[Senate Hearing 108-]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



 
  DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION, TREASURY AND GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND 
          RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2005

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 2004

                                       U.S. Senate,
           Subcommittee of the Committee on Appropriations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:01 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen 
Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard C. Shelby (chairman) 
presiding.
    Present: Senators Shelby, Bennett, Stevens, and Murray.

                      DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

                        Office of the Secretary

STATEMENT OF HON. NORMAN Y. MINETA, SECRETARY


             opening statement of senator richard c. shelby


    Senator Shelby. Good morning. The committee will come to 
order.
    This is the first hearing of the Transportation, Treasury 
Subcommittee for the year, fiscal year 2005. Today we welcome a 
familiar face, Secretary Norman Mineta, back to this 
subcommittee. Mr. Secretary, welcome. We are pleased to have 
you with us today to discuss the Department's budget for the 
upcoming fiscal year and to hear your report on progress 
towards your goals for the Department of Transportation (DOT).
    I believe it is only fitting that we begin our hearings 
with an overview of the budgetary and management challenges 
facing the Department of Transportation. Clearly the budget 
pressures faced by the administration and the Congress are 
reflected in this budget. Secretary Mineta, I looked through 
the budget submission for good news and I found myself at the 
end of the story with little to cheer about, as I am sure you 
have.
    I want to applaud you though for not proposing any new user 
fees in this year's request that affect the budget. With our 
economy struggling to recover, I believe that now would be the 
worst time to increase the burden on transportation users or on 
the economy through the imposition of new transportation taxes. 
Our goal should be to do more with less and to relieve 
unnecessary impediments to efficiency in the transportation 
system. This budget provides the opportunity to explore how to 
do more with less.
    I also want to commend you, Mr. Secretary, for the request 
for highway spending. While it is not as high as I hoped for, I 
am pleased that the budget abandons the RABA mechanism that 
would have generated a much lower amount of highway investment 
number for fiscal years 2004 and 2005. While the highway 
request is relatively flat, I want my colleagues to realize 
that it could have been much, much worse if the administration 
had blindly followed the previous authorization's flawed budget 
mechanism. Mr. Secretary, you are to be applauded for not 
embracing that folly.
    As important as any of the shortcomings in this request, I 
am concerned with the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration's (NHTSA) request as it relates to anti-impaired 
driving efforts. I am saddened to note that alcohol-related 
deaths were up in 2002. NHTSA has made great strides over the 
last couple of years to improve seatbelt usage rates but this 
is something that I think we must do better.
    I am also concerned about the lack of progress on the 
Amtrak fair bid concept for State-supported trains included in 
the fiscal year 2004 appropriations measure. I have been told 
that several States have contacted the Federal Railroad 
Administration for guidance on implementation of the language 
and nothing has been forthcoming.
    Mr. Secretary, given the request for Amtrak for this coming 
year and its abysmal performance over the past 20 years, I 
would think this language would be an opportunity for the 
Department to take a positive step for people who want to ride 
trains and for the American taxpayer. I would also like to hear 
your thoughts on when the Department will move forward on this 
important initiative and would welcome your thoughts on what we 
should be doing to stop the financial bleeding at Amtrak.
    As predictable as the request for Amtrak may have been, Mr. 
Secretary, no area of the Department's request was more 
unexpected than the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) 
budget. Just a couple of months ago, shortly before the 
submission of your 2005 request to OMB, the administration made 
an all-out push for passage of the Vision 100 aviation 
reauthorization legislation. Now I look at this budget request 
and I am surprised to see that the FAA's capital account does 
not reflect the investment levels anticipated in that 
legislation. Your budget, Mr. Secretary, calls for a 13.6 
percent reduction, roughly $400 million, to the Federal 
Aviation Administration's capital account to update air traffic 
control facilities and equipment.
    I am concerned not only about the timing of the cut, but 
also about its effect. The administration's budget proposal 
puts this committee in the untenable position of having to find 
an additional $400 million or being subject to points of order 
in the Senate. It is difficult and unseemly to support 
budgetary protections and points of order protecting capital 
investment levels and, at the same time, to also support the 
kinds of cuts your budget proposes for the FAA capital account.
    Within the reduced account, I am disappointed that the FAA 
has protected troubled acquisition programs and has shelved 
others that show real promise. Tighter budgets do not translate 
to greater discipline at the FAA. I do not know how the 
Department expects to develop the Next Generation Air Traffic 
Control System if the FAA continues to spare from critical 
evaluation or from the budget axe the programs that have 
unbridled cost growth, schedule delays, and deferred 
capabilities.
    Mr. Secretary, if the calculus in the F&E submission was to 
try to protect the most bloated of programs with the 
expectation that Congress would restore funding for the needed 
new technologies for efficiency and safety, there may be a few 
surprised faces at the FAA's procurement shop.
    Before recognizing Senator Murray, I would like to raise 
one more issue. Although only briefly mentioned in budget 
documents, your staff has begun briefing the Hill on a major 
Department reorganization proposal affecting several modes. 
Clearly, the Department needs to improve the coordination of 
the enforcement of hazardous materials regulations and 
inspection of hazmat shipments. In fact, the Inspector General 
has identified this issue as one of the top 10 management 
challenges at the Department.
    While improvement is warranted, I think we must be mindful 
that previous reorganization efforts have failed. And, I want 
to register my strong reservation about centralizing HAZMAT 
inspection and enforcement activities within the Office of the 
Secretary. The Office of the Secretary does some things well, 
such as policy development, but the modal administrations are 
better staffed and structured to execute operational functions 
like the HAZMAT program. It is highly unusual, and I would 
argue risky, to establish an operations function in the 
Secretary's office.
    Senator Murray.


                   STATEMENT OF SENATOR PATTY MURRAY


    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I am 
pleased that Secretary Mineta can be with our subcommittee this 
morning. I understand he testified before the House 
Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee just a few days ago 
and I understand during that hearing the Secretary explained 
this budget reflects the President's top priorities. If this is 
true, then it is true that the President places an extremely 
low priority on the needs of our Nation's transportation 
system. At a time when congestion on our Nation's highways is 
getting worse and when our road, rail, airport and air traffic 
control infrastructure is deteriorating, the President's budget 
for the Transportation Department is effectively frozen. While 
there are increases in some select programs, these increases 
are offset by deep cuts to our efforts to modernize our air 
traffic control system and to provide air service to rural 
America.
    Once again the administration is proposing a cut to 
Amtrak's budget that is so deep it will throw the railroad into 
bankruptcy if it is enacted. I cannot and will not agree with 
these priorities and I hope that my colleagues on this 
subcommittee will also reject them. For me this is about our 
jobs, our economy and our productivity. If we make the right 
investments in transportation we will create millions of jobs 
here at home, we will make our businesses and workers more 
productive, and we will lay the foundation for our future 
economic growth.
    The Senate has also recognized the importance of 
transportation for our economy. Less than a month ago more than 
three-quarters of the United States Senate voted in favor of a 
surface transportation authorization bill that placed an 
appropriate priority on investment in America's mobility, 
America's productivity, and the creation of American jobs. That 
bill called for substantial growth in our Federal highway, 
transit, and safety programs. It financed those increases by 
closing tax loopholes. The bill not only addressed America's 
broader needs to relieve congestion and improve aging 
infrastructure, it also addressed the unique needs of different 
regions of the country.
    For example, I was successful in including an amendment to 
triple the amount of funding available for our Nation's ferry 
systems. Ferries are not just a tourist attraction in my State. 
They are the way thousands of my constituents get to work each 
and every day. The Bush Administration greeted that entire 
surface transportation bill with a promise to veto it. Yet when 
an amendment was offered on the Senate floor to reduce the size 
of the bill to a level that the President said he could accept, 
that amendment received only 20 votes.
    That vote was less than 4 weeks ago but, boy, things have 
changed. Today the Senate is debating a budget resolution that 
was reported by the Budget Committee just last week that 
actually cuts funding for highways and transit back to the 
level assumed in the President's budget. This budget resolution 
will allow for $45 billion less in funding over the next 6 
years for highways and transit than the levels the Senate 
endorsed just last month. That $45 billion reduction translates 
into more than 2.1 million jobs that will not be created as a 
result of the President's budget policy and this budget 
resolution. To my home State of Washington that is a cut of 
roughly $807.8 million. That corresponds to a loss of more than 
38,000 jobs in Washington State over 6 years.
    The President's cut will have a significant impact on every 
State. I hope my colleagues will reflect on that fact before 
they vote to pass this budget resolution. This budget negates 
every statement that we made a month ago about the importance 
of highway construction, new transit systems, congestion 
mitigation, and job creation. Mr. Chairman, this is hardly the 
first time that an administration has threatened to veto a 
highway bill because it is too large. In fact veto threats have 
been issued against each of the last three highway bills over 
last 18 years. But this may be the first time that a Congress 
has started to show signs of giving in to objections from the 
executive branch.
    We need to pass a 6-year surface transportation bill that 
invests in America and America's workers in a meaningful way. 
We should not succumb to the view that investment in a mission 
to Mars is more important than investments in our country and 
in our own people. No one made this point better than Norman 
Mineta when he implored his colleagues to ignore the veto 
threat of the administration of George Herbert Walker Bush and 
pass the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act.
    Mr. Mineta said, and I will quote you, ``this legislation 
comes at the time when it is desperately needed, both in terms 
of our infrastructure and for Nation's economic health. At a 
time when the White House continues to deny the effects of the 
economic recession we have before us legislation that will 
create 2 million jobs over the next 6 years. While the people 
of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue have not seen or felt the effects 
of the recession, Mr. Speaker, you have only to ask the people 
of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania if there is a recession, or the 
people of Chicago, or the people of Lafayette, or the people of 
San Jose. They will tell you that our economy is hurting. They 
will tell you that America needs this legislation and we need 
it now.''
    ``Mr. Speaker, this legislation will improve how Americans 
get from here to there as well as the air we breathe, our 
quality of life, and the future of our economy. Mr. Speaker, 
America's deserves nothing less.''
    Secretary Mineta, those words are as pertinent and on 
target today as they were when you delivered them on the floor 
of the House on November 26, 1991. America does deserve nothing 
less. We should send the highway and transit bill that the 
Senate passed last month to the President's desk, and I believe 
that if he listens to his Transportation Secretary he will sign 
it.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Before I yield I do want to mention a couple of happy and 
surprising developments that have taken place within the past 
week on this subcommittee family. As you know, our majority 
clerk sitting to your left, Paul Doerrer, got engaged over the 
weekend to Leigha Shaw. We congratulate him. Leigha is a friend 
to all of us. She serves on the staff of the companion 
subcommittee in the House and I want to congratulate both of 
them and wish them well.


                           PREPARED STATEMENT


    And to my right, Peter Rogoff, who has been with the 
Appropriations Committee for 17 years, I believe 15 years on 
transportation, is celebrating his birthday today. I will not 
share with you which one, but I do want to say happy birthday 
to him as well and we wish both of you the very best.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The statement follows:]

               Prepared Statement of Senator Patty Murray

    I'm pleased that Secretary Mineta can be with the subcommittee this 
morning. He testified before the House Transportation Appropriations 
Subcommittee just a few days ago. I understand that during that 
hearing, the Secretary explained this budget reflects the President's 
top priorities.
    If this is true, then it's clear that the President places an 
extremely low priority on the needs of our Nation's transportation 
system. At a time when congestion on our Nation's highways is getting 
worse, and when our road, rail, airport and air traffic control 
infrastructure is deteriorating, the President's budget for the 
transportation department is effectively frozen.
    While there are increases in some select programs, these increases 
are offset by deep cuts to our efforts to modernize our air traffic 
control system and to provide air service to rural America. And once 
again, the administration is proposing a cut to Amtrak's budget that is 
so deep it will throw the railroad into bankruptcy if it is enacted.
    I cannot and will not agree with these priorities, and I hope that 
my colleagues on this subcommittee will also reject them. For me, this 
is about jobs, our economy and our productivity. If we make the right 
investments in transportation we will create millions of jobs here at 
home, we'll make our businesses and workers more productive, and we'll 
lay the foundation for our future economic growth.
    The Senate has also recognized the importance of transportation for 
our economy. Less than 1 month ago, more than three-quarters of the 
United States Senate voted in favor of a surface transportation 
authorization bill that placed an appropriate priority on investment in 
America's mobility, America's productivity, and the creation of 
American jobs. That bill called for substantial growth in our Federal 
highway, transit and safety programs. It financed these increases by 
closing tax loopholes.
    The bill not only addressed America's broader needs to relieve 
congestion and improve aging infrastructure, it also addressed the 
unique needs of different regions of the country. For example, I was 
successful in including an amendment to triple the amount of funding 
available for our Nation's ferry systems. Ferries are not a tourist 
attraction in my State. They are the way thousands of my constituents 
get to work each day. The Bush Administration greeted that surface 
transportation bill with a promise to veto it.
    Yet, when an amendment was offered on the Senate Floor to reduce 
the size of the bill to a level that the President said he could 
accept--that amendment received only 20 votes. That vote was less than 
4 weeks ago, but my, how things have changed.
    Today, the Senate is debating a Budget Resolution that was reported 
by the Budget Committee just last week and that actually cuts funding 
for highways and transit back to the level assumed in the President's 
budget. This Budget Resolution will allow for $45 billion less in 
funding over the next 6 years for highways and transit than the levels 
the Senate endorsed just last month. That $45 billion reduction 
translates into more than 2.1 million jobs that will not be created as 
a result of the President's budget policy and this Budget Resolution. 
For Washington State, that is a cut of roughly $807.8 million. That 
corresponds to a loss of more than 38,000 jobs in Washington State over 
6 years.
    The President's cut will have a significant impact on every State. 
I hope my colleagues will reflect on that fact before they vote to pass 
this Budget Resolution. This budget negates every statement that we 
made a month ago about the importance of highway construction, new 
transit systems, congestion mitigation and job creation.
    Mr. Chairman, this is hardly the first time that an administration 
has threatened to veto a highway bill because it is too large. In fact, 
veto threats have been issued against each of the last 3 highway bills 
over the last 18 years. But this may be the first time that a Congress 
has started to show signs of giving in to objections from the Executive 
Branch. We need to pass a 6-year surface transportation bill that 
invests in America and America's workers in a meaningful way. We should 
not succumb to the view that investment in a mission to Mars is more 
important than investments in our own country and our own people.
    No one made this point better than Norman Y. Mineta when he 
implored his colleagues to ignore the veto threat of the administration 
of George Herbert Walker Bush and pass the Intermodal Surface 
Transportation Efficiency Act. Chairman Mineta said:

    ``[t]his legislation comes at a time when it is desperately 
needed--both in terms of our infrastructure, and for our Nation's 
economic health. At a time when the White House continues to deny the 
effects of the economic recession, we have before us legislation that 
will create two million jobs over the next 6 years. And while the 
people of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue haven't seen or felt the effects of 
the recession, Mr. Speaker, you have only to ask the people of 
Bethlehem, PA, if there is a recession. Or the people of Chicago. Or 
the people of Lafayette, LA. Or the people of San Jose, CA. They will 
tell you that our economy is hurting. They will tell you that America 
needs this legislation, and we need it now. Mr. Speaker, this 
legislation will improve how Americans get from here to there, as well 
as the air we breathe, our quality of life, and the future of our 
economy. Mr. Speaker, America deserves nothing less.''

    Secretary Mineta, these words are as pertinent and on target today 
as they were when you delivered them on the Floor of the House on 
November 26, 1991.
    America does deserve nothing less. We should send the highway and 
transit bill that the Senate passed last month to the President's desk. 
I believe that, if he listens to his Transportation Secretary, he will 
sign it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Senator Murray.
    Senator Bennett.

                 STATEMENT OF SENATOR ROBERT F. BENNETT

    Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. With 
that announcement I think we can expect some late night 
conferences between the House and the Senate.
    Mr. Secretary, let me welcome you here and publicly thank 
you for the continued support that has come from the Department 
of Transportation for transportation concerns in Utah. We are 
particularly pleased with the support and assistance we 
received from the Federal Transit Administration. Administrator 
Jenna Dorn and her staff have always been responsive and I 
would be remiss if I did not publicly acknowledge that here and 
in a forum directly with you. We think we have a model program 
going in the transit system along the Wasatch Front has proven 
to be very successful, exceeded all expectations and 
projections as to ridership and we are enormously proud of it. 
But we recognize that if we had not had the kind of support and 
responsive reaction that has come from Administrator Dorn we 
would not be where we are. So in a time when people are beating 
other people up on all kinds of issues, I want to have the 
record show how grateful we are for the work that you have 
done.
    We do have an issue which I will deal with in some detail 
perhaps during the question period. In the wide open spaces of 
the West, particularly following 9/11, we have had a shift in 
air transportation away from what people call the main line 
carriers into the regional carriers, and a regional carrier 
that is very successful in Utah, SkyWest in particular, has 
added some new jets and some new routes. The economics of what 
happened after 9/11 has dictated this.
    But it has created a problem in that DOT and FAA 
regulations regarding the transportation of medical specimens 
for diagnosis has hit us because the regional carrier is not 
designated to handle these specimens as much as the trunk 
carriers are, and with the University of Utah Medical Center 
serving the entire region, not just the State of Utah, we have 
to get some of those diagnostic specimens to the University of 
Utah. They would be transferred to regional carrier flights 
rather than the trunk line flights before. This is an issue 
that we have just found out about. I am not sure that you are 
aware of it either but I wanted to raise it here and we might 
get into it at some point.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to hear the 
witness.
    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Mr. Secretary, your written testimony will be made part of 
the record in its entirety. You may proceed as you wish. 
Welcome again to the committee.

                     STATEMENT OF NORMAN Y. MINETA

    Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and 
members of the subcommittee. Thank you for this opportunity to 
appear before you today to discuss the administration's fiscal 
year 2005 budget request for the Department of Transportation. 
I might say parenthetically in response to Senator Murray, then 
is then and now is now.
    As we begin our discussion, I want to thank the members of 
the subcommittee for your support of the work of the Department 
of Transportation. I am confident that together we will 
continue to build a strong economy by providing a safer, 
simpler, and smarter transportation system for our great 
Nation. Let us turn now to the budget specifics.
    President Bush is requesting $58.7 billion in total 
budgetary resources for the Department of Transportation. As 
you are very well aware, last year we sent the President's 
proposal for reauthorizing our surface transportation programs 
for the next year to the Congress. This legislation, the Safe, 
Accountable, Flexible and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, 
or SAFETEA, is a responsible plan. It supports the economy 
through record investments in our highway and transit and 
safety programs without raising gasoline taxes, without 
increasing the Federal deficit, and without taking money from 
other important programs. So I look forward to working with the 
Congress on enactment of the President's 2005 budget for 
highway, safety, and transit programs. While it does not fall 
under the jurisdiction of this committee, I do want to 
underscore the need for swift action on this pending SAFETEA 
proposal by the Congress.

                   FUNDING FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

    The 2005 budget reaffirms the President's commitment to 
SAFETEA by providing a total of $256 billion over the 6-year 
life of the bill up from the $247 billion in the original 
proposal. For highway and transit programs, the budget would 
continue the recently enacted 2004 funding level, and within 
this level we are increasing funding for transit new starts. 
These new start projects will carry over 243 million passengers 
annually and they will save over 121 million hours in travel 
time and significantly improve air quality and mobility in 
America.
    The budget specifically designates more than $14 billion 
for transportation safety with increases in annual funding for 
safety initiatives in both the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration, NHTSA, and the Federal Motor Carrier Safety 
Administration, FMCSA. Today, travel on America's highway is 
safer than in recent memory. Statistics show that 75 percent of 
all Americans are using their safety belts, the highest level 
in our Nation's history. We are proud of this progress and will 
continue the Department's aggressive efforts to save lives and 
to reduce the more than $230 billion that the economy loses 
each year because of traffic crashes.

                    FUNDING FOR RAILROADS AND AMTRAK

    For railroads, the President's 2005 budget includes $188 
million for the Federal Railroad Administration to support 
enhanced track inspection and research activities. The 
President's Amtrak reform legislation, the Passenger Rail 
Investment Reform Act, is also pending before the Congress. The 
2005 budget requests $900 million for Amtrak in 2005 with the 
potential for an increase to $1.4 billion in the years 2006 
through 2009 if the Administration's management and financial 
reforms are enacted. Now these reforms are critical if we are 
to justify further spending of taxpayer dollars on Amtrak 
service.

            FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

    The President's 2005 budget for the Federal Aviation 
Administration provides $14 billion in overall funding. We 
recognize that air travel has become a cornerstone of our 
transportation system in the more than 100 years since the 
Wright brothers' first flight. While holding the line on 
Federal spending, the President's budget makes a modern and 
efficient air transportation system a key priority. Let me 
assure you that we are making the necessary investments to keep 
America flying safely and smoothly.
    Our plans include continued near-term investments in 
aviation systems and technology to avoid gridlock in the skies 
and to improve air safety. At the same time we support the 
design of the next generation air transportation system to 
secure America's place as a global leader in aviation's second 
century. We are constantly considering new and better ways to 
make sure that transportation supports the Nation's growing 
economy. One option that we are exploring would enable the 
Maritime Administration and the Lawrence Seaway Development 
Corporation to expand capacity to use our ports and waterways 
to move commercial freight. Giving businesses reliable and 
affordable options for moving commercial goods has the 
potential to lessen truck traffic on our highways.
    Transportation research plays a vital role in developing 
transportation solutions. That is why I have asked our staff to 
study reorganizing the research programs, hazardous materials 
oversight, and pipeline safety within the Department. I believe 
that there are ways to strengthen and improve our work in all 
of these important areas and you will be hearing more from us 
on these plans.
    Finally, I want to close by underscoring my continued 
commitment to the President's management agenda initiative. The 
Department of Transportation has made significant improvements 
in all management areas. Consequently, we are delivering 
results for the American people, helping the President build a 
strong economy through a strong transportation system. There is 
still much to be done, but I am confident that we are on the 
right path.

