for what you have done, but 
I want you to ask for what you need, and you might get it. I 
think that is important.

                               recruiting

    I want to move on. You were talking about your shortage in 
your workforce, and you said you used recruiting on the street 
as well as advertising. Does the Coast Guard do its own 
advertising, or are you part of the DOD budget and they do it 
for you? How does that work?
    Admiral Loy. No, ma'am, we do our own. I meant recruiters, 
so that there are an adequate number of recruiters on the 
street in our various offices.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. I have a Marine recruiting office near my 
district office, and they recruit from there. Those are the 
facilities of which you speak?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.

                      closure of great lakes units

    Ms. Kilpatrick. I also have the Coast Guard on Belle Isle 
in Michigan. My Ranking Member and I are from the same region. 
I am more southern. With the budget that you have, is there any 
anticipation that you will have to close any of those bases? In 
my State there are 12 such bases, although there are 70-plus 
bases, which might be a ship. I don't know it well enough, so I 
can't speak as intelligently as I will someday.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am, the infrastructure on Lake 
Michigan is probably one of the most concentrated 
infrastructures in the Nation. We have no plans to close any of 
the lifeboat stations--which is what you are describing, the 
one close to your office--as I see it in the foreseeable 
future.
    The issue of the moment with respect to Michigan has to do 
with air facilities, and the budget in front of the Committee 
does not have funds in it for air facilities in Muskegon and/or 
in the Chicago area based on some continuing concerns that I 
have had as it relates to need on one hand, and a very 
difficult decision that had to be made as the budget went 
together to hold the caps as it came to the Hill this year, 
knowing, of course, that the counterdrug mission was of great 
consequence and important not only to this committee, but to 
the Congress as a whole. But we have no intentions of closing 
any small boat stations in and/or around Lake Michigan.

                      lake michigan air facilities

    Ms. Kilpatrick. And since you mentioned Muskegon, I am sure 
I will have some of my Michigan colleagues who have that 
concern, the money is not there. Does that mean they have the 
threat of being closed, or are we going to find the money?
    Admiral Loy. The dialogue will play out across this session 
of Congress, I am sure. The authorizers have taken that up on 
the House side, and, although I have not actually seen the 
bill, my understanding is that there is clear direction in the 
bill to keep Muskegon open and to also open an air facility in 
Southern Lake Michigan in and around Chicago, most likely 
Waukegan, all of that yet to be decided.
    What I would implore this committee to understand is that 
there are no dollars in the budget to do either; therefore, if 
that becomes the will of the Congress that we do that, I would 
ask for the wherewithal to do it.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Meaning finances?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. And that is Congressman Vern Ehlers who is 
interested in that and who put the language that is in the 
authorizing bill, the dollars to sustain it. You are saying 
that the dollars have to be there.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Kilpatrick. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

             FAA REAUTHORIZATION impact on the coast guard

    Mr. Wolf. Before I recognize Mr. Aderholt, let me just say 
that if H.R. 1000 were to pass and the aviation trust fund were 
taken off budget, not only would he not have the money to do 
that, he would not have the money to do what he is even asking 
for in the budget, and I think the line of questioning today 
has been talking about more and more and more----
    Admiral Loy. I understand that, sir.
    Mr. Wolf [continuing]. In essence over what the budget 
submission is. And I just think it is incumbent upon you to 
make visits up here to educate people as to what will actually 
happen.
    Now, my sense is the administration would veto the bill, 
but still, before it gets to that point, I really think, 
because this committee has been very, very supportive of your 
efforts, but once they are locked in there, I mean, Amtrak--and 
God bless Amtrak with what happened today--and you and Amtrak 
will be the two places to go. And I don't think either can take 
those kind of cuts.
    Mr. Aderholt.
    Mr. Aderholt. Mr. Chairman, I don't have any questions.

                         intelligence problems

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Sabo.
    Mr. Sabo. Thank you.
    If I could do a follow-up in relationship to Mr. Rogers's 
questions on intelligence, I was trying to understand your 
answers also. Is your problem with intelligence that there is 
intelligence there, but the Coast Guard does not get it in a 
timely fashion? Is that the heart of your problem?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, that is part of it. As you probably 
are well aware, since 1989, when the DOD Authorization Act 
brought the Department of Defense into the drug business, into 
the drug war, one of the things they were to bring to the table 
was their access to the intelligence arena in a fashion that 
would offer fused intelligence products for all of us to use to 
do our jobs better. That has been a difficult challenge over 
the course of the last decade, to clearly integrate and fuse 
all of the potential inputs to a fused intelligence 
architecture, and that challenge still goes on.
    There are those who are very concerned, and properly so, 
about source protection, about people who are exposed in the 
HUMINT intelligence business, whether it is in Colombia, which 
has at the moment, of course, become the center of gravity for 
the source country generation of cocaine and is a country going 
through, you know, a very difficult, virtually anarchy-laden 
time.
    I just visited for 3 or 4 days down in Colombia, and went 
from Bogota down into the jungle and Tres Esquinas and up into 
the Guajira Peninsula. The reality of the FARC and the ELN and 
those kind of movements have made it difficult for Colombia, 
despite terrific intentions on the part of elected and 
appointed leadership in the military forces and in the national 
police force, General Serrano, to do the right thing. They are 
terrifically stressed and unable to do that.
    If you find a HUMINT source of intelligence down there and 
you are a DEA guy, you are very reluctant to expose the product 
and have that traceable back to the officer who was in the 
middle of the jungle somewhere next to a cocaine production lab 
and identifiable as such a source.
    So I understand the dilemma. But at the other end of the 
day with regards to those fused products, we need to find a way 
to get to the tactical action providers to do a better job.

            human intelligence versus technical information

    Mr. Sabo. I am not sure you can answer this question open 
session or not, but what is the relative importance of the 
human intelligence versus technical information?
    Admiral Loy. I think it is enormously important, sir. It is 
probably the conversation for a closed session, which I am 
happy to provide. But it would also be enormously important to 
include my DEA and Customs counterparts in such a conversation.
    Mr. Wolf. Could you go by and see both Mr. Sabo and Ms. 
Kilpatrick to give them that briefing?
    Admiral Loy. I would be happy to, sir.

           coast guard involvement in intelligence activities

    Mr. Wolf. I think the administration's words on the drug 
issue become somewhat hollow, though, when you look at the 
recertification of Mexico, fundamentally a government that in 
many aspects is corrupt. Drugs are pouring across land, and so 
we dump more money here, and then it is flooding over there, 
and we all know we all look the other way.
    It is similar to the policy with regard to China. They 
delinked human rights; now we have Catholic priests and 
Catholic bishops in jail. And since the President left China, 
the conditions are worse. They plundered Tibet, and we see Los 
Alamos, and yet the Chinese Premier will come here, and there 
will be a red carpet. It is very difficult for people to 
understand this.
    Also, I think you ought to be careful. I like General 
McCaffrey and want the record to show he is doing a good job, 
speaking for myself--but I think as you start buying human 
intelligence and going down there and getting the Coast Guard 
involved in some of these activities, it may change the 
complexion of how the Coast Guard is viewed. You are viewed by 
many nations as sort of--in a different light.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. And that is very helpful for you and helpful for 
the nation. If you begin to get involved in some of the things 
that the DEA gets involved in----
    Admiral Loy. Let me correct the record, if I may. There are 
enormous opportunities available just on the waterfront of the 
United States associated with that intel capability. And the 
analytical end of working a product such that it is tactically 
actionable by Coast Guard assets, that is where the additional 
capability for us would lie.
    I have no ambitions of going to Tres Esquinas other than to 
understand what is going on down there, principally in my U.S. 
interdiction coordinator's role.

                              ac&i funding

    Mr. Wolf. Your most recent capital plan speaks of a coming 
``bow wave of projects which will be difficult to manage in the 
face of anticipated budget constraints.'' The plan goes on to 
say that the Coast Guard will need an average of $1.5 billion 
in AC&I funding each year over the 2001 to 2008 time period. 
This compares to a baseline of the past few years of about $400 
million a year. How likely is it that you will really need that 
much beginning a year or two from now?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I think it is unlikely. Frankly, the 
thought process is that we simply don't know the dollar value 
of the Deepwater Project yet. I think that is something that is 
very important for all of us to understand. The challenge that 
the three consortia, including the competition that they have 
with each other, will, if anything, drive those numbers down. 
We had to have a placeholder, if you will, for initial 
discussions and a one-for-one replacement thought process was 
used in that regard.
    But as we build this integrated deepwater system, our sense 
is that we will not be in a one-for-one replacement mode. 
Technology and other kinds of advances will yield capability 
for us that used to be very people-intensive, for example, and 
used to be very hull-intensive in terms of numbers. I think we 
will be able to beat those numbers in the manner in which we 
have designed this particular project called Deepwater.
    Our goal is, with respect to the capital plan, the agency 
capital plan, is to have the Committee and others understand 
the sequence first; that it is very important for us to clear 
as many capital requirements other than Deepwater off of our 
decks, so to speak, before Deepwater comes upon us in 2002 on 
into the outyears.
    To go to Mr. Obey's question, whatever this committee and 
the Congress decides is the right thing for us to do vis-a-vis 
a Great Lakes icebreaker replacement, we would very much like 
to get those funds committed in 2001 so that they are not part 
of a requirement in 2002 and the outyears.
    Further, I would say, sir, looking back historically over 
20 or 30 years, when this organization has required a major 
recapitalization of its deepwater capability, there have been 
out-of-the-ordinary capital budgets dealt with for the period 
of time necessary to accomplish that. No one in the Coast Guard 
has ever suggested that good management practices are going to 
buy out our deepwater requirement. It is a significant capital 
investment that the Nation has to make to continue what we do 
for America in the deepwater environment.
    We have added up very carefully the suggestions that John 
and his team from GAO and others have offered us in the way of 
looking at those things. First of all, we are using them year 
after year after year. If you have noticed, we have had a $50-
60 million management improvement package as part of our AC&I 
submission annually for the last 4 or 5 years, so we are using 
those ideas in regard to just being able to do the current 
services for America that are desired.
    And then secondly, if you add all of the things that John 
has recommended and the study recommends, it is probably 15 or 
20 million. It doesn't even approach the capital requirements 
that we are talking about with respect to Deepwater.

                          AGENCY CAPITAL PLAN

    Mr. Wolf. So you would agree then that the Coast Guard has 
an obligation to prepare a capital plan which fits in with its 
anticipated budgets?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely, sir. And one thing I would offer, 
Mr. Chairman, this particular slide over here talks about the 
Deepwater time line. And on the occasion of the next key 
decision we have to make in the Administration on the A-109 
process, that is KDP-2, between fiscal year 2001 and 2002, that 
is when we for the first time we will have all the cards face 
up on the table. The change we are making to the Deepwater 
Project, where we are including conceptual as well as 
functional design in phase one, will answer lots of questions 
for us and enable us to make good judgments when the KDP-2 
process occurs in May of 2001.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 

    Mr. Wolf. So that will be when you have a multiyear plan 
which will be released to Congress?
    Admiral Loy. We will continue to work on a multiyear plan, 
sir, with all the other projects.
    Mr. Wolf. When will we have one released to Congress 
showing your priorities?
    Admiral Loy. If I may, I will give you an answer to that 
for the record, but we will have an ongoing plan before May of 
2001, but it is at that point that we will be able to leverage 
in legitimate dollars associated with Deepwater, because that 
is when the cards will all be face up on the table about the 
project. We will be making choices at that point.
    [The information follows:]

    The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2000 Agency Capital Plan 
(ACP) will be released shortly.

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, should the Coast Guard develop a 
long-range capital budget which fits in with their anticipated 
budget even if it requires tough choices on their part, or 
should they leave this to the budget process each year?
    Mr. Anderson. I believe they need to do more long-range 
budget planning. I believe that where they are headed with 
regard to their revised capital plan is in the right direction, 
and they need to keep doing it that way. Just looking at it 
year to year is not the way to go.

                            investment board

    Mr. Wolf. Admiral Loy, one the improvements to your 
acquisition planning process is the creation of a new 
investment board to review programs and set priorities. How 
will this be different from the current Coast Guard Acquisition 
Review Council?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, this is going to allow us, prior to the 
Vice Commandant-level Coast Guard Acquisition Review Council, 
to make absolutely certain that the best interests of the 
service and the Nation are served at the next level down in our 
organization. So as other directorates in my headquarters are 
considering one project versus another, they can be 
prioritized, and they can be inserted into the planning process 
John was just describing.
    The Chief of Staff of the Coast Guard will own that 
process, and we will be able to, on a merit basis, compare one 
project against another and place it on the time line 
accordingly. My sense is that rather than on the occasion of a 
budget submission where we simply have in the past just 
collected up projects and slipped them into the budget, we now 
will have a very methodical process, including prioritization, 
that will allow dialogue back and forth with your staff and 
others to make certain that we are doing the right thing for 
the country.

                         military-civilian mix

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, you recently testified before the 
Transportation and Infrastructure (T&I) committee that in order 
to afford its ambitious capital plan, the Coast Guard should 
look at streamlining and management improvements. You said, 
``our work has shown that additional cost-cutting measures to 
improve efficiencies are possible,'' and ``the Coast Guard 
should renew its efforts in this area.'' What kind of 
activities do you believe they can cut back on?
    Mr. Anderson. I believe that one of the first priorities--
and there might be a point of departure with the Admiral on 
this, but I believe in reference to the Coast Guard's civilian-
military mix, there is some potential for savings now. Right 
now there are approximately 35,000 or so military and 
approximately 5,000 civilians, I believe.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you think it could be much higher in the 
civilian?
    Mr. Anderson. I think so. I think so. I think this is an 
area that we may be able to help, Mr. Chairman, by taking a 
look at it. I know that the Coast Guard has made some movements 
in this regard. I know there is a proposal in this year's 
budget to change over 250 positions. It could be pretty 
significant if there could be a 10 percent shift. We are 
talking about several million dollars. It could be 10 million 
to 50 million, depending upon how much savings you attribute to 
having civilian versus the military staff. So there is some 
potential there, I believe.

                  Consolidation of Training Facilities

    Mr. Wolf. The Coast Guard has been through a multiyear 
streamlining plan where several facilities were closed and 
consolidated, and yet your testimony is that they could still 
do more in that area. Do you believe that?
    Mr. Anderson. I do. I believe that the Coast Guard 
themselves have identified possible consolidation of training 
facilities that might save $9 million a year. I think that is 
something that should be pursued, and there might be other 
opportunities as well in the facilities area.
    Mr. Wolf. Admiral?
    Admiral Loy. I would only suggest that as a result of 
streamlining, we are now seeing those red flags of frayed edges 
in our capability foundation in a very, very real sense. I am 
going to make a judgment with respect to training 
infrastructure probably in the course of the next couple of 
weeks to a month with Secretary Slater. I am very concerned 
about that.
    I watched the Air Force reduce their training 
infrastructure to the point that they are no longer able to 
process pilots as they now need them in the sense of watching 
them disappear over the horizon and getting the next batch 
through. I watched the Navy reduce to a single boot camp, and 
now in the aftermath of a very difficult year last year where 
they came up 7,000 short----
    Mr. Wolf. How many boot camps do you have?
    Admiral Loy. We have one at Cape May, New Jersey, but the 
differential in size is such that surge capacity is where I was 
going with that thought. It is enormously important for us not 
to wind our organization down to the point that it has no surge 
capacity.
    So I am looking more carefully at whether or not this 
optimize training infrastructure piece is in our best interest 
in terms of where we were in 1995 when it was pretty evident 
that perhaps closing Petaluma was the right way to go. We are 
going to look at that very carefully, and I may very well be of 
the mind to do other things; for example, relocate things where 
we are currently renting or leasing on to a place where we 
actually own the property and take advantage of savings in that 
kind of a process, which would still leave some surge capacity 
inherent in the organization, which I think is enormously 
important.

                Military-to-Civilian Billet Conversions

    Mr. Wolf. What about his idea on civilian?
    Admiral Loy. We continue to work that, sir. I think my read 
is that the savings have been very seriously overestimated just 
in terms of a one-for-one, a civilian position versus a 
military position. We need to take that to bare metal and make 
sure that both the GAO and the auditors there and our folks are 
on the same page. We need to get together and reason that 
through such that we are not offering the idea of savings that 
may not actually be there.

          Presidential Advisory Council on Roles and Missions

    Mr. Wolf. Last year the administration requested and 
Congress approved funding for the Presidential Advisory Council 
to study the roles and missions of the Coast Guard. Has this 
Council begun its work? And what is the schedule for the final 
product?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, the Council has begun its work. They 
have had four meetings, I believe, at this point.
    If you could put the Deepwater slide up again, please, and 
show the Chairman where that fits in.
    The orange bar--the Coast Guard roles and missions study--
their work is to be done this summer with a view towards having 
their product available inside the conceptual design and 
lapping the beginning of the functional design of the Deepwater 
Project. That offers, again, a serious review of what John has 
described as being very necessary.
    In other words, we will revalidate the mission profile of 
the organization there, which has a lot to do with requirements 
in the Mission Analysis Reports (MARs) and Mission Need 
Statements (MNS) product that will then define how much Coast 
Guard this Nation needs and wants in the future.
    Mr. Wolf. What is the composition of the panel?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, it is composed of Deputy Secretary Downey 
of Transportation as its Chairman; Deputy Secretary Higgins of 
Labor is the Vice Chairman; and I think it is 10 additional 
members of the Administration that are making this review. 
Represented thereon are the National Security Council; State 
Department; Commerce, because we do an awful lot of business 
with the National Marine Fisheries Service, sir, and NOAA; the 
Department of Defense; OMB; and an array of interested parties, 
if you will, that either have a stakeholder or customer 
orientation to what the Coast Guard's current array of missions 
are.
    Mr. Wolf. Last year, we had some concern when we were told 
that the budget for this group might go as high as $5 million. 
In our conference we limited it to $1 million. Will they be 
able to complete their work with this $1 million figure?
    Admiral Loy. Their work is currently scheduled to live 
within that budget.

                        Deepwater Project Costs

    Mr. Wolf. Admiral, the GAO's testimony today is that if the 
Deepwater Project comes close to the agency's estimate of $500 
million annually, it would be consuming 97 percent of your 
projected capital budget and far more than today's budget. How 
can you have contractors design this program to a cost which 
appears to be well beyond the range of possibility?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I think all of us may have spent too much 
time worrying about numbers that we don't know yet. My sense is 
that as the excellent competition that we have among the three 
consortia, that for the bidding for the Deepwater Project----

                      Deepwater Project Consortia

    Mr. Wolf. Who are they?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I can give you that for the record. There 
are three consortia that are made up of multiple companies: a 
shipbuilder, an aviation manufacturer, a C4ISR integrator 
associated with each, and I think those have already been 
provided.
    Mr. Anderson. I think I have the names. Avondale 
Industries, Lockheed Martin, and Science Applications 
International Corporation.
    Admiral Loy. Those are the leading elements of each of the 
three consortia, sir. The reason I want to provide it for the 
record is that I want to give it to you accurately in the sense 
that those are the three companies leading those efforts, but 
there are multiple companies associated with each consortia.
    [The information follows:]
Avondale Industries, Inc.
    Newport News Shipbuilding
    Boeing-McDonnell Douglas Corporation
    John J. McMullen & Associates, Inc.
    DAI, Inc.
    Raytheon Systems Company
Science Applications International Corporation
    Marinette Marine Corporation
    Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation
    Soza & Company, Ltd.
    Bath Iron Works
    CTM Automated Systems
    AMSEC
    Fuentez Systems Concepts, Inc.
    Gibbs & Cox, Inc.
    Interactive Television Corporation
    Clark Atlanta University
Lockheed Martin Government Electronic Systems
    Ingalls Shipbuilding
    Litton PRC
    M. Rosenblatt & Son
    Sperry Marine, Inc.
    Litton Data Systems
    University of New Orleans
    Halter Marine
    Bollinger Shipyards, Inc.
    Bell Helicopter Textron
    Lockheed Martin Information Systems
    Lockheed Martin Radar & Surveillance Systems
    Lockheed Martin Sanders
    Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems
    Lockheed Martin Federal Systems
    Lockheed Martin Mgmt and Data Systems
    Lockheed Martin Technology Lab
    LOGICON Syscon
    L-3 Communications, Inc.
    PROSOFT

    Note: Lead member of each consortium is listed in bold.

           Department of Defense Support of Deepwater Project

    Mr. Wolf. How much help are you going to get from the 
Department of Defense on this?
    Admiral Loy. You mean on funding, sir? Sir, I think the 
process there is to understand the inherent requirement to be 
what has come to be called a maritime security cutter or 
aircraft as it relates to speed, as it relates to weapons 
systems, and then integrate as appropriate the thinking of 
principally the Navy as it relates to requirements that they 
might want to see in the maritime security cutter of the 
future, primarily.
    Historically, sir, we have an in-kind set of services that 
are offered to the Coast Guard by the Navy on an annual basis, 
and back on the occasion, for example, of the building of the 
current 378-foot high-endurance cutter, there were specific 
arrangements made that made certain that that particular ship, 
if and when it was called upon to serve with the Navy, would 
bring with it the wherewithal to do its job. So, initially, we 
would certainly want to have all the communications 
interoperability to be able to work with the Navy.
    Mr. Wolf. But no dollars?
    Admiral Loy. Those have not been identified, sir, but I am 
not here to suggest that they can't or won't be part of this 
project.
    Mr. Wolf. But they are having such a difficult time now.
    Admiral Loy. In their shipbuilding challenge, absolutely. 
This is where we are at the moment. Several years ago, my 
predecessor asked of Admiral Boorda, then Chief of Naval 
Operations, to outline for him the deepwater intention of the 
Coast Guard and said, please give us the specification package 
that you want us to build in as capability to these cutters as 
we are pressing to the point of putting a Request for Proposal 
(RFP) on the street. All of those requirements have been built 
into the specifications package that is now being bid by the 
three consortia in the program.
    So at the other end of the day, the requirement will be to 
meet all those specifications as a subset of what we are asking 
in the integrated deepwater system.

                       Deepwater Project Funding

    Mr. Wolf. According to GAO's statement, the Coast Guard 
believes competition among private contractors bidding for the 
Deepwater contract will bring the cost of the project down to 
probable funding levels. If we assume that your probable 
funding level for AC&I is the historic level of $400 million, 
my guess is that Deepwater's cost would have to be cut in half 
to approximately $250 million a year. This would allow roughly 
$150 million for shore facilities personnel and all other 
expenses. What do you consider to be a reasonable expectation 
of the maximum appropriation for the Deepwater Project in any 1 
year?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I would be guessing, as I said before, 
because we don't know the numbers, and we won't know the 
numbers until KDP-2 runs around. There are two thoughts there. 
One, I have, and my predecessors have, gone on record for many 
years suggesting that the capitalization budget of this 
organization has been underfunded over the course of at least a 
decade, if not 20 years. So the foundation that I reflected in 
my initial chart that was up here, sir, is one that I think is 
enormously important for us to understand first.
    I am first and foremost interested in making certain that 
this organization stays as it has been for 200 years, always 
ready to meet the needs of this Nation. Secondly, we will 
grapple with the very challenging funding stream that will be 
part of the Deepwater Project as it plays out.
    My thought to you is to give you a number other than the 5 
million which has been estimated would be to suggest to you 
that I have more insight today than I did when we put that 
number together. The next time we will have good insight is at 
KDP-2.

                    COMPLEXITY OF DEEPWATER PROJECT

    Mr. Wolf. Will this be the largest and most complex 
acquisition project that the Coast Guard has ever done?
    Admiral Loy. Without a doubt.

              deepwater project contract award intentions

    Mr. Wolf. Do you intend to ultimately award the entire 
program to a single prime contractor?
    Admiral Loy. My inclination is that that is the likely 
course, because the integrated nature of the requirements that 
are being reviewed by the respective consortia will force them 
into relationships with their colleagues, their colleague 
companies, to the degree that I think it would be very 
difficult to break out one piece from consortia A and one piece 
from consortia B when we are at the end of the day. My sense is 
that that is the case, although the specifications that are on 
the street offer us the opportunity to not have to do that.

                        DEEPWATER PROJECT RISKS

    Mr. Wolf. Do you consider this a high-risk effort of 
meeting your cost schedule and targets?
    Admiral Loy. Deepwater will, in fact, be high-risk as it 
relates to funding capability and affordability through the 
course of its existence. I can only go back to out-of-the-
ordinary funding requirements that this organization has faced 
in the past and suggest that in the same manner in which those 
challenges were grappled with by that day's Commandant and that 
day's Chairman, we will do the same for Deepwater.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, what do you think the risk is of 
this program not meeting its cost, schedule, and technical 
goals?
    Mr. Anderson. I think any time you have a project of this 
magnitude, there is significant risk. That is why it is real 
important for the Coast Guard to do the up-front planning. I 
think the approach they are taking with having three 
contractors and having another contractor look at what those 
contractors do is a good thing. But it is a risky project. It 
holds great potential, Mr. Chairman. I believe that this 
project could end up in the Coast Guard requiring fewer assets 
and fewer resources to carry on its missions, but that is going 
to require a lot of integration and a lot of systems and 
communication systems and sensors. So it is going to be a 
challenge.
    Mr. Wolf. The Coast Guard's position is that Deepwater can 
most effectively be pursued as one program involving the 
complete integration of vessels, aircraft and sensors within a 
fully interoperable environment, the so-called big bang 
approach; all your eggs in one basket. The FAA tells us that is 
a mistake. They were burned with the AAS program and are 
proceeding with smaller, more focused programs, and you seem to 
be going the other way. What are your thoughts about that?
    Admiral Loy. Well, sir, my thoughts are that the approach 
is probably as creative and innovative as has been seen in this 
town in many, many years. When we briefed this project's 
process and approach to the Office of Federal Procurement 
Policy, it was cited as about the most refreshing thing they 
had come across in many, many moons.
    Mr. Wolf. Meaning that this is different than has been used 
before by anybody in DOT?
    Admiral Loy. Certainly by us, absolutely in DOT, and maybe 
singularly in terms of its approach anywhere in town. There 
certainly have been some DOD acquisitions and design projects 
that are currently on the drawing boards like DD-21 and others 
that have attempted to use a number of these ideas, but the 
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) in its review was 
enormously impressed with the effort and planning that we have 
undertaken to this point in time.
    Now, included internal to that, sir, is an appreciation for 
legacy systems, for example. So it is not as if all of those 
eggs are in one basket at the other end of the day. It may very 
well be that any given consortia will call for the extension of 
one piece of the inventory that is currently available at the 
moment. I would be very surprised, for example, if our newest 
class of medium endurance cutters, the 270-foot famous class 
cutters, don't find a time line associated with their extended 
life that will be a part of a given consortia's estimate as to 
how best to do this for the Nation overall. And therein also 
lie opportunities to drive costs down. That is why the 
competition is so valid and will, I think, result in the best 
deal for America.
    Mr. Wolf. Are the contractors putting up any of their money 
in the process?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely, yes, sir. It is about a 25 
percent/75 percent match in terms of federal dollars being put 
up against industry's dollars.

             INADEQUACY OF DEEPWATER PROJECT JUSTIFICATION

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, your report last year indicated 
that the justification for Deepwater was inadequate. 
Specifically you found from your visits to the Coast Guard air 
stations and other facilities that commanders believed their 
ships and aircraft could remain in service much longer than 
Deepwater Project assumed. Do you know why the Coast Guard did 
not do a better job at surveying the useful life of these 
assets?
    Mr. Anderson I think the main mistake is they relied on the 
original estimated useful life of these assets and didn't get 
any other information other than some anecdotal information. 
They have since moved forward and are doing engineering 
analysis of their ships. They have completed an engineering 
analysis of their aircraft, and so I think they are heading in 
the right direction.
    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Anderson, your statement says, ``Proceeding 
with a project without a clear understanding of the current 
condition of its ships and aircraft and whether they are 
deficient in their capabilities and service demands increases 
the risk that contractors now developing a proposal for the 
project could develop alternatives or designs that would not be 
the most cost-efficient.'' How much have we appropriated for 
the program so far?
    Mr. Anderson. I believe about $25 million so far; $5 
million in 1998, $20 million in 1999, and I believe they are 
asking for $44 million this year and another $42.3 million next 
year.
    Mr. Wolf. Any idea how much we will have appropriated 
before we get around to actually buying ships or aircraft?
    Mr. Anderson. I don't know. I would say that with a program 
of this magnitude, spending some of the money up front to make 
sure they come up with a cost-effective system is the key.
    I want to elaborate a little on something the admiral said. 
I believe that the key finding of our work is that a number of 
these assets are going to last a lot longer than they 
originally estimated. This gives the Coast Guard the 
opportunity to fold in the existing assets into the new system 
that they are going to use and has the potential to lower the 
cost. If they can actually work in their plan and not just do a 
one-for-one replacement, that is the key.

          DEFERMENT OF AIRCRAFT COMPONENT OF DEEPWATER PROJECT

    Mr. Wolf. In your statement it says that last year the 
Coast Guard issued a study concluding that its aircraft with 
appropriate maintenance and upgrades would be capable of 
operating to the year 2010 and probably beyond. Given this, 
would it lower the risk, complexity, and cost of Deepwater to 
defer the aircraft component entirely and focus on shipbuilding 
and systems integration?
    Mr. Anderson.  That seems to make some sense, and I would 
sure hope that the contractors would use that in coming up with 
their proposals.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you have any thoughts on that, Admiral?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, I think the freedom is there as the 
specifications package is currently on the street. And my 
reliance at this point, sir, is to let these very best industry 
minds help us with that.

     DETERMINATION OF DEEPWATER REQUIREMENTS BY PRIVATE CONTRACTORS

    Mr. Wolf. Well, they are all good companies. I want to 
stipulate that. Some have speculated that perhaps the Coast 
Guard shouldn't be hiring the private contractors to determine 
service requirements, but rather the service should determine 
its own requirements in-house, then ask the industry what it 
would cost to build the systems. To what extent are you asking 
the private contractors to tell you what you need?
    Admiral Loy. We are not asking the private contractors to 
produce requirements, sir. We are asking them to design systems 
that will, with only two criteria, A, meet the requirements, 
and B, do so at the minimum cost to the American taxpayer, and 
to array a variety of alternatives for us to choose from that 
will allow them to meet our requirements.
    Mr. Wolf. And you are not concerned about any ``gold-
plated'' systems then?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely not.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you believe that the Coast Guard is asking the 
private industry to do more than they should in defining the 
service's specific requirements for ships and aircraft?
    Mr. Anderson. No, I don't believe they are. But I believe 
that one of the things that the Coast Guard has to do is make 
sure that it defines its current requirements accurately so 
that the industry is using the best data available in terms of 
what the requirements are. That was another key part of our 
work and our recommendations.
    Mr. Wolf. We will have some other questions for the record.
    Admiral Loy. And I would offer that that, too, is in the 
current game plan as offered by both the roles and missions 
review as part of that requirement and a new MAR and MNS as we 
enter phase two.
    Mr. Wolf. We will have some other questions for the record.

                        CERTIFICATION OF MEXICO

    Mr. Wolf. Did you favor the certification of Mexico?
    Admiral Loy. Did I favor the certification of Mexico?
    Mr. Wolf. Honesty is always the best policy. [Laughter].
    Admiral Loy. I understand that, sir. Let me answer it this 
way. I was very disappointed in 1998 in terms of what we had 
gained from and expected in terms of Mexican coordination and 
cooperation. It was not there.
    Mr. Wolf. So that would probably be a no, I guess.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir.