                           PREPARED STATEMENT

    I have touched on only a few key highlights and you will 
find additional details within my full written statement 
submitted to the committee as well in our Budget in Brief, 
which all of you have received. It is this multicolored 
pamphlet. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would be more than 
happy to answer your questions.
    [The statement follows:]

                 Prepared Statement of Norman Y. Mineta

    Mr. Chairman, Members of the subcommittee, thank you for the 
opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the administration's 
fiscal year 2005 budget request for the Department of Transportation. 
President Bush is requesting $58.7 billion in total budgetary resources 
for transportation programs--nearly the same as the fiscal year 2004 
enacted level. I am particularly pleased that within this total funding 
level more than $14 billion will support transportation safety 
projects--my top priority.
    Today, travel on America's highways is safer than in recent memory. 
Statistics show that 79 percent of all Americans are using their safety 
belts--the highest level in the Nation's history. We are proud of this 
progress and of the Department of Transportation's role in encouraging 
safety belt use. Yet sadly, more than 40,000 people still die in 
traffic crashes each year. Many die needlessly just because they failed 
to ``buckle-up''. This is a tragic statistic that affects all of us and 
one that both the President and I have pledged to address. We are 
committed to reducing traffic fatalities. The President's fiscal year 
2005 budget request acknowledges this priority and includes annual 
funding increases for our important safety programs.
    Over the past year, the Department of Transportation provided to 
the Congress legislative proposals to reauthorize our Nation's surface, 
aviation, and intercity-passenger rail programs. As a result, the 
``Vision 100--Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act'' was passed 
providing the Federal Aviation Administration with a blue-print from 
which to guide its work over the next 4 years.
    The fiscal year 2005 President's budget reflects the 
administration's commitment to aviation and the key role it plays in 
keeping America moving. On December 17, 2003, we celebrated the 100-
year anniversary of the Wright Brothers' first flight. Today, air 
travel has become a cornerstone of our transportation system. Continued 
investment in aviation systems and technology is critical to ensuring 
the reliability of air travel. The recent passage of the ``Vision 100'' 
which authorizes aviation programs for the next 4 years, includes more 
than $60 billion in Federal resources--a 31 percent increase above 
previous authorization levels for aviation.
    The fiscal year 2005 President's budget request is $14 billion for 
the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The fiscal year 2005 request 
will enable the agency to continue to fund the level of service it 
provides today, while ensuring that critical capital investments stay 
on track. In addition, ``Vision 100'' will result in hundreds of 
thousands of additional jobs in the aviation industry over the 4-year 
life of the bill while at the same time providing a plan for guiding 
FAA's programs in the future.
    Although we have new aviation reauthorization, work continues to 
provide reauthorization legislation for our surface programs, and long-
term legislative solutions have not been completed to date. The 
recently enacted surface transportation extension bill is an interim 
step that falls short of addressing the long-term needs of these 
programs. We welcome the opportunity to work with the Congress to 
complete a 6-year reauthorization bill that meets the administration's 
principles recently outlined in a letter Treasury Secretary Snow and I 
sent to the Senate Majority Leader and that will provide the resources 
and planning horizon to keep our surface transportation programs moving 
forward.
    Enactment of the administration's surface transportation 
reauthorization proposal--the ``Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and 
Efficient Transportation Equity Act'', or ``SAFETEA'' would accomplish 
this goal. Last May, the President proposed ``SAFETEA''--the largest 
investment in history for America's surface transportation programs. 
The President's fiscal year 2005 budget reaffirms the principles 
outlined in ``SAFETEA'' while amending our proposal to include a total 
of $256 billion over the 6-year life of the bill--an additional $8.6 
billion more than the $247 billion in our original ``SAFETEA'' funding 
request--and a 21 percent increase over the funding included in the 
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Much of this 
investment will be used to provide improvements on our roads and 
highways which will reduce traffic congestion.
    Our revised proposal would continue the funding levels for the 
Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration 
enacted in fiscal year 2004 for each year 2005 through 2009. Moreover, 
the fiscal year 2005 President's budget request includes annual 
increases beginning in 2005 through 2009 for both the National Highway 
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the Federal Motor Carrier 
Safety Administration (FMCSA) to ensure that improvements in safety are 
enhanced.
    Our fiscal year 2005 budget proposal accomplishes the 
administration's safety, mobility, and congestion relief goals by 
providing a historic level of surface transportation spending without 
raising taxes. Instead, the administration's request relies on spending 
resources available in the Highway Trust Fund while ensuring that a 
cash balance of approximately $5 billion is maintained throughout the 
authorization period. Further, the President's request would redirect 
the resources from the 2\1/2\ cents per gallon levied on gasohol, and 
currently deposited in the General Fund, to the Highway Trust fund. 
This redirection will increase annual receipts to the Highway Trust 
Fund by over $700 million per year--a change that, if enacted, will 
provide the resources needed to support the proposed annual funding 
increases for our safety programs.
    ``SAFETEA'' provides a plan that will enable us to reach our goals, 
while providing the vision necessary to guide our surface 
transportation programs in a fiscally responsible manner. I urge the 
Congress to act quickly to pass ``SAFETEA'' and the fiscal year 2005 
President's budget request for our surface transportation programs. 
Every day we delay is a missed opportunity to benefit America.
    Although highway, transit and highway safety programs play a major 
role in surface transportation, we also rely on railroads to move 
people and goods across our country. Intercity passenger rail is an 
essential element of the Nation's multi-modal transportation system. 
Accordingly, last year, in addition to our SAFETEA proposal, the 
administration sent to Congress the President's Passenger Rail 
Investment Reform Act. This proposal would align passenger rail 
programs with other transportation modes, under which States work in 
partnership with the Federal Government, in owning, operating, and 
maintaining transportation facilities, infrastructure and services. 
Putting passenger rail on a solid foundation of planning and investment 
will give this important mode of transportation the support it needs to 
grow. The President's fiscal year 2005 budget requests $900 million for 
Amtrak and includes the potential for an increase to $1.4 billion in 
each of fiscal years 2006 through 2009--if the administration's 
management and financial reforms are enacted.
    The fiscal year 2005 President's budget also includes a proposal 
for funding the Essential Air Service (EAS) program that would include 
a limited cost-sharing arrangement with selected communities 
participating in the program. Currently, the EAS program subsidizes 
scheduled air service to communities that received scheduled service at 
the time of deregulation in 1978. Although there have been tremendous 
changes in the industry since then, the program has remained static. 
The administration believes that requiring a modest contribution from 
communities benefiting from this program may energize civic officials 
and business leaders at the local and State levels to think more 
creatively about the potential of the program and about different means 
to meet the transportation needs of the community.
    The President's fiscal year 2005 budget request will continue to 
guarantee air service to the most isolated communities by restructuring 
the program to require communities to contribute either 10 or 25 
percent of the total subsidy, depending on their degree of isolation, 
and to expand service provided to include ground transportation, 
single-engine, single-pilot operations, air taxi, charter service or 
regional service. With these reforms, the Department would keep the 
most isolated communities connected to the national air transportation 
system with a $50 million budget funded entirely from overflight fees. 
We look forward to working with you on this plan.
    Although transportation continues to improve, we still have many 
challenges before us. Highway congestion and expected increases in air 
travel are issues we must be prepared to address. At the Department of 
Transportation, we are looking for new ways to address growing 
commercial freight transportation needs, consistent with our freight 
action plan. The President's budget includes programs to reduce 
bottlenecks in and around seaports and land borders with Canada and 
Mexico and to introduce technological innovations for improved freight 
efficiency and security. In addition, the Maritime Administration and 
the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation are advancing 
programs to expand our capacity to use ports and waterways to move 
freight and transport goods efficiently, thereby reducing dependence on 
our highways to meet growing freight needs.
    Over the past year, I have considered the important role that 
transportation research plays in developing transportation solutions. 
That is why I have asked our staff to study reorganizing the research 
programs, hazardous materials, and pipeline oversight within the 
Department. I believe there are ways to strengthen and improve our work 
in all of these important areas. As we continue to study alternative 
approaches, we will work closely with you and our colleagues within the 
administration to ensure that any potential reorganization will 
continue to serve the Nation's needs.
    I also want to highlight the fiscal year 2005 President's budget 
request for the new Department of Transportation headquarters building 
project. In fiscal year 2004, the Congress included $42 million for our 
new headquarters building in the General Services Administration's 
budget. Our request of $160 million in fiscal year 2005 would fund the 
next construction phase and the information technology infrastructure 
in the building. This would keep the project on track making it 
possible for the Department to begin taking occupancy as planned. Your 
support for this endeavor will ensure that the Department of 
Transportation will have an alternative site available when our current 
lease expires in 2006.
    In closing, I would like to share with you my continued commitment 
to the President's Management Agenda. President Bush has asked all 
Federal agencies to work towards improvements in the following five key 
areas:
  --enhanced budget requests that focus on results and performance;
  --improved financial management and strengthened financial controls;
  --targeted human capital initiatives that ensure our human resources 
        are used as effectively as possible;
  --use of competitive sourcing as a resource solution; and
  --government-wide use of electronic government tools to improve 
        efficiency.
    My team at the Department of Transportation is working hard to 
implement these initiatives and I am proud to note that we have already 
made significant progress towards these goals. I believe we are on the 
path to success and we are committed to continuing these improvements 
as stewards of the American public's resources.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today. I look 
forward to working closely with all of you, and with the entire 
Congress, as you consider the fiscal year 2005 President's budget 
request and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

                  FUNDING FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
    The budget proposes a $370 million increase for FAA 
operations, $141 million more than the authorized amount. FAA 
is taking modest steps to control costs, but it cannot afford 
continued increases in the operations account of 5 percent to 8 
percent annually. FAA salaries continue to increase sharply. We 
raised this issue last year when the average controller's 
salary was more than $106,000, and I am told that in the 
calendar year 2003 some controllers made more than $200,000. 
Controllers' salaries will further increase when the full 2004 
pay increase is implemented.
    Mr. Secretary, what steps is the Department taking to get 
the FAA's payroll under control, or how can you do it?
    Secretary Mineta. There are two ways that we are doing 
that. The first is through the contract negotiations that we 
have going on with the separate labor units. The one 
specifically for NATCA is one in which we have arrived at an 
impasse. We have submitted our letter of impasse to the 
Congress relating to the contract negotiations that we have 
going on. Much of that has to do with pay, because under the 
program that Congress passed for the FAA, we have pay and 
procurement practices that are different from the regular civil 
service. One of the things that are incorporated is pay-for-
performance.
    One of the things that is involved in the impasse is the 
whole issue of multi-units and whether or not--and NATCA's 
proposal is that they want the full pay increase that everyone 
is getting, plus 1 percent. What we are looking at is not only 
individual performance but also whether the units themselves 
are meeting their performance goals. So we were not able to 
come to an agreement on that issue, and that has now been 
submitted for impasse.
    The other method of controlling costs, of course, is the 
typical budgetary restraint. After our initial submission to 
OMB and the passback, when we get our final amount, we then 
have to reprioritize and allocate those financial resources. So 
to the extent that we can look at what our pay will be, or what 
our financial resources will be, we can match those to what we 
anticipate in pay increases in the outyears.

         FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I would like to discuss the 
budget request for FTA administrative expenses. People have 
been concerned about the annual increases for FAA operations 
for some time. As we review your budget submission, I note that 
the Federal Transit Administration's administrative expenses 
are growing at a faster rate than FAA's operations. This would 
catch anybody's attention. Why are FTA's administrative 
expenses growing so sharply?
    Secretary Mineta. I think one of the areas in which the FTA 
program is growing is transit services, both in urban areas as 
well as the increasing amount that is going to rural areas. 
These services require thorough reviews, and with the growth of 
the urban, rural, and the new starts programs, we are just 
spending a lot more time on going through the applications that 
are submitted to us. Even though most of these are earmarked 
programs, we still have to make sure that the ridership and 
financial capability of the system support what they are asking 
for. It takes a great deal of effort to go through those 
applications.

                STATE SUPPORT FOR PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I mentioned in my opening 
statement that FRA has not issued guidance to implement the 
fair bid procedure for State-supported rail service. The funds 
that were set aside in the 2004 appropriations act expire at 
the end of the year and I would be disappointed if we let this 
opportunity to infuse competition into passenger rail slip 
away, especially given the interest of several States. When can 
we expect FRA to move forward on this initiative?
    Secretary Mineta. FRA has been moving forward, Mr. 
Chairman, with Missouri, St. Louis to Kansas City, and they got 
no outside bidders other than Amtrak on that route. There are 
other States that have submitted requests or inquiries about 
the fair bid, and I am not sure--I am not up to date on where 
we are on those States. But we will be utilizing the fair bid 
process because we think that that is the right approach.

                         MOTOR FUEL TAX EVASION

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, fuel tax evasion is a 
subject we get into from time to time. According to the Federal 
Highway Administration, the highway trust fund forgoes 
approximately $1 billion annually due to non-payment or 
fraudulent evasion of motor fuel taxes. Are you satisfied as 
the Secretary with the steps taken by the Internal Revenue 
Service to identify the scope of the diversion and stop this 
from happening in the future? In other words, that is a lot of 
money that we are missing.
    Secretary Mineta. It is a lot of money, and I am not happy 
with the level of enforcement on this issue. That is why our 
SAFETEA proposal has specific amounts for the Department of 
Treasury to enforce the Federal fuel tax, including the 
coloring of the fuel and tracing where it is going.
    Senator Shelby. This might be a subject that we can bring 
up with the IRS. Senator Murray and I have worked in that area 
before and we will take this up with the Internal Revenue 
Service too. You would not mind, I am sure.
    Secretary Mineta. Not at all. I would be pleased to join in 
the conversation.

                            IMPAIRED DRIVING

    Senator Shelby. Impaired driving. We are concerned about 
the increase in the number of alcohol-related traffic 
fatalities which have risen steadily since 1999. To what 
factors do you attribute this disturbing trend and how do you 
assess the Department's current efforts at curbing impaired 
driving? In other words, how are you going to reverse the 
trend?
    One last thing. I have a related point. I heard a report on 
a news program a couple days ago that said that if a drunk 
pedestrian walked in front of an automobile operated by a sober 
driver and was killed, the death would be treated as a drunk 
driving fatality. I do not understand the logic of that. Could 
you find out how the statistics are collected here and explain 
what has changed? In other words, how reliable are the 
statistics? If you are counting a drunk pedestrian that is 
killed by a sober driver, something is wrong. I do not know if 
that is right, but it would be worth looking into.
    Secretary Mineta. Let me take a look at that and find out, 
but it just does not make common sense.
    [The information follows:]

    Crashes involving a sober driver and a drunk pedestrian are not 
considered by NHTSA as DWI (Driving while Intoxicated). Rather, NHTSA 
considers them ``Alcohol-Related'' crashes. NHTSA's definition of an 
Alcohol-Related Crash, in particular a fatal crash, is a motor vehicle 
traffic crash in which any of the actively involved persons (drivers, 
pedestrians or pedalcyclists) had a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) 
of 0.01 g/dl or more (a positive BAC).
    Most alcohol-related crashes involve at least one driver with a 
positive BAC. Some of these crashes also may involve a pedestrian or 
bicyclist with a positive BAC. However, there are also some crashes in 
each year in which no driver had a positive BAC but an involved 
pedestrian or bicyclist had a positive BAC. The data in NHTSA's 
Fatality Analysis Reporting System allows us to distinguish between 
these two categories, when analyzing alcohol-related crashes, as 
depicted in the following chart: 



                            SAFETY BELT LAWS

    Secretary Mineta. In terms of the alcohol-related deaths, 
the 18-to-34 age group is the largest cause of fatal accidents. 
That combined with the issue of the seatbelt usage is why we 
are working very hard to get States to enact a primary safety 
belt law. In the SAFETEA legislation, there are incentives for 
States that have a primary safety belt law or a secondary 
safety belt law and attain 90 percent safety belt use.
    There are, frankly, no States that get anywhere close to 
that level of safety belt use with a secondary safety belt law. 
But the two, alcohol-related deaths and safety belt usage, work 
hand-in-hand. Those are two programs that we work at very hard.

               OVERSIGHT OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, ineffective management and 
oversight have led to significant cost increases, financing 
problems, schedule delays and technical or construction 
difficulties on highway construction projects. For example, the 
cost for the Springfield interchange in Virginia has increased 
more than 180 percent from $241 million to $677 million, in 
part because State officials initially excluded basic cost 
items such as construction management, inflation, preliminary 
engineering, and even the design.
    What can you do or have you done to establish minimum 
standards for cost estimates so that basic cost items such as 
inflation, construction management, and design will not be 
excluded from estimates of what a highway project will cost? In 
other words, this seems to be lowballing the original cost. How 
do you analyze this and project costs to ensure that they are 
close to what they claim they will be?
    Secretary Mineta. Lowballing, of course, is always a 
problem and you try to catch this when you see change orders 
coming in. But what has happened more recently is the volatile 
steel prices. As I understand it, this has impacted on highway 
projects. But on large, what we call mega-projects, we have now 
assigned project managers to make sure that from a financial 
standpoint as well as scheduling and quality, if it is a 10-
sack concrete job then we are in fact getting 10 sacks of 
concrete and not getting shortchanged in terms of the quality 
that goes into that work. Quality also impacts on the lifespan 
of that infrastructure. So we now have a specific project 
manager on those so-called megaprojects.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Murray, thanks for your indulgence.

             FUNDING FOR AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MODERNIZATION

    Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, the only proposed cut in 
your budget that is larger than your proposed cut in Amtrak is 
the $400 million you are proposing in the FAA to modernize our 
air traffic control equipment. In your formal opening 
statement, you take the time to point out that the President 
signed the Vision 100 bill which authorizes more than $60 
billion in Federal resources, which is a 31 percent increase 
above previous authorizations for the FAA, yet your actual 
budget request, rather than honoring the increased 
authorizations in that Vision 100 bill, actually cuts 
investments for air traffic control modernization by 14 percent 
next year. When you look at the Bush Administration's multi-
year budget it says that you want to cut modernization even 
lower in 2006. In total for the 4-year life of the Vision 100 
bill the Administration plans to underfund the authorized level 
of air traffic control modernization by more than $2 billion.
    What has changed since the date that the President signed 
the Vision 100 bill and today that has caused you to do such a 
sudden reversal when it comes to modernizing our air traffic 
control equipment?
    Secretary Mineta. First of all, we are not doing anything 
to impact on the modernization. There are programs that we 
feel, as we reevaluated the program, needed to, frankly, be 
shelved and not move forward at this time. But in terms of the 
overall next generation air transportation system, we are not 
shortchanging improvements in capacity, safety, delays, or 
better information for air traffic controllers. Whether it be 
the STARS program or ASDX, the programs that will improve the 
system are funded by the 2005 budget and in the outyears as 
well.
    What we are doing is reevaluating, from a priority 
perspective, what we have done in the past and asking ourselves 
whether we need to do those in the future. Many of those lower 
priority programs have been set aside. But important programs 
like WAAS and others are moving forward under the air traffic 
control modernization program, and we have funded it.
    Senator Murray. A lot of the equipment out there is dozens 
of years old and was scheduled to be replaced many years ago. 
We have systems operating in our air traffic control system 
that are no longer supported by their vendors and are still 
years away from being replaced. So how can we believe that a 
funding cut of this size will not have any impact on the pace 
at which we replace that aging equipment and the overall safety 
of our air traffic control system?
    Secretary Mineta. I will submit that for the record. I do 
not have it with me right now. All of the equipment at the air 
traffic control towers and en route centers is still being 
shoehorned into the budget that we proposed.
    Senator Murray. You will submit that to us for the record?
    Secretary Mineta. I will submit that for the record.
    Senator Murray. I will look at that.
    [The information follows:]

    The reductions in FAA's Facilities and Equipment (F&E) in the 
fiscal year 2005 budget were concentrated in new technologies that do 
not replace existing equipment, such as Data Link, the Local Area 
Augmentation System (LAAS), and Nexcom 1B (next generation 
communications). These new technologies were going to be expensive for 
both the agency and the industry. While there was support for these 
items by the users, it was not clear it made sense to move forward with 
them at this time given the economics of both the airline industry and 
Federal budget.
    The FAA did not make any significant reductions to any programs 
that are currently necessary to modernize the airspace system. Funding 
levels for major modernization efforts like En Route Automation 
Modernization, the Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System 
(STARS), airport surveillance radars (ASR-9 and ASR-11), NEXCOM 1A, 
Advanced Technologies and Oceanic Procedures (ATOP), and the Voice 
Switching and Control System (VSCS) will continue to move forward in 
fiscal year 2005. The reduction in the size of the F&E budget will not 
affect the success of these modernization efforts.

                         SAFETEA FUNDING LEVELS

    Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, in my opening statement I 
voiced concern, as you heard, over the President's insistence 
that he will not support or sign a highway bill that exceeds 
$256 billion. One concern I have since we're talking about a 6-
year authorization bill is that the President might support a 
bill authorizing funding at a certain level and then not live 
up to that commitment in his budgets.
    For example, when the Bush Administration sent up its own 
aviation reauthorization bill it requested a total of $12 
billion for air traffic control modernization over a 4-year 
period. Now when we look at the President's budget request for 
2005 and beyond we see that he plans to request $2 billion less 
than the amount that he himself asked to be authorized. He only 
wants to fund 83 percent of the level he himself asked to be 
authorized.
    Now when it comes to the surface transportation 
authorization bill, President Bush has said that he will not 
support a highway and transit bill that exceeds $256 billion 
over 6 years. Is the President committed to actually requesting 
that $256 billion in future budgets or is this merely a 
statement on what he will allow to be authorized?
    Secretary Mineta. First of all, when we were putting 
SAFETEA together over a year ago, we talked to the President 
and he laid out certain principles such as no new taxes, no 
bonding mechanisms, and no increase in the deficit. So taking 
those directions, we then fashioned our SAFETEA proposal. The 
original proposal was for $247 billion. Then within the last 3 
or 4 months, it was raised to $256 billion.
    But that action was based on the principles he laid out, 
principles that he still stands by. In fact, prior to the 
Senate consideration of the SAFETEA legislation, Treasury 
Secretary Snow and I submitted a letter reflecting the 
administration's position, saying that any bill that violated 
these principles and that went above $256 billion would be 
considered for veto.
    Senator Murray. What I am actually asking is, when the 
President sent up his aviation reauthorization bill he 
requested $12 billion. We are now seeing his request come in 
much lower than that; in fact $2 billion less. What assures us 
that the President will actually fund the $256 billion if that 
is what we authorize? Even though I disagree with that, I am 
just asking you, what is the assurance that a year from now we 
are not going to see less requested than even that $256 
billion?
    Secretary Mineta. We took the enacted 2004 levels and have 
reflected those in the budget proposal and in SAFETEA as well.
    Senator Murray. What I am asking is, will the President 
commit to asking for the budgets every year that meet that 
authorization, whatever it is, that he signs into law?
    Secretary Mineta. Based on our submitted SAFETEA proposal, 
we do that.

                             HIGHWAY SAFETY

    Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, we have not always agreed on 
budget matters when it comes to your department. One area where 
we have always agreed has been the overarching importance of 
improving safety in all transportation modes. I want to really 
commend you, Mr. Secretary, for including funding in this 
year's budget for paid TV advertising to enhance seatbelt use 
and reduce drunk driving. The Committee has added funding for 
the last 2 years and the administration has finally requested 
funding in its 2005 budget request. This has been a very 
successful effort, as you know.
    This year the administration gave its surface 
transportation authorization the title of SAFETEA, as you 
mentioned, to highlight the importance of safety provisions in 
the bill. Could you just take a minute to share with this 
committee what you consider to be the most critical safety 
enhancements that were included in the administration's bill?
    Secretary Mineta. There is probably no single silver bullet 
that addresses the whole issue of safety. Safety can be 
engineering. Safety can be education. Safety can be a number of 
things. All of these are reflected in the SAFETEA proposal.
    But also in the 2005 budget, we are putting a great deal of 
emphasis--in fact I am doing a lot of traveling on the issue of 
both safety belt use and driving while under the influence, 
DUI. I am traveling to different States right now to try to get 
primary safety belt laws, and have found this to be a 
responsive chord with many States. But we only have, I believe, 
20 States with primary safety belt laws, so we have a long way 
to go. But we think that this is a good effort and we are 
enlisting a lot of new players into the program. I am going 
down to the NASCAR races in Richmond, in May I believe, and 
they will be endorsing the whole safety belt program and 
initiating their program of promoting safety belt usage.
    We are doing this with a number of different new 
constituent groups to increase safety belt use in our country.
    Senator Murray. I commend you on that and want to keep 
working with you on that.

                     CONTRACTING OUT FAA FUNCTIONS

    Mr. Secretary, as you know, the only reason that the FAA 
bill was allowed to pass the Senate was because FAA 
Administrator Blakey provided a letter to the Senate Commerce 
Committee promising that she would not contract out any 
additional FAA functions to the private sector during fiscal 
year 2004. I suspect this could become a very serious issue for 
the fiscal year 2005 appropriations bill because we do not have 
a commitment from you or Administrator Blakey for fiscal year 
2005 or beyond.
    As of now, are you aware of any areas where the FAA is 
considering contracting government work in fiscal year 2005 or 
beyond?
    Secretary Mineta. Nothing additional that I anticipate. I 
think the letter that Administrator Blakely submitted for 
fiscal year 2004 still stands. There was consideration at one 
point about additional contract towers, but after the letter 
was sent----
    Senator Murray. What areas are under consideration?
    Secretary Mineta. The ones that we had under consideration 
prior to that letter relating to fiscal year 2004 were general 
aviation towers for VFR, visual flight rule towers. We do not 
have any further plans beyond the 2004 letter that she 
submitted.
    Senator Murray. Can we get an identical letter for fiscal 
year 2005?
    Secretary Mineta. Let me consult with Administrator Blakey 
on that and get back to you on that.
    [The information follows:]

    The Federal Aviation Administration is engaged in completing the 
public/private competition of the Flight Service Station (FSS) 
Services. The competition's results are expected in March 2005.

    Senator Murray. Mr. Chairman, I will wait for the remainder 
of my questions. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Senator Bennett.