                     COUNTERDRUG OPERATING EXPENSES

    Mr. Wolf. Your final estimates of operating expenses for 
counterdrug activities in fiscal year 1997 was $492 million. We 
understand the final figure for 1998 was $449 million, or 43 
million, 8.7 percent, less than the year before. Yet we believe 
that you originally intended to spend more on the drug war and 
not less. What happened?
    Admiral Loy. Sir, between 1997 and 1998, the operation in 
there in terms of total dollar amounts committed to the drug 
war is all about FRONTIER SHIELD. As you mentioned earlier, the 
idea of catching the bad guy by surprise was a very real plus 
in our success with Operation FRONTIER SHIELD, but Operation 
FRONTIER SHIELD also calls upon us to extract assets, resource 
hours, ships, and planes from other mission areas that they had 
been originally intended to deal with in 1997.
    In 1998, then it became a follow-on year, and the reality 
was, despite the $34 million plusup in 1998 provided by this 
committee, the total dollar value committed to counterdrug 
activities had actually gone down some.
    We continued to--I think Admiral Kramek's phrase was 
``intelligently borrow'' from commitment to the fisheries law 
enforcement mission and especially from the migrant 
interdiction mission.

       BORROWING FROM OTHER MISSIONS TO SUPPORT DRUG INTERDICTION

    Mr. Wolf. How much have you borrowed from fisheries? The 
percentage went from where to where?
    Admiral Loy. As we go from 1998 to 1999, and from 1999 to 
2000, you can watch a trend where in the 1999 baseline of 
intent, the fisheries piece was about 18 percent, the drug 
piece was about 13 percent. If you can watch that in the 2000 
budget in brief reflecting content, it is also reversed such 
that counterdrugs is about 18 percent of our Operating Expenses 
(OE) base, and fisheries, if I think correctly, is around 14.5 
or 15 percent.
    Mr. Wolf. Fisheries has decreased by 4 percent?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, and the migrants game plan has been 
reduced to allow us to address in greater focus the drug piece. 
As you know, sir, the migrant mission is sort of what I would 
call a demand mission. When the Cubans and Haitians were 
literally in the Straits of Florida and on the doorstep, the 
actuals for 1994 reflect a considerable shift of both 
counterdrug and fisheries assets into migrant interdiction that 
year. That is always the case, sir.

                   airborne use of force test program

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Packard.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for 
coming in so late. I just adjourned my own hearing a few 
minutes ago and thought I would like to come over. And I am 
sorry that I missed your testimonies, both of you.
    I have two questions, one very parochial and local, and one 
more general. Last year the omnibus appropriations bill 
provided $2.5 million under the Coast Guard acquisition, 
construction, and improvements account for the operational test 
and evaluation of the use of force from aircraft. Has this test 
program been developed yet, and exactly what is its goals? Is 
it going to be involved in smuggler activity using boats and 
aircraft? How is the program working?
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Packard, the goal is to take note of the 
simple reality that the smuggler is about at an 85 percent 
success rate in his quest to introduce contraband from the 
north coast of South America to the United States. The vehicle 
of choice is a go-fast boat, a small 30- to 40- to 50-foot open 
boat with multiple outboards on the stern to drive it between 
50 and 70 knots. And our challenge at the moment is, despite 
our existent ability to detect it and even monitor it as it 
crosses the Caribbean from the Guajira Peninsula in Colombia to 
San Juan, is that our assets on the surface are unable to deal 
with the speed differential that they currently enjoy.
    So I have two challenges. One, I have to stop it; and 
secondly, I have to have an asset there that can actually 
effect the arrest and seizure at the end of the day. The 
aircraft use of force program will allow me from a helicopter 
to bring that go-fast boat to a stop. We are exploring the 
range. Of course, we always use a range of force only necessary 
to actually do what we need to do, but up to and including 
disabling fire to be effected from aircraft.
    That project is under way. We have procured the aircraft 
that we are going to use in the test process. Come late spring, 
early summer, we will be actually putting tests in place that 
will validate the program for us.
    I have concerns about force protection. I have concerns 
about doctrine and tactics that we need to work out and 
perfect. We have had excellent cooperation from the Department 
of Defense and other sources to make this a very viable course 
of action. So it is working well, sir, and the budget asks for, 
I believe, $10 million to continue it.
    Mr. Packard. And that will be--is a ship under 
construction, or is that going to be primarily aircraft?
    Admiral Loy. This will be an aircraft doctrine, sir, but it 
will, in fact, be deployed from vessels in the Caribbean. We 
want to take the capability anywhere we suspect the bad guy to 
be operating.
    Now, the second piece of my end game requirement is to have 
the wherewithal to get a surface vessel or boat there quickly 
enough to effect an arrest and seizure once the aircraft has 
brought it to a stop. So deployable pursuit boats and over-the-
horizon, rigid-hull inflatables we think are the answer to 
that, and again, we request money in the budget to do that.

                 decommissioning of uscgc point hobart

    Mr. Packard. On the very local question--and if you don't 
have the answer because it is dealing with just a specific 
asset--you have the Hobart stationed in Oceanside in my 
district.
    Admiral Loy. POINT HOBART. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Packard. What is the disposition of that? I understood 
that it might be moved or decommissioned.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, the POINT HOBART is a 30-plus-year-
old, 82-foot patrol boat scheduled for decommissioning. The 
challenge in southern California, sir, is how do we adequately 
address BORDER SHIELD, which is our operation that deals with 
spillover, I would call it, from Southwest border activity into 
the maritime environment in and around San Diego and points to 
the south. We want very much to deal as constructively as we 
can with that particular threat, so our replacement for the 
POINT HOBART in Oceanside is probably going to be an 87-foot 
patrol boat further to the south.
    And I believe you have had a conversation with our 
activities commander down in San Diego, or your staff, sir, I 
believe might have already, and we thank you for your 
consideration in that regard. We want to make certain that the 
search and rescue services available to the Oceanside area are 
retained, and we think we are able to do that with a 
replacement 87-foot patrol boat in Monterey, and allow us to 
devote attention as necessary to constructively deal with the 
drug threat at the border.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                  impact of year 2000 (y2k) technology

    Mr. Wolf. Mr. Serrano.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me, first of all, thank you for coming before us today 
and apologize for what all Members of Congress apologize for, 
for 15 meetings at the same time.
    I don't know if this question has been asked, but forgive 
me if it has. I am interested in finding out if this now 
infamous Y2K problem affects you, and how it affects you, and 
what we are doing to get ready for it. Everything we hear, we 
are all going to fall apart at midnight. The question is in 
different time zones, I wonder if we all fall apart at 
different times in the Nation.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, we feel very confident about the 
Coast Guard set of critical systems. We have identified 74 
mission-critical systems in the Coast Guard that we are paying 
very deliberate attention to across the scope of the calendar 
to make certain that the systems themselves are compliant and 
that we have continuity and contingency plans in place and 
available to deal with whatever might befall us on December 31, 
1999.
    I have one concern with one system as it relates to VTS 
Valdez, Alaska, in Prince William Sound. We have had some 
challenges with an existent vendor, and so we are going down a 
couple of different paths either in terms of getting that 
vendor to claim that his system is compliant, test it 
accordingly, and make certain that is the case, and we are also 
going down a path that will allow us to replace that system if 
we have to, and we have a drop-dead date associated with that 
that will keep us compliant on down the road. But that is 
liable to be as late as September or October of 1999 when we 
finally just have to make the choice which way to go with that 
one system in Valdez, Alaska.
    The other thing, Mr. Serrano, we have, at Mr. Koskinen's 
request, become the prime mover as it comes to awakening the 
maritime industry to the Y2K reality. We held a conference in 
London at the International Maritime Organization's offices 
just last week where we have attempted to raise the visible 
reality of Y2K to many nations and shipping companies and 
maritime industry elements of the world, because, as you know, 
95 percent of what comes into and goes out of this island 
Nation of ours does so by ship, and we want to make certain 
that all the players that have the potential to deal with our 
ports and waterways are, in fact, compliant when they approach 
in the later stages of 1999.
    So I am very, very confident, sir, that your Coast Guard is 
going to be okay as it relates to its mission-critical systems, 
and as I say, we are making every effort to leverage that 
capability elsewhere in the world.
    Now, please don't make my comments to suggest that we are 
going to have the maritime industry of the world compliant with 
Y2K. I would not even remotely suggest that that be the case. 
Our challenge is to, as carefully as we can, make certain that 
compliance is part of visits to the ports of the United States 
at that critical point on the calendar.

                      y2k impact on other agencies

    Mr. Serrano. So that really does introduce another 
question. Not only the folks you mentioned, but without having 
to beat up on anybody, which I am sure you don't want to do, 
are you confident that those other agencies that you rely on 
will be--I mean, that is not your responsibility, but those 
other agencies that you rely on to do what you do so well, are 
you confident that they will be in shape as to not to cause you 
a problem? Because if you are in shape and they are not, you 
still have a problem.
    Admiral Loy. You are absolutely right, sir. This is one of 
those situations where you can literally be 100 percent okay, 
and the devil is in the detail of somebody else's ability to 
meet their responsibilities.
    I could not sit here, sir, and tell you that all the 
vendors we deal with, and all our fellow agencies that we deal 
with, are going to be compliant to the same degree that we will 
be. But it is all about contingency plans and continuity plans, 
and we are making a concerted effort in that regard to be able 
to do Coast Guard things, including workarounds as necessary, 
to a system of ours that cannot function based on another 
noncompliance.
    Mr. Serrano. If you are not at liberty to tell me for 
security reasons, don't tell me. Obviously that is redundant, 
but we know, for instance, that if our payroll department here 
does not work on December 31st, the Chairman will not get his 
paycheck at end of the month, and he will be as upset as I am. 
That is an easy one to understand. And as tragic as the Social 
Security check issue is, that is an easy one to understand. Is 
there an example of a Coast Guard thing that you can give me, 
one that is not a----
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir, let me give you one that is internal 
to the Coast Guard and one that is external to the Coast Guard. 
We have our own array of internal mission-critical systems, and 
they, for example, include our system called PMIS JUMPS. It is 
our administrative system to take care of our people inside the 
organization and the Joint Uniform Military Pay System, which 
is the JUMPS end of PMIS JUMPS. So to the same degree you are 
concerned about the Chairman's paycheck, I am concerned about 
the paychecks of all my young sailors and airmen who are out 
there doing great things for the Nation, and so I am concerned 
about that one as an internal system.
    As an external system, the compliance associated with 
vessel traffic in the waterways of the Nation, and having our 
vessel traffic systems work just as well on January 1 as they 
worked on December 31, has everything to do with the safety and 
the security of the marine environmental protection concerns 
that we have with all the ports and waterways in the Nation.
    We are going to great pains to make certain that those 
systems are compliant.
    Mr. Serrano. Let me just ask you one more question. Let me 
first let the record show that I show concern for the 
Chairman's--
    Admiral Loy. And that I did for my sailors before mine.

                 coast guard activities in puerto rico

    Mr. Serrano. Being new to this committee, I am trying to 
score points with him to the best of my ability.
    When you represent a district in the Bronx, New York, 
chances are that you are expected to represent the Bronx; and 
if you are me, you are expected to look after the affairs in 
Puerto Rico to the best of your ability. How is the mission of 
the Coast Guard and the workings different there? In the 
Caribbean, what is it that you get involved in?
    I know you have been involved in issues of migration, 
immigration from other situations; and there is the whole issue 
of the drug smuggling in that area, too. Can you just give me 
an idea of what your challenges are there and in which ways we 
can be of help?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Our challenges are enormous there. 
Puerto Rico is a wonderful example of a great success story in 
1997 and 1999 as it related to Coast Guard counternarcotics 
efforts there. Governor Rossello has voiced on numerous 
occasions that our efforts offshore in Operation FRONTIER 
SHIELD, which we sustain at a slightly lower level than the 
surge operation that we conducted in 1997, have enabled him to 
pull National Guard troops out of housing areas, have enabled 
him to watch the social impact of drugs be moderated as a 
result of the influence we had in the Puerto Rico-Virgin 
Islands sector, if you will, the northeast corner of the 
Caribbean.
    My great goal, sir, is to be able to have the same 
testimonials from President Fernandez in the Dominican Republic 
and from whomever in Haiti and from whomever in Jamaica as we 
walk our STEEL WEB counterdrug effort across the Caribbean from 
east to west.
    The Coast Guard has a significant presence in Puerto Rico, 
as you know, and our people thoroughly enjoy their assignments 
there, whether it is at Borinquen on the western end or the 
beautiful Old Town section in San Juan. We have----
    Mr. Serrano. That is not bad duty, is it?
    Admiral Loy. That is not bad at all, yes, sir.
    Our challenges there are counternarcotics. They have 
migration implications because, as you well know, once in San 
Juan there are no Customs barriers between there and Iowa City 
or wherever in the United States, including the Bronx, folks 
would like to get to. So our missions there run the whole 
profile of what we do for America. They include search and 
rescue. They include aids and navigation. They include marine 
safety.
    As you know, San Juan has become one of the most 
significant container ports and cruise ship ports in the 
Nation. Our maritime safety responsibilities there are 
enormous.
    Mr. Serrano. Well, let me tell you that I do know of a lot 
of the work you do there and certainly work you do everywhere 
else. I continue to commend all of you folks for the work you 
are doing and for the service that you render to this country.
    Admiral Loy. Thank you, sir.

                       seizure of foreign vessels

    Mr. Packard. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one additional 
question?
    I had time to read your statement. It is short, 
incidentally. Most of the statements that I get for my 
subcommittee are 35 pages long, but yours is only six. And on 
the sixth page you outline an example of seizure of a 
Panamanian vessel, and there is some interesting points that I 
think I missed, did not understand.
    We have laws that allow us to seize ships or vessels, 
aircraft, automobiles, that are used in the transporting of 
illegal contraband. But for a foreign vessel or plane, we seize 
it for the country that----
    Admiral Loy. We act on behalf of the flag state, for the 
most part, sir.
    Mr. Packard. Do most countries have laws that permit them 
to seize under drug interdiction?
    Admiral Loy. I think the legal structure in many, many 
nations is problematic in that regard as it relates, for 
example, to extradition or as it relates to asset seizure or as 
it relates to forfeitures; and those nations that have a mature 
set of laws on the books with respect to that offer us a 
tremendous leveraging agent in terms of dealing with them when 
we encounter their vessels on the high seas.
    We have a terrific cooperation from flag states almost 
universally, I would say; and, to that end, the U.S. Coast 
Guard cutter in the middle of the Caribbean becomes a leveraged 
agent to some degree of their ability to do what they need to 
do.
    One of the things that we are working very hard included in 
this budget is the Caribbean support tender, which was the 
subject of some conversation at this hearing last year. That 
tender now funded will be employed over the last half of '99 
and on into 2000 in an effort to bring training and capability 
to a number of these very small nations such that they can 
build some indigenous capability and actually contribute from 
their little corner of the world whatever capability that they 
have the wherewithal to provide.
    Many times I have watched us, you know, send an asset, 
whether it is Navy or Coast Guard or Army or anything else to 
nation X and find out about a year later that it might as well 
be welded to the pier because they don't have the capability to 
maintain or operate it.
    This Caribbean support tender is going to literally make 
the rounds of the Caribbean, going from country to country 
offering training, offering maintenance, offering operational 
counsel to the countries that have acquired these assets in the 
recent past.
    Mr. Packard. Are there any circumstances where the United 
States can confiscate other foreign vessels or foreign----
    Admiral Loy. I am not a lawyer, sir. We often bring them to 
either U.S. ports or to their own ports or ports of 
convenience.
    For example, one of my concerns is, as we depart Panama, 
the capability that has been inherent in Rodman Naval Station 
and Howard Air Force Base are significant losses, in my mind, 
to our operations in the Caribbean. General Wilhelm at SOUTHCOM 
is working very hard to nail down new forward operating 
locations, and I am sure he will be successful, but Rodman and 
Howard have been a combination of access that allows us, for 
example, to take a boat that we seize off the coast of Colombia 
or Panama and bring it there, as opposed to having to drag it 
all the way to Guantanamo Bay or Roosevelt Roads over in Puerto 
Rico. The lost cutter days, for example, associated with that 
dynamic is very, very real and something I am concerned about.

             law enforcement detachments aboard navy ships

    Mr. Packard. In the same illustration, I couldn't help but 
notice that the first action was taken off of a naval vessel 
with Coast Guard personnel aboard. How often is that done and 
is that a common occurrence where we use the Navy with Coast 
Guard personnel aboard?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. The Navy has sort of reorganized and 
defined several years ago a squadron that they call their 
Western Hemispheric Squadron. The principal employment of the 
array of naval ships in that squadron, which number I think 14 
the last number I was aware of--is in counterdrug operations in 
the Caribbean. Each one of those naval ships that sail, 
including their patrol craft PC-170s, carries a Coast Guard law 
enforcement detachment, which allows us to bring our law 
enforcement authorities to the game on that naval platform.
    So rather than procuring lots of additional platforms with 
all the capital and operating expenses associated with that, we 
are able to utilize employed naval assets with Coast Guard law 
enforcement detachments aboard.
    Mr. Packard. Is that unique only to the Caribbean?
    Now on the west coast we have, of course, the China and all 
the other--and, of course, Colombia could come up on the west 
side. Do we have vessels out of San Diego or----
    Admiral Loy. We do, sir. Anywhere that we are employing a 
U.S. naval asset in the drug war, you will find a law 
enforcement detachment from the Coast Guard aboard.
    Mr. Packard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much.

                      y2k impact on oil transport

    Mr. Wolf. Following up on Mr. Serrano's question, in 
Federal Computer Week in December, it said, ``Year 2000 date 
code problems in oil tankers could lead to an oil spill in the 
U.S. port or slow the flow of import of oil to U.S. 
communities, some of which only have a 3 or 4-day supply of 
oil.''
    There was an article in the paper yesterday or the day 
before about the disruption of oil flow from certain countries 
without getting into the ones that had absolutely done nothing 
with regard to the Y2K problem.
    And I think in terms of some of the countries that some of 
these vessels are registered with, Liberia and other places, 
what are your thoughts, following up on what Mr. Serrano said, 
not so much on how you are doing with regard to the Coast 
Guard, but with the supertankers, which sometimes are so 
computerized they only have 10 people operating them? What 
about that?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. I think it is a significant issue. 
Chevron and Exxon and Mobil and those companies have taken the 
Y2K thing very, very seriously; and I think they are going to 
be just fine. It is the smaller shipping companies that I have 
some concern about. That was, in many ways, the prime mover of 
this outreach effort we conducted last week in London to make 
certain that port states as well as owners and organizations 
that represent shippers, tanker owners--Intertanko, for 
example, which represents about 70 percent of the bottoms that 
are carrying oil around the world--has made significant 
commitments to the Y2K issue; and their leadership is right, I 
think, on point.
    My concern is that we want to make certain that under our 
umbrella of port state control, which is a very normal process 
that is conducted by our Captains of the Port at every entry 
port in the United States, we arm them adequately to be able to 
check in that particular period of time whether or not the ship 
requesting permission to come in and unload oil has adequately 
dealt with the Y2K regime.
    Mr. Wolf. How do we deal with that? If a tanker is coming 
to the east coast registered in Liberia, will you board the 
ship first?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely.
    Mr. Wolf. December 27, 28? You will board first to make 
sure?
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely.
    First of all, they have a requirement to notify us 24 hours 
prior to entering port. The port state control challenge then 
will be to arm our inspectors not only with the normal things 
that they check in terms of the International Safety Management 
Code, SOLAS, MARPOL, and STCW--the people end of things--but 
also what they will need to check for Y2K compliance.
    The way we tried to deal with it in London, sir, was to 
literally design some checkoff lists that would be well-known 
to the companies, well-known to the port states, well-known to 
the flag states, and let them be well aware that those 
checklists would be the process that we would use for 
ascertaining compliance on their way into the ports of the 
United States.
    Mr. Wolf. If the captain says Y2K, you will know----
    Admiral Loy. He is going to be at anchor for a while.

                       y2k impact on cruise ships

    Mr. Wolf. What about the cruise ships?
    Admiral Loy. Cruise ships the same way, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Are there any cruise ships we should be concerned 
about, or cruise lines?
    Admiral Loy. I don't know that we have any in our sights. 
Clearly among bulkers and freighters and tankers, there are 
white lists and black lists, if you will, associated with 
companies that have good or not so good reputations. Obviously, 
we only publicize white lists, and we make it pretty 
advantageous for folks to be on them.
    But at the other end of the day, we will have the same 
concerns with respect to Y2K compliance about the safety of 
U.S. passengers which, of course, as you know, is probably 90 
percent of the passengers around the world on ships of any 
flag.
    Mr. Wolf. Do you have any concern with regard to the cruise 
lines?
    Admiral Loy. My instincts up front say, because we have 
checked, is they are pretty conscious of Y2K, sir.

                      new drug interdiction assets

    Mr. Wolf. In fiscal year 1999 the Congress provided a 
sizable increase to your drug interdiction budget. Which of the 
new assets being procured with these funds will be in the air 
or the water by the end of this fiscal year?
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Could I get the right chart up?
    Some questions are anticipated more than others, sir.
    [The information follows:]

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 


    Mr. Wolf. You have done your homework. That is good.
    Admiral Loy. This offers just a glimpse, sir, of the 
counterdrug plus-up in '99, $44.3 million in OE. The OE will of 
course offer us the chance to do more in terms of normal things 
that we are doing and also will, for about half of it, actually 
be part of using assets that you also see under the AC&I 
funding there. The $217 million in AC&I funding was directed 
for us to procure those things, to do those things.
    I can assure you, sir, that we will have spent probably a 
good 85 percent of those dollars by the time '99 flows out; 
and, in fact, I would say 40 percent of those assets will 
actually be in place.
    Let me give you an example, sir. The T-AGOS platforms that 
we are having renovated so as to strategically place probably 
one on the Pacific side, one on the Caribbean side, will carry 
the deployable pursuit boats that you heard me speak about 
earlier, will in fact be run in fiscal '99; and probably by the 
second quarter of 2000 both of them will be in operation and 
actually in the game, if you will. I feel very, very good about 
the compliance end of us accepting the dollars offered by the 
Congress last year, sir, and putting them in practice in the 
drug war.

                  crewing new drug interdiction assets

    Mr. Wolf. What about any problem of providing the staff for 
the new equipment, given the difficulty of the recruiting that 
you mentioned?
    Admiral Loy. It will be part of the challenge and 
underlines the importance of the investment that we need to 
make in the people side of recruiting and what have you, but we 
will be okay, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. Will you do any cutbacks in other areas, air 
stations, to get this all out and moving?
    Admiral Loy. What we will end up having to do, it is one of 
these things of coming to the balance at the right point in 
time and by the end of 2000. My human resources organization 
was at least initially oriented around a 3-year program of 
getting us back up to snuff, and I told them that that was 
unacceptable. We needed to invest as necessary to close our 
work force to completion by 2000 because that is when we were 
going to be operating all these assets. I think that balance 
will come into place okay, sir, but we will probably have to 
shorten up the support end of the organization in order to keep 
the classic tail end of the organization running.

          impact of supplemental funding on deepwater project

    Mr. Wolf. Since part of your anti-drug mission utilizes the 
deepwater assets, it is possible that some of the additional 
funding would lessen the scope of the deepwater project, 
especially if the counterdrug initiative is continued in the 
future years, which my sense is it will be. With the money we 
provided in fiscal year 1999, are you planning to purchase 
assets which would otherwise have been included in the 
deepwater program?
    Admiral Loy. I think the clear answer is no, sir. The T-
AGOS platforms, although they will be operating in deepwater, 
are not high-endurance/medium-endurance cutter kinds of assets. 
They are being procured because, a, they were available; b, the 
renovation price was a very reasonable one; and, c, they could 
be employed because of their strategic location to actually 
bring other assets to the game, namely the deployable pursuit 
boats that will operate from them. So there is nothing in '99's 
procurement intention that will undercut Deepwater, no, sir.

                      airborne use of force plans

    Mr. Wolf. We will have some other questions along that 
line.
    With regard to the use of force, what are your plans 
actually? Are you going to use helicopters for this test? When 
will this be done?
    There has been a lot of talk about it. Obviously, I know it 
takes training, but if you see a fast boat coming out of 
Colombia at 1:00 in the morning, it is probably not a family 
going out to the islands to vacation. Tell us a little bit more 
about your plans.
    Admiral Loy. We are going to phase this in, sir. Come late 
spring, early summer, I will make a judgment as to whether or 
not the invested effort, the $2.5 million the committee 
provided last year for us, will have produced a program that is 
employable in the drug war. My sense is that it, in fact, will 
meet all the tests and screening efforts that I have asked them 
to press through.
    So, come summer, we will be employing from Coast Guard 
cutters deployed helicopters that are hardened, that have 
trained crews, and that have run through the gamut of doctrine.
    Mr. Wolf. Where are they being trained?
    Admiral Loy. Mobile, Alabama, sir, at our aviation training 
center.
    Mr. Wolf. Are they shooting some of Mr. Callahan's Forrest 
Gump people? [Laughter.]
    Admiral Loy. We are going to take care of as many of them 
as we can without him here, yes, sir.
    The truth be known, this project is on a very fast time 
line. I have had numerous briefs on about a monthly basis to 
make certain that it stays there. This is an asset capability 
that is the most required in my mind to make a difference in 
what we are doing in the drug war in the Caribbean today.
    Mr. Wolf. When do you think they will actually be deployed?
    Admiral Loy. We will be deploying them this summer, sir, 
July and August.
    Mr. Wolf. They will be----
    Admiral Loy. They will be on the backs of Coast Guard 
cutters as they deploy. We will follow, of course, the 
intelligence leads that will place us in a position to utilize 
these aircraft carefully. There is at least an initial concern 
that I have to work on with my colleagues and other agencies.
    For example, Ray Kelly from Customs asked me the other day 
whether these would be clearly understood to be Coast Guard 
aircraft up there, because his concern is if there is a report 
that there is a hardened, aggressive shooting aircraft in the 
sky, he didn't want his Customs helicopters mistaken for that. 
And I assured him that the normal Coast Guard markings and 
everything would be on the aircraft.
    Mr. Wolf. Will you be mainly firing on----
    Admiral Loy. Fast boats.
    Mr. Wolf. Fast boats.
    Admiral Loy. The initial game plan, sir, is daylight until 
we are really comfortable with the game plan; and our next 
opportunity is to go as quickly as we can to nighttime 
operations because that is where the action is, as you surmise.
    Mr. Wolf. Will you be firing to disable?
    Admiral Loy. It will be a progression of force as necessary 
up to disabling fire to bring that fast boat target to a stop.
    I would be delighted, sir, to sort of behind closed doors 
offer you a more intense brief of what the game plan is all 
about.

          national distress and response system modernization

    Mr. Wolf. Why don't we do that?
    Just a couple of last questions.
    On the national distress system modernization, one program 
this subcommittee has been interested in for many years is the 
national distress system modernization. You are now proposing 
to accelerate this important program. What is your schedule and 
when would the equipment actually be fielded?
    Admiral Loy. The current program, sir, is focused so that 
2002, 2003, and 2004 we would be making most of the deployment. 
I am concerned about that because, as I indicated, cases like 
the fishing vessel ADRIATIC and cases like MORNING DEW in 
Charleston have provoked me to look very carefully at the 
capacity of this system universally in the Coast Guard.
    In the aftermath of MORNING DEW, it was pretty easy for me 
to see a set of findings as a result of the investigatory 
effort we have taken there and make judgments as to what will 
make Charleston better. My concern is as we go to the National 
Distress and Response System (NDRS), we have got to make the 
entire Coast Guard infrastructure capable with regard to the 
kinds of cases that MORNING DEW represents. So our great 
challenge, Mr. Chairman, is to take stock in an organization 
that has been enormously proud of its can-do spirit over the 
years to point out to you the frayed edges of our current 
lower-level capability foundation and deal with them. NDRS is 
the answer, but it might not be, as currently constructed, an 
answer you and I are going to be comfortable with in time.

                   impact of upgraded communications

    Mr. Wolf. To what extent might upgraded communications 
equipment have avoided the tragedy of the sailing vessel 
MORNING DEW off the coast of Charleston or the ADRIATIC off the 
coast of New Jersey?
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Chairman, I have listened to the tape from 
the MORNING DEW case, both the 0213 call which we presumed 
that--we don't presume--it was from the MORNING DEW, and the 
0628 call; and, in both instances, had we had the ability to 
simply run the tape back and listen to it more carefully again 
and have an operator trained there with the instincts to do 
that, my sense is that we could have had four lives saved that 
morning instead of four lives lost.

                  search and rescue as a core mission

    Mr. Wolf. Admiral, it seems to me, and I may be speaking 
for myself, that is the core mission of the Coast Guard.
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. And I worry a little bit about the drug 
interdiction issue, because it has the glamour and it has 
members willing to plus-up the budget, and you get very 
anxious. I can see the commandant generally gets a little 
closer to the microphone when we are talking about more money, 
but the basic core mission may very well be neglected. And, 
obviously, I just read about this in the paper, but clearly I 
think the crews on those ships deserve and the moms and dads 
deserve the core mission to be done.
    Admiral Loy. Absolutely.
    Mr. Wolf. I just worry that, you know, 10 years from now, 
when we think of the Coast Guard, it is going to be a drug 
interdiction agency, and once in a while, if they get a chance, 
they are going to go out and rescue somebody. When I think it 
ought to be a search and rescue orientation. During this grim 
period in our Nation when drugs are coming in, we are using you 
for that. But, in fact, sometimes when Admiral Kramek would 
testify, I thought you ought to be called the Coast Guard and 
Drug Interdiction Agency.
    Just a thought, but I think the basic mission of what you 
do is very, very important; and I think it ought not be 
forgotten. Not that I am suggesting that you are.
    Admiral Loy. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to go on record with 
this committee this morning that our first and foremost 
obligation is that that capability foundation of what we do for 
America is my first order of business. To the degree, built on 
a strong foundation, we can do more for the Nation vis-a-vis 
drugs or anything else that is the mission du jour for a given 
decade, for example, we are delighted to use the multimission 
talents that we have as an organization to do that. But I, 
first and foremost, want to make absolutely certain that my 
readiness foundation for what we have always done and done well 
for America is not flawed; and I am concerned that we are 
getting there.

                      direction-finding equipment

    Mr. Wolf. Well, I agree with that. I think that is very 
important.
    In the Safety Board's field hearings on the MORNING DEW 
accident, an official from the Canadian Coast Guard testified 
that they use modern, low-tech, direction-finding equipment 
which is more advanced than the Coast Guard's equipment. Have 
you evaluated this ``off-the-shelf'' equipment to see whether 
it could be purchased and fielded more quickly than a new 
development?
    Admiral Loy. Direction-finding capability is very much a 
part of the NDRS project, sir; and I have asked my staff to 
accelerate the potential for not only direction-finding 
capability, but also for tape replays.
    Again, walk down to Radio Shack and you can pick up for 
nickels and dimes the wherewithal to have played that tape back 
and hear very carefully what had gone on. The direction-finding 
capability is important because when we get a Mayday, if we 
don't have a sense of where it is coming from, it is a very 
difficult challenge. If we have direction-finding influence, it 
makes the vector from our high-site antenna--you have got a 
line of navigational capability to run down towards where the 
Mayday emanated from.
    So those two functions I have asked them to highlight 
inside the NDRS project so that we address them first.