                            HIGHWAY FUNDING

    Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Mr. Secretary, I have searched for things to question you 
about, areas to probe and prod, and things are going so well I 
do not have anything to complain about.
    Secretary Mineta. You did such a great job as Assistant 
Secretary of Transportation that----
    Senator Bennett. It is the legacy of my service there.
    Secretary Mineta. That is right.
    Senator Bennett. Last night we were alerted to this issue 
that I mentioned in my opening statement. I know that it 
catches you completely by surprise, as it did us. So I raise it 
now just so that we can be in correspondence with you on this 
issue and see if we cannot get it resolved.
    For the record, I support the President's effort to get a 
SAFETEA program in place, but I think at some point we are 
going to have to spend more money. And if after he is safely 
reelected he were to come back to the Congress and suggest that 
for the first time since Ronald Reagan's presidency it is time 
to raise the gas tax, he would find a fairly sympathetic ear, 
at least with this Senator. I know I am taking my own political 
career in my hands when I say that because I am up for election 
this year too.
    But the needs of our highway system, compound with the 
increasing population and the age of the interstate highway 
system--and one of the things that has happened that was not 
foreseen by any means when the interstate highway system was 
conceived is that interstates have now become the Main Streets 
of our major metropolitan areas. The interstate system was 
supposed to bypass downtowns so that people could go quickly 
across the whole country and never run into a traffic jam. Now 
the metropolitan centers have relocated themselves around the 
interstate and the interstate has become the main urban artery 
and therefore jam up now at rush hour. The whole purpose of 
getting the interstate system in place as conceived during the 
Eisenhower administration has been frustrated by that.
    There is a solution to it, and it is financial. We are 
going to have to face up to that at some point in the future. 
So if you are back here next year and I am back here next year, 
and both of those depend on two separate elections, I will be 
happy to talk to you about increased funding through that 
particular source.
    Secretary Mineta. Thank you, Senator. We will respond.
    Senator Bennett. Thank you.
    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, we will get into another 
round, with your patience.
    Secretary Mineta. Surely.

                     FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENTS

    Senator Shelby. The Senate passed a 6-year reauthorization 
on the surface transportation legislation, as you well know. 
The House has not yet acted and the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee chairman has floated a proposal to 
pass a 2-year authorization bill. If a 2-year extension of 
TEA21 is enacted into law, is enough additional commitment 
authority created to execute a full funding agreement for all 
of the projects listed as pending and proposed in your 2005 
budget request?
    Do you want to get back with us for the record on that?
    Secretary Mineta. We will get back to you on that for the 
record.
    [The information follows:]

    The 6-year surface transportation bill, the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act, (SAFETEA) passed by 
the Senate on February 12, 2004, provides over $9.6 billion in budget 
authority over the fiscal year 2004-2009 period. Within this amount, 
$3.6 billion is needed to fully fund all approved or pending full 
funding grant agreements (FFGAs). This includes all projects with 
previous commitments or reserved authority under TEA21.
    Under the Senate-passed bill, $2.1 billion will cover anticipated 
FFGAs for the following projects: the first increment of New York East 
Side Access; Central Phoenix East Valley Corridor; Charlotte-South 
Corridor LRT; Raleigh-Regional Rail; and, Pittsburgh-North Shore 
Corridor. An additional $3.9 billion would be available for future 
commitments and funding of projects anticipated after fiscal year 2005.

    Senator Shelby. If there is not enough commitment authority 
to cover all of the proposed funding agreements in the request, 
how would FTA choose the projects that it would enter into a 
full funding agreement? You would have to make some decisions. 
We would be very interested in that. What would your 
methodology be?

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

    Ship disposal. MARAD has made progress in contracting for 
the disposal of obsolete ships from the National Defense 
Reserve Fleet. Recently, environmental concerns and legal 
proceedings have hindered these efforts. What steps are being 
taken to address the environmental issues, and what assurances 
is the Department providing to the countries receiving these 
ships that there is no environmental danger to them? Do you 
want to do that for the record?
    Secretary Mineta. Let me do that for the record. We have 13 
ships under contract to a United Kingdom firm, of which four 
have already been delivered and are sitting in the shipyard in 
Teaside, England. With our 2005 budget request we hope to 
increase that to 21 ships.
    We have a very strict environmental process to go through 
in certifying those ships for movement to an overseas location. 
We used to sell the ships to Bangladesh or India just to get 
rid of them. But that is no longer possible. We have strict 
environmental requirements that have to be met. We do need the 
additional funding in fiscal year 2005 to dispose of these 
additional ships.
    [The information follows:]

    MARAD is pursuing all disposal alternatives in order to find the 
most cost-effective, environmentally sound disposal capacity available. 
Disposal alternatives include domestic recycling, foreign recycling, 
artificial reefing, deep sinking, vessel donation and vessel sales. The 
export of ships for recycling is a promising alternative that has 
provided an increase in competition and capacity, which allows more 
ships to be disposed of with available disposal funding. The ability to 
export ships for recycling will expedite the elimination of high-
priority ships, significantly mitigate the environmental threat of oil 
discharge at the fleets and reduce the total number of obsolete vessels 
significantly. Although foreign facilities are not subject to the same 
worker and environmental laws as domestic facilities, MARAD's current 
process requires foreign companies to demonstrate to MARAD and the EPA 
that they can accomplish responsible vessel recycling in a manner that 
protects worker safety and health.
    MARAD's actions to ensure that the ship disposal process does not 
harm the environment include activities while the vessels are at our 
fleet anchorages, during tow preparations and while at the contractor's 
facility. Programmatic ship disposal priorities and decisions are also 
made in order to mitigate any threat to the environment.

                         AT THE FLEET ANCHORAGE

    MARAD has three reserve fleets sites where its non-retention, 
obsolete vessels are moored--the James River Reserve Fleet in Virginia, 
the Beaumont Reserve Fleet in Texas and the Suisun Bay Reserve Fleet in 
California. While the obsolete vessels are at the fleet anchorages 
awaiting disposal, four activities take place that are important to 
ensuring the environment is protected:
  --Condition assessments--the material condition of each vessel is 
        assessed, rated and ranked. Information from this assessment is 
        factored into programmatic disposal decisions.
  --Vessel condition monitoring--vessels are monitored for trim, 
        stability, hull and fuel tank integrity, overall deterioration 
        and adequate mooring.
  --Vessel protective measures--cathodic hull protection systems are 
        utilized to inhibit underwater hull deterioration and advanced 
        mooring systems are used to secure the ships and protect them 
        against damage from high winds and storms.
  --Corrective repairs/maintenance--as required repairs and maintenance 
        activities include pumping, patching, securing watertight 
        closures, etc.

                DURING TOW PREPARATIONS & TOW EVOLUTIONS

    MARAD's contracts require the prime contractor to accomplish tow 
preparations and the safe towing of the vessel to the contractor's 
facility. Proper tow preparations are ensured through the requirement 
for a U.S. Coast Guard inspection and issuance of a loadline 
certificate prior to the commencement of the tow. The contractor is 
also required to have in place an approved Emergency Spill Management 
Plan and a Spill Management Company to be on call to respond if needed 
throughout the duration of the tow. The contractor and tow company are 
also required to carry the appropriate level of insurance to cover 
response and cleanup costs in the event of a discharge incident.

                      AT THE CONTRACTOR'S FACILITY

    During the solicitation process prior to contract award, 
prospective contractors are assessed for their working knowledge of 
applicable environmental regulations. Technical Compliance Plans, 
required from the contractors, must provide comprehensive information 
related to environmental compliance measures to be followed during the 
course of the work. The contractor's documentation related to 
environmental activities is closely reviewed during the evaluation 
process, and a pre-award survey of the contractor's facility is 
accomplished if the contractor is new to MARAD.
    MARAD's ship disposal contracts require the contractor and sub-
contractors to comply with all municipal, State and Federal regulations 
related to the removal, handling, storage, transport and disposal of 
hazardous materials. This includes prime and subcontractor compliance 
with regulations associated with permits and licenses associated with 
hazardous material remediation activities. MARAD's Office of 
Environmental Activities provides on-site oversight over all project 
environmental activities either directly or through the use of third-
party commercial environmental monitoring companies. MARAD's oversight 
at disposal facilities is in addition to on-site inspections and 
oversight provided by regional EPA and OSHA offices.

                        PROGRAMMATIC PRIORITIES

    MARAD's ship disposal program priority remains focused on disposal 
of MARAD's worse condition, non-retention vessels. The material 
condition of the ship and the amount of residual fuels/oils contained 
onboard our vessels are factors that are considered in all vessel 
disposal decisions. Disposal of the ``worse ships first'' that contain 
the most residual oils/fuels mitigates the environmental threat at 
MARAD's fleet sites. MARAD's solicitations for disposal services 
include the higher priority vessels, and negotiations involving 
proposals that do not specify vessels will target the inclusion of 
higher priority vessels.

                    FUNDING FOR FAA CAPITAL PROGRAMS

    Senator Shelby. The FAA is requesting $2.5 billion for its 
capital account which is $400 million less than the authorized 
level and more than $300 million less than last year's enacted 
level. Hard decisions will have to be made there, Mr. 
Secretary. How will this impact the overall effort to modernize 
the air traffic control system? How are you going to do more 
with less? I would like to hear it. I would like to see you do 
it, but I do not know if you can.
    Secretary Mineta. There are a lot of things that were once 
part of the capital program that we had to reevaluate with a 
smaller pool of resources. Some of the programs that were in 
prior facilities and equipment budgets are not as high priority 
today as they might have been when we had more money available. 
We are setting those aside and the more high-priority items 
where we get more value for the dollars expended are the ones 
we are moving foreword.
    Safety, capacity and delay are our mantra. Those three 
criteria are what we use to look at what is in F&E and say, not 
as much is needed today as when we were more flush with funds. 
So we are doing a lot of reprioritizing to make sure that we 
can get more with less. It is not that we are adding more on 
top of what is already there, but we are taking some of the 
lower priority items and setting those aside, admittedly.

                                 AMTRAK

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, the administration has 
requested a subsidy of $900 million for Amtrak in 2005. Amtrak 
has once again asked Congress for $1.8 billion and continues to 
express a need for similar amounts over the next several years. 
Funding an increase above the current year level of $1.2 
billion will be extremely difficult. What is your long-term 
plan for Amtrak if the current reauthorization proposal is not 
enacted?
    Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, the President's reform 
proposal that is before Congress is very important. We have 
requested $900 million for Amtrak, but we have also indicated 
that we would support $1.4 billion in the outyears, in fiscal 
years 2006 to 2009, conditional on Congress adopting the 
management and financial reforms that are in the President's 
reform proposal.
    We have already expended over $35 billion on Amtrak since 
1973, and we cannot continue down that path. The President is 
very supportive of intercity passenger rail, but not on the 
present path that we are on. We feel very strongly that there 
has to be reform of Amtrak. So if the Congress were to adopt 
the President's reform legislation, then we would support $1.4 
billion in the outyears.
    Another thing that has helped Amtrak is the action taken by 
the Appropriations Committees to direct that Federal grants for 
Amtrak be approved by DOT before going to Amtrak.
    Amtrak has to submit an annual operating and capital 
financial plan. We reviewed Amtrak's plan in fiscal year 2003, 
and we are now doing that for fiscal year 2004. We have just 
approved the operating grant agreement with Amtrak, and FRA is 
now renewing the capital grant agreement. I think that has been 
a very effective tool in making sure that the financial 
management of Amtrak is kept under control.

                  COMMERCIAL DRIVER'S LICENSE PROGRAM

    Senator Shelby. In spite of the greater attention that it 
has drawn in recent years, the practice of fraudulently 
obtaining a commercial driver's license continues to pose a 
significant national risk, both in terms of highway safety and 
terrorism prevention. While the Department is to be commended, 
and I think we should do this, for the efforts it has taken 
thus far to curb commercial driver's license abuse, I think a 
lot of work needs to be completed in order to properly address 
the problem.
    Mr. Secretary, what measures are being implemented and what 
do you plan to undertake during the next year in order to end, 
as much as you can, commercial driver's license fraud? How does 
the Department plan to oversee and coordinate with the States 
in order to assure that commercial driver's license fraud 
issuance is being conducted in accordance with Federal 
guidelines?
    Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, let me properly respond to 
you in writing, but one of the things that we are doing is to 
complete 17 Federal compliance reviews of State commercial 
driver's license programs. The end result is to increase 
oversight of the commercial driver's license program.
    As you know, this has been the subject of some FBI fraud 
investigations, and we are making sure that we plug that hole. 
We are requesting $22 million for fiscal year 2005 for the 
State improvement of driver's license programs.
    [The information follows:]

    FMCSA has taken numerous actions to help prevent fraud in the 
Commercial Driver's License (CDL) Program. FMCSA's CDL State Compliance 
Review requirement is in the fourth year of implementation. These 
compliance reviews are a necessary part of the CDL program to ensure 
States have the statutes, administrative procedures, and equipment to 
administer their CDL programs in compliance with Federal requirements. 
Field personnel are receiving training on conducting compliance reviews 
and identifying testing and licensing procedures that may be 
susceptible to fraudulent activities. In continuation of supporting 
fraud prevention, FMCSA is funding the updating of the CDL 
Identification Manual. The manual contains color photographs of all 
U.S., Canadian, and Mexican commercial licenses for use by State 
licensing and enforcement officials to help identify fraudulent CDLs.
    FMCSA is addressing the 22 recommendations made by the Office of 
the Inspector General (OIG) in the May 8, 2002, audit report on 
``Improving Testing and Licensing of Commercial Drivers,'' including 
ones related directly to fraud. Also in response to an OIG 
recommendation, FMCSA issued a policy memo on July 1, 2002, 
specifically recommending States use covert monitoring of CDL examiners 
as the preferred method of driver licensing oversight and control. 
Eighteen States have set up covert monitoring programs with CDL grant 
funds.
    The CDL grant program has six priority areas. Two of them include 
detection and prevention of fraudulent activities including covert 
monitoring and implementation of the social security number (SSN) 
verification for CDL drivers. FMCSA received a $5.1 million fiscal year 
2002 supplemental appropriation from Congress to verify all existing 
and new CDL driver's names, dates of birth and SSN with Social Security 
Administration (SSA) records to help prevent fraudulent identities from 
being created. To date, 40 States are verifying the CDL driver's 
identify through the SSA. The remaining States are being encouraged to 
establish SSN verification programs.
    Finally, FMCSA, in cooperation with the American Association of 
Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), identified 14 tasks to detect and 
reduce fraudulent activities related to driver licensing. FMCSA 
received an $8 million fiscal year 2002 supplemental appropriation to 
help fund these tasks through a cooperative agreement. In addition, 
through the cooperative agreement FMCSA and AAMVA have funded revisions 
and upgrades to the CDL Knowledge Tests and software that can generate 
multiple versions of the tests. To further the fraud prevention 
initiative AAMVA has formed a Special Task Force on Identification 
Security to identify strategies to achieve intended outcomes. FMCSA is 
working closely with AAMVA through participation on the Task Force 
working groups and is providing funding for these efforts.

    Senator Shelby. Senator Murray.

                MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Just following up on that, the number of compliance 
reviews, as I understand, have dropped significantly. Are you 
aware of that? In December 2002, FMCSA did 817 compliance 
reviews but only completed 472 as of December 2003. Since that 
is one of the most reliable ways to identify unsafe motor 
carriers why has there been such a precipitous drop in the 
number of reviews?
    Secretary Mineta. I am not sure of those figures. I know 
that 17 compliance reviews are going on right now. Let me check 
on that State compliance number.
    Senator Murray. Can you get the historical numbers for us?
    Secretary Mineta. I will.
    [The information follows:]

    In fiscal year 2003, FMCSA began implementation of Section 210 of 
the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA). MCSIA 
required FMCSA to establish regulations specifying minimum requirements 
for new entrant motor carriers seeking Federal interstate operating 
authority. There are approximately 40,000 to 50,000 new entrant 
carriers seeking operating authority each year.
    During December 2002, 280 compliance reviews (CRs) were completed, 
which was significantly lower than the normal average of 800 compliance 
reviews per month. This was a result of an increased emphasis on 
conducting Security Sensitivity Visits (SSVs) in response to the events 
surrounding the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. In December 
2003, 817 compliance reviews were completed, an increase of 537 (192 
percent) from the previous December. This shows that FMCSA returned to 
its normal CR production level. Overall, 7,584 compliance reviews were 
completed in fiscal year 2002 and 9,060 were completed in fiscal year 
2003, an increase of 1,476 (19 percent) for the year.
    During the first 5 months of fiscal year 2004, FMCSA completed 
3,348 compliance reviews, which is on target to meet FMCSA's projected 
goal of completing 8,000 compliance reviews for fiscal year 2004. While 
the fiscal year 2004 target is lower than the actual number of 
compliance reviews that were completed in fiscal year 2003, this is 
attributed to an increased emphasis on conducting New Entrant Safety 
Audits, as mandated by Congress.

                                 AMTRAK

    Senator Murray. Thank you. Also following up on the 
Chairman's comments on Amtrak--I know he is surprised that I 
am--as you know, the reforms that you are requiring have to be 
considered by the Commerce Committee. This committee has to set 
the number for fiscal year 2005. So I know that you are asking 
for the Commerce Committee to follow up on that, and then if 
they do it then you will go to the $1.4 billion in 2006 and 
beyond. But we are looking at 2005.
    A 26 percent reduction in the dollars to Amtrak is said by 
Amtrak's president to take it into bankruptcy. Your own 
Department of Transportation Inspector General has testified in 
the past that a precipitous cut of size would mean bankruptcy 
for Amtrak. So that does not get us to 2006, if the Commerce 
Committee even moves forward on this. I know you are a member 
of Amtrak's board of directors. Do you know something that we 
do not know that will allow them to somehow manage to make it 
on a huge cut like this until reforms are enacted, if they are 
enacted?
    Secretary Mineta. The operating financial management 
reviews that are going on right now, separate from the capital 
reviews, provide for some modicum of operational support. We 
cannot fund the full amount because that would require--I think 
you folks appropriated $1.3 billion in----
    Senator Murray. One-point-two billion dollars.
    Secretary Mineta [continuing]. And that was on a request of 
$1.8 billion from Amtrak. They are able to survive on $1.2 
billion. Again they're requesting $1.8 billion and again we are 
taking a very hard look at----
    Senator Murray. But your budget request is for $900 
million.
    Secretary Mineta. Nine hundred million dollars.
    Senator Murray. That is significantly below this year's 
level, and both the Amtrak president and your own IG have said 
that Amtrak cannot survive at that level.
    Secretary Mineta. Again, unless management and financial 
reforms are adopted----
    Senator Murray. So you are basically saying that if your 
reforms are not adopted that go into effect by 2006, Amtrak is 
not going to survive?
    Secretary Mineta. We are still holding by the need for 
reform.
    Senator Murray. I hope the President takes a really active 
approach with the Commerce Committee.
    Secretary Mineta. As I understand it, Senator McCain is 
about to introduce an Amtrak reform bill.
    Senator Murray. We have been down this road before. I would 
just warn all of us that if this is the bar that we have to be 
held to, we are going to be again looking at a shutdown in 
Amtrak I do not think any of us wants to see.

                      CONTRACTING OUT FEDERAL JOBS

    Mr. Secretary, earlier today you talked about your efforts 
in advancing the President's management agenda. Last year this 
subcommittee, as you will remember, was very involved in the 
issue of establishing standards for contracting out Federal 
jobs. One of the provisions that was included in last year's 
bill was a prohibition against using fiscal year 2004 funds to 
contract out any Federal job overseas. I was really surprised 
to see that the President's budget specifically requests that 
that provision be deleted for 2005.
    Could you cite for us some of the instances the Department 
of Transportation might look at to take work that is currently 
being conducted by Federal employees and send that work 
overseas?
    Secretary Mineta. I do not have any knowledge of that. I 
will have to take a look at that.
    Senator Murray. I can see all of your staff shaking their 
heads. Then can you tell us why the President wants flexibility 
if you have no place that you actually want to send jobs 
overseas why he is asking to eliminate that provision?
    Secretary Mineta. The President's request is a generic, 
government-wide request. But I am not familiar with any plan 
within our Department right now. Generally, we do not like to 
see these types of prohibitions in legislative language. In any 
event, I am not aware of any plans right now to send any jobs--
--
    Senator Murray. I assume you would not object to that 
language staying in for fiscal year 2005?
    Secretary Mineta. On behalf of the administration, of 
course. But in terms of any plans for, other than normal FAA 
employees that are in foreign positions, I have got people in 
Iraq, Afghanistan--not Afghanistan, but Iraq right now. We have 
got air traffic controllers in overseas spots. We have other 
positions. But we are not--I do not see, other than----
    Senator Murray. But you do not see any problem with putting 
the provision in again that does not allow any contracting out 
of new jobs?
    Secretary Mineta. Again, I do not like to see those kinds 
of prohibitions placed in legislative language.
    Senator Murray. But you have no plans to contract anything 
out?
    Secretary Mineta. I do not believe so.
    [The information follows:]

    The general provision in the President's budget to delete the 
restriction on contracting out Federal jobs overseas would apply 
government-wide, not just to the Department of Transportation. The 
administration believes the restriction against contracting out Federal 
jobs overseas is generally unnecessary because the government wins a 
vast majority of the work and many activities that are the subject of 
competitive sourcing must be performed domestically, for example 
facilities maintenance, repair, and construction. In addition, the 
restriction could violate international agreements that accord our 
trading partners non-discriminatory treatment in government 
procurement. These agreements generally provide for non-discriminatory 
treatment to suppliers of foreign entities--i.e., they provide 
flexibility for both foreign and domestic contractors to perform work 
where performance will make the contractor most competitive.

            AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL MAINTENANCE STAFFING LEVELS

    Senator Murray. Mr. Secretary, last Monday a Federal 
arbitrator ruled that the FAA has not met the minimum staffing 
levels needed for the agency's air traffic control maintenance 
functions based on the agreement that was reached in fiscal 
year 2000 between the FAA and the union that represents the 
maintenance technicians. The arbitrator ruled that the FAA must 
immediately take action to raise the total number of technical 
employees to a minimum staffing of 6,100. How was the FAA 
allowed to drop below the agreed upon minimum staffing level?
    Secretary Mineta. I will have to get back to you for the 
record on that.
    [The information follows:]

    The Federal Aviation Administration believes that employees in 
operational control centers should be included in the air traffic 
control maintenance staffing level of 6,100.

                NEED FOR FULL COMPLEMENT OF TECHNICIANS

    Senator Murray. Given the funding cuts you are requesting 
for modernizing air traffic control equipment, would you not 
agree that it would be prudent to have a full complement of 
technicians on board to maintain and repair the FAA's aging air 
traffic control system?
    Secretary Mineta. I will have to check on the labor 
negotiation with the technicians group, the Professional Airway 
System Specialist (PASS) union, and the budgetary amount.
    [The information follows:]

    The Professional Airways Systems Specialists (PASS) union disagrees 
with the Federal Aviation Administration's (FAA) position that 
employees in operational control centers should be included in the air 
traffic control maintenance staffing level. A Federal arbitrator ruled 
in favor of PASS, and the FAA has appealed the decision to the Federal 
Labor Relations Authority.

                   DECISION OF THE FEDERAL ARBITRATOR

    Senator Murray. If you could do that, and if you could let 
us know how quickly you expect the FAA to comply with the 
decision of the Federal arbitrator as well.
    Secretary Mineta. Right. I am not sure whether they are 
binding agreements or if there are any appeal provisions to 
that arbitrator. I will have to check on that as well.
    [The information follows:]

    The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) had 30 days from the date 
of the Federal arbitrator's award (March 1, 2004) to file exceptions 
with the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA). After reviewing the 
award, the FAA felt that the arbitrator exceeded his authority and 
abrogated management of its right to determine where employees would be 
assigned, a right that management chose not to waive according to the 
managers who were present in negotiations. The FAA's exceptions were 
filed on March 25, 2004, and we do not know how long the FLRA will take 
before rendering a decision. The FLRA will allow the Professional 
Airways Systems Specialists (PASS) union time to submit a response to 
the Agency exceptions and will then issue a decision. There is no 
statutory time frame in which the FLRA must issue a decision.