                            governors island

    Chairman Wolf. Governors Island, are your people still out 
on Governors Island, doing maintenance, cutting the grass?
    Admiral Loy. We are there working, if you will, for GSA.
    Chairman Wolf. How many Coast Guard----
    Admiral Loy. I think we may have about 30 people or so 
there.
    Mr. Wolf. Are they reimbursing you?
    Admiral Loy. Oh, yes, sir. The budget for----
    Mr. Wolf. Why couldn't they hire civilian maintenance? If 
there ever is a civilian maintenance job, I think to have the 
Coast Guard out there cutting the grass when we need you doing 
other things, isn't that not one area that you could just 
contract it out to ABC Lawn and Garden?
    Admiral Loy. I will look into that. It does make a lot of 
sense.
    [The information follows:]

    The Coast Guard uses a 57-person caretaker detachment 
augmented by civilian contractors to protect and maintain 
Governors Island.
    The caretaker detachment is comprised of seven military and 
50 civilian employees. One military person is the caretaker 
detachment supervisor and two perform administrative tasks. The 
remaining four military personnel provide an around-the clock 
Federal law enforcement presence on the island. A Federal law 
enforcement presence is needed because the State of New York 
has not accepted retrocession of jurisdiction pursuant to 
Section 2683 of Title 10, United States Code.
    Approximately half of the 50 civilian employees are fire 
fighters and ferry operators. The remaining workers maintain 
shore facilities.
    In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard used a significant 
amount of contract support to maintain and protect Governors 
Island. Civilian contractors executed virtually all major shore 
facility maintenance projects, and provided security in the 
Manhattan ferry terminal. In fiscal year 1999, the Coast Guard 
awarded a grounds maintenance contract in addition to security 
and shore facility maintenance contracts. The caretaker 
detachment may award additional contracts in lieu of replacing 
civilian employees who are leaving the work force.

    Mr. Wolf. I was out there last year. I think it is kind of 
demeaning, too, to have your Coast Guardsmen out there cutting 
the grass. And you would, obviously, oppose that being a 
gambling facility the way that some in New York City were 
looking toward----
    Admiral Loy. I oppose it unequivocally, sir. That is a 
marvelous piece of American history settled in next to others 
that are perhaps as impacting as any in this Nation's history, 
Ellis Island and the Statue of Liberty.
    Mr. Wolf. It is amazing that somebody would even say that 
when you look out at the Statue of Liberty and all the things 
that happened on that island and then think of it in terms of a 
gambling casino.

                             gaming vessels

    Tell me about the gambling boats. Are you concerned with 
proliferation? We now have these cruises to nowhere that, in 
violation of the State law, go out and gamble three miles off 
and come back in.
    Admiral Loy. I do have a personal moral concern with 
respect to why it is okay on the water and it is not okay on 
the beach. That has always bothered me. Because, for us, it 
offers a potential safety challenge for all of those people 
aboard. And the Coast Guard's concern is for the safety and 
well-being of all the people on board, crew and passengers 
alike, that happen to be on a ship on our waterways offshore.
    So my concerns are that, as we deal with passenger vessels 
period, large and small, cruise ships down to small gambling 
boats on rivers, I want, first and foremost, to be concerned 
about the safety of the passengers on board and their ability 
to get off as necessary should some eventuality occur on board.
    Mr. Wolf. Have you boarded any of these cruises to nowhere, 
gambling ships that have just gone out for the day? The sense 
is, if it is a cruise liner, you know, after dinner people come 
back to their lodging, whereas in these they are out there for 
the day and then they come back in. Alcohol being consumed. 
Have you boarded any of these cruises to nowhere?
    Admiral Loy. I have not been aboard one. It is something 
that I need to get a personal feeling for. Many of my Captains 
of the Port, of course, have been part and parcel of judgments 
associated with Captain of the Port safety implications for 
each and every one.
    Mr. Wolf. That is what I was concerned about. Could you 
take a look at that? Because, again, they are just going out 
for the day. The gambling begins as they go out beyond three 
miles. I understand they are serving alcoholic beverages.
    Admiral Loy. To my knowledge, yes, sir.
    Mr. Wolf. And then they come back in. I just wonder--versus 
a cruise ship that goes from island to island.
    Admiral Loy. I want the inspection and licensing regimes, 
first and foremost, to be as necessary to guarantee the safety 
of the vessels and the people on board. And, secondly, as I 
think you are driving towards, sir, at the long end of their 
day of doing whatever they are doing out there, their capacity 
as individuals to be responsive to the requirement to get off 
the ship are probably less than they were when they sailed. And 
we want very much to be able to guarantee the safety of those 
people at the beginning or at the end of those trips.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you.

                  recruitment of women and minorities

    Mr. Serrano, do you have any questions?
    Mr. Serrano. Just one last one. I guess the good news is 
that the economy is doing much better than expected, and 
probably the bad news----
    Admiral Loy. Is the economy is doing much better than 
expected.
    Mr. Serrano. And you can't get anybody to join the service. 
Perhaps this was touched on before.
    Two quick questions: One, specifically prior to this good 
time and during this good economic time, did the Coast Guard 
have a program to make an effort to recruit more minorities, 
African-American women, Asians, Hispanics, so on? And now, in 
general, are you faced with a problem and are you trying to 
recruit all folks?
    I don't--I always see around my neighborhood in the South 
Bronx, you know, the Army guys and the Air Force guys and so 
on, and yet I have often wondered why in the classroom I don't 
see visiting the schools as many Coast Guard people as there 
could be. Because I bet in many ways that looks much more 
exciting to be at sea and whatever.
    Admiral Loy. Yes, sir. Mr. Serrano, we would be delighted 
to visit those places where you can help us with the recruiting 
end of things, especially in the Bronx. The Coast Guard has 
clearly defined 2015 goals associated with the diverse makeup 
of our organization. It is something I take personally very, 
very seriously.
    On the occasion of my relief of Admiral Kramek, I sat down 
with all of our human resource folks and with our civil rights 
folks with a view towards revalidating those 2015 goals to make 
certain we were going to take a path to get there. I am 
concerned in a number of instances, especially African-
Americans, that we are not keeping the slope of the line 
necessary to reach the 2015 goals we have. I am especially 
concerned in that regard.
    This current effort to close the work force gap that we 
have puts an even greater pressure on my recruiting force out 
there to go towards numbers rather than to go towards the 
specificity of the minority goals along the way, and so I weigh 
the 80-hour work week at my lifeboat station on one hand with 
the absolute commitment that we have as an organization to do 
good things as it relates to diversity.
    We have a human relations dimension to our strategic 
planning forces in the Coast Guard, sir, that looks forward to 
the demographic trends that we see on the horizon. We 
understand that the employer of choice of the future is going 
to be the employer whose working environment offers the 
greatest reflection of diversity that this Nation has at the 
moment. The Coast Guard is a slice of America like any other 
significant organization is, and we are committed to the 
demographic realities of our future.
    Mr. Serrano. Are you happy with the success you have had or 
are you frustrated about that?
    Admiral Loy. I am frustrated, sir. We have gone searching 
for best practice recruiting opportunities. The Army is a very 
good example of an organization that is well beyond, for 
example, in the African-American community, well beyond the 
percentage of makeup in the society at-large. The Army has 
enjoyed terrific recruiting success in terms of employing, if 
you will, African-Americans.
    We are doing well with Hispanics. We are doing well with 
Asian-Americans. We are doing well elsewhere. But for whatever 
set of reasons that we are trying very hard to understand, we 
need to do better with African-Americans, especially in our 
enlisted work force.

                         coast guard visibility

    Mr. Serrano. Let me make one suggestion. I just think that 
the problem has been that you are the least known.
    Admiral Loy. No doubt about it.
    Mr. Serrano. And that is the problem. And it is interesting 
that the least known may be the most attractive, but it is the 
least known.
    Admiral Loy. It is all about size.
    Mr. Serrano. Everything from the AMC movies, which are 
usually about the Army, not about the Coast Guard. From that 
to, you know--I have never seen a Coast Guard movie marathon. 
But that happens. I have dealt with lack of respect at times.
    Admiral Loy. Let me make sure my staff got that down.
    Mr. Serrano. We could do a 3-hour movie marathon of the 
Coast Guard.
    Admiral Loy. Interestingly enough, there have been a couple 
along the way, but they would be old.

                   attractiveness of military service

    Mr. Serrano. I am ready, certainly, as one person to help 
you get your message across, because I think we are certainly 
not around in the era of protest where joining the military was 
the out thing. It is the in thing.
    Admiral Loy. Frankly, I am concerned that we have a 
cultural divide happening in our Nation as it relates to 
military service.
    One of the first questions I asked in the wake of the '98 
election was, okay, how many of the new Members of the Congress 
have served in the Armed Forces, not just in the Coast Guard? 
There are only three House Members and one Senator that have 
ever been on active duty in the Coast Guard, sir. I understood 
that you had service personally. But that thought process is 
very important to having an appreciation from the Congress at 
large for military service from the judicial branch, from the 
White House, or anywhere else. That gulf is happening; and I, 
for one, am very concerned about it.
    The Chairman and I were chatting about it the other day 
simply as it relates to, well, at the other end of the tunnel 
is there a change in the all-volunteer-force thought process 
that might be necessary to enable us to do what we need to do 
just in keeping numbers aboard? I think it is not going to be 
because of this economy or the Bosnias or the Haitis of the 
world, but some significant challenge to America in the future 
would have to be on the horizon before we would make that shift 
back.
    In the meantime, we have to simply acknowledge it is the 
law of the land, and we need to invest adequately. Again, I 
would ask that both the '99 bill and the President's budget for 
2000 offer an adequate investment in people to get numbers 
where we need them to be.
    Thank you for your interest, sir. I will follow up.
    Mr. Serrano. Thank you.
    Mr. Wolf. I think Mr. Serrano raised a good point.
    When I was in Kosovo 2 weeks ago and we stopped and met 
with the soldiers on the border of Macedonia outside of Skopje, 
they were all good, young men. I don't believe there were any 
women there, but I say young men and women. But--on that tour 
the people that I met with are not the sons and daughters, 
necessarily, of the people who are running the country.
    Of course, I come from a blue-collar background. My dad was 
in the Navy. I went in the Army 6 months. I didn't like any 
time I was in there, but it was the best time looking back on 
it.
    I think the military is really going to have to speak out 
and say something, or else we are going to be two different 
societies. We are going to be sending the sons and daughters of 
blue-collar people, and they do an excellent job, as my dad 
did, to fight and die, and then you are going to have two 
different divisions--the division of those who serve and those 
who don't.
    I don't know what the answer is. I was thinking of putting 
in some legislation to set up a national commission just to 
look at it whereby--and perhaps the opportunity of public 
service for teaching. There could be options of whatever and--
but I think the time in public service--and you are in public 
service now. Mr. Serrano is in public service. Everyone sitting 
up here is in public service. And it is very good and important 
for the country, whether you are teaching in the inner city or 
on an Indian reservation or some place or whether you are a 
public health doctor in a place where you can't get doctors or 
you are a Coast Guardsman down in Puerto Rico or you are 
serving America in Macedonia, a little bit of public service is 
very good.
    I made the comment earlier when the FAA was testifying, 
there was a gentleman who I think would be an excellent person 
to work at the FAA. He was working for an airline company, and 
Jane Garvey was testifying, and I made a comment that when you 
read the bio of Joe DiMaggio, there is a 3-year gap. He left 
playing for the Yankees.
    Admiral Loy. Ted Williams did it twice. He went to Korea, 
as well.
    Mr. Wolf. Ted Williams did it, too. And I don't know the 
background, if they were asked or not, but they did it, and 
there was never any complaint. Joe Dimaggio could have said, if 
I had 3 more years as a Yankee I could have set this record and 
that record. But they went, and Ted Williams did, and many 
others. There are many that I don't even know about in pro 
football and pro basketball and pro baseball.
    I think somehow we just have to recapture some of that 
spirit. I don't know how, but maybe a commission made up of 
people who have been enlisted men as well as officers and have 
a broad array to come up and make some recommendations. But I 
think the military is going to have to speak out, and I don't 
think it is the way----
    I saw the Secretary of the Army was talking about lowering 
the standards. I don't think--with the complexity of what these 
young men and women are working with, I think it takes a well-
educated person, too. And they are good. In fact, as I will 
stipulate, the soldiers that I saw a couple weeks ago are as 
good as we ever had in the military. But I would sense, and I 
didn't ask their backgrounds, but most of them probably didn't 
come from families that went off to Harvard and Yale and 
Columbia, but they were more out of the blue-collar families 
who just work hard, have good solid values. But I think it 
would be healthy to have everybody at least have an opportunity 
to have that chance to serve.
    Mr. Serrano. Mr. Chairman, if I may, you have touched on an 
extremely important subject and one that I give a lot of 
thought to.
    It seems to me that during the Vietnam era, as angry or 
supportive as you might be about that engagement, just about 
everybody in your family was in some way or other involved in 
it; and it was a measuring stick across the land, whether you 
were poor or you were middle class. I mean, there was the 
problem with the very wealthy, but that is an age-old problem, 
but everyone participated.
    Now it seems that the military, because there is no draft--
and I am not advocating for a draft--maybe, I don't know, some 
people are not involved, some people are not recruited, some 
people don't want to go, whatever, and you are creating a 
divide. And then, in the strangest way, television doesn't 
help.
    For instance, during the Persian Gulf War, CNN brought to 
our living rooms the war, but it concentrated on that part of 
the world which were the air attacks. Well, the air attacks 
were pilots, and pilots have the highest incidence of college 
degrees in the military. And so every time 15 pilots came back, 
in my neighborhood no one saw any minority pilots coming back. 
And so the feeling was, well, we are not fighting that war. 
Well, then other people may get the feeling, well, they are not 
fighting that war.
    Ironically, the first person to die in the war was a pilot 
from the South Bronx, Captain Rivera. The second person was 
also from my district.
    And the cameras never went in when the ground troops went 
in. Otherwise, you would have seen America when you had seen 
the ground troops, because there was not the other segment.
    So something has to be done, one, to publicize who is in 
the military; and, secondly, to make sure we understand the 
military service is for everyone and that even during peacetime 
or peacekeeping time or during a good economic turn, that there 
is a role for everybody.
    Because I did not enjoy 65 below zero in Alaska. I assure 
you of that. I did not enjoy being a medic and seeing all that 
blood. But I don't regret one minute of what I did, and I think 
it has helped me. And it certainly has helped me, coming from 
where I come from, being able to challenge people when they 
have challenged me. You have nothing on me. I served, too.
    We may reach a point now where we will have 90 percent of 
the Members of Congress voting on military action never knowing 
what that action is about that they are engaging people in; 
and, secondly, that we will have to drop from presidential 
candidates' questions, are you a war hero, because it just 
won't exist any more.
    One last point, which is very interesting. When the Persian 
Gulf War ended, the last day there was still 10 of us on the 
House floor demanding for the war to end right now. And there 
were 10, I remember--I am not going to mention names--demanding 
that the war go on to Baghdad. Ironically, the 10 demanding the 
war to go on to Baghdad had never had service; and the 10 who 
were wanting to stop it this morning had all had service. I 
don't know what that means, but it was interesting that that is 
what happened at the end.
    I certainly think we have to do something just to alert 
people to who is in now and allow people to feel that this is a 
service that is not improper for you. Just because there are 
good jobs out there, there are still pretty good jobs and great 
service in the military.
    Mr. Wolf. I think if you could bring it up when you meet 
with the chiefs, I think, at minimum, there ought to be a 
national commission to just go around the country holding 
hearings and doing--I think it is an initiative people don't 
like to talk about and deal with, but we are going to be facing 
a crisis, particularly if we plus-up the military as I think we 
are going to have to, because Iran, Iraq, Bosnia, the world's a 
very dangerous place, and China, so we are probably as low as 
we are going to be and have to go up. We want to go up, but yet 
you want people to participate. So you might ask.
    In closing, I appreciate your testimony. There will be 
other questions that we will just submit for the record.
    Mr. Wolf. Thank you very much.

[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] 




                           W I T N E S S E S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
Anderson, J.H., Jr...............................................   509
Loy, Adm. J.M....................................................   509
Slater, Hon. R.E.................................................     1
Williamson, R.B..................................................   509


                               I N D E X

                              ----------                              

       Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board

ABA Enforcement..................................................  1036
ABA Guidelines...................................................   989
Accessibility Guidelines and Standards...........................   989
    ABA Guidelines...............................................   989
    Acoustics.................................................992, 1028
    ADA Guidelines...............................................   989
    Codes and Standards.............................993, 995, 997, 1030
    Detectable Warnings.......................................991, 1023
    Electronic and Information Technology.....................991, 1025
    Housing......................................................   989
    Over-the-Road Buses.......................................991, 1022
    Passenger Vessels.........................................991, 1024
    Recreational Facilities...................................990, 1018
    Rulemaking.......................................993-994, 996, 1033
    Telecommunications........................................992, 1027
Acoustics.....................................................992, 1028
ADA Guidelines...................................................   989
Architectural Barriers Act (ABA) Compliance and Enforcement......   997
    ABA Compliance......................................998, 1000, 1002
    Working in Partnership with Agencies.................999, 1001-1002
Biography of June Isaacson Kailes................................  1010
Budget Request................................................987, 1038
Codes and Standards....................................993, 995, 997, 1
Detectable Warnings...........................................991, 1023
Electronic and Information Technology.........................991, 1025
Government Performance and Results Act Annual Performance Plan...   987
Housing..........................................................   989
Key Station Compliance...........................................  1014
    Responses from the Department of Transportation..............  1015
Leading Source of Information...........................1004, 1006, 100
New Responsibilities.............................................  1013
Over-The-Road Buses...........................................991, 1022
Passenger Vessels.............................................991, 1024
Recreational Facilities.......................................990, 1018
Research.........................................................  1034
Responses from the Department of Transportation..................  1015
Rulemaking.............................................993-994, 996, 10
Technical Assistance.............................................  1002
    Leading Source of Information......................1004, 1006, 1008
Telecommunications............................................992, 1027
Working in Partnership with Agencies.....................999, 1001-1002