              THIRD RUNWAY AT SEATAC INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT

    Senator Murray. One last question. Mr. Secretary, a lot has 
been said about the need to streamline the environmental review 
process for highways, runways, and rail systems. Unfortunately, 
the poster child project for long delays that impact many 
projects is the third runway project at Seattle Tacoma 
International Airport.
    As you know, we have been trying to complete construction 
of that third runway for more than 16 years. The added costs 
for complying with the environmental rules for the construction 
of that runway as well as the associated cost for delays have 
grown by over $200 million just in the last 4 years. As you can 
imagine, this has put an incredible amount of pressure on the 
ability of the airport authority to finance the completion of 
that project. Are you aware of that situation at Seattle Tacoma 
International Airport?
    Secretary Mineta. I was just made aware of this $198.1 
million request that SeaTac is making of FAA 2 days ago. This 
is the third request on the part of SeaTac. The original 
agreement for a letter of intent was in 1997 for, I believe, 
$198 million, or $190 million or so then. Then that was revised 
several years ago by an additional $55 million, $57 million. 
This is the third request for an increase in the letter of 
intent for the SeaTac Airport. We will have to take a look at 
what we are doing with that whole program.
    [The information follows:]

    In 1997, the FAA issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) to Seattle Tacoma 
International Airport (SeaTac) for construction of a third runway, 
committing $161.5 million in AIP funds over the period of fiscal year 
1998-2010 towards the then estimated $587 million total project cost. 
This represented a 28 percent Federal share of the total cost; higher 
than recent projects of a similar scope (e.g., Atlanta and St. Louis 
were around 18-20 percent). The LOI was amended in 2000 to add $55 
million in funds over the period fiscal year 2001-2010 to help offset 
unanticipated increases to the project cost, then estimated at $773 
million. This raised the total LOI amount to $216.5 million, but kept 
the Federal share around 28 percent.
    SeaTac has recently submitted an application for a second amendment 
to the LOI, this time for an additional $198.1 million over the period 
fiscal year 2005-2014. This would raise the LOI total to $414.6 million 
and the Federal share to 37 percent of the total project cost, now 
estimated at $1.1 billion.
    The Federal Aviation Administration is still reviewing SeaTac's 
application. There is some concern about the high level of Federal 
funding--the precedent-setting Federal share of 37 percent that would 
result from this amendment, which is significantly higher than similar 
recent projects. While we support the SeaTac third runway project, and 
are sensitive to the environmental burdens which have caused some of 
the cost increase, we need to examine the application in detail before 
committing to a funding decision. As part of that examination the FAA 
is retaining the services of an outside financial consultant to review 
SeaTac's financial condition.

    Senator Murray. I appreciate that. I am currently pursuing 
an amendment to the airport's existing Federal commitment to 
ensure that there is adequate financing to meet all of those 
new environmental costs. As you know, a lot of it has been 
because of Federal environmental laws and I want to pursue that 
with you, and I would like to ask----
    Secretary Mineta. I think that it is not only Federal 
environmental laws, but also local lawsuits that have been 
brought against----
    Senator Murray. Under Federal environmental laws. That is 
why the lawsuits have been brought.
    I just want to know from you, is DOT still committed to the 
completion of the third runway project and the economic 
benefits that it will bring to the Northwest region?
    Secretary Mineta. I assume so. I assume that it still is.
    Senator Murray. Would you be willing to sit down with 
myself, Marion Blakey and the appropriate airport officials to 
talk about this issue?
    Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
    Senator Murray. I would appreciate that very much.
    Secretary Mineta. Absolutely.
    Senator Murray. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your indulgence.

           ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS FOR ALASKAN HIGHWAY PROJECTS

    Senator Shelby. Senator Stevens, thank you for joining us.

                    STATEMENT OF SENATOR TED STEVENS

    Senator Stevens. Thank you very much. I am pleased to be 
here to be with young men who have brand new ideas. That is an 
in-house story up here, Mr. Secretary. I am pleased to have a 
chance to come before you because there are some significant 
transportation problems in Alaska in which the process seems to 
be changed, and it becomes significant because the increased 
reviews are burdensome and sometimes unwarranted as far as our 
State is concerned. I am sure you know, we have a fairly small 
allowance for highway construction in Alaska, and to take more 
of it for the environmental review is becoming burdensome.
    Let me just state this to you. The Federal Highway 
Administrator brought a training team to Alaska to assist in 
management and planning of environmental steps required in 
Title 23 of the Federal aid program. In addition, it relocated 
a third environmental review person in Juneau to help review 
the environmental documents prepared under the National 
Environmental Protection Act.
    Apparently, this work has become rather than an assistance 
to get the job done quicker, it has added additional thresholds 
for the transportation projects. We previously used some 
categorical exclusions versus an environmental assessment (EA) 
and now we are getting into the environmental impact statement 
(EIS) on very small items.
    For instance, an erosion control project on the Dalton 
Highway, that is the highway that goes north from Fairbanks to 
the North Slope, was slated for an EA. Last year it was 
processed as a categorical exclusion. It is a dirt highway. It 
has been there for years and it was an erosion control item 
that should have been handled just as routine maintenance as a 
matter of fact.
    A bridge replacement of an existing bridge on the Alaska 
Highway--that is our only highway that goes out to the south 
48--now requires a full EIS. This is a bridge that is critical 
to the gas pipeline that we are planning now, and I understand 
that the EIS on this bridge replacement will delay the project 
by 1 to 2 years. It could well add another year to two to the 
building of the pipeline.
    There is a brush cutting project that was performed by 
Saga, that is an AmeriCorps nonprofit, who was told to seek an 
EA. That is the environmental assessment. These always have 
been the categorical exclusion type things, just brush cutting. 
We are entirely in favor of strict environmental protection, 
but when it comes to have an increase in the level of 
requirements that have to be achieved, the heightened review is 
causing delays, increasing costs, moving projects from one year 
to another because of the short construction season that we 
have in Alaska.
    This is not associated only with the interior of Alaska. 
The Knik Arm Bridge project, the Juneau Access Road, the 
Gravina Road, all priority projects that are in the TEA21 
reauthorization have now been indicated to have the highest 
level of environmental review to proceed.
    I would like to see if you could explain why at this time 
we have--by the way, I think we have the highest level of 
unemployment per capita in the country. We have a declining 
economy because of the loss of our oil industry, our mining 
industry, our timber industry, the basic industries associated 
with the harvesting of timber. I cannot tell you--we have now 
got a series of projects that would have provided employment 
during this coming work season, hopefully, provide a slight 
bridge for many people over into the next year when some of 
these other things might be started up again.
    But why can we not go back to the simple processes that 
were used for years in connection with these highway projects 
and not go up the ladder in terms of environmental protection 
unless there is a significant new perspective involved. All the 
things I am talking about are facilities in place that require 
improvement or maintenance.
    Secretary Mineta. Mr. Chairman, I am not familiar enough 
with these projects to be able to respond, but let me get back 
to you in writing after talking to our Federal highway folks. I 
would think that if a new person has been dispatched to Juneau 
to deal with environmental reviews, it was done in the hope of 
speeding up the process. Let me find out why categorical 
exclusion for a maintenance project now requires an 
environmental assessment. I just do not know these projects or 
the process well enough to be able to respond.
    [The information follows:]

    The U.S. Department of Transportation is actively working to 
facilitate the environmental review processes in Alaska. For example, 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into an agreement 
with the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities 
(DOTPF) that allows many projects with minor environmental impacts to 
be processed as categorical exclusions without project-specific review 
by FHWA. Other projects do involve a FHWA review, but are determined to 
qualify as categorical exclusions. The net result is that the vast 
majority of Alaska DOTPF's projects are advanced as categorical 
exclusions. In a small number of cases, where the project facts do not 
support a categorical exclusion, FHWA will work with the Alaska DOTPF 
to prepare an environmental assessment (EA). In those situations where 
environmental impacts are found to be significant, a full environmental 
impact statement is required by law.
    With respect to the specific projects mentioned, the FHWA has 
reached an understanding with Alaska DOTPF that allows the projects to 
advance with the appropriate level of environmental review. For 
example, the brush cutting projects mentioned all qualify for a 
categorical exclusion under FHWA's agreement with the Alaska DOTPF. The 
Tanana River Bridge is being advanced with an environmental assessment 
because of potential impacts involving historic resources, native 
lands, hazardous wastes, and recreational lands. The Dalton Highway 
erosion control project was done with an environmental assessment, 
because the project involved extensive channelization of an 
environmentally important stream. The Alaska Division approved the EA 
for the Dalton project on April 7, 2004, and the Division expects to 
issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) in the near future.
    FHWA is fully committed to efficient environmental review processes 
in Alaska. To position itself for success, FHWA has recently worked 
with Alaska DOTPF to host a number of training and process improvement 
efforts. FHWA is confident that these efforts will lead to timely 
project approvals and environmental outcomes that fully respect 
Alaska's unique environmental resources.

    Senator Stevens. I would hope personally you would take the 
time to come up this summer and go see some of these.
    Secretary Mineta. I will, yes, sir.
    Senator Stevens. In the last decade we have only had one 
court review of any environmental matter related to highways. 
We have been perfectly operating with total cooperation. Now it 
seems that because of the elevated requirement in each 
instance, we are building towards more and more court review. 
Since these are routine projects, brush cutting, bridge 
replacement, erosion control, I just do not quite understand 
it. So I would hope that you would take the time this summer 
sometime and come up and we will get a small plane and go out 
and look at some of these.
    Secretary Mineta. I would be more than happy to accept that 
invitation.
    Senator Stevens. Thank you. I shall give you some 
appropriate dates.
    Secretary Mineta. Great.

                           SHORT SEA SHIPPING

    Senator Shelby. Thank you, Chairman Stevens.
    Mr. Secretary, the Maritime Administration is considering 
exploring the potential for short sea freight shipping to 
assist in reducing highway congestion. Can you tell us more 
about this proposal?
    Secretary Mineta. The goal of short sea shipping is to 
utilize our ports and inland waterways. There are two factors 
that are driving this. One is that ships are getting larger 
with more containers onboard, and our own ports are unable to 
handle these larger container ships. When the larger ships come 
in, you can take the containers, put them on barges and 
lighters and then move the containers from Boston to New York 
to Baltimore to Savannah, or wherever their transshipment 
points might be. This can provide some relief to the traffic 
that is already on the highways, especially along the Eastern 
I-95 seaboard.
    Senator Shelby. What about the Tennessee-Tombigbee down in 
the southeast?
    Secretary Mineta. That is an inland waterway. We would look 
at inland waterways as part of this whole effort.

             FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION REORGANIZATION

    Senator Shelby. Although FTA's senior management contends 
that its reorganization proposal is preliminary, the 
subcommittee has evidence that could lead a reasonable person 
to conclude that the plans have been finalized, Mr. Secretary, 
without your approval or Congressional approval. For example, 
we have information regarding staffing decisions, 
implementation schedules, and even office farewell parties. Not 
for you, of course.
    I would like to work with you, I think the committee would, 
to ensure that FTA follows internal Departmental guidelines and 
the requirements expressed in the appropriations act. Are you 
willing to do that?
    Secretary Mineta. Absolutely. There are situations where we 
have to ask what comes first? We have to abide by OPM 
regulations and by OMB regulations. The first body we have to 
look at related to reorganization is OPM.
    There are a lot of things that need to be started in a 
preliminary way. None of these are set in concrete because we 
have to come to you for reprogramming requests. The requests 
have to clear our own internal channels within the Department 
and with OMB as well. In terms of my own reorganization of the 
Department, there are a number of things going on related to 
hazmat and to other parts of our Department.
    So, yes, word gets out about intended organizational 
changes, but they are not carved in stone yet. We have to make 
sure that we are in compliance with what OPM says and OMB says. 
But we will definitely work with you, and we know that we have 
to do that. It is not a question of having to do it, we want to 
do it.

                     ADDITIONAL COMMITTEE QUESTIONS

    Senator Shelby. Thank you.
    Senator Murray, do you have any other questions?
    Senator Murray. No.
    [The following questions were not asked at the hearing, but 
were submitted to the Department for response subsequent to the 
hearing:]
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard C. Shelby

                       NATCA: PAY FOR PERFORMANCE

    Question. Secretary Mineta, you stated earlier in testimony before 
the subcommittee that there are problems with NATCA units in delivering 
pay for performance. Please provide the Department's assessment of the 
problems that you alluded to in your testimony.
    Answer. As we stated, the impasse was submitted to Congress. The 
statutory 60-day timeframe for Congress to act on the impasse has 
passed, so the FAA is now proceeding to implement its pay plan in the 
remaining NATCA bargaining units. The FAA is currently considering what 
its next steps are in this regard.

                      FTA ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES

    Question. Please break out in detail the reasons for the 
administrative cost increases at the FTA.
    Answer. The $4.8 million dollar increase in FTA's administrative 
expenses is necessary to carry out its mission. Funds will be used to 
strategically manage human resources, competitively outsource 
commercial functions, expand electronic government, improve financial 
management, and integrate budget and performance, as outlined in the 
President's Management Agenda. In doing so, FTA will enable the long-
term management of its workforce and fosters a citizen-centered, 
results-based government that is well organized, flexible, and will 
improve in performance.
    Additional administrative expenses are needed as follows:
  --An increase of $1.5 million is necessary to cover the annualized 
        fiscal year 2004 pay raise and the annualized January 2005 pay 
        raise, health benefits increase, and mandatory within grade 
        increases.
  --An increase of $1.02 million is needed to support ten additional 
        FTEs. These resources are needed to comply with the expanded 
        technical assistance requirements of projects in the planning 
        process, implement statutory requirements for New Starts 
        projects, meet the requirements of major program initiatives, 
        and coordinate projects and reviews with other agencies, States 
        and local project sponsors.
  --An increase of $0.2 million is required due to the inability of the 
        General Services Administration and the owner of the 
        Headquarters' Nassif building to negotiate a new lease 
        agreement at fair market value.
  --An increase of $0.5 million is needed to cover inflation and 
        increased service costs, which increases are in line with the 
        OMB deflator for non-pay activities. Failure to fund inflation 
        results in the agency's inability to pay the full cost of 
        essential non-pay activities.
  --An increase of $1.1 million is needed to continue improving our 
        information technology infrastructure, which includes: 
        application security and accreditation of information 
        technology systems; an increase in the Transportation Award and 
        Management System to facilitate grant processing and contract 
        approval; and ensuring that the Information Technology 
        infrastructure works with emerging technologies to support cost 
        accounting and core accountabilities.
  --An additional $0.5 million is needed to support workforce planning 
        and training to ensure that there is available staff of the 
        appropriate skill mix to carryout program development and 
        oversight responsibilities.

                         MOTOR FUEL TAX EVASION

    Question. Mr. Secretary, what suggestions do you have for getting 
the IRS to improve its efforts to reduce the estimated $1 billion in 
fuel tax evasion that occurs each year? Please provide for the record 
any correspondence from DOT to the Department of the Treasury about the 
importance of this issue.
    Answer. The Department has proposed the authorization of $54.5 
million for fiscal year 2005 to address motor fuel tax evasion. Of this 
amount, State enforcement agencies would share $4.5 million to enhance 
programs at the State level including but not limited to motor fuel tax 
audits and examinations, dyed fuel sampling, and training. Two million 
dollars would be set aside for intergovernmental enforcement efforts 
including specific projects coordinated with Federal and State agencies 
that are not traditionally involved in motor fuel tax enforcement as 
well as those that have been involved in the past, but currently may 
not be working on the issue.
    The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) would receive the remaining $48 
million. Of that amount, $4.5 million would be provided for the 
operation and maintenance of the automated fuel tracking system 
mandated by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Forty-
four million dollars would be used by the IRS to begin development, 
operation, and maintenance of a registration system for pipelines, 
vessels, and barges and their operators, that make bulk transfers of 
taxable fuels, including developing a decal/transponder to be used to 
display proof of payment. It would also be used to establish, operate 
and maintain an electronic database of heavy vehicle highway use tax 
payments; and for additional enforcement efforts including audits, 
examinations and criminal investigations.
    The automated fuel tracking system provides an important tool to 
the IRS and the States for monitoring fuel tax compliance. The 
additional requirement of electronic reporting will allow the IRS to 
have more complete information on the movement of fuel into and out of 
terminals thus assisting IRS and State enforcement efforts.
    The proposal to give the IRS significantly more funding than in the 
past comes with additional accountability. The IRS would be required to 
submit reports on progress made in the development of any new automated 
systems, criminal investigations, audits and examinations. Also, the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will be more involved in the 
development of any work plans related to new program requirements and 
in the oversight of such projects.
    The expanded resources that will be available to the IRS for 
improved database systems and greater enforcement efforts will allow 
the agency more flexibility in its role as enforcer. The combined 
efforts of the IRS and the States resulting from the significant 
increase in funding will provide an opportunity to reduce motor fuel 
tax evasion.
    Interaction between the FHWA and the IRS most often takes place 
over the telephone or through face-to-face meetings. A memorandum of 
understanding between the FHWA and the IRS was signed to provide for 
the development of the automated fuel tracking system mandated in the 
TEA21. A scanned copy is provided.



                       OVERSIGHT OF MEGA-PROJECTS

    Question. In your earlier testimony you indicated that project 
managers will provide improved oversight of mega-projects. What 
estimated cost savings can the committee expect to see in these types 
of projects? What type of review occurs prior to awarding a contract to 
determine if the contractor has actually underbid the true costs? 
Should more oversight occur in this area? What results could we expect 
to see?
    Answer. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is assigning a 
designated Project Oversight Manager to each active major project, 
dedicated full-time to that specific major project. The Oversight 
Manager may draw upon resources from within his/her Division Office in 
order to form an integrated project team that is responsible for 
providing proper Federal stewardship and oversight of the major 
project. The Project Oversight Manager is responsible for the overall 
administration and operation of the Project from a Federal stewardship/
oversight perspective. He/she maintains an ongoing review process to 
ensure that proper oversight and controls are in place and functioning 
including cost containment and financial management. While the cost 
savings are difficult to quantify, having an FHWA official on-site has 
resulted in efficiencies in project management. In addition, the FHWA's 
independent review of the costs and schedules via finance plans and 
annual updates have contributed to efficiencies in cost and schedule 
control.
    Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), part 635, section 
114(a) requires design-bid-build Federal-aid contracts to be awarded 
only on the basis of the lowest responsive bid submitted by a bidder 
meeting the criteria of responsibility. This requirement applies to all 
Federal-aid projects, including major projects. For Federal-aid 
projects that are determined to be ``State-approved projects'', the 
State Transportation Agency (STA) may act for the FHWA in the bid 
analysis and award process, but must follow the justification and 
documentation procedures of 23 CFR 635.114(b-j) by documenting the 
project files. STAs may follow their own justification and 
documentation procedures for non-NHS projects.
    Bid analysis is the basis for justifying contract award or 
rejection of the bids. The bid analysis process, pursuant to 23 CFR 
635.114(c), is an examination of the unit bid prices for reasonable 
conformance with the engineer's estimated prices and other factors 
beyond the comparison of prices. A proper bid analysis helps to ensure 
that funds are being used in the most effective manner. The FHWA's 
review of the bids should parallel the STA's review. Together, both 
agencies should be assured that good competition and the lowest 
possible price were received. The FHWA's concurrence in award is a step 
in the obligation and expenditure of Federal funds and is the 
authorization to proceed with construction.
    The current oversight of the bidding process is adequate. Division 
Offices are actively involved with the processes of the State DOTs to 
assure that 23 CFR requirements are met. In addition, the concurrence 
in award process serves as an additional check and is only provided 
after receipt and review of the tabulation of bids. This applies to all 
Federal-aid oversight projects, including major projects. Division 
Offices also conduct process reviews of the bidding process when 
appropriate.
    The oversight provided by the Major Project Oversight Manager model 
has been successful and has provided for adequate oversight. However, 
the Agency is constantly striving to provide the employees in these 
positions the tools to enhance their abilities to improve their 
oversight. For instance, in the upcoming year, the Agency will be 
providing multidisciplinary training in several core competency areas: 
project management, financial management, cost estimating, 
communications, and leadership. In addition, the FHWA Contract 
Administration Course contains modules which address the bidding 
process.
    By continuing to improve the core competencies of the Major Project 
Oversight Managers, the Agency can expect to see a cadre of FHWA 
managers who are able to provide more of a collaborative leadership 
role to major projects. In this role, the Managers will work together 
with the entire project delivery team to deliver major projects that 
maintain the public's trust and confidence in our ability to deliver 
the Federal-aid Highway Program. The additional training provided about 
the bidding process to both Federal and State employees via the 
Contract Administration Course results in an awareness of the bidding 
process requirements and sound procedures that optimize process 
efficiencies and limits opportunities for legal challenges and fraud.
    For the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and the oversight of 
mega-projects, future projects will be tightly managed to ensure the 
project cost will not exceed 5 percent of the baseline project cost. A 
project recovery plan will be required when the projected baseline cost 
is going to exceed more than 5 percent. To determine whether a 
contractor may have underbid the cost, a bid analysis will continue to 
be performed prior to awarding the contract. FTA will continue to 
review the grantee's bid analysis to ensure project cost control. 
Increased oversight reviews will result in more successful projects 
such as the New Orleans Canal Streetcar Line, Dallas North Central LRT 
and Interstate Max LRT in Portland.
    As for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), they too have a 
process to review the costs of major airport improvement projects and 
continue to perform significant oversight functions. All Airport 
Improvement Program grantees must perform an analysis of cost or price 
for all procurement actions, including contract modifications.

           FULL FUNDING GRANT AGREEMENT COMMITMENT AUTHORITY

    Question. Earlier in the hearing, Mr. Secretary, you were asked how 
FTA would chose from among projects that it has proposed to enter into 
full funding contracts during fiscal year 2005 without sufficient 
commitment authority to cover all of the projects. Please explain this 
for the record. What methodology would be used?
    Answer. There is sufficient commitment authority to cover all of 
the projects recommended for Section 5309 New Starts funding in the 
President's Budget for fiscal year 2005 and the Annual Report on New 
Starts: Proposed Allocations of Funds for fiscal year 2005 (the current 
``Annual New Starts Report''). Year by year, in each Presidential 
Budget and Annual New Starts Report for the coming fiscal year, the 
Department and FTA make recommendations for New Starts funding only 
insofar as there is sufficient commitment authority available to cover 
those recommendations--the Department and FTA never exceed the amount 
of available commitment authority.
    In any given year, the selection of projects for proposed Full 
Funding Grant Agreements is based on: (1) the relative merits of the 
projects under consideration, and (2) the ``readiness'' of each project 
under consideration to begin construction. Specifically, the relative 
merits of each project are determined through FTA's application of both 
the project justification and local financial commitment criteria 
established by 49 U.S.C.  5309(e) and fleshed out by the regulations 
at 49 C.F.R. Part 611. The ``readiness'' of each project is a judgment 
of the reliability of the cost, budget, and schedule for that project, 
in light of a number of factors, including the grantee's demonstration 
of its technical capacity to build and operate the project, its 
execution of all principal third-party agreements relevant to the 
project, an assessment of the risks inherent in the project that could 
affect cost and schedule, and the level of engineering and final design 
that has been completed.

                      MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY AUDITS

    Question. Given the high passage rate of FMCSA safety audits, some 
critics charge that the FMCSA safety audit procedure has become more of 
an outreach and education campaign than a safety assurance mechanism. 
Please explain why the administration of the Safety Audit process of 
the New Entrant program by FMCSA is an optimal use of the resources 
allocated to ensuring that unqualified carriers are kept off the roads.
    Answer. Data shows that new entrants are identified as at-risk 
carriers. The program was originally designed as an outreach and 
education effort. FMCSA is retooling the program to give it a greater 
enforcement focus. The concept is to engage carriers at the beginning 
of operations so there is not as a great a need to perform compliance 
reviews, a more optimal use of Agency resources. FMCSA will work to tie 
new entrant audits and compliance reviews together as the programs 
advance.
    FMCSA is developing a rulemaking proposal that would strengthen the 
pass/fail criteria for the new entrant program. The rulemaking 
enhancements will identify carriers without basic safety management 
controls. As a result of our proposed changes, FMCSA anticipates a 
significant increase in the number of enforcement actions taken against 
new entrant carriers.

                    MOTOR CARRIER COMPLIANCE REVIEWS

    Question. As FMCSA has increased the number of new entrant safety 
audits, the number of compliance reviews it undertakes has dropped 
significantly. Why has the number of compliance reviews dropped so 
sharply in recent months? Is the level of funding that is requested in 
fiscal year 2005 sufficient to meet the goals of the agency? Do you 
believe that a safety audit can substitute for a compliance review? Do 
you intend to increase the number of compliance reviews in the 
remainder of fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005?
    Answer. The number of compliance reviews has dropped significantly 
due primarily to the focus on Safety Security Visits as a result of 
September 11, 2001, and the implementation of the new entrant program. 
Prior to the program's implementation, FMCSA conducted approximately 
12,000 compliance reviews per year. Currently, the Agency conducts 
approximately 8,000 per calendar year. In fiscal year 2004, more States 
will begin to conduct safety audits. However, FMCSA does not expect to 
realize fully the benefit of State participation until fiscal year 
2005.
    The new entrant audit was originally designed as an educational 
tool for carriers beginning interstate operations rather than a 
substitute for the compliance review program. A compliance review may 
be conducted on new entrants during the safety monitoring period if 
their performance warrants such a review. To meet the Motor Carrier 
Safety Improvement Act's statutory requirement to conduct these new 
entrant safety audits, FMCSA diverted resources from the conduct of 
compliance reviews to the conduct of 40,000-50,000 new entrant audits 
annually. As a result, FMCSA expects to conduct approximately 7,500 
compliance reviews in fiscal year 2004, which is 500 lower than FMCSA's 
goal of completing 8,000 compliance reviews in fiscal year 2004. 
However, FMCSA expects to meet its target of 8,000 compliance reviews 
in fiscal year 2005.

         INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS ADVISORY COMMITTEE

    Question. The Department disbanded the Intelligent Transportation 
Systems (ITS) Advisory Committee more than a year ago. Do you plan to 
appoint new members to the ITS Advisory Board or is this body no longer 
necessary?
    Answer. Two years ago, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) 
leadership undertook an internal review of the future direction of the 
ITS program. A key decision resulting from that examination was to 
establish a Federal Advisory Committee to the DOT for ITS. From the ITS 
program's inception a dozen years ago until June 2003, ITS America had 
served in this advisory capacity and was well positioned to bring 
government and industry together in development of the ITS program. As 
the ITS industry and the DOT's ITS program matured, DOT leadership 
concluded that the time was right to consider a new Advisory Committee. 
This tested method of consultation with the public serves the 
Department well across other modes of transportation, and the ITS 
Advisory Committee would give the Department a new and valuable 
consultative asset. A new DOT Advisory Committee is being considered 
under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Organizations and individuals 
with resources and expertise to offer meaningful advice would be 
invited to serve.

                             SHIP DISPOSAL

    Question. How many obsolete vessels from the National Defense 
Reserve Fleet will be disposed of with the funds provided in fiscal 
year 2004?
    Answer. The Maritime Administration (MARAD) has removed 13 ships so 
far in fiscal year 2004, resulting from contracts awarded with fiscal 
year 2003 funding. MARAD anticipates awards, utilizing funds provided 
in fiscal year 2004, to result in the disposal of an additional 12 
obsolete ships from the NDRF.
    Question. How many ships does MARAD plan to dispose of in fiscal 
year 2005 if the requested amount is provided?
    Answer. MARAD plans to dispose of approximately 15 vessels from the 
National Defense Reserve Fleet.
    Question. What is MARAD's plan for meeting the 2006 deadline to 
dispose of all of the obsolete fleet?
    Answer. While the Congressionally mandated September 30, 2006 
deadline was for the removal of all vessels, a more achievable goal is 
to remove all vessels that have a high or moderate risk by 2006. To 
reach that goal, MARAD plans to eliminate the backlog of vessels that 
accumulated in the 1990's; remove all ``high'' and ``moderate'' 
priority ships (approximately 65 ships) at a rate of 20-24 ships per 
year; and maintain only ``low'' priority ships at the fleet sites. 
MARAD's annual target is to maintain no more than 40-60 low priority 
vessels at all three fleet sites. With the projected designation of 45 
ships as obsolete over the next 3-5 years, an annual disposal rate of 
20-24 ships will have to be maintained for 3-4 years beyond 2006, to 
achieve and maintain an obsolete vessel fleet size at a maximum range 
of 40-60 ships.
    In addition to maintaining only ``low'' priority obsolete ships at 
the fleets, further mitigation of environmental risks will be achieved 
by continuing to use the established protocol for the acceptance of 
vessels into the National Defense Reserve Fleet and the practices used 
when downgrading vessels to non-retention status. This includes 
accomplishment of material condition and liquid load surveys, removal 
of readily removable hazardous materials, preliminary residual 
hazardous material characterization, and defueling of vessels to the 
maximum extent. In addition, as newer vessels (built after 1980) are 
downgraded to non-retention status and enter the fleets, a decline in 
the quantities of hazmats, such as, PCBs will be evident.
    While MARAD will continue to pursue all disposal options to ensure 
the best value disposal decisions, having foreign recycling as a viable 
disposal option in 2004-2006 and beyond will help MARAD achieve the 
annual goal of reducing the inventory by 20-24 vessels.

                  MARITIME GUARANTEED LOANS (TITLE XI)

    Question. Public Law 108-11 prohibited the obligation of funds 
under the Title XI program until the Inspector General (IG) certifies 
that MARAD has adopted and implemented the recommendations of No. CR-
2003-031 to his satisfaction. What is the status of the implementation 
of these recommendations?
    Answer. MARAD and the Office of the Inspector General have been 
working closely to adopt and implement the recommendations contained in 
the report. A formal IG report providing the certification is expected 
in June 2004.

                 PRESIDENTIAL AND POLITICAL APPOINTEES

    Question. Please provide the number of presidential and political 
appointees currently on board at the Department and break out by 
operating administration and office of the Office of the Secretary as 
well as by title and grade.
    Answer. The information follows.

    PRESIDENTIAL, SENIOR EXECUTIVE SERVICE NON-CAREER, AND SCHEDULE C
                      APPOINTEES AS OF MAY 4, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Title                                Grade
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

Presidential Appointee--Immediate Office
 of the Secretary:
    Secretary.............................  EX-I
Non-career SES--Immediate Office of the
 Secretary:
    Chief of Staff........................  ES-00
    Assistant to the Secretary for Policy.  ES-00
    Assistant to the Secretary for Policy.  ES-00
    Deputy Chief of Staff.................  ES-00
Schedule C--Immediate Office of the
 Secretary:
    White House Liaison...................  GS-15
    Assistant to the Secretary for Policy.  GS-15
    Assistant to the Secretary for Policy.  GS-14
    Special Assistant to the Secretary and  GS-14
     Deputy Director for Scheduling and
     Advance.
    Director for Scheduling and Advance...  GS-15
    Special Assistant for Scheduling and    GS-13
     Advance.
    Scheduling and Advance Assistant......  GS-7
Limited Term SES--Office of the Deputy
 Secretary:
    Acting Deputy Secretary/Counselor to    ES-00
     the Secretary.
Schedule C--Office of the Deputy
 Secretary:
    Counselor to the Deputy Secretary.....  GS-15
Presidential Appointee--Office of the
 Under Secretary of Transportation for
 Policy:
    Under Secretary.......................  EX-II
Non-career SES--Office of the Under
 Secretary of Transportation for Policy:
    Counselor to the Under Secretary......  ES-00
Schedule C--Office of the Under Secretary
 of Transportation for Policy:
    Executive Assistant to the Under        GS-12
     Secretary.
Non-career SES--Executive Secretariat:
    Director..............................  ES-00
Non-career SES--Office of Civil Rights:
    Director..............................  ES-00
Non-career SES--Office of Small &
 Disadvantaged Business Utilization:
    Director..............................  ES-00
Non-career SES--Office of the Chief
 Information Officer:
    Chief Information Officer.............  ES-00
Non-career SES--Office of Public Affairs:
    Assistant to the Secretary and          ES-00
     Director of Public Affairs.
Schedule C--Office of Public Affairs:
    Deputy Director of Public Affairs.....  GS-15
    Deputy Director of Communications.....  GS-15
    Associate Director for Speechwriting..  GS-15
    Speechwriter..........................  GS-15
    Speechwriter..........................  GS-14
    Special Assistant to the Director.....  GS-14
    Special Assistant for Public Affairs..  GS-10
Presidential Appointee--Assistant
 Secretary for Budget and Programs:
    Assistant Secretary & CFO.............  EX-IV
Non-career SES--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Budget and Programs:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for          ES-00
     Management and Budget.
Presidential Appointee--Office of the
 General Counsel:
    General Counsel.......................  EX-IV
Presidential Appointee--Office of the
 Assistant Secretary for Transportation
 Policy:
    Assistant Secretary...................  EX-IV
Non-career SES--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Transportation Policy:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary............  ES-00
Schedule C--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Transportation Policy:
    Special Assistant to the Assistant      GS-12
     Secretary.
Presidential Appointee--Office of the
 Assistant Secretary for Aviation and
 International Affairs:
    Assistant Secretary...................  EX-IV
Non-career SES--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Aviation and International
 Affairs:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary............  ES-00
Schedule C--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Aviation and International
 Affairs:
    Special Assistant.....................  GS-15
Presidential Appointee--Office of the
 Assistant Secretary for Governmental
 Affairs:
    Assistant Secretary...................  EX-IV
Non-career SES--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Governmental Affairs:
    Deputy Assistant Secretary............  ES-00
Schedule C--Office of the Assistant
 Secretary for Governmental Affairs:
    Special Assistant to the Assistant      GS-15
     Secretary.
    Associate Director for Governmental     GS-14
     Affairs.
    Associate Director for Governmental     GS-13
     Affairs.
    Associate Director for Governmental     GS-13
     Affairs.
    Associate Director for Governmental     GS-13
     Affairs.
    Associate Director for                  GS-14
     Intergovernmental Affairs.

        OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

Presidential Appointee:
    Inspector General.....................  EX-IV

      FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-II
    Deputy Administrator..................  EX-IV
Non-career SES:
    Chief Counsel.........................  FJ-4
    Associate Administrator for Airports..  FJ-4
    Assistant Administrator for             FJ-4
     International Aviation.
    Assistant Administrator for Aviation    FJ-4
     Policy, Planning & Environment.
    Assistant Administrator for Government  FJ-4
     & Industry Affairs.
    Assistant Administrator for Public      FJ-4
     Affairs.
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant to the Deputy         GG-15
     Administrator.

      FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-II
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
    Chief Counsel.........................  ES-00
    Associate Administrator for Public      ES-00
     Affairs.
    Associate Administrator for Policy....  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant to the Administrator  GS-15
    Special Assistant.....................  GS-14
    Special Assistant to the Policy         GS-14
     Director.
    Special Assistant to the Chief Counsel  GS-13

      FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-III
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Director of Public Affairs............  GS-13

      NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY
              ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-III
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
    Chief Counsel.........................  ES-00
    Associate Administrator for External    ES-00
     Affairs.
Schedule C:
    Special Assistant.....................  GS-15

       FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
              ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-III
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
    Chief Counsel.........................  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Director, Office of Communications &    GS-15
     Senior Policy Advisor.
    Special Assistant to the Administrator  GS-14
     for Intergovernmental Affairs.

      FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-III
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
    Chief Counsel.........................  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Staff Assistant.......................  GS-10

       RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS
              ADMINISTRATION

Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Director of Policy and Program Support  GS-15

     SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT
                CORPORATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-IV

       SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

Presidential Appointee:
    Chairman..............................  EX-III

          MARITIME ADMINISTRATION

Presidential Appointee:
    Administrator.........................  EX-III
Non-career SES:
    Deputy Administrator..................  ES-00
    Chief Counsel.........................  ES-00
Schedule C:
    Director, Office of Congressional and   GS-15
     Public Affairs.
    Special Assistant to the Administrator  GS-14
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide by operating administration or office of 
the Office of the Secretary the number of vacant presidential and 
political positions and the grade and 2005 salary for each position.
    Answer. The information follows.

     VACANT PRESIDENTIAL AND POLITICAL POSITIONS--AS OF MAY 04, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                        Grade             Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Deputy Secretary..............  EX-II...............        $158,100
    Special Assistant for           GS-7................          34,184
     Scheduling and Advance.
    Director of Drug Enforcement    GS-15...............         100,231
     and Program Compliance.
    Deputy Assistant Secretary for  ES-0................         125,264
     Governmental Affairs.
    Associate Director for          GS-14...............          96,572
     Governmental Affairs.
Federal Aviation Administration:
    Deputy Assistant Administrator  GS-15...............         110,256
     for Government and Industry
     Affairs.
Maritime Administration:
    Senior Policy Advisor.........  GS-15...............         113,597
National Highway Traffic Safety
 Administration:
    Director, Office of Public and  GS-15...............         113,597
     Consumer Affairs.
    Director of Intergovernmental   GS-15...............         113,597
     and Congressional Affairs.
Federal Transit Administration:
    Associate Administrator for     ES-0................         137,000
     Communications and
     Legislative Affairs.
Research and Special Programs
 Administration:
    Administrator.................  EX-III..............         145,600
    Special Assistant.............  GS-12...............          68,722
    Director of Public Affairs....  GS-15...............         113,597
Bureau of Transportation
 Statistics:
    Director......................  EX-V................         128,200
Surface Transportation Board:
    Board Member..................  EX-IV...............         136,900
    Board Member..................  EX-IV...............        136,900
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTES.--The PAS salaries are based on the statutory pay level. The SES
  salaries are based on the middle of the new senior executive pay
  range, or a salary determined for the proposed incumbent. The GS
  salaries are based on the middle of the range (step 5) for each grade
  (as previously encumbered), or as proposed.

    Question. How many new political positions are requested for fiscal 
year 2005?
    Answer. There are 10 new political positions being requested for 
fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please display by office of the Office of the Secretary 
or operating administration, each new political position and its grade 
and salary.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Title                        Grade             Salary
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Special Counsel...............  GS-15...............        $113,597
    Special Assistant (to the A/S   GS-15...............         113,597
     for Trans. Policy).
    Special Assistant (to the A/S   GS-14...............          96,572
     for Aviation & International
     Affairs.
    Security Liaison..............  GS-15...............         113,597
    Special Assistant for           GS-15...............         113,597
     Information Technology
     Security.
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Deputy Administrator..........  ES-0................         125,264
    Special Assistant.............  GS-15...............         113,597
Federal Transit Administration:
    Special Assistant for           GS-15...............         113,597
     Intergovernmental Affairs.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
 Administration
    Special Assistant.............  GS-12...............          68,722
Research and Special Programs
 Administration:
    Special Assistant.............  GS-12...............          68,722
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The SES position salaries are estimated at the middle of the new 
senior executive pay range, or based on a salary determined for the 
proposed incumbent.
    The GS salaries are estimated at the middle of the range (step 5) 
for each grade proposed.
    Question. Please provide a timetable for filling vacant political 
positions up to the statutory cap.
    Answer. The information follows.

             VACANT POLITICAL POSITIONS--AS OF MAY 04, 2004
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Title                 Grade      Salary    Incumbent Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
    Deputy Secretary..........  EX-II         $158,100  Pending Senate
                                                         Confirmation
                                                         Candidate to
                                                         come aboard--6/
                                                         13/04
    Special Assistant for       GS-15          100,231  Candidate to
     Scheduling and Advance.                             come aboard--6/
                                                         13/04
    Director of Drug            ES-00          125,264  Interviewing--ca
     Enforcement and Program                             ndidate to come
     Compliance.                                         aboard
    Associate Director for      GS-14           96,572  Interviewing
     Governmental Affairs.
Federal Aviation
 Administration:
    Deputy Assistant            GS-15          110,256  Candidate to
     Administrator for                                   come on Board--
     Government and Industry                             6/13/04
     Affairs.
Maritime Administration:
    Senior Policy Advisor.....  GS-15          113,597  Interviewing
National Highway Traffic
 Safety Administration:
    Director, Office of Public  GS-15          113,597  Interviewing
     and Consumer Affairs.
    Director of                 ..........  ..........  ................
     Intergovernmental and
     Congressional Affairs.
Federal Transit
 Administration:
    Associate Administrator     ES-0           137,000  Candidate to
     for Communications and                              come aboard--6/
     Legislative Affairs.                                1/04
Research and Special Programs
 Administration:
    Administration............  EX-III         145,600  Interviewing
    Special Assistant.........  GS-12           68,722  Interviewing
    Director of Public Affairs  GS-15          113,597  Interviewing
Bureau of Transportation
 Statistics:
    Director..................  EX-V           128,200  Interviewing
Surface Transportation Board:
    Board Member..............  EX-IV          136,900  Pending Senate
                                                         Confirmation
    Board Member..............  EX-IV          136,900  Pending Senate
                                                         Confirmation
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table that compares the number of 
political appointees by agency or by office of the Office of the 
Secretary over the last 5 years.
    Answer. The information follows.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Fiscal Year
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
                      Operating Administration                                                             2004
                                                                       2000     2001     2002     2003    As of
                                                                                                          5/4/04
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretarial Offices................................................       25       20       29       25       25
Budget and Programs................................................        3        1        1        0        2
General Counsel....................................................        0        1        1        1        1
Governmental Affairs...............................................        9        7        9        8        8
Administration.....................................................        1        0        0        0        0
Transportation Policy..............................................        6        1        3        3        3
Federal Aviation Administration....................................        5        4        7        9        9
Federal Highway Administration.....................................        5        1        9        7        9
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.....................        7        2        7        5        5
Federal Railroad Administration....................................        4        2        3        2        3
Federal Transit Administration.....................................        3        2        5        5        4
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.............................        1        1        1        1        1
Research and Special Programs Administration.......................        4        2        3        3        2
Office of the Inspector General....................................        1        1        1        1        1
Bureau of Transportation Statistics................................        1        1        1        0        0
Surface Transportation Board.......................................        3        3        2        1        1
Maritime Administration............................................        5        1        5        5        5
                                                                    --------------------------------------------
      TOTAL........................................................       85       51       90       82       87
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              ost staffing
    Question. Please provide a table that compares the estimated 
average grade for each office of the Office of the Secretary for fiscal 
year 2005 with the past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                  FISCAL YEAR 2001-2005 AVERAGE GRADES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Fiscal
                                   Fiscal    Fiscal    Fiscal     Year
             Office                 Year      Year      Year      2004
                                    2001      2002      2003     (Est.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Secretarial Offices.............      10.9      10.9      11.1      11.1
Budget & Programs...............      11.6      11.8      11.8      11.3
General Counsel.................      11.8      11.7      11.9      12.0
Governmental Affairs............      10.1      11.0      11.6      11.2
Administration..................      11.8      11.4      11.1      11.2
Aviation & Int'l Affairs........      11.0      11.1      11.1      11.1
Transportation Policy...........      10.6      10.0      10.0      10.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Fiscal year 2005 data not available.

    Question. Please provide a table listing by office of the Office of 
the Secretary, onboard staffing and FTE for fiscal year 2000, through 
2004 and the fiscal year 2005 requested full-time positions and FTE.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                                  OST STAFFING SALARIES AND EXPENSES--POSITIONS AND FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year   Fiscal Year 2003    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                          2000 Actual     2001 Actual     2002 Actual        Request       2004 Request    2005 Request
                        Office                         -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          FTP     FTE     FTP     FTE     FTP     FTE     FTP      FTE      FTP     FTE     FTP     FTE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Counsel.......................................      87      81      92      81     112      92     112      106      106     100     106     100
Under Sec Transportation Policy.......................      34      30      33      29      33      29     133      129      132     128     132     128
Aviation/International Affairs \1\....................      94      94      92      87      92      92  .......  .......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Budget and Programs...................................      56      56      56      51      56      44      56       56       55      55      55      55
Governmental Affairs..................................      24      24      24      18      24      21      24       24       24      24      24      24
Administration \2\....................................      81      61      81      67      82      99      83       79       86      84      86      84
Public Affairs........................................      21      20      21      18      21      19      21       21       21      21      21      21
Office of the Secretary...............................      23      22      22      22      22      21      22       22       22      22      22      22
Office of the Deputy Secretary........................       7       6       7       4       7       6       7        7        7       7       7       7
Office of Intermodalism \3\...........................      10      10  ......  ......  ......  ......  .......  .......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Office of the Executive Secretariat...................      15      15      15      14      15      15      15       15       15      15      15      15
Board of Contract Appeals.............................       6       5       6       5       5       5       6        6        6       6       6       6
Small and Disadvantaged Business......................      12      12      12       9      12      10      12       12       11      11      11      11
Intelligence and Security \4\.........................      12      11      12      11      12       8     [15]     [14]      15      15      15      15
Ofc of the Chief Information Officer..................      21      21      21      21      21      22      25       23       25      25      25      25
                                                       -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total staffing, Salaries & Expenses.............     503     468     494     437     514     483     516      500      525     513     525     513
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Office of Aviation/International Affairs is consolidated in the Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation
  for Policy.
\2\ For fiscal year 2002, the Office of Administration includes FTE associated with the standup of the Transportation Security Administration.
\3\ For fiscal years 2001 and 2002, the Office of Intermodalism is funded within FHWA. The fiscal year 2003 budget transfers the Office of Intermodalism
  from FHWA to OST Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.
\4\ For fiscal year 2003, the Office of Intelligence and Security is funded under reimbursable agreement.

                     FUNDING LEVELS FOR OST OFFICES

    Question. Please provide a table displaying the enacted level for 
fiscal years 2002, 2003, 2004 for each office of the Office of the 
Secretary and the amount of any transfers of funds between offices (or 
to date for fiscal year 2004).
    Answer. The table below provides the enacted level for fiscal years 
2002, 2003, 2004 for each office of the Office of the Secretary. There 
were no enacted transfers of funds between OST offices for fiscal years 
2002, 2003, or 2004 (as of May 31, 2004).

                OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ENACTED LEVELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002 THRU FISCAL YEAR 2004
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                            Accounts                              2002 Enacted    2003 Enacted     2004 Enacted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SALARIES & EXPENSES:
    Office of the Secretary....................................           1,929          2,197           2,179
    Office of the Deputy Secretary.............................             619            804             690
    Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.  ..............         12,300          12,141
    Aviation/International Affairs \1\.........................          10,479  ..............  ...............
    Office of Intermodalism \2\................................  ..............  ..............  ...............
    Board of Contract Appeals..................................             507            607             690
    Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization.......             540          1,259           1,251
    Office of Intelligence & Security \3\......................           1,321         [1,631]          1,972
    Office of the Chief Information Officer....................           6,141         13,026           7,396
    Office of General Counsel..................................          13,355         15,466          14,985
    Office of Governmental Affairs.............................           2,282          2,423           2,267.6
    Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget...............           7,728          8,273           8,418
    Office of the Assistant Secretary of Administration........          19,250         28,717          22,984
    Office of Public Affairs...................................           1,723          1,903           1,889
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL: SALARIES & EXPENSES...............................          67,078         88,357          78,290
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT (TPR&D).........          11,580         23,463          20,426
OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS.........................................           8,362          8,514           8,365
MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH.....................................           3,000          2,949           2,958
MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM (MBRC)...............             900            894             895
ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE/PAYMENTS TO AIR CARRIERS.................          62,952         51,761          51,662
NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILDING......................................               0              0               0
                                                                ------------------------------------------------
      TOTALS...................................................         153,872        175,938         162,596
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Beginning in fiscal year 2003, the Office of Aviation/International Affairs is consolidated in the Office of
  the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.
\2\ For fiscal year 2002, the Office of Intermodalism was funded within FHWA. Beginning in fiscal year 2003 the
  Office of Intermodalism transfers from FHWA to OST Office of the Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy.