                              Coast Guard

Academy:
    Cadet Fund...................................................   831
    Decline in Graduates from Some Academic Disciplines..........   662
    Risk-Taking Skills in the Leadership Development Program.....   663
    Targets for Cost per Graduate................................   661
    Verbal SAT Scores............................................   662
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I):
    Agency Capital Plan..........................................   563
    Aircraft, see: Aircraft
    Alteration of Bridges, see: Alteration of Bridges
    BUSL, see: Stern-Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL)
    Capital Needs, GAO Opening Statement.........................   510
    Capital Planning Process--Levels of Funding..................   877
    Capital Planning Process--Plan Release Date..................   878
    Capital Projects Funding Shortages...........................   517
    Closure of Great Lakes Units.................................   559
    Consolidation of Training Facilities, see: Training 
      Facilities
    Core Acquisition Costs.......................................   813
    Deepwater, see: Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis
    Difference Between Fiscal Year 2000 Estimate and Fiscal Year 
      2000 Request...............................................   756
    DOT Unfavorable Trends Definition............................   759
    EDENTON, see: EDENTON
    Funding......................................................   562
    GLIB, see: Great Lakes Heavy Icebreaking Capability 
      Replacement Analysis
    GSA Rent--Fiscal Year 2000 Request...........................   728
    GSA Rental Costs for Fiscal Years 1995-1999..................   727
    HEALY, see: HEALY
    Housing, see: Housing
    Increase in Obligations......................................   759
    Investment Board.............................................   565
    Land Acquisition.............................................   797
    Modernization, see: Modernization
    MLB, see: Motor Lifeboat (MLB)
    NDS, see: National Distress and Response System (NDRS) 
      Modernization
    Personnel Costs, see: Personnel
    Personnel, see: Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements 
      (AC&I) Personnel
    Polar Class Icebreaker, see: Polar Class Icebreaker
    Project Changes Between Fiscal Year 2000 Estimate and Request   757
    Project Deviation Reports....................................   759
    Project Outyear Cost Estimates...............................   753
    Surface Search Radar, see: Surface Search Radar
    Shore Facilities, see: Shore Facilities
    Unobligated Balances.......................................746, 751
    Upgraded Communications......................................   586
    WLB, see: Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB)
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I) Personnel:
    Additional Personnel.........................................   813
    Full-Time Equivalents (FTE)..................................   808
    Improvements.................................................   530
    Increase in Direct Personnel Costs...........................   812
    Listing......................................................   804
    Project Resident Office Personnel............................   812
Agency Capital Plan, see: Acquisition, Construction, and 
  Improvements (AC&I)
Aids to Navigation (ATON):
    ACOE Upgrade of Channel in Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays.....   702
    BUSL, see: Stern-Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL)
    GPS, see: Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS)
    LORAN-C, see: Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN-C)
    Navigational Markings in Timbalier and Terrebonne Bays, LA...   701
    Projects.....................................................   798
    Project Backlog..............................................   803
    WLB, see: Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB)
Air Stations/Air Facilities:
    Air Facility Long Island: Projected Fiscal Year 2000 Savings.   699
    Air Station Muskegon: Projected Fiscal Year 2000 Savings.....   699
    Air Station Muskegon: Proposed Closure.......................   699
    Lake Michigan Air Facilities.................................   559
    Proposal to Close Air Facility Long Island...................   696
Airborne Use of Force:
    Affect of Armor Weight on Coast Guard Helicopters............   882
    Airborne Use of Force Activities.............................   678
    Airborne Use of Force Plans................................585, 881
    Airborne Use of Force Program................................   574
    Funding for Test of Airborne Use of Force....................   678
    Lease of Helicopters for Use of Force Proof of Concept.......   882
    Use of Force from Aircraft...................................   881
    Use of Force from Coast Guard Aircraft Impact on General 
      Aviation...................................................   679
    Use of Hardened Helicopters in Aircraft Use of Force Testing.   679
Aircraft:
    Additional Maritime Patrol Aircraft..........................   889
    Airborne Use of Force, see: Airborne Use of Force
    Fiscal Year 1999 Aircraft Maintenance Funding................   718
    Fiscal Year 2000 Aircraft Maintenance Funding................   718
    Fiscal Year 2000 Funding for HH-65-FADEC.....................   783
    HC-130 Side-Looking Airborne Radar AC&I Funding..............   783
    HH-65 Engine Control Program AC&I Funding....................   783
    HH-65 Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC)..........   781
    HH-65 Helicopter FADEC Obligation Schedule...................   781
    HH-65 Mishaps Involving the Engine Control System............   782
    Maritime Patrol Aircraft Shortfall...........................   888
    Power Availability for Sensor Enhancements on the HH-65......   782
    Reactivation of HU-25s.......................................   682
    Specific Emitter Identification System, see: Specific Emitter 
      Identification System
ALEX HALEY, USCGC, see: EDENTON:
Alteration of Bridges:
    Program Status...............................................   814
    Administration Funds Transfer................................   815
    Department of Defense Bridge Funding.........................   816
    Naval Reserve Basin..........................................   816
    Sidney Lanier Bridge Project.................................   816
Asset Sales:
    Expected Asset Sale Collections..............................   745
    Governors Island, see: Governors Island, New York
    Former LORAN Station at Upolu Point, Hawaii..................   746
    Former LORAN Station at Upola Point, Hawaii-Offsetting 
      Collections................................................   746
    Properties Expected to be Surplus............................   744
Ballast Water Management:
    Activities...................................................   729
    Budget Data Update...........................................   728
Boating Safety:
    Billets, see: Personnel
    Boating Safety Funding.......................................   821
    Federal and State Funding....................................   820
    Grant Funding for Fiscal Years 1994-2000.....................   822
    Grant Program Administrative Costs...........................   821
    Personal Watercraft, see: Personal Watercraft
    State Matching Funds.........................................   817
Budget:
    AC&I, see: Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements (AC&I)
    Advisory and Assistance Services.............................   667
    Aircraft Operating Costs, see: Aircraft
    Air Facility Closure Savings, see: Air Stations/Air 
      Facilities
    Alteration of Bridge, see: Alteration of Bridge
    Budget Growth by Mission.....................................   656
    Boating Safety, see: Boating Safety
    C2CEN Budget, see: Shore Facilities
    Cadet Fund, see: Academy
    Capital Planning/Needs, see: Acquisition, Construction, and 
      Improvements (AC&I)
    Configuration Management.....................................   780
    Cost Accounting System.......................................   760
    Cutter Operating Costs, see: Cutters
    Deepwater, see: Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis
    Disaster Relief, see: Disaster Relief
    Drug Interdiction Budget, see: Drug Interdiction
    EC&R, see: Environmental Compliance and Restoration (EC&R)
    FADEC, see: Aircraft
    Fiscal Year 1999 Supplemental Funding, see: Fiscal Year 1999 
      Supplemental Funding
    Fuel and Energy Costs, see: Fuel and Energy Costs
    Governors Island, see: Governors Island
    Mass Transit Subsidy Benefit Program, see: Mass Transit 
      Subsidy Benefit Program
    MISLE, see: MISLE
    MWR, see: Morale, Well-Being, and Recreation
    OE, see Operating Expenses (OE)
    Offsetting Collections--``Other Miscellaneous Agencies''.....   601
    Other Activities.............................................   737
    OSLTF, see: Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)
    Pay and Compensation, see: Pay and Compensation
    Personnel Costs, see: Personnel
    Potential Cost Savings/Funding Resources, GAO Opening........   510
    Printing and Reproduction--Fiscal Year 1999 Estimate.........   666
    Printing and Reproduction--Increase in Expenses..............   666
    Recruiting, see: Recruiting
    Requests.....................................................   526
    RDT&E, see: Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation 
      (RDT&E)
    RT, see: Reserve Training Appropriations (RT)
    RP, see: Retired Pay (RP)
    Streamlining, see Streamlining
    Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, see: Disaster 
      Relief
    Themes.......................................................   527
    Training and Education, see: Training and Education
    Travel Costs, see: Travel
    Troops to Teachers, see: Troops to Teachers
Buoy Boat Replacement Program:
    BUSL, see: Stern-Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL)
Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB):
    Annualization of Funding.....................................   680
    ``Waterfall'' Schedule.......................................   765
Coast Guard Personnel Command:
    Comparison with Similar Organizations........................   665
    Command Positions............................................   664
Cost of Living Allowance, Continental U.S. (CONUS COLA):
    Assumptions..................................................   636
    CONUS COLA--Request..........................................   632
    CONUS COLA--Eligible Locations...............................   632
    CONUS COLA--Eligible Locations Added/Deleted.................   635
    DOD Criteria and Cut-Off Threshold...........................   636
Cutters:
    ALEX HALEY, see: EDENTON
    BUSL, see: Stern-Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL)
    CPB, see: Coastal Patrol Boat (CPB)
    Decommissioning of Harbor Tugs...............................   739
    Decommissioning of POINT HOBART..............................   575
    Deployable Pursuit Boats.....................................   682
    EDENTON, see: EDENTON
    Fuel Costs, see: Fuel and Energy Costs
    HEALY, see: HEALY
    MACKINAW, see: MACKINAW
    Missions and Operating Areas of Deployable Pursuit Boats.....   681
    MLB, see: Motor Lifeboat (MLB)
    Number of Cutters and Boats Being Decommissioned.............   726
    Operational Costs............................................   659
    Polar Class Icebreakers, see: Polar Class Icebreakers
    T-AGOS Military Sea Lift Command Agreement...................   680
    Vessel Storage Costs Prior to Disposal.......................   725
    WLB, see: Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB)
Deepwater Capability Replacement Analysis:
    Contract Award Intentions....................................   570
    Complexity of Project........................................   570
    Deferment of Aircraft Component..............................   572
    Department of Defense Support................................   569
    Determination of Requirements by Private Contractors.........   572
    Fiscal Year 1999 Reprogramming...............................   777
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request..............................   776
    Funding......................................................   569
    GAO Opening Statement........................................   509
    GAO Written Statement........................................   513
    Impact of Supplemental Funding...............................   584
    Inadequacy of Deep Water Project Justification...............   571
    Industry Team Funding and Tasking............................   775
    Modeling and Simulation......................................   878
    Project Consortia............................................   568
    Project Costs................................................   568
    Project Risks................................................   570
    Reprogramming Justification..................................   777
    Technical Support and Analysis Costs.........................   774
Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS):
    Global Positioning System (GPS) Policy.......................   877
Direction-Finding Equipment, see: National Distress and Response 
  System Modernization
Disaster Relief:
    Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief.....................   601
    Use of Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief..............   601
Drug Interdiction:
    Activities...................................................   536
    Additional Funds Required for Siting of Fiscal Year 1999.....   803
    Additional Patrol Aircraft Rerquirements, see: Aircraft
    Borrowing from Other Missions................................   574
    Budget.......................................................   689
    Changes in Cost Allocations..................................   879
    Counterdrug Asset Follow-On Funding..........................   676
    Counterdrug Budgets..........................................   672
    Counterdrug Data Source......................................   686
    Counterdrug Efforts..........................................   527
    Counterdrug Operating Expenses...............................   573
    Counterdrug Responsiveness, USCG Opening Statement...........   527
    Crewing New Drug Interdiction Assets.........................   584
    Detachments Aboard Navy Ships................................   580
    Deterrence Measurement.......................................   685
    Deterrence Use...............................................   688
    Drug Seizures versus Operating Hours.........................   684
    Estimating Counterdrug Operations Cost.....................690, 880
    Fiscal Year 1998 Drug Seizures...............................   688
    Fiscal Year 1999 Supplemental Funding for Drug Interdiction, 
      see: Fiscal Year 1999 Supplemental Funding
    Funding......................................................   557
    Impact of Coast Guard's Drug Interdiction Success............   686
    Impact of Funding on Seizure Rate............................   550
    Impact of Maritime Interdiction Success on Land Interdiction.   687
    Mexico, Certification of.....................................   573
    Modifications Relating to Homeporting of Drug Interdiction 
      Assets.....................................................   802
    M/V CANNES Seizure...........................................   554
    Needs and Threats............................................   549
    New Assets...................................................   581
    Operating Expenses Drug Interdiction Budget..................   690
    Operation FRONTIER SHIELD....................................   551
    Priority of Drug Interdiction................................   558
    Second Year Funding Authorized in Western Hemisphere Drug 
      Elimination Act............................................   880
    Specific Emitter Identification System, see: Specific Emitter 
      Identification System
    Support of Drug Interdiction Needs...........................   549
EDENTON:
    Additional Conversion Funding................................   691
    Horsepower Comparison With Polar Class Icebreakers...........   693
    Operating Funds..............................................   693
    Operational Impact of USCGC ALEX HALEY.......................   692
    Schedule.....................................................   691
Environmental Compliance and Restoration (EC&R):
    Environmental Compliance Programs and Activities.............   827
    List of Cleanup Sites Under $500,000.........................   826
    Recoveries of Prior Year Obligations.........................   828
FAA Franchise Fund...............................................   596
FAA Reauthorization Impact.....................................539, 560
FADEC, see: Aircraft
Fiscal Year 1998 Accomplishments.................................   526
Fiscal Year 1999 Supplemental Funding:
    Disaster Relief..............................................   600
    Drug Interdiction............................................   597
    General......................................................   597
Fishing Vessel Accidents, see: Marine Safety
Fisheries Enforcement, see: Living Marine Resource Management
Fleet Logistics System:
    Procurement Plan.............................................   784
FRONTIER SHIELD, Operation, see: Drug Interdiction
Fuel and Energy Costs:
    Assumptions..................................................   645
    Breakdown by Type............................................   645
    Coast Guard-Owned Housing....................................   646
    Cutter Duel Costs--by PPA Category...........................   646
    Housing Energy Conservation and Incentives...................   647
Gaming Vessels...................................................   588
Great Lakes Heavy Icebreaking Capability Replacement Analysis:
    Budget for Great Lakes Icebreaking Program Evaluation........   891
    General......................................................   891
    Great Lakes Icebreaking Program Evaluation...................   890
    Great Lakes Icebreaking User Fee, see: User Fees
    MACKINAW Replacement versus Deepwater........................   556
    Replacement Design Funds.....................................   892
    Replacement Technical Feasibility............................   892
    Status of MACKINAW Replacement...............................   555
Global Positioning System (GPS), see: Differential Global 
  Positioning System (DGPS)
Governors Island, New York:
    Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2000 Budget..........................   612
    Reimbursement for Protecting and Maintaining.................   611
    Status.....................................................588, 610
Health Care:
    Cost Containment.............................................   644
    Improved Health Care Billing Practices.......................   644
    Inflation of Costs...........................................   643
    Retiree Medical Care, see: Retired Pay (RP)
    Telemedicine Projects........................................   643
HEALY:
    Avondale Shipyard Performance................................   696
    Capability...................................................   694
    Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Requirements........................   767
    Impact on Polar Class Schedules..............................   694
    Status of Shipbuilding Contract..............................   695
Housing:
    Efficiencies.................................................   647
    Energy Costs, see: Fuel and Energy Costs
    Lease Subsidy Program........................................   648
    Projects Schedule............................................   799
Human Resources Information System:
    Fiscal Year 2000 Funding.....................................   794
    Information System...........................................   793
Icebreaking:
    Great Lakes, see: Great Lakes Heavy Icebreaking Capability 
      Replacement Analysis
    HEALY, see: HEALY
    MACKINAW, see: MACKINAW
    Polar Class Icebreakers, see: Polar Class Icebreakers
Intelligence:
    Adequacy of Intelligence Support.............................   555
    Capability and Support.......................................   554
    Investment in Intelligence Activities........................   561
    Human Intelligence versus Technical Information..............   561
    Needs........................................................   554
    Problems.....................................................   560
    Specific Emitter Identification System, see: Specific Emitter 
      Identification System
Law Enforcement:
    Airborne Use of Force, see: Airborne Use of Force
    Drug Interdiction, see: Drug Interdication
    Research.....................................................   833
    Seizure of Foreign Vessels...................................   578
Living Marine Resource Management:
    Fishing Vessel Accidents, see: Marine Safety
    Gulf Coast Fisheries Management..............................   731
    Northeast Fisheries..........................................   893
Long Range Aid to Navigation (LORAN-C):
    Continuation Funding.........................................   874
    EUROFIX and LORAN............................................   876
    Fiscal Year 2000 Recapitalization Funding....................   875
    Possible LORAN Upgrade Savings...............................   794
    Results of EUROFIX Test......................................   876
    Status of LORAN-C Report.....................................   875
    Termination/Decommissioning Costs............................   794
MACKINAW:
    Containing Cost Increases....................................   734
    Operations and Maintenance Costs...........................734, 889
    Replacement, see: Great Lakes Heavy Icebreaking Capability 
      Replacement Analysis
Marine Environmental Protection:
    OSLTF, see: Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF)
Marine Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE):
    Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Justifications.......................   788
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Details..............................   787
    Fiscal Year 2000 Schedule....................................   789
Marine Safety:
    Fishing Vessel Accidents.....................................   546
    MSD Concord Closure Status...................................   700
    MSD Concord Report Status....................................   700
Mass Transit Subsidy Benefit Program:
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Request..............................   630
    Cost.........................................................   631
Mexico, Certification of, see: Drug Interdiction
Modernization:
    USCG Opening Statement.......................................   530
    USCG Written Statement.......................................   534
Morale, Well-Being, and Recreation (MWR):
    Budget Justification Estimates...............................   651
    Child Care Center Costs......................................   650
    Fiscal Year 2000 Appropriated Fund Support...................   650
    Fiscal Year 2000 Budget Increase.............................   652
    Funding Support..............................................   652
    Percentage of Appropriated Fund Support......................   651
    Retail Exchange Support......................................   650
MORNING DEW:
    Case.........................................................   546
    Increased Watching, see: Watching
Motor Lifeboat (MLB):
    Sailaway Costs...............................................   767
    Status.......................................................   767
M/V CANNES Seizure, see: Drug Interdiction
National Distress and Response System (NDRS) Modernization:
    Budget Request Increase......................................   789
    Cost Baseline................................................   791
    Cost Estimates...............................................   791
    Direction-Finding Equipment..................................   587
    Engineering Concurrency and Risk Assessment..................   790
    Initial Operating Capability.................................   885
    NDRSMP versus VHF-FM Upgrade Project.........................   883
    Operational Requirements.....................................   792
    Schedule..............................................586, 792, 884
    Systems Features.............................................   886
    VHF-FM Upgrade Project Development...........................   883
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 
  Intergovernmental Reimbursement, see: Reimbursements
National Telecommunications and Information Administration, 
  Intergovernmental Reimbursement, see: Reimbursements
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF):
    Emergency Fund Obligations...................................   830
    Payment of Claims............................................   829
Opening Statement:
    GAO:
        Deepwater................................................   509
        Capital Needs............................................   510
        Potential Cost Savings/Funding Resources.................   510
    USCG:
        Budget Request...........................................   526
        Budget Themes............................................   527
        Counterdrug Responsiveness...............................   527
        Current Capability.......................................   530
        Fiscal Year 1998 Accomplishments.........................   526
        Personnel................................................   530
        Modernization............................................   530
        Readiness................................................   528
Operating Expenses (OE):
    Budget, see: Budget
    Drug Interdiction, see: Drug Interdiction
    Cutter Operating Costs, see: Cutters
    Fourteenth District Operating Funds (Honolulu)...............   708
    Housing, see: Housing
    ``Other Miscellaneous Services''.............................   672
    ``Other Services'' Obligations...............................   670
    ``Other Services'' Obligations--FY98.........................   671
    Pacific Area Operating Funds.................................   708
    Reserve Training Appropriations (RT) Reimbursement to OE--
      Alternate Mechanism........................................   865
    Reserve Training Appropriations (RT) Reimbursement to OE--
      Review of Practices........................................   865
    Seventeenth District Operating Funds (Juneau)................   709
    Specific Emitter Identification System, see: Specific Emitter 
      Identification System Travel Costs, see: Travel
Pay and Compensation:
    Active Duty Accessions and Work Force Strength...............   615
    Additional Pay Requirements..................................   630
    Average Total Earned Compensation Table......................   628
    Breakdown of the Total Pay Raise by Type...................615, 631
    Bonuses and Awards...........................................   639
    CONUS COLA, see: Cost of Living Allowance, Continental U.S. 
      (CONUS COLA)
    Fiscal Year 1999 Basic Military Compensation (BMC) Tables....   625
    Fiscal Year 1999 Detailed Regular Military Compensation (RMC) 
      Tables.....................................................   622
    Health Care, see: Health Care
    Impact of Retention Incentives on Aviator Retention, see: 
      Retention Initiatives
    Military Pension Plan, see: Retired Pay (RP)
    Pay Raise Base Explanation...................................   614
    Personnel Funding............................................   665
    Raise........................................................   546
    Request for Senior Executive Service Bonuses.................   637
    Retirement Pay, see: Retired Pay (RP)
    Senior Executive Services Bonuses............................   637
    Senior Executive Services Bonuses--Comparison with Other 
      Agencies...................................................   638
    Special Pays.................................................   668
    Special Personal Services Payments...........................   667
    Tuition Assistance, see: Training and Education
Personal Protective Equipment, see: Search and Rescue
Personal Watercraft:
    Rental Checklist.............................................   824
    Safety Leadership............................................   823
    Safety Standards.............................................   824
    Steering Control Research....................................   825
Personnel:
    AC&I personnel, see: Acquisition, Construction, and 
      Improvements (AC&I) Personnel
    Academy, see: Academy
    Additional Child Care Positions..............................   649
    Billet Increases for Admirals................................   621
    Coast Guard Personnel Command, see: Coast Guard Personnel 
      Command
    CONUS COLA, see: Cost of Living Allowance, Continental U.S. 
      (CONUS COLA)
    Deaths on Active Duty........................................   540
    District Office-Billet Level Comparison......................   659
    District Offices-Comparison of Current and Fiscal Year 1996 
      Billet Levels..............................................   660
    Headquarters Administration................................714, 717
    Headquarters Billets.........................................   709
    Headquarters Managed Units...................................   735
    Headquarters Public Affairs Staff............................   715
    Headquarters Staffing........................................   716
    Health Care, see: Health Care
    Housing, see: Housing
    Mass Transit Subsidy Benefit Program, see: Mass Transit 
      Subsidy Benefit Program
    Military/Civilian Conversion...............................542, 567
    Military/Civilian Mix.................................612, 640, 565
    Military/Civilian Mix Comparison to Other Military Services..   613
    Military Personnel Issues....................................   620
    Officer Billets..............................................   619
    Pay and Compensation, see: Pay and Compensation
    Personnel Assigned to Cutters and Air Stations...............   639
    Personnel Serving 20 Years...................................   542
    Personnel, USCG Opening Statement............................   530
    Projected Changes to Military/Civilian Mix in Fiscal Year 
      2000.......................................................   613
    Public Affairs Field Staff...................................   716
    Recruiting, see: Recruiting
    Reserves see: Reserve Program
    Retail Exchange Support, see: Morale, Well-Being, and 
      Recreation (MWR)
    Travel Costs, see: Travel
    Tuition Assistance, see: Pay and Compensation
    VTIS Los Angeles/Long Beach Billets..........................   724
    Warrant Officer Billet Decreases.............................   620
    Work Force Strength..........................................   558
Polar Class Icebreakers:
    Fiscal Year 2000 Funding Items...............................   779
    Impact of Fiscal Year 1999 Congressional Action..............   780
    Maintenance and Reliability Problems.........................   778
    Polar Icebreakers Reimbursement, see: Reimbursement
    Reliability Improvement Project (RIP)--AC&I versus OE........   778
Ports and Waterways Safety System (PAWSS), see: Vessel Traffic 
  Services (VTS)
Puerto Rico:
    Activities in Puerto Rico....................................   578
    Puerto Rico Child Development Centers........................   649
Questions For the Record:
    Chairman Wolf................................................   595
    Representative Callahan......................................   888
    Representative Obey..........................................   889
    Representative Olver.........................................   893
Readiness:
    USCG Opening Statement.....................................528, 530
    Operational Readiness......................................543, 546
    USCG Written Statement.......................................   533
    Modernization, see: Modernization
Recruiting:
    Additional Recruiting Funds..................................   739
    Additional Recruiting Capacity...............................   738
    Attractiveness of Military Service...........................   591
    Coast Guard Visibility.....................................541, 590
    Issues.......................................................   559
    Personnel, see: Personnel
    Reserves, see: Reserve Program
    Retention, see: Retention Initiatives
    General......................................................   541
    Women and Minorities.........................................   589
Reimbursement:
    Intragovernmental Reimbursements to NOAA and NTIA............   727
    Polar Icebreaking Reimbursement..............................   604
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E):
    Budget Increase..............................................   832
    Research and Development Center Operating Costs..............   832
Reserve Program:
    Career Counseling............................................   868
    Coast Guard Reserve Strength.................................   869
    Effective Employment of Reservists...........................   873
    Increasing Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) from 8,000 
      to 12,293..................................................   873
    Operation SUMMERSTOCK........................................   870
    Provision for Flag Rank Director of Coast Guard Service......   866
    Reserve Personnel Allowance List (RPAL) Flexibility..........   872
    Reserve Program Administrator (RPA) Functions................   866
    Reserve Program Administrator (RPA) Assignments..............   867
    Reserve Roles and Missions Study.............................   868
    Reserve Training, see: Reserve Training Appropriation (RT)
    Reservists on Extended Active Duty (EAD).....................   869
    Travel to Drill Site.........................................   871
    Unfilled Requests............................................   871
Reserve Training Appropriation (RT):
    Comparison of Enlisted Personnel Onboard and Billets.........   835
    Full-Time Support Billets....................................   867
    Report to Congress on Reserve Recruiting.....................   843
    O&M of Training Facilities for Reservists....................   835
    Operating Expenses, see: Operating Expenses (OE)
    Supplemental Readiness Funds.................................   843
Retention Initiatives:
    Aviator Retention Options....................................   641
    Impact of Retention Incentives on Aviator Retention..........   640
    Selective Reenlistment Bonus (SRB) Program...................   641
Retired Pay (RP):
    Cost Increase................................................   834
    Military Pension Plan........................................   543
Roles and Missions Study, Coast Guard:
    Integrated Operations Command Concept Evaluation.............   607
    Interagency Task Force on Roles and Missions Coast Guard 
      Detailees..................................................   706
    Interagency Task Force on Roles and Missions Member Listing..   702
    Interagency Task Force on Roles and Missions Membership 
      Selection..................................................   705
    Interagency Task Force on Roles and Missions Work Schedule 
      and Product................................................   706
    Presidential Advisory Council on Roles and Missions..........   567
    Presidential Advisory Council on Roles and Missions Budget 
      Requirement................................................   707
Seagoing Buoy Tender (WLB):
    Contract Savings.............................................   765
    Design and Construction Status...............................   762
    Fiscal Year 2000 WLB Sailaway Costs..........................   763
    Unfunded Liabilities.........................................   764
    WLB Construction Contract Summary............................   764
Search and Rescue (SAR):
    As a Core Mission............................................   587
    MORNING DEW, see: MORNING DEW
    NDS, see: National Distress and Response System (NDRS) 
      Modernization
    Personal Protective Equipment................................   724
    Watchstanding, see: Watchstanding
Shore Facilities:
    Air Stations/Air Facilities, see: Air Stations/Air Facilities
    C2CEN Budget Estimate........................................   737
    Excess Properties, see: Asset Sales
    FDCCs, see: Facilities Design and Construction Centers
    Group/Station New Orleans Relocation Schedule................   800
    Impact of Hurricane Georges on Group/Station New Orleans 
      Relocation.................................................   801
    Marine Safety Office/Station Cleveland Relocation Award......   802
    Marine Safety Office/Station Cleveland Relocation Site.......   801
    Marine Safety Office/Station Cleveland Relocation Sitework...   801
    Operations and Maintenance...................................   658
    Operations Systems Center (OSC) Budget Increase..............   737
    Survey and Design............................................   795
    Survey and Design Funding Level..............................   798
    Survey and Design Justification..............................   797
    Training Facilities, see: Training Facilities
Specific Emitter Identification System:
    General......................................................   683
    Acquisition..................................................   684
    Prototyping..................................................   683
Stern-Loading Buoy Boat (BUSL):
    Waterfall Schedule...........................................   768
Streamlining Savings.............................................   608
Surface Search Radar (SSR):
    Actual Average Unit Cost.....................................   774
    Waterfall Schedule...........................................   769
Supplemental Funding for Disaster Relief, see: Disaster Relief
Training and Education:
    Academy, see: Academy
    Postgraduate Education.......................................   664
    Optimization of Coast Guard Training Infrastructure..........   608
    Tuition Assistance...........................................   648
Training Facilities:
    Consolidation................................................   566
    Consolidation & Environmental Assessment.....................   609
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC)..............   595
Travel:
    Atlantic City, NJ............................................   606
    California & Washington......................................   606
    Wisconsin & Washington.......................................   607
    Reduction in Non-Operational Travel..........................   620
    Travel Costs by Appropriation................................   605
Troops to Teachers Program:
    Funding......................................................   618
    Participation................................................   618
    Savings......................................................   618
    Troops to Cops Program.......................................   619
User Fees:
    Collections..................................................   733
    Final Rule...................................................   732
    Fiscal Year 1996 Receipts....................................   744
    Implementation...............................................   733
    Methodology for Pricing User Fees............................   761
    Great Lakes Icebreaking User Fee.............................   761
    New Navigation User Fee......................................   760
    Structure for Navigation Services............................   761
    User Fee Report..............................................   741
Vessel Storage Costs Prior to Disposal, see: Cutters
Vessel Traffic Services (VTSs):
    Additional PA WSS Ports......................................   786
    Operations and Maintenance Costs.............................   653
    PA WSS Community Involvement.................................   786
    Valdez PA WSS Selection......................................   785
Watchstanders:
    Basis of Shifts for Watchstanders............................   886
    Increased Watchstanding......................................   888
    Oversight of Watchstanders...................................   887
    Watchstander Personal Business Policy........................   887
Written Statement:
    GAO:
        Biography of Mr. John H. Anderson, Jr....................   525
        Biography of Mr. Randall B. Williamson...................   525
        Justification of Deepwater...............................   513
        Funding Shortages for Capital Projects...................   517
    USCG:
        Biography of Admiral James M. Loy, USCG..................   538
        Conclusion...............................................   537
        Drug Interdiction Activities.............................   536
        Moderization.............................................   534
        People...................................................   533
        Readiness................................................   533
Year 2000 (Y2K) Technology Problem:
    Activities...................................................   723
    Coast Guard Views............................................   723
    Impact on Cruise Ships.......................................   581
    Impact on Oil Transport......................................   580
    Impact on Other Agencies.....................................   577
    Impact of Y2K Technology Problem.............................   576
    Oil Tankers Issues...........................................   719