\3\ In fiscal year 2003, the Office of Intelligence and Security was funded through a reimbursable agreement.


                 DETAILS TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    Question. Are any staff of the operating administrations detailed 
to the Office of the Secretary?
    Answer. Three employees from the Federal Highway Administration are 
detailed to the Office of the Secretary.

                            OST TRAVEL COSTS

    Question. Are any travel costs for the Office of the Secretary 
expected to be paid by the modes?
    Answer. In certain circumstances, travel costs for the Secretary 
are paid for by the operating administrations. For example, if the 
Secretary attends an event related to airports, the Federal Aviation 
Administration may pay for the Secretary's travel expenses. The 
Secretary's attendance at these events helps to enhance the missions of 
the operating administrations.
    Question. Please provide a table indicating the amount of travel 
costs for the Office of the Secretary that operating administrations 
paid for in part or in total. Please breakdown by operating 
administrations for the past 5 years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                        IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                          Direct                           Year 2000  Year 2001  Year 2002  Year 2003  Year 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARAD....................................................  .........  .........  .........     $1,400  .........
FAA......................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........     $2,826
NHTSA....................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........     12,633
FTA......................................................     $1,638  .........     $3,804        541        122
FRA......................................................        156       $703  .........  .........  .........
FHWA.....................................................      1,865      1,891      1,339        730        988
FMCSA....................................................  .........  .........  .........        724        584
RSPA.....................................................  .........  .........  .........  .........        654
USCG.....................................................        462  .........  .........  .........  .........
                                                          ------------------------------------------------------
      Total..............................................      4,121      2,594      5,143      3,395     17,807
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Are there guidelines from the Office of the Secretary to 
the operating administrations that define the circumstances under which 
the Secretarial travel is paid by the modes? If so, please provide for 
the record.
    Answer. There are no formal written guidelines, but in practice, 
the modes may be asked to cover the cost of the Secretary's advance 
staff if an administrator requests the Secretary's presence at an event 
or conference that deals specifically with the mission of that 
particular mode. The Secretary's own travel and per diem costs are paid 
by his immediate office.
    Question. Has the DOT General Counsel ever looked at the practice 
of operating administrations paying for OST travel costs to be in 
compliance with the general provision carried annually in 
appropriations Acts prohibiting assessments? Please provide the legal 
opinion, if there is one, for the record.
    Answer. Staff attorneys in the Office of the General Counsel have 
periodically provided oral advice to agency officials and staff 
concerning applicable restrictions on making assessments to help fund 
OST travel costs that are contained in our annual appropriations acts. 
The General Counsel and his staff have not issued any legal opinions 
that address this subject.

                      CHARGES TO THE MODES BY OST

    Question. Please provide a list of all accounts that are financed 
by charges to the modes from OST.
    Answer. There are no OST accounts that are financed by charges to 
the modes. However, for services provided by OST to the modes, charges 
are collected through reimbursable agreements. For fiscal year 2004, 
Salaries and Expense and Office of Civil Rights accounts have 
reimbursable agreements with the modes.

                  PROPOSALS TO REORGANIZE OST OFFICES

    Question. Is there any proposal to consolidate or reorganize any 
office of the Office of the Secretary assumed in the fiscal year 2005 
budget request?
    Answer. No, there was no proposal to consolidate or reorganize any 
office of the Office of the Secretary assumed in the fiscal year 2005 
request; however, on June 25, 2004, President Bush transmitted a fiscal 
year 2005 budget amendment to Congress that would place the operational 
responsibility for the Office of Emergency Transportation and Crisis 
Management Center from the Research and Special Programs Administration 
to the Office of the Secretary.

             PROPOSALS TO CONSOLIDATE OST BUDGET ACTIVITIES

    Question. Does the fiscal year 2005 budget request reflect any 
proposals to consolidate budget activities of the Office of the 
Secretary?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2005 request reflects a consolidated budget 
activity for the Office of the Secretary, the Office of the Deputy 
Secretary and the Executive Secretariat. This will provide greater 
flexibility in the day-to-day management of the Offices.

                 PROPOSALS TO REORGANIZE MODAL OFFICES

    Question. Are there any proposals or plans to consolidate, 
reorganize, or restructure any offices of the operating administrations 
in fiscal year 2005?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2005, the Department plans to consolidate, 
reorganize, or restructure the following offices:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
    The FAA continues to reorganize lines of business and services 
within the newly created Air Traffic Organization. Also, the Flight 
Service Stations are currently undergoing an A-76 study which will 
result in the contracting out or a restructuring of this operation 
within FAA. Results of this will not be finalized until March 2005.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)/Office of the 
        Secretary of Transportation (OST)
    On June 25, 2004, President Bush transmitted a fiscal year 2005 
budget amendment to Congress that would place the operational 
responsibility for the Office of Emergency Transportation and Crisis 
Management Center from RSPA to OST.

                   IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Immediate Office of the Secretary by object 
class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,522
Other than full-time permanent..........................             364
Other personnel compensation............................              29
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           1,915
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             507
Travel & transportation of things.......................             209
Other services..........................................              14
Supplies and materials..................................              12
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           2,738
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Immediate Office of the Secretary.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Immediate Office of the 
Secretary's budget request for personnel compensation and benefits are 
computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the previous 
year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; (2) The 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full year cost 
of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an additional one-
fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any other personnel 
actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 
base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay raise estimated 
at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new staff increases 
are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Immediate Office 
of the Secretary.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              15              15
Reimbursable............................               7               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Immediate Office of the Secretary compared to levels at the end of each 
quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              22
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              20
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              22
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 23
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              22
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Immediate Office of the Secretary.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Immediate Office of 
the Secretary consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions...........................................         $10,300
Other small contracts...................................           4,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Deputy Secretary by object 
class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................             534
Other than full-time permanent..........................             214
Other personnel compensation............................              40
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................             788
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             200
Travel & transportation of things.......................              67
Other services..........................................              11
Supplies and materials..................................               4
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           1,070
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Deputy Secretary.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Deputy 
Secretary's budget request for personnel compensation and benefits are 
computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the previous 
year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; (2) The 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full year cost 
of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an additional one-
fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any other personnel 
actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 
base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay raise estimated 
at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new staff increases 
are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Deputy Secretary.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................               7               7
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Deputy Secretary compared to levels at the end of each 
quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................               4
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................               6
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................               5
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................               7
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................           \1\ 6
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................               7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the Deputy Secretary.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the Deputy 
Secretary consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subscriptions...........................................          $7,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Executive Secretariat by 
object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,159
Other than full-time permanent..........................              35
Other personnel compensation............................              10
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           1,204
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             255
Other services..........................................              39
Supplies and materials..................................               2
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           1,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Executive Secretariat.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Executive 
Secretariat's budget request for personnel compensation and benefits 
are computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the 
previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; 
(2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full 
year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an 
additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any 
other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The 
fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay 
raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new 
staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Executive Secretariat.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              15              15
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Executive Secretariat compared to levels at the end of 
each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              14
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              15
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              14
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              15
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 12
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the Executive Secretariat.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the 
Executive Secretariat consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enhancements & maintenance of scheduling system.........         $38,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

        OFFICE OF THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORTATION POLICY

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Under Secretary for 
Transportation Policy by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           9,779
Other than full-time permanent..........................             666
Other personnel compensation............................              56
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................          10,501
Civilian personnel benefits.............................           2,102
Travel & transportation of things.......................             207
Other services..........................................             101
Supplies and materials..................................               7
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          12,918
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation 
Policy.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Transportation Policy's budget request for personnel 
compensation and benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and 
related benefits from the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed 
based on enacted levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is 
annualized to fund the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise 
(4.1 percent for an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund 
the cost of any other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 
2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal 
year 2005 pay raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a 
year). No new staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Under Secretary for Transportation Policy.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................             128             124
Reimbursable............................               4               4
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy compared to 
levels at the end of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................             116
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................             121
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................             105
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................             128
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................         \1\ 115
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................             128
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the Under Secretary for Transportation Policy.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the Under 
Secretary for Transportation Policy consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation services....................................         $19,200
Interpreters............................................          41,000
Embassy charges.........................................          41,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                       BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Board of Contract Appeals by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................             660
Other personnel compensation............................               1
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................             661
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             112
Travel & transportation of things.......................               6
Other services..........................................              22
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................             801
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Board of Contract Appeals.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Board of Contract 
Appeals' budget request for personnel compensation and benefits are 
computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the previous 
year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; (2) The 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full year cost 
of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an additional one-
fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any other personnel 
actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 
base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay raise estimated 
at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new staff increases 
are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Board of 
Contract Appeals.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................               6               6
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Board of Contract Appeals compared to levels at the end of each quarter 
of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................               5
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................               5
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................               4
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................               6
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................           \1\ 5
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................               6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Board of Contract Appeals.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Board of Contract 
Appeals consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Court reporting services for trials.....................          $8,000
Subscriptions to publications...........................          13,000
Other small contracts...................................           1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

         OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business 
Utilization by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,087
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             199
Other services..........................................               4
Supplies and materials..................................               5
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           1,295
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of Small & 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization's budget request for personnel 
compensation and benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and 
related benefits from the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed 
based on enacted levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is 
annualized to fund the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise 
(4.1 percent for an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund 
the cost of any other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 
2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal 
year 2005 pay raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a 
year). No new staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of Small 
& Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              11              11
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization compared to levels 
at the end of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................               9
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              10
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              10
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              11
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................           \1\ 9
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of Small & 
Disadvantaged Business Utilization are as follows:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Working Capital Fund Service Agreements.................          $3,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of Intelligence and Security by 
object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,402
Other than full-time permanent..........................               5
      Total personnel compensation......................           1,407
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             394
Travel & transportation of things.......................              72
Other services..........................................             367
Supplies and materials..................................              10
Equipment...............................................              10
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           2,260
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of Intelligence 
and Security's budget request for personnel compensation and benefits 
are computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the 
previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; 
(2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full 
year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an 
additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any 
other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The 
fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay 
raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new 
staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. How many officials besides the Secretary does the Office 
of Intelligence and Security serve?
    Answer. S-60 provides day-to-day support to the Office of the 
Secretary and to the Operating Administrations by providing 
intelligence, security policy guidance and information. The office 
assures that security issues are identified and properly coordinated 
between the modes and the DHS, TSA and the HSC. The following 
individuals and their senior staffs are served by S-60:
  --Under Secretary of Transportation for Policy
  --General Counsel
  --Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy
  --Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
  --Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
  --Assistant Secretary for Administration
  --Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
  --Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs
  --Inspector General
  --Federal Highway Administrator
  --Federal Railroad Administrator
  --Federal Transit Administrator
  --National Highway Traffic Safety Administrator
  --St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation Administrator
  --Maritime Administrator
  --Research and Special Programs Administrator
  --Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator.
    Question. Please provide a list of all performance measures related 
to the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    Answer. Department's Performance Goals:
  --Ensure the security of people and goods and advance our national 
        security interests in support of the National Security 
        Strategy; and
  --Rapid Recovery of Transportation in all modes from intentional harm 
        and natural disasters.
    In support of these goals, S-60 provides timely intelligence 
briefings and products to senior DOT officials, prepares the Secretary 
and Deputy Secretary for Principals and Deputies meetings on Homeland 
Security, is responsible for all aspects of the Transportation Security 
Policy and is the DOT liaison to the Department of Homeland Security, 
as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
    Question. Does DOT produce intelligence or is the Department only a 
consumer of intelligence?
    Answer. DOT is predominately an Intelligence consumer. However, our 
Intelligence Analysts have produced limited intelligence analytical 
produces directly related to transportation and hazardous materials 
issues. They also work with the Intelligence Community to assure that 
intelligence concerning threats to transportation are identified and 
communicated to those in DOT with a need to know.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of 
Intelligence and Security.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              15              15
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of Intelligence and Security compared to levels at the end of 
each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              11
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................               8
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................               7
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              15
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 11
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              15
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of Intelligence and Security.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of Intelligence 
and Security consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Security Liaison........................................        $140,000
Renovation of Secure Information Facility...............         200,000
Secure communication at DOT alternate COOP site.........          26,600
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Chief Information Officer by 
object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           2,691
Other than full-time permanent..........................             146
Other personnel compensation............................              22
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           2,859
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             551
Travel & transportation of things.......................              34
Other services..........................................          13,278
Supplies and materials..................................              10
Equipment...............................................              10
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          16,742
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer's budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from 
the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted 
levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund 
the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for 
an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any 
other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The 
fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay 
raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new 
staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Chief Information Officer.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              25              25
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Chief Information Officer compared to levels at the end 
of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              22
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              25
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 20
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the Chief Information Officer.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the Chief 
Information Officer consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Planning Investment Control (CPIC) and                $1,900,000
 Enterprise Architecture (EA)...........................
Local Area Network (LAN) support for the Office of the         1,700,000
 Secretary (OST)........................................
IT services and user support designed to meet the IT           4,500,000
 requirements of the DOT................................
Working Capital Fund service agreements.................       3,300,000
E-gov Initiatives.......................................       1,500,000
Other small contracts...................................         378,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRTARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Governmental Affairs by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,156
Other than full-time permanent..........................             860
Other personnel compensation............................               7
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           2,023
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             502
Travel & transportation of things.......................              36
Other services..........................................              22
Supplies and materials..................................               2
Equipment...............................................               2
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           2,587
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental 
Affairs.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Governmental Affairs' budget request for personnel 
compensation and benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and 
related benefits from the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed 
based on enacted levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is 
annualized to fund the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise 
(4.1 percent for an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund 
the cost of any other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 
2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal 
year 2005 pay raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a 
year). No new staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              24              24
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs compared to 
levels at the end of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              18
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              24
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 16
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              24
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gallery Watch Legislative Monitoring....................         $11,000
Subscriptions...........................................           5,000
Other small contracts...................................           6,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the General Counsel by object 
class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           9,417
Other than full-time permanent..........................             596
Other personnel compensation............................             105
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................          10,118
Civilian personnel benefits.............................           2,123
Travel & transportation of things.......................             246
Printing and reproduction...............................             269
Other services..........................................           4,143
Supplies and materials..................................              21
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          16,920
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the General Counsel.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the General 
Counsel's budget request for personnel compensation and benefits are 
computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the previous 
year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; (2) The 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full year cost 
of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an additional one-
fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any other personnel 
actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 
base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay raise estimated 
at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new staff increases 
are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
General Counsel.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................             106             100
Reimbursable............................               0               0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the General Counsel compared to levels at the end of each 
quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              81
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              92
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................             100
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................             100
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................         \1\ 102
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................             100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of the General Counsel.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the General 
Counsel consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dockets Management System...............................      $1,035,000
Integrated Disabilities Hotline Maintenance and                1,235,000
 Operations.............................................
Technical Assistance Manual and Modal Training Program &         655,000
 Public & Industry Outreach to Assist in Ensuring the
 Air Travel Environment is Free of Discrimination.......
Administrative Litigation Costs for Enforcement Aviation          50,000
 Economic and Civil Rights Matters......................
Rulemaking Management System Support....................          97,000
Regulatory Management System, List Serve & Automated             115,000
 Coordination Maintenance...............................
E-gov Rulemaking Assessment.............................         800,000
Other small contracts...................................         156,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

       OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Budget and Programs by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           5,039
Other than full-time permanent..........................             285
Other personnel compensation............................              44
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           5,368
Civilian personnel benefits.............................           1,539
Travel & transportation of things.......................              14
Other services..........................................           1,952
Supplies and materials..................................               6
Equipment...............................................              10
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           8,889
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and 
Programs.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Budget and Programs' budget request for personnel 
compensation and benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and 
related benefits from the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed 
based on enacted levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is 
annualized to fund the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise 
(4.1 percent for an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund 
the cost of any other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 
2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal 
year 2005 pay raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a 
year). No new staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              54              54
Reimbursable............................               1               1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs compared to 
levels at the end of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              51
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              44
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              46
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              55
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 51
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract costs in 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Departmental Accounting and Financial Information System        $145,000
Travel Management System................................          20,000
Accounting Services.....................................         818,000
CIO IT Support..........................................         365,000
Payroll Reimbursement to FAA............................         147,000
FTA Web Support for OST Payroll Reports.................          50,000
CFO Web Support.........................................          50,000
CRTS Database Support...................................          20,000
Bearing Point...........................................         321,000
Other small contracts...................................          16,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Administration by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           5,825
Other than full-time permanent..........................             102
Other personnel compensation............................              67
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           5,994
Civilian personnel benefits.............................           1,438
Travel & transportation of things.......................              35
Rental payments to GSA..................................           9,147
Other services..........................................          16,291
Supplies and materials..................................              30
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          32,935
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the fiscal year 2005 budget request for personnel compensation and 
benefits of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Administration's budget request for personnel 
compensation and benefits are computed as follows: (1) Salary and 
related benefits from the previous year (fiscal year 2004) are computed 
based on enacted levels; (2) The fiscal year 2004 enacted level is 
annualized to fund the full year cost of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise 
(4.1 percent for an additional one-fourth of a year) and to fully fund 
the cost of any other personnel actions that occurred in fiscal year 
2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 base is inflated by the proposed fiscal 
year 2005 pay raise estimated at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a 
year). No new staff increases are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              66              65
Reimbursable............................              20              19
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration compared to levels 
at the end of each quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              67
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              99
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              77
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              84
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 69
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              84
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract costs in 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
MSI Program.............................................        $130,000
E-Grants................................................         350,000
Electronic Business Process.............................         943,000
Online Internet Research................................         110,000
Security Investigations.................................          85,000
New Headquarters Building Security......................         130,000
Training................................................         183,000
Corporate Recruitment...................................         500,000
Consolidated Benefits Assistance........................         400,000
Federal Personnel & Payroll System......................         846,800
OST Cost to WCF.........................................      10,030,000
Reimbursements to USCG Clinic...........................          37,000
Workforce Improvements Initiative.......................         208,000
DOT-wide Admin and Management Services..................         143,000
Subscriptions...........................................          28,300
Procurement Strategy Council............................          45,000
Electronic Official Personnel Folders...................       1,000,000
Centralized Workers' Compensation.......................         250,000
E-training Initiative...................................         750,000
CPMIS Charges...........................................          85,000
Federal Employments Information Services................          36,700
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of Public Affairs by object class.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Object Class                            Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.....................................           1,120
Other than full-time permanent..........................             385
Other personnel compensation............................               9
                                                         ---------------
      Total personnel compensation......................           1,514
Civilian personnel benefits.............................             387
Travel & transportation of things.......................              51
Other services..........................................              69
Supplies and materials..................................              11
Equipment...............................................               2
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................           2,034
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the request for personnel compensation and benefits of the Office of 
Public Affairs.
    Answer. The assumptions used to develop the Office of Public 
Affairs' budget request for personnel compensation and benefits are 
computed as follows: (1) Salary and related benefits from the previous 
year (fiscal year 2004) are computed based on enacted levels; (2) The 
fiscal year 2004 enacted level is annualized to fund the full year cost 
of the fiscal year 2004 pay raise (4.1 percent for an additional one-
fourth of a year) and to fully fund the cost of any other personnel 
actions that occurred in fiscal year 2004; (3) The fiscal year 2005 
base is inflated by the proposed fiscal year 2005 pay raise estimated 
at 1.5 percent (for three-fourths of a year). No new staff increases 
are proposed for fiscal year 2005.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of Public 
Affairs.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Positions          FTE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct..................................              19              19
Reimbursable............................               2               2
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of Public Affairs compared to levels at the end of each quarter 
of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The 5-year FTE history is as follows:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
FISCAL YEAR 2001 ACTUAL.................................              18
FISCAL YEAR 2002 ACTUAL.................................              19
FISCAL YEAR 2003 ACTUAL.................................              16
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ENACTED................................              21
FISCAL YEAR 2004 ON-BOARD...............................          \1\ 16
FISCAL YEAR 2005 REQUEST................................              21
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As of March 30, 2004.

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract costs in 
the Office of Public Affairs.
    Answer. Anticipated contract expenses in the Office of the Public 
Affairs consist of:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Description of Services                      Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press Service................................         $16,000
News Wire Service.......................................          12,500
Subscriptions...........................................          10,000
Transcription Service...................................           5,000
Bacon's Media Service and Publications..................           6,000
Video Monitoring Service................................           8,000
Other small contracts...................................          11,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      OST SAFETY PERFORMANCE GOALS

    Question. Why is reducing train accidents and highway-rail 
incidents the only safety area that OST is requesting funds under the 
safety performance goal?
    Answer. The Office of the Secretary addresses all aspects of 
transportation safety through its management of the DOT Operating 
Administrations. The funds requested in the OST budget are for cross-
cutting programs or specific issues led by OST program offices. DOT's 
ten Operating Administrations address mode-specific safety issues in 
their individual budgets.
    The programs attributed to this objective support the Department's 
overall goal to ``enhance public health and safety by working toward 
the elimination of transportation-related deaths and injuries.'' The 
programs planned for fiscal year 2006 and included in OST's submission 
address two areas of concern. The first is the issue of safe pedestrian 
right-of-way access at rail crossings and the second is improved GPS 
performance for improved transportation safety across all modes, 
including rail. Breaking down this second study across all safety 
performance measures may have diminished its importance and provided a 
presentation that was difficult to follow; therefore, these two areas 
were both attributed to rail safety targets.

           TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

    Question. How much is the Department requesting for PC&B and other 
administrative costs of the Transportation Planning, Research, and 
Development appropriation? Please explain in detail. How does this 
compare to fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 2004?
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
        Object Class          Year 2002  Year 2003  Year 2004  Year 2005
                                Actual     Actual     Enacted    Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.........      1,640      1,814      3,202      3,267
Other than full-time                497        593        147        150
 permanent..................
Other personnel compensation         29         27          9          9
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total personnel             2,167      2,434      3,358      3,426
       compensation.........
Civilian personnel benefits.        388        498        456        499
Travel & transportation of          219        234         53         54
 things.....................
Other services..............      8,704     13,158     16,824      6,802
Supplies and materials/             191        164         19         20
 Equipment..................
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................     11,669     16,489     20,709     10,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Administrative costs for studies funded with the 
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development appropriation 
generally account for 35 to 39 percent of the requested amount. Why is 
this much necessary for administration? How does this compare to the 
past 3 fiscal years?
    Answer. The administrative costs in the TPR&D budget consist of 
Personnel Costs and Benefits for 31 FTE. These individuals monitor the 
contract studies and actually do the studies as in-house expertise 
allows. In addition, it provides for payment to the Working Capital 
Fund for TPR&D support services such as the printing and distribution 
of reports and studies and other research related activities. Lastly, 
it provides for other administrative such as travel, office supplies, 
subscriptions, and equipment.
    Question. Please indicate which office of the Office of the 
Secretary will be charged with administration and development of each 
study that is funded by the Transportation Planning, Research, and 
Development (TPR&D) appropriation.
    Answer. The information follows.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy
  --Safe and Accessible Transportation for Older and Disabled Americans
  --Safety and Human Factors
  --Navigation Systems (GPS) Protection, Coordination and Policy 
        Development
  --Spectrum Protection, Coordination and Policy Development
  --Examination of Policy Instruments to Encourage Sustainability
  --DOT National Freight Action Plan
  --Non-Work Trips and Congestion
  --DOT-HUD Joint Research on Transportation and Regional Development
  --Alternatives for Financing Surface Transportation Improvements
  --Passenger Rail Demand
  --Value Pricing
  --Implementing Successful Intermodal Passenger Terminal Projects
  --Energy, Environment and Climate
  --DOT Long Range Policy Analysis--Phase III
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs
  --Modernization of Aviation Data Systems
  --Study to Determine the Demand for Scheduled Air Transportation 
        Carrier Impact of the North American Free Trade Agreement
  --Aviation Economic Model
  --Analysis of Changes in Airline Cost Structures
  --Comprehensive Study on the Role of International Airline Alliance 
        in a Potential U.S.-European Union Aviation Area
  --Longer-term Implications of Large-scale Implementation of Regional 
        Jet Service
  --Analysis of Small Community Air Service
  --Impact of Taxes and Fees on Demand for Air Services and the 
        Financial Condition of the Airline Industry
    Question. Please provide administrative costs of TPR&D in detail.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
        Object Class          Year 2002  Year 2003  Year 2004  Year 2005
                                Actual     Actual     Enacted    Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.........      1,640      1,814      3,202      3,267
Other than full-time                497        593        147        150
 permanent..................
Other personnel compensation         29         27          9          9
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total personnel             2,167      2,434      3,358      3,426
       compensation.........
Civilian personnel benefits.        388        498        456        499
Travel & transportation of          219        234         53         54
 things.....................
Other services..............      8,704     13,158     16,824      6,802
Supplies and materials/             191        164         19         20
 Equipment..................
                             -------------------------------------------
      Total.................     11,669     16,489     20,709     10,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please indicate which TPR&D studies are new initiatives 
for fiscal year 2005 and which have received previous funding. Also, 
please provide a schedule and cost profile for each study that is 
proposed to be conducted and funded for more than 1 year.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
            TPR&D Studies                    New            Previous
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safe and Accessible Transportation     X
 for Older and Disabled Americans.
Safety and Human Factors.............                   X
Navigation Systems (GPS) Protection,                    X
 Coordination and Policy Development.
Spectrum Protection, Coordination and  X
 Policy Development.
Examination of Policy Instruments to   X
 Encourage Sustainability.
DOT National Freight Action Plan.....                   X
Non-Work Trips and Congestion........  X
DOT-HUD Joint Research on              X
 Transportation and Regional
 Development.
Alternatives for Financing Surface                      X
 Transportation Improvements.
Passenger Rail Demand................  X
Value Pricing........................  X
Implementing Successful Intermodal     X
 Passenger Terminal Projects.
Energy, Environment and Climate......                   X
DOT Long Range Policy Analysis--Phase  X
 III.
Modernization of Aviation Data                          X
 Systems.
Study to Determine the Demand for      X
 Scheduled Air Transportation.
Carrier Impact of the North American   X
 Free Trade Agreement.
Aviation Economic Model..............                   X
Analysis of Changes In Airline Cost                     X
 Structures.
Comprehensive Study on the Role of     X
 International Airline Alliance in a
 Potential U.S.-European Union
 Aviation Area.
Longer-term Implications of Large-     X
 scale Implementation of Regional Jet
 Service.
Analysis of Small Community Air        X
 Service.
Impact of Taxes and Fees on Demand                      X
 for Air Services and the Financial
 Condition of the Airline Industry.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each proposed study is to be conducted and funded in 1 year. Only 
factors beyond our control would force a multiyear contract. However, 
as is the nature of research, unexpected or unusual result may suggest 
a follow up contract.
    Question. Please list all TPR&D studies that are included in the 
fiscal year 2005 congressional justification in order of priority or 
importance to OST.
    Answer. This account includes funding for a variety of program 
areas and strategic goals, each of which is a priority for the 
Department. Studies and activities funded by this account provide the 
basis for policy and program decisions that are vital to the mobility 
and security of our Nation.

                            OVERFLIGHT FEES

    Question. Please provide a history of administrative or regulatory 
actions and litigation involving overflight fees since authorized by 
Congress in 1996.
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 directed 
the FAA to establish a fee schedule to recover the costs it incurs in 
providing air traffic control and related services to overflights, that 
is, flights that pass through United States-controlled airspace without 
taking off or landing. See 49 U.S.C.  45301(b)(1). Overflight fees are 
imposed by other countries and are generally collected at higher rates 
than those rates imposed under the FAA's rule, that is, $33.72 per 100 
nautical miles for flights conducted within the Enroute air traffic 
environment and $15.94 per 100 nautical miles for flights conducted 
within the Oceanic air traffic environment. At the direction of 
Congress, revenue secured from overflight fees is to be used to fund 
the Department's Essential Air Service program which, pursuant to 
statutory provisions set forth at 49 U.S.C.  41734(a), subsidizes 
commercial air service to communities in the United States in 
circumstances where without such subsidies no commercial air service 
would exist.
    The FAA's Final Rule, and each of its previous Interim Final Rules, 
has been challenged in judicial proceedings brought by a number of 
foreign air carriers. The D.C. Circuit's April 8, 2003 decision was the 
third time that the Court has reviewed FAA's attempt to implement 
Congress' direction to establish an overflight rule and the third time 
that the Court has found FAA's efforts wanting. See Asiana Airlines v. 
FAA, 134 F.3d 393 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (vacating FAA's original rule 
because it depended, in part, on the use of a Ramsey Pricing model); 
Air Transport Ass'n of Canada v. FAA, 254 F.3d 271 (D.C. Cir.), 
rehearing granted and amended 276 F.3d 599 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (remanding 
FAA's second interim rule for further analysis of whether the FAA's 
costs of providing air traffic control and related services in Enroute 
and Oceanic airspace were the same for overflights and for aircraft 
that take off and land within the United States).
    In response to these judicial decisions, Congress amended section 
45301(b)(1) in 2001 to provide that overflight fees had only to be 
``reasonably related,'' not ``directly related,'' to the FAA's cost of 
providing air traffic control and related services, that the 
determination of actual costs was committed to the discretion of the 
FAA Administrator, and that the Administrator's cost determination 
could not be subject to judicial review. See Aviation and 
Transportation Security Act, Public Law 107-71, 115 Stat. 597 (November 
19, 2001) (``ATSA'').
    While we believe that Congress intended these provisions to apply 
to the then-current rule, it nevertheless also adopted a general 
savings provision in the ATSA, section 141(d), which provides as 
follows:

    ``This Act shall not affect suits commenced before the date of the 
enactment of this Act . . . In all such suits, proceedings shall be 
had, appeals taken, and judgments rendered in the same manner and with 
the same effect as if this Act had not been enacted.''

    The focus of the savings provision was intended to be ongoing suits 
involving activities that were transferred from the FAA to the 
Transportation Security Administration, and the provision was never 
intended to ``save'' ongoing overflight challenges from application of 
the new standards. But having said this, the plain language of the 
section had, in the Court's view, precisely that effect, and the most 
recent challenge to the overflight rule was ``commenced before the date 
of the enactment'' of ATSA. On that basis the Court found the amendment 
to section 45301 and ATSA, section 141(d) to be inapplicable to the 
current litigation.
    Finding that the more lenient provisions of section 45301(b)(1) as 
amended by ATSA were inapplicable as a result of the savings provision, 
the D.C. Circuit applied the stricter ``directly related'' standard of 
the prior version of the statute and determined that under that 
standard the FAA had not fully supported certain of its conclusions 
concerning the labor costs it incurred in providing air traffic control 
services to overflights. Noting that this was ``the third time . . . we 
find that the FAA disregarded its statutory mandate,'' Slip op. at 2, 
the Court vacated the rule and remanded the matter to the FAA.
    FAA sought panel rehearing in order to clarify the scope of the 
Court's mandate that had set aside the entire rule. After that request 
was summarily rejected, FAA later obtained a 30-day extension of the 
time within which to file a certiorari request. A second 30-day request 
was denied by Chief Justice Rehnquist, thereby rendering the Court of 
Appeals' April 8, 2003 decision final for all purposes, including the 
application of Plaut v. Spendthrift Farms, Inc., 514 U.S. 211 (1995), 
which in certain circumstances bars retroactive application of statutes 
affecting prior judicial decisions.
    In November, 2003 Congress passed the Vision 100--Century of 
Aviation Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, Section 229 of which 
directly addresses the issue of Overflight Fees. The Act was signed 
into law by the President on December 12, 2003. Section 229 
accomplished a number of things.
    First, it provides in subparagraph (a)(1) that Congress 
specifically intended that the more flexible ``reasonably related'' 
standard imposed by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, 49 
U.S.C.  44901, did apply to pending litigation and that that test 
should have been used by the D.C. Circuit in evaluating whether the 
Overflight Fees imposed under the Interim Rule and the Final Rule were 
properly based upon the FAA's costs in providing air traffic control 
services to overflights. Subparagraph (a)(1) also clarifies that 
Congress intended that even in pending litigation the Administrator's 
determination of the FAA's costs for purposes of computing Overflight 
Fees is conclusive and not subject to judicial review. The D.C. 
Circuit's April 8 decision had held these standards to be inapplicable 
to the Interim Final Rule and the Final Rule, which were pending when 
the new standards were enacted.
    Second, subsection (a)(2) specifically provides that ``[t]he 
interim and final rule [adopted by the FAA], including the fees issued 
pursuant to those rules, are adopted, legalized, and confirmed as fully 
to all intents and purposes as if the same had, by prior Act of 
Congress, been specifically adopted, authorized, and directed as of the 
date those rules were originally issued.'' Thus, section 229 
establishes legislatively imposed Overflight Rules and fees that, in 
effect, retroactively and prospectively mirror the rules and fees 
vacated by the D.C. Circuit in its April 8 decision. However, 
notwithstanding the fact that subsection (a)(2) adopts the FAA's 
Interim Rule and Final Rule ``as of the date those rules were 
originally issued, [i.e., May 30, 2000 and August 13, 2001, 
respectively]'' subsection (a)(3) states that all of subsection (a) 
``applies to fees assessed after November 19, 2001 [i.e. the date on 
which the Aviation and Transportation Security Act was enacted] and 
before April 8, 2003 [i.e. the date of the D.C. Circuit's most recent 
decision on this matter] . . .''.
    The United States is still evaluating the effect of section 229 of 
Vision 100 on the D.C. Circuit's April 8, 2003 decision. Section 229 
also requires that FAA hold consultations with overflight operators 
concerning international aspects of the overflight rule and report to 
Congress on issues raised by the D.C. Circuit's April 8, 2003 decision. 
FAA is pursuing these matters.
    Question. What is the current status of litigation related to 
overflight fees?
    Answer. Section 45301 of title 49, United States Code (as amended 
by section 273 of the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 
(Public Law 104-264)) authorizes the collection of user fees for 
services provided by the FAA to aircraft that neither take off nor land 
in the United States, known as overflight fees. The FAA's regulations 
implementing 49 U.S.C. 45301 have been in litigation since 1997.
    Following the court's decision in Air Transport Association of 
Canada v. Federal Aviation Administration, 323 F.3d 1093, (April 8, 
2003), Congress, in Section 229 of the Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act, (Public Law 108-176), legislatively adopted the 
FAA's final rule relating to overflight fees as of the date on which 
each rule was initially issued. Congress directed the FAA's 
Administrator to defer collecting new overflight fees until the 
Administrator has reported to Congress responding to the issues raised 
by the court in Air Transport Association of Canada v. Federal Aviation 
Administration, and consults with users and other interested parties 
regarding the consistency of the overflight fees with the international 
obligations of the United States. Vision 100 was signed into law by the 
President on December 12, 2003.
    While negotiations and consultations concerning the FAA's 
overflight fees regulations are ongoing, it is reasonable for the 
Department to rely on such funds for the Essential Air Service program 
in fiscal year 2005 because the Department will have addressed the 
requirements in Sec. 229(b) before the start of fiscal year 2005. With 
such requirements met, the Department will be authorized to collect 
overflight fees, and funding for the EAS program will be available.
    Question. Have the overflight fees that were collected but were 
tied up in litigation been spent?
    Answer. No. Because of the litigation these fees have been held in 
a special account by the FAA in case they need to be refunded.
    Question. Are there any legal or other restrictions to prevent the 
funds that were collected previously from overflight fees from being 
spent?
    Answer. Yes. Although at present there is no legal prohibition 
precluding the use of these funds, the Administrator's Order, which 
releases these funds, will not be final until October 4, 2004, assuming 
no appeal is filed.
    Question. Are there any legal or other restrictions to prevent the 
funds that were collected previously from overflight fees from being 
spent?
    Answer. Yes. There is a significant degree of uncertainty at the 
present time as to how much of the currently collected overflight fees 
will ultimately remain available for spending.

                         ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE

    Question. How much funding in the EAS program was carried over at 
the end of fiscal years 2002 and 2003?
    Answer. The total funds carried over for fiscal year 2002 and 
fiscal year 2003 were $12.4 million and $7.5 million, respectively.
    Question. Based on current obligation rate for the Essential Air 
Service program, what will the unobligated balance of funds be at the 
end of fiscal year 2004?
    Answer. We anticipate that we will have obligated all funding 
available by the end of fiscal year 2004, leaving no unobligated 
balance.
    Question. Please explain in detail the proposal to restructure the 
Essential Air Service program.
    Answer. We are proposing a fundamental change in the way that the 
government supports transportation services to rural America. As you 
may know, the EAS program subsidizes scheduled air services to 
communities that received scheduled service at the time of 
deregulation--25 years ago. Although there have been tremendous changes 
in the industry since then, the program has remained static. For too 
long, many communities--there are a few exceptions--have taken air 
service for granted as an entitlement and done little or nothing to 
help make the service successful. Requiring a modest contribution 
should energize civic officials and business leaders at the local and 
State levels to encourage use of the service, and, as stakeholders in 
their service, the communities will become key architects in designing 
their specific transportation package.
    Accordingly, the President's Budget proposes some reforms. For the 
most isolated communities, we would continue to subsidize air service 
to the extent of 90 percent of the total subsidy required. Communities 
that are within a close drive of major airports would qualify for 
subsidies constituting 50 percent of the total costs for providing 
surface transportation. Specifically, communities within: (a) 100 
driving miles of a large or medium hub airport, (b) 75 miles of a small 
hub, or (c) 50 miles of a non-hub with jet service would not qualify 
for subsidy for air service. (Some EAS communities are very close to 
small hubs but maintain their standing in the program because the 
nearby airport does not meet the medium-hub threshold.)
    At all other subsidized EAS communities, we would offer an array of 
options, including paying for 75 percent of the cost of the traditional 
EAS-type scheduled service. In addition, we would work with the 
communities and State DOT's to procure charter service, single-engine, 
single-pilot service, regionalized service or ground transportation in 
cases where they seem to be more responsive to communities' needs.
    All service would be subject to budget limitations ($50 million).
    Question. If any communities would no longer be eligible for 
Essential Air Service funding if the Department's proposal is enacted 
into law, please identify those communities for the record.
    Answer. There is no way of knowing if, and if so how many, 
communities would not be eligible for EAS funding. The reason is that 
we do not know how many communities will be unwilling to contribute to 
the costs of providing their air service. While we believe that $50 
million would be sufficient to provide air service to all communities 
that are willing to contribute, in the highly unlikely event that all 
communities were willing to contribute, some of the lesser-isolated 
communities would not receive funding. Table I attached shows all of 
the communities and their required contribution levels assuming that 
every community contributes its required share.
    Question. The Congressional Justification indicates that $1,300,000 
will be used to pay salaries and administrative costs for staff to 
administer the Essential Air Service program. Please breakdown in 
greater detail and compare to the past 3 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                        Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year
                        Object Class                          Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year      2004         2005
                                                              2002 Actual  2003 Actual    Enacted      Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full-time permanent.........................................          871          920          947          958
Other personnel compensation................................            4            5            0            0
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total personnel compensation..........................          876          925          947          958
Civilian personnel benefits.................................          169          173          180          183
Travel & transportation of things...........................            1            0           15           16
Other services..............................................          240          121          121          124
Supplies and materials/Equipment............................           10            4           20           21
Grants, subsidies, & contributions..........................       99,470      105,726      100,717       48,699
                                                             ---------------------------------------------------
      Total.................................................      100,765      106,949      102,000       50,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide the number of on-board staff and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for staff who administer 
the EAS program compared to fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal
                                         Year 2005    Fiscal     Fiscal
                                                    Year 2004  Year 2003
                                         Requested    Enacted    Actual
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct.................................         10  .........  .........
Reimbursable...........................  .........         10         10
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What office or operating administration is responsible 
for writing and implementing and collecting the overflight fees?
    Answer. The Federal Aviation Administration.
    Question. Are any of the legislative changes proposed to the EAS 
program in the budget request authorized by Public Law 108-176?
    Answer. The legislative changes proposed in the fiscal year 2005 
Budget Request for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program do not rely 
on the EAS amendments made to chapter 417 of title 49, United States 
Code (Transportation), by Public Law 108-176 (December 12, 2003).
    Question. If Congress does not enact the legislative changes to the 
EAS program, what is the full cost to continue the program to all 
current communities in fiscal year 2005?
    Answer. The EAS budget is driven by a number of exogenous factors, 
such as fuel prices, the health and structure of the major carriers, 
and aircraft fleet decisions made by regional carriers generally to 
upsize to larger aircraft. The single biggest uncertainty is how many 
last carriers serving an EAS community will file a notice to suspend 
service, thus triggering a hold-in and first-time subsidy. Our best 
estimate is that $120 million would be required for fiscal year 2005 if 
no changes are made.

                         AVIATION DATA SYSTEMS

    Question. Does the request for $800,000 complete the third phase of 
the modernization of Aviation Data Systems?
    Answer. The $800,000 will be used to begin the process of designing 
and building the new data system which will collect, validate, and 
disseminate the re-designed airline traffic data to reduce the 
reporting burden on the airlines and increase the timeliness, accuracy, 
and utility of the data which is mission-critical for government 
agencies, airlines, airports, and other commercial aviation 
stakeholders. The construction and implementation of this system will 
complete the modernization of the airline traffic data.
    Question. What specific aviation data is being updated? What new 
data will be collected? Will any data that had been collected no longer 
be collected?
    Answer. The traffic data modernization changes the reporting 
carrier, reporting frequency, and a number of reported data elements 
for the Origin-Destination Survey of Airline Passenger Traffic (14 CFR 
Part 241 Section 19-7). It also changes some reported data elements for 
the Schedule T-100 Air Carrier Traffic and Capacity Data by Nonstop 
Segment and On-Flight Market Segment (14 CFR Part 217 and 14 CFR Part 
241) to ensure greater statistical correlation between the revised 
Origin-Destination Survey and the revised Schedule T-100. Current 
traffic statistics no longer adequately measure the size, scope, and 
operating and competitive structures of the scheduled passenger airline 
industry. The changes will eliminate ambiguity, reduce manual data 
collection by reporting carriers, minimize reporting exemptions, expand 
the breadth and scope of information collected, and modernize the 
methods of data submission and dissemination to capture fundamental 
industry changes.
    Question. Who will have access to the Aviation Data Systems?
    Answer. All aviation stakeholders inside and outside the government 
will have access to the data. These data are particularly important to 
airlines who use it in planning their businesses and to all government 
agencies responsible for making policy decisions which affect this 
critical industry.
    Question. Do any non-governmental entities have to pay for access 
to the aviation data systems?
    Answer. Currently, some data is made available free over the 
Internet, while more granular data is sold on tapes for a very nominal 
fee to cover the costs of production. The new system will make the data 
much more accessible to a broad range of non-governmental users using 
web-based technologies. In its Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the 
Department will solicit comments from all stakeholders on the data 
products they would like to see produced from the raw data collected 
under the new system.
    Question. What are the benefits of the new system?
    Answer. The traffic data modernization will support the Secretary's 
obligation to be responsive to the needs of the public and disseminate 
information to make it easier to adapt the air transportation system to 
the present and future needs of the commerce of the United States. 
These data are fundamentally important for both public policy and 
airline business planning. The proposed changes to the Origin-
Destination Survey will eliminate ambiguity, reduce manual data 
collection by reporting carriers, minimize reporting exemptions, expand 
the breadth and scope of information collected, and modernize the 
methods of data submission and dissemination to capture fundamental 
industry changes. Data enhancements will enable the Department and 
other stakeholders to better assess changes in traffic flows due to 
seasonality, carrier route changes, and carrier preference as well as 
aid the Department in international negotiations. Flight-stage data 
assists carriers in business planning, demand forecasting, and new 
service impact analyses.

 OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT GENERAL COUNSEL FOR AVIATION ENFORCEMENT AND 
                              PROCEEDINGS

    Question. Please breakdown the request for the Office of the 
Assistant General Counsel for Aviation Enforcement and Proceedings in 
greater detail.
    Answer. Our fiscal year 2005 request can be found in Organizational 
Excellence and Global Connectivity goals. See page 1 of Organizational 
Excellence and pp. 12 and 21 of Global Connectivity goals of the 
submission.
    In addition to personnel cost and benefits needed, funding in 
fiscal year 2005 is requested to operate and maintain the 
Congressionally-mandated disabilities hotline ($1,235,000), to continue 
a cell phone contract to ensure the appropriate individuals can be 
reached to assist hotline operators address time-sensitive disability 
related air travel complaints ($15,000), to complete the technical 
assistance manual and model training program and to conduct outreach to 
assist in ensuring the air travel environment is free of discrimination 
($655,000), and to protect air travelers through enforcement of 
aviation economic and civil rights matters in administrative hearings 
($50,000).
    Question. Please describe any new initiatives and the corresponding 
costs that are requested for the Office of the Assistant General 
Counsel for Aviation Enforcement.
    Answer. The Office of the Assistant General Counsel for Aviation 
Enforcement (Aviation Enforcement Office) is not requesting any funds 
for new initiatives. All of the funds being requested for fiscal year 
2005 will be used to continue work that began in prior years.

                   EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT

    Question. Please compare the request for employee training and 
development for OST and each operating administration to the past 4 
fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                        EMPLOYEE TRAINING AND DEVELOPMENT
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                    2002 Actual     2003 Actual    2004 Estimate   2005 Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary.........................  ..............           1,892             256             198
Federal Aviation Administration.................         144,806         157,477         153,929         158,398
Federal Highway Administration..................           3,898           3,985           4,579           4,579
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration.....           5,518           3,903           5,486           4,223
National Highway Traffic Safety Admininistration             223             227             227             275
Federal Railroad Administration.................             909           1,086           1,513           2,216
Federal Transit Administration..................             460             475             485             505
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp............              51              55              56              90
Research and Special Programs Admin.............             173             190             190             237
Office of the Inspector General.................             425             389             447             447
Surface Transportation Board....................              41              41              28              28
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............             237             148             341             200
Maritime Administration.........................             373             238             350             350
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total.....................................         157,114         170,106         167,887         171,746
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE.--Excludes Working Capital Fund.