                      Office of Inspector General

Attrition Rates, FY 1998-2000....................................   899
Auditing of DOT Consolidated Financial Statement.................   897
Audit by OIG:
    Average Time Between Draft/Final Report......................   914
    Average Time to Complete.....................................   915
    Most Staff-Intensive.........................................   916
Ongoing Assignments..............................................   908
    Planned Assignments..........................................   911
    Planned Assignments Not Started..............................   913
Aviation Trust Fund Reimbursements...............................   920
Budget Request Increases.........................................   921
Charts:
    Average Time Between Draft/Final Report......................   914
    Average Time to Complete OIG Audits..........................   915
    Costs to Audit Financial Statements..........................   907
    OIG Authorized FTE by Fiscal Year............................   897
    Ongoing Audit Assignments....................................   908
    Planned Audit Assignments....................................   911
    Dollar Value of OIG Aviation Work............................   921
DOT Consolidated Financial Statement.............................   897
FAA Financial Statements.........................................   897
Field Offices, Location and Staffing.............................   923
Financial Statements:
    Costs to Audit...............................................   907
    For FAA......................................................   897
    For Highway Trust Fund.......................................   897
FTEs:
    OIG Authorized by Fiscal Year................................   897
    Requested Increase...........................................   895
GSA, Rental Payments to..........................................   905
Health Care, Cost Increases Within OIG...........................   900
Highway Trust Fund Financial Statements..........................   897
Motor-Fuel Tax Evasion, OIG Countermeasures......................   918
OIG Operating Costs/Contractual Services FY 99-00................   903
OMB Financial Auditing Requests, OIG.............................   897
Personnel Attrition Rates, FY 1998-2000..........................   899
Planned Audit Assignments Not Started............................   913
Rental Payments to GSA...........................................   905
Requested FTE Increase...........................................   895
Spending of Additional FY 99 Funds Authorized by Conference 
  Report.........................................................   898
Tables:
    Annual Percentage Increase in OIG Budget.....................   922
    Data on College Recruitment..................................   917
    Internal Audit FTEs..........................................   896
    Location of Field Offices and Staff Numbers..................   923
    Most Staff-Intensive Audits..................................   916
    OIG Health-Care Cost Increases...............................   900
    Salaries, Immediate Office of IG.............................   902
    SES Bonuses and Non-SES Merit Pay............................   901

               Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Aviation Data:
    Modernization................................................   222
    New System...................................................   224
    Origin and Destination Survey................................   225
Budget-Miscellaneous:
    Advisory Committees..........................................   408
    Authorizing Legislation--Programs Requiring..................   417
    Automated Rulemaking System..................................   234
    CBO Scoring Differences......................................   419
    Contract Appeals Board.......................................   397
    DOT Center on Transportation Environmental Analysis and 
      Forecasting................................................   212
    Economic and International Trade.............................   214
    FAA's Payroll and Accounting System..........................   202
    Harmonization of Freight Tag Technology......................   226
    Human Resource Information System............................   199
    Information Technology (Clinger-Cohen Act)...................   285
    Interagency Personnel Agreement..............................   215
    Internet/Intranet.....................................164, 165, 166
    Management Initiatives.......................................   197
    Marine Passenger Vessels.....................................   213
    Medical Service on Aircraft..................................   212
    National Performance Review..................................   286
    New Programs and Terminations................................   422
    North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)..................   221
    Office of Administration.....................................   194
    Office of the CIO............................................   175
    Office of Intelligence and Security..........................   171
    Office of Intermodalism......................................   158
    Payroll Processing System (CUPS).............................   192
    Presidential Directives 62 and 63............................   425
    Public/Private Partnerships..................................   181
    Radionavigation..............................................   217
    Reception and Representation Expenses........................   395
    Reimbursables (Salaries & Expenses)..........................   400
    Salaries & Expenses........................................151, 153
    Special Background Investigations............................   198
    Transportation Planning Research & Development (TPR&D).....211, 228
    User Fees..................................................148, 149
    Y2K Transfer.................................................   150
Civil Rights:
    Alternative Dispute Resolution...............................   207
    Cases......................................................203, 210
    Staffing...................................................203, 204
    Tracking System..............................................   205
Docket Management System:
    Progress Update..............................................   232
    Total Cost and Schedule......................................   233
Electronic Grants System:
    Cost and Schedule by Element.................................   236
    Obligations by Element.......................................   238
    Total Cost...................................................   236
Essential Air Service and Safety Projects at Rural Airports:
    Appropriation Offsets........................................   266
    Subsidy Rates................................................   267
    Safety at Rural Airports.....................................   277
Nassif Building:
    Status and Cost..............................................   278
Olympics Games in Salt Lake City:
    Funding......................................................   297
Personnel Benefits:
    Contributions to FERS........................................   414
    Pay and Non-Pay COLAs........................................   415
Personnel and Staffing--DOT:
    Attorneys in DOT.............................................   353
    Authorized Positions.........................................   325
    Employment Bonuses and Awards................................   363
    Pay and Inflation............................................   416
    Personnel Savings............................................   327
    Political Appointees.........................................   369
    Senior Management Positions--FTE Savings.....................   331
    SES Bonus Awards Funding.....................................   362
    Streamlining Plan............................................   329
Personnel and Staffing--OST:
    Administration...............................................   355
    Authorized Positions and EOY Employment......................   324
    Average Grades...............................................   392
    Aviation and International Affairs...........................   341
    CIA Reimbursable Agreement...................................   424
    Chief Information Officer....................................   352
    Clerical/Professional Workers................................   390
    Contract Appeal Board........................................   168
    Executive Secretariat........................................   167
    FTEs by Office...............................................   335
    General Counsel..............................................   345
    Government Affairs...........................................   339
    Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.....................   338
    Immediate Office of the Secretary..........................154, 336
    Office of Intermodalism......................................   163
    Political Appointees.........................................   365
    Political/Career Employment Ratio............................   385
    Positions by Office..........................................   334
    Positions Eliminated.........................................   333
    Public Affairs...............................................   340
    SES Bonus Awards.............................................   358
Policy Office:
    Studies......................................................   178
    Additional Staff.............................................   179
    Other Cost Increases.........................................   180
Rental Payments:
    Aggregate Space Requirements.................................   280
    Office Space Utilization.....................................   393
    OST Headquarters Office Space................................   394
    GSA Rental Payments..........................................   279
    Space Reductions.............................................   280
    Rate Reallocations...........................................   284
Training:
    Training and Executive Development...........................   412
    Workforce Diversity Training.................................   413
Transportation Administrative Service Center (TASC):
    Aeronautical Charting........................................   258
    Transportation Computer Center...............................   240
    Obligations..................................................   258
    Business Plan................................................   426
    Staffing.....................................................   262
Travel:
    Budget Office Travel.........................................   321
    DOT Transportation Expenses..................................   320
    DOT Travel Expenses..........................................   318
    OST Travel Expenses..........................................   299
    Overseas Travel..............................................   304
    Travel Expenses Paid by Other Operating Administrations......   300
    Travel Management Services...................................   191

             Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation

1998:
    Accomplishments by PBO Performance Areas.....................   930
    Navigation Season Overview...................................   929
    U.S. Port Traffic Through the Seaway System..................   979
1998 Accomplishments by PBO Performance Areas....................   930
1998 Navigation Season Overview..................................   929
Accidents........................................................   976
Board Members....................................................   974
Budget:
    Request for FY 2000..........................................   936
    FY 2000 Estimate.............................................   928
Budget Request for FY 2000.......................................   936
Canadian:
    Laker Cargo--Total System and St. Lawrence River.............   983
    Legislation..................................................   952
Canadian Laker Cargo--Total System and St. Lawrence River........   983
Canadian Legislation.............................................   952
Capital:
    Needs........................................................   960
    SLSDC Five Year Project Plan.................................   942
Capital Needs....................................................   960
Consulting Services..............................................   985
Dates:
    Opening and Closing..........................................   966
Emergency Reserve Account........................................   949
FY 1998 Financial Audit..........................................   933
FY 2000:
    Budget Estimate..............................................   928
    Budget Request...............................................   936
FY 2000 Budget Estimate..........................................   928
Garrett A. Morgan Initiative.....................................   934
Goals............................................................   969
Global Positioning System........................................   971
Health Costs.....................................................   985
International Seaway Tonnage.....................................   982
ISO Certification................................................   930
Long and Short-Term Reliability..................................   931
Management Accountability, Including Customer Service,...........
Fiscal Performance and Cost Effectiveness........................   933
Mission:
    Overseas Trade...............................................   954
Opening and Closing Dates........................................   966
Ocean Vessel:
    Incidents....................................................   930
    Inspections..................................................   930
Ocean Vessel Incidents...........................................   930
Ocean Vessel Inspections.........................................   930
Overseas Trade Mission--Cyprus/Greece............................   931
Overseas Trade Mission--Japan....................................   932
Performance-Based Organization...................................   935
Reprogrammings...................................................   984
Revenues.........................................................   957
Safety...........................................................   930
Seaway:
    1998 U.S. Port Traffic.......................................   979
    International tonnage........................................   938
    Montreal Lake Ontario Section Traffic........................   980
    Performance Index............................................   969
    Statistics...................................................   978
Seaway Statistics................................................   978
Seaway Usage.....................................................   967
SLSDC:
    Authorized FTEs and On-Board Strength........................   974
    Board Members................................................   974
    Compensation.................................................   940
    Estimated Other Services.....................................   941
    Five Year Capital Equipment and Project Plan FY 2000-2004....   961
    Goals........................................................   969
    Supplies and Materials.......................................   946
    Travel.......................................................   945
SLSDC Authorized FTEs and On-Board Strength......................   974
SLSDC Estimated Other Services...................................   941
SLSDC Five Year Capital Equipment and Project Plan...............   942
St. Lawrence Seaway/Montreal Lake Ontario Section Traffic........   980
Staffing.........................................................   973
Statement by Administrator Albert S. Jacquez.....................   927
System:
    1998 U.S. Port Traffic Through the Seaway....................   979
    Availability.................................................   931
    Canadian Laker Cargo Total...................................   983
    Global Positioning...........................................   971
    Overseas Trade Mission.......................................   931
System Availability..............................................   931
Tolls............................................................   951
Trade:
    Development..................................................   931
    Overseas Mission.............................................   931
Trade............................................................   931
Trade Development................................................   931
Trade Mission:
    Overseas Trade Mission--Cyprus/Greece........................   931
    Overseas Trade Mission--Japan................................   932
    New Business Prospects from the Mission......................   932
Travel...........................................................   945
Vessel:
    Ocean incidents..............................................   930
    Ocean Inspections............................................   930
    Transits.....................................................   981
    Transits Through the U.S. Locks..............................   981
Vessel Transits..................................................   981
Vessel Transits Through the U.S. Locks...........................   981
Year 2000 Data Systems Compliance................................   933

                      Secretary of Transportation

Aviation:
    Airline Competition..........................................    66
    AIP Funding..................................................46, 48
    AIP Grant Criteria...........................................    23
    AIR21 Impact on Coast Guard and Others.......................    21
    Aviation Funding Resources...................................    22
    Aviation Financing...........................................    62
    Aviation Product Certification...............................    47
    Aviation Reauthorization.....................................    21
    Aviation Regulation and Certification........................    45
    Aviation Safety--Traffic Control Avoidance System............47, 49
    AWOS/ASOS Funding............................................   123
    Destination for Air Travelers from U.S. to Foreign Counties..    54
    LORAN........................................................   119
    Peanuts on Commercial Aircraft...............................    65
    Perimeter Rule at National Airport...........................    51
    Proposed User Fees...........................................    45
    Social Security Surplus for AIR21............................    21
    Sugar Land, Texas, Airport and Contract Tower Program........    25
    Texas, FY 1999 AIP Grants Process............................    25
Coast Guard:
    AIR21 Impact on Coast Guard and Others.......................    21
    Coast Guard Funding Request..................................    34
    LORAN........................................................   119
Highway:
    Alabama Safety Data..........................................   121
    Alabama. TEA-21 Funding for..................................   120
    Balance Between Highways and Transit.........................   114
    Border Inspections...........................................    30
    Distribution of Discretionary Funds..........................   129
    Emergency Relief Funding.....................................   109
    Hours-of-Service Regulation..................................   131
    Kentucky, Highway Discretionary Grants.......................    29
    Motor Carrier Safety Program.................31, 33, 34, 38, 50, 69
    National Corridor Planning and Development...................   128
    National Environmental Policy................................   130
    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority...............28, 49, 66, 113, 114
    Silica Fume..................................................   122
    Truck Safety at Border Crossings.............................    23
NAFTA:
    Border Crossing..............................................   124
    National Corridor Planning and Development...................   128
Opening Statement for Mr. Tiahrt.................................    43
Railroad:
    Amtrak's Expanded Capital Definition.........................    72
    Highway-Rail Grade Crossings.................................    26
    Illinois Amtrak Accident.....................................    38
    Railroad Safety..........................................25, 46, 48
Transit:
    Alabama, TEA-21 Funding for..................................   120
    APTA Testimony...............................................   111
    Balance Between Highways Transit.............................   114
    Formula Grants Earmarking....................................    81
    Long Island East Side Access Project.........................    89
    Los Angeles Transit Projects.................................    96
    National Environmental Policy................................   130
    New Starts Evaluation Criteria...............................    76
    Salt Lake City Transit Project Requirements..................    84
    San Francisco BART Extension to the Airport..................    94
    Transit Coordination, Livability Initiative..................    39
    Transit New Starts...........................................    59
    Tren Urbano Project..........................................    92
    Turnkey Projects.............................................   101
Transportation, Department of:
    Aeronautical Charting and Cartography........................   112
    Balance Between Highways and Transit.........................   114
    Chief Information Officer....................................    75
    Departmental Management, ONE DOT.............................    74
    Disadvantaged Business Enterprise............................   103
    Discretionary Funds, Distribution of.........................   129
    Employment Diversity.........................................   140
    Employment ``Touch Screens'' at Universities.................   144
    Opening Remarks, Mr. Wolf and Mr. Slater.....................     1
    Opening Statement, Mr. Slater................................     5
    Procurement Diversity........................................   134
    Project Labor Agreements.....................................   117
    Recruitment Strategies.......................................   142
    Revenue Aligned Budget Authority...............28, 49, 66, 113, 114
    Safety Summit................................................   133
    State Infrastructure Banks...................................   129
    State/Local Authority Under TEA21............................    41
    Strategic Goals..............................................     2
    Economic Growth and Trade....................................     3
    Human and Natural Environment................................     3
    Mobility.....................................................     3
    National Security............................................     3
    Safety.......................................................     2
Transportation Administrative Service Center.....................   110
Transportation Safety............................................    59
User Fees........................................................    37
Y2K Compliance...................................................    51