                            ATTORNEYS IN DOT

    Question. Please provide a table displaying the number of attorneys 
in the Office of General Counsel and in each modal administration 
compared to the last 3 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Fiscal     Fiscal     Fiscal
                                         Year 2004  Year 2003  Year 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration........        184        195        188
General Counsel, Office of the                  64         68         69
 Secretary.............................
Federal Highway Administration.........         45         47         46
Federal Railroad Administration........         31         30         30
Federal Transit Administration.........         25         25         27
Maritime Administration................         25         23         22
National Highway Traffic Safety Admin..         22         26         24
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin.....         33         25         29
Research & Special Programs Admin......         19         17         18
Inspector General......................          5          4          4
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp...          1          1          1
Bureau of Transportation Statistics....          1          1          1
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How many attorneys in the Office of General Counsel work 
primarily on aviation-related issues?
    Answer. There are 34 attorneys who work primarily on aviation-
related issues.
    Question. Do the all the attorneys in the operating administrations 
report to the modal administrator or to the Department's General 
Counsel?
    Answer. The attorneys in the operating administrations do not 
report to the Department's General Counsel. However, the General 
Counsel exercises professional supervision, including coordination and 
review, over the legal work of the legal offices of the Department.
    Question. Who approves the performance appraisals for attorneys 
paid by the operating administrations?
    Answer. The performance appraisals are approved by each operating 
administration.
    Question. Please provide the number of attorneys on staff for each 
operating administration and Office of the Secretary.
    Answer. The information follows.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration.........................             184
Federal Highway Administration..........................              45
Federal Railroad Administration.........................              31
Federal Transit Administration..........................              25
Maritime Administration.................................              25
National Highway Traffic Safety Admin...................              22
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin......................              33
Research & Special Programs Admin.......................              19
Inspector General.......................................               5
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp....................               1
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.....................               1
General Counsel, Office of the Secretary................              64
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. For the attorneys involved in aviation issues, how is 
their workload related to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Aviation and International Affairs?
    Answer. Attorneys in the Office of the Assistant General Counsel 
for Environmental, Civil Rights, and General Law (``General Law'') 
provide services on aviation-related issues generally do so for clients 
in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs. Primary clients are those in the immediate Office of the 
Assistant Secretary, and the Offices of Aviation Analysis and Planning 
and Special Projects. The advice and services provided by these 
attorneys related most routinely to the Essential Air Service Program; 
to Small Community air Service grants; on competition plans, congestion 
management, and other aviation policy matters; and on slot exemption 
and air carrier compensation issues. However, there can be a myriad of 
other circumstances on which an ``aviation-related'' issue may arise in 
the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International 
Affairs on which assistance is sought from the attorneys in General 
Law. These include matters involving appropriations, finance, national 
security, Freedom on Information matters, statutory interpretation, 
bankruptcy, intellectual property, and environmental law.
    Under a long-standing understanding with the Department of Justice, 
litigation attorneys defend, with little or no DOJ assistance, aviation 
decisions of the Department when they are challenged in judicial 
proceedings. We also work with the Office of the Assistant Secretary 
for Aviation and International Affairs by providing policy guidance on 
legal matters and drafting assistance, particularly in areas of 
antitrust issues and computer reservation system and travel agent 
matters.
    The attorneys in the Office of the Assistant General Counsel for 
Regulation and Enforcement coordinate the Office of the Secretary's 
review of modal proposed and final regulations, including aviation 
regulations. Accordingly, they work closely with the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs to ensure 
full review of aviation regulatory documents. Frequently, the attorneys 
in this office will meet with personnel from Aviation and International 
Affairs about any regulatory questions or issues that arise, and it is 
their job to try to resolve outstanding issues before a document is 
submitted for Secretarial review. In addition, the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs generates 
its own rules, on matters such as computer reservations systems and 
access for disabled travelers. When it does so, our office provides 
drafting assistance as well as coordination and review. More broadly, 
the attorneys in this office provide legal advice as necessary on 
regulatory matters to the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Aviation and International Affairs.
    The Legislative Office provides support for the Assistant Secretary 
for Aviation and International Affairs through the preparation and 
clearance through DOT and OMB of all Departmental legislative proposals 
intended to carry out the Department's initiatives and programs related 
to aviation activities. It also administers DOT/OMB clearance of the 
Assistant Secretary's testimony before Congress on aviation issues. 
Finally, they provide DOT/OMB clearance of comments or revisions 
originating with the Assistant Secretary's office on all draft 
legislation, draft testimony and draft reports to Congress that may 
originate within other Departments but are related to aviation issues.
    Attorneys in the Aviation Enforcement Office work in close 
consultation with staff in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for 
Aviation and International Affairs to develop policies to improve air 
service and/or access to the commercial aviation system as well as 
policies on anticompetitive practices in the airline industry. The 
Aviation Enforcement Office also assists the Office of the Assistant 
Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs in its review of U.S. 
air carrier requests for economic authority, and provides assistance on 
public charter and fitness issues.
    Attorneys provide legal support and facilitation of the 
Department's international aviation program goals implemented by the 
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs, including 
transportation negotiations with foreign countries, international 
aviation trade matters, international transportation safety and 
security, international trade, international aviation pricing, Alaska 
and international mail rates, aviation licensing and regulatory matters 
involving international transportation, aviation war risk insurance 
issues, international aviation sanctions, and interdiction of illegal 
drugs and other contraband. At international transportation 
negotiations, the Office provides legal support as a member of the U.S. 
Delegation, legal advisor and chief drafter of all documents.

                 ACCESSIBILITY FOR ALL AMERICA PROGRAM

    Question. Please compare the request for the Accessibility for All 
America program to the past 3 fiscal years.
    Answer. The Department's request for Accessibility for All America 
the past 3 fiscal years is as follows:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                                       2002            2003            2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accessibility for All America...................................      $2,494,000      $2,101,000      $2,533,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please breakdown the request for the Accessibility for 
All America program in greater detail.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal Year
                                                           2005 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disabilities Hotline including cell phone contract......      $1,250,000
Tech Assist. Manual, Outreach & Translations............         655,000
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................       1,905,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 2005, the office is requesting funding to continue 
operating and maintaining the congressionally mandated toll-free 
hotline to educate and assist individuals in resolving disability-
related air travel problems. Funding is also requested to complete work 
on the statutorily-required ACAA technical assistance manual (including 
a model training program), to continue ensuring that a wider audience 
can use the materials DOT's Aviation Enforcement Office issues (e.g., 
translating documents into Braille and Spanish) and to encourage 
collaborative policymaking and enhanced cooperation between carriers, 
airport, and civil rights organizations by convening air travel civil 
rights forums.
    Question. Please identify which initiatives under the accessibility 
program are new, which continue efforts started in previous years, and 
what the base funding is for each on-going effort.
    Answer. The Office of the General Counsel is not requesting any 
funds for new initiatives related to the accessibility program. All of 
the funds being requested for fiscal year 2005 are necessary to 
continue the ongoing work set out below.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                       2002            2003            2004       2005 (Request)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Integrated Disabilities Hotline.................        $870,000        $870,015      $1,239,807      $1,250,000
Technical Assistance Outreach and Translations..  ..............         669,366  ..............         655,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Base funding of $870,000 was provided in fiscal year 2002 to 
develop and implement a congressionally-mandated toll-free hotline, 
staffed 7 days per week from 7 a.m. until 11 p.m. to answer questions 
from disabled air travelers and assist such persons in resolving 
disability-related air travel problems in ``real time.'' Implementation 
occurred in December 2003 which allowed the program to remain funded at 
the same level through the remaining three quarters of fiscal year 
2003. The $1,239,807 enacted for fiscal year 2004 and the $1,235,000 
requested for fiscal year 2005 are necessary to maintain the hotline 
for each full fiscal year.
    Base funding of $669,366 was provided in fiscal year 2003 to: (1) 
begin work on a comprehensive technical assistance manual as well as a 
model training program to guide airlines in assisting air travelers 
with disabilities and to educate airlines about the proscription 
against discrimination based on race, national origin, ethnicity, or 
religion in air travel; (2) translate civil rights-related publications 
into different languages; and (3) encourage collaborative policymaking 
between carriers and civil rights organizations by convening air travel 
civil rights forums. These developmental efforts continued in fiscal 
year 2004 but a reduced funding level for the office forced a 
redirection of base funds elsewhere. Now implemented, the program needs 
base funding of $655,000 in fiscal year 2005 to maintain these 
essential elements of the program.

                       BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS

    Question. In fiscal year 2004, the Board of Contract Appeals 
continued to hear Coast Guard appeals pursuant to a Memorandum of 
Understanding between DOT and the Department of Homeland Security. Will 
the board continue to hear Coast Guard appeals in fiscal year 2005?
    Answer. Yes, the Board of Contract Appeals will continue to hear 
Coast Guard appeals in fiscal year 2005 pursuant to a Memorandum of 
Understanding between DOT and the Department of Homeland Security, in 
addition to other new appeals from the Department of Homeland Security.
    Question. Has DHS established its own board of contract appeals?
    Answer. No, the Department of Homeland Security has not established 
its own board of contract appeals. The Memorandum of Understanding 
between the Department of Transportation and the Department of Homeland 
Security provides for the DOT Board of Contract Appeals to hear and 
decide all appeals arising out of DHS contracts.
    Question. Does DHS reimburse DOT for hearing DHS appeals?
    Answer. Yes, DHS reimburses DOT for hearing DHS appeals.
    Question. Please breakdown in greater detail the Board's workload 
that is projected for fiscal year 2005 compared to the past 4 fiscal 
years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                  STATISTICAL BREAKDOWN OF BOARD'S WORKLOAD--FISCAL YEAR 2001-FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Appeals                      On Docket End
                           Fiscal Year                               Received     Appeals Closed  of Fiscal Year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2001............................................................              29              50              66
2002............................................................              21              32              55
2003............................................................              29              36              48
2004............................................................         \1\ 277         \2\ 120  ..............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Total appeals received in fiscal year 2004 to 6/18/04.
\2\ Total appeals closed in fiscal year 2004 to 6/18/04.

    The Board anticipates approximately 25 percent more appeals in 
fiscal year 2005 as a result of hearing and deciding Department of 
Homeland Security appeals.

                  OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY

    Question. Please compare the budget request for the Office of 
Intelligence and Security with the past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2000.......................................          $1,574
Fiscal Year 2001.......................................           3,494
Fiscal Year 2002.......................................           1,321
Fiscal Year 2003.......................................      \1\ [2,100]
Fiscal Year 2004.......................................           2,225
Fiscal Year 2005.......................................           2,260
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Office was funded through a reimbursable agreement with DHS/TSA.

    Question. Are any of the funds requested for the Office of 
Intelligence and Security to provide for the physical security of the 
Secretary or DOT building?
    Answer. No, both the physical security of the Secretary and the 
security of the DOT buildings are budgeted under the Office of the 
Assistant Secretary for Administration.
    Question. Please list the positions that are vacant in the Office 
of Intelligence and Security and provide the grade, title, and PC&B 
cost for each position.
    Answer. The SES position of Director of the Office and Intelligence 
and Security has been filled with a temporary assignment of a Senior 
Executive within the department.
    There are currently two specialist vacancies in the Office (see 
below). The duties of these positions are currently being discharged by 
details of employees from the Operating Administrations while 
recruitment actions are underway.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Position Title                    Grade            PC&B Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Security Specialist......  GS-14...............        $132,000
Border Security Specialist........  GS-14...............         132,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. The Congressional Justification states that DOT was the 
lead Federal agency for 7 of 17 transportation security tasks outlined 
by DHS and HSC for Operation Liberty Shield. What tasks did DOT lead? 
What were the other tasks and what agency was directed to lead them? 
Did DOT have a role on the tasks that it did not lead?
    Answer. Operation Liberty Shield and the specific agency tasks were 
classified at the Secret level. The seven transportation security tasks 
that DOT was the lead Federal agency on related to rail security, 
hazardous materials (3 tasks), pipeline security, trucking and highway 
security and aviation.
    DOT's support role in the other tasks was limited primarily to 
information dissemination and communications. However, the Homeland 
Security Advisory System (HSAS) was raised to ``Orange'' in conjunction 
with Liberty Shield. This required DOT to complete dozens of additional 
tasks to implement the heightened posture.
    Question. The report to the Committee regarding the Office of 
Intelligence and Security states that DOT has explicit statutory 
security responsibilities in the areas of HAZMAT, national airspace, 
and rail transportation. What specific statutory security 
responsibilities in aviation were not transferred to the Transportation 
Security Administration?
    Answer. FAA has responsibility under 49 U.S.C., Transportation, 
Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, for the security of its own 
operations, including the National Airspace System; briefly, FAA is 
responsible for ensuring that its personnel, its air navigation 
facilities, and other parts of its integrated system of air traffic 
control are protected from unlawful interference.
    Question. Does DOT have any explicit statutory security 
responsibilities in the area of transit?
    Answer. No.
    Question. What was the Department's role in the TOPOFF exercises?
    Answer. Since transportation has been identified as a key target 
for terrorists, DOT has played a key role in the TOPOFF exercises, all 
of which had transportation events as part of their transportation 
scenarios. The Department's authority to restrict or close airspace, 
redirect rail, vehicle and motor carrier traffic and coordinate with 
mass transit authorities, have been exercised in all TOPOFF scenarios.
    In addition, the DOT is a permanent member of the Homeland Security 
Interagency Incident Management Group (IIMG). The IIMG is the body 
which is responsible for providing recommendations to the Secretary of 
DHS for: the threat countermeasure needed, response to an attack, and 
recovery measures in the event of an attack or natural disaster.

                    FEDERAL PERSONNEL PAYROLL SYSTEM

    Question. Has the Department completed the migration to the Federal 
Personnel Payroll System (FPPS)?
    Answer. No. The non-FAA components of DOT are scheduled to migrate 
to FPPS in April 2005 and the FAA is scheduled to migrate in October 
2005.
    Question. Are any funds requested in the fiscal year 2005 budget 
request for development, implementation, integration, or other costs 
associated with FPPS?
    Answer. No funds are currently in the fiscal year 2005 budget 
request because the migration to FPPS was originally scheduled to be 
completed in fiscal year 2004. Due to greater than anticipated FPPS 
system changes to meet DOT requirements, the schedule, with OMB 
approval, was adjusted to implement the non-FAA components of DOT in 
April 2005 and the FAA in October 2005. The system changes and schedule 
shift resulted in an unfunded requirement of $9.4 million for fiscal 
year 2005.
    Question. Can any savings be identified with the deployment of 
FPPS?
    Answer. No specific savings have been identified at this time.

   OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL 
                                AFFAIRS

    Question. What percentage of the workforce and budget request for 
the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs is 
related to international aviation activities? How much of the workload 
is related to aviation economic issues and regulations? What work in 
each area is expected in fiscal year 2005? How does this compare to 
fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 2004?
    Answer. Approximately 15 percent of the work of the Office of 
Aviation Analysis is devoted to international aviation activities, with 
all of the work performed in the Economic and Policy Analysis Division. 
The international aviation activities performed by this Division are 
all related to aviation economic issues and regulations. Work expected 
in fiscal year 2005 depends largely on changes and developments in the 
airline industry which is undergoing its most fundamental restructuring 
since airline deregulation. Similar to work completed in fiscal year 
2003 and fiscal year 2004, it will likely include a variety of in-depth 
analysis of emerging industry issues to ensure that DOT policy remains 
consistent with commercial developments in such areas as congestion, 
competition policy, airport access and business practices, mergers, 
international alliances, and applications for antitrust immunity for 
joint ventures between United States and foreign carriers. As the 
United States moves toward a multilateral approach to air service 
agreements, an understanding of long-term trends in the airline 
industry's operating and competitive structures will be required to 
formulate effective negotiating strategies to ensure pro-competitive 
liberalization. The Office of Aviation Analysis within the Office of 
Aviation and International Affairs performs all domestic and 
international aviation analysis for the Department's aviation economic 
policies.
    Under the Emergency Support Function No. 1 (ESF-1) of the National 
Response Plan, the Department is the lead agency in mobilizing 
transportation in order to respond to and/or assist in recovery from a 
terrorist attack or natural disaster.

                OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

    Question. Please provide a table to breakout projects funded under 
the object class ``other costs'' in the Office of the CIO and compare 
to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level after the across the board 
rescission. Also, please include the amount that was rescinded pursuant 
to Division H, sec. 168(b) of Public Law 108-199.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                  Other                        2004            2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Chief Information Officer         $500,728      $1,000,360
 (OCIO) pay, benefits, unfilled
 positions..............................
Gartner Group memberships...............          56,525         200,000
Information Technology (IT) Services             400,000          50,000
 Assessment.............................
Travel/Training/Supplies................          90,000          90,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCIO Fiscal Year 2004 rescission was 0.59 percent=$44,250.

    Question. Please provide a table of all charge backs to the modes 
to supplement the CIO budget.
    Answer. The Chief Information Officer's (CIO's) budget is not 
supplemented through charge backs to the modes. In fiscal year 2004, 
reprogramming authority was requested to cover a funding shortfall in 
the enterprise IT security program area that affected security coverage 
across DOT Operating Administrations. The table below reflects that 
reprogramming allocation.

                      IT SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2004 CHARGES FOR TCI RESPONSE CENTER AND C&A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            TCI
                                      Email    Percent    Response    No. of   Percent      C&A        OA TOTAL
                                      Count                Center    Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprogram Summary:
    BTS............................      286      0.49       $6,281  .......      0.00  ...........       $6,281
    FAA............................   45,046     77.47     $989,247       69     55.65     $556,452   $1,545,699
    FHWA...........................    4,826      8.30     $105,983        3      2.42      $24,194     $130,176
    FMCSA..........................    1,465      2.52      $32,173        1      0.81       $8,065      $40,237
    FRA............................    1,041      1.79      $22,861  .......      0.00  ...........      $22,861
    FTA............................      691      1.19      $15,175       18     14.52     $145,161     $160,336
    MARAD..........................      648      1.11      $14,231        7      5.65      $56,452      $70,682
    NHTSA..........................    1,524      2.62      $33,468        3      2.42      $24,194      $57,662
    OIG............................      471      0.81      $10,344  .......      0.00  ...........      $10,344
    RSPA...........................      654      1.12      $14,362        1      0.81       $8,065      $22,427
    SLSDC..........................       88      0.15       $1,933  .......      0.00  ...........       $1,933
    VOLPE..........................    1,409      2.42      $30,943       22     17.74     $177,419     $208,362
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Reprogram Subtotal...........   58,149    100.00   $1,277,000      124    100.00   $1,000,000   $2,277,000
OST Additional Contribution........  .......  ........  ...........  .......  ........  ...........     $200,000
      Total Reprogramming and OST    .......  ........  ...........  .......  ........  ...........   $2,477,000
       Contribution................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                              IT SECURITY

    Question. The Office of the Chief Information Officer is requesting 
funds to implement a proactive cyber threat intelligence capability. 
Will this be accomplished by contracting for such services?
    Answer. The Transportation Cyber Incident Response Center (TCIRC), 
which serves as DOT's proactive cyber threat intelligence capability, 
is staffed by contractor personnel and managed by a Federal security 
specialist. The TCIRC is a 24/7/365 capability required by OMB Circular 
A-130, Appendix III and is designed to detect, react and respond to 
cyber security incidents that may occur throughout the Department's 
critical IT infrastructure and systems.
    Question. How much of the $5,227,000 that has been requested for 
information technology security is for program administration?
    Answer. For fiscal year 2005, $428,556 has been budgeted for IT 
Security program administration.
    Question. Please provide a detailed breakdown of the scope of work 
and budget for each program that the CIO has planned or executed for 
fiscal year 2003, 2004, and 2005 in the area of IT security.
    Answer. The following table presents the fiscal year 2003, fiscal 
year 2004, and fiscal year 2005 IT Security Budget by program, scope 
and funding.

                     FISCAL YEAR 2003-FISCAL YEAR 2005 IT SECURITY BUDGET & FUNDING REQUEST
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Fiscal Year
                  Program                               Scope              Fiscal Year  Fiscal Year      2005
                                                                           2003 Budget  2004 Budget    Request
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Information Management Security     Information Technology (IT)     $1,131,266  ...........  ...........
 Act (FISMA).                                security reviews, reporting
                                             and remediation planning as
                                             required by the 2002
                                             Electronic Government Act,
                                             Title Ill.
Transportation Cyber Incident Response      Provides 24-7-365 cyber           $793,360   $1,630,675   $3,727,000
 Center (TCIRC).                             security incident response
                                             to prevent, detect, and
                                             respond to incident within
                                             the DOT IT infrastructure as
                                             required by OMB Circular A-
                                             130, Appendix III.
Certification and Accreditation (C&A).....  C&A provides an acceptable      $1,213,905   $1,391,325  ...........
                                             level of assurance that
                                             security controls are
                                             implemented and functioning
                                             properly to ensure that IT
                                             systems and infrastructure
                                             operate appropriately. The
                                             authorization (accreditation
                                             is required by OMB Circular
                                             A-130,.
Common Access Architecture (CAA)..........  To define DOT requirements        $549,832      $25,000   $1,000,000
                                             for an enterprise-wide CAA
                                             that includes physical and
                                             logical access, smart cards,
                                             public key infrastructure
                                             (PKI)--digital signature and
                                             e-Authentication in order to
                                             meet Federal standards and
                                             to ensure a more secure DOT.
Enterprise Security Project  (ESP)........  Contractor support for         ...........  ...........     $500,000
                                             security compliance reviews,
                                             training and awareness,
                                             security assessments.
                                                                          --------------------------------------
      Total...............................  .............................   $3,688,363   $3,047,000   $5,227,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. What is the projected out-year funding requirement by 
fiscal year for IT security?
    Answer. Out-year security funding requirements are: fiscal year 
2006--$5,354,000; fiscal year 2007--$17,344,000; fiscal year 2008--
$9,942,000; and fiscal year 2009--$12,348,000.
    The spike in fiscal year 2007 funding requirements is due to the 
full implementation of the Common Access Architecture in the new DOT 
headquarters building.
    Question. Please provide a list of major contractors supporting the 
CIO's IT security program, including consulting services, the project 
they are supporting, and the value of each contract.
    Answer. The following is a list of the current major contractors 
supporting the CIO's IT security program.

              MAJOR CONTRACTOR SUPPORTING OCIO IT SECURITY
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Contractor                     Program             Value
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SAIC..............................  Certification &             $958,322
                                     Accreditation (C&A).
Mainstay..........................  C&A.................        $347,000
Breakwater........................  Transportation Cyber        $190,000
                                     Incident Response
                                     Center (TCIRC).
Indus.............................  TCIRC...............        $164,000
Foundstone........................  TCIRC...............         $85,000
Working Capital Fund..............  TCIRC...............      $1,302,678
                                                         ---------------
      Total.......................  ....................      $3,047,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. The Congressional Justifications state that the IT 
security program will result in savings of more than $5 million per 
year. When will the savings materialize and are the savings recurring? 
Will the savings occur at the Departmental level or will they be spread 
among the operating administrations? If these cost-avoidance measures 
are realized by the modes, how much will each one save?
    Answer. DOT will recognize savings through cost avoidance in 
several areas, through: (1) centralized purchasing and implementation 
of enterprise-wide hardware/software; and (2) the provision of 
scaleable security services. In terms of hardware/software, the DOT 
OCIO has already made a one-time purchase of a security tool that has 
resulted in a savings of $140,768 in software licensing costs for the 
Department's modes. These types of cost avoidance are expected to 
continue and grow as more enterprise-wide license agreements are 
initiated for security software and tools. The DOT OCIO is also 
implementing DOT-wide TCIRC operations. If these TCIRC functions were 
to be performed centrally, it is estimated that each mode would avoid 
approximately $774,076 per year in recurring software and contract 
labor costs beginning with full implementation of a centralized IT 
security program.
    Question. What is the CIO doing to protect critical IT systems from 
attack and what contingency planning is occurring to ensure business 
continuity in an emergency?
    Answer. The CIO protects critical systems through a multi-faceted 
security program. DOT OCIO has implemented an enterprise wide 
vulnerability remediation program to ensure that all critical systems 
are protected from cyber attack. Weekly vulnerability scans are 
performed using an automated vulnerability scanner. The results of 
these scans are reviewed monthly by the Chief Information Security 
Officer. Currently, staff provides follow-up on patch installation as 
well as other remediation efforts. Follow-up consists of assisting 
modal IT staff with the patch installations and remediation steps. The 
OCIO has established a compliance review program to ensure that 
implementation of security controls, including business continuity 
plans, for mission critical systems is in accordance with Federal and 
departmental regulations. The OCIO has established a disaster recovery 
site to support communications capabilities for all modes in the event 
of emergency situations.

                       COMMON ACCESS ARCHITECTURE

    Question. Is the $1,000,000 that the CIO is requesting for the 
Common Access Architecture being augmented by funding requests in the 
operating administrations for fiscal year 2005? If so, please provide a 
table indicating how much each operating administration is requesting?
    Answer. The CIO is not requesting augmentation of funding for the 
Common Access Architecture from the Operating Administrations.
    Question. Please provide a detailed profile, including past and 
current efforts, of the scope of work, milestone schedule, and 
anticipated costs for the Common Access Architecture project.
    Answer. The scope of the Common Access Architecture (CAA) project 
is to define Department of Transportation (DOT) requirements for an 
enterprise-wide CAA that includes physical and logical access, smart 
cards, public key infrastructure (PKI)-digital signature and e-
Authentication in order to meet Federal standards and to ensure a more 
secure DOT environment. With $574,832 funding to date, DOT has 
completed a CAA requirements analysis, a detailed business case, a 
communication plan, architecture, an implementation approach document, 
and is implementing two proof of concept projects for the CAA. The 
fiscal year 2005 budget request of $1 million will integrate several 
applications into CAA authentication in order to provide proof of 
concept for application authentication and to refine integration 
support procedures so that other DOT applications encounter as smooth a 
transition as possible as the application owners begin to migrate their 
applications to CAA authentication. Once the proof of concept is 
established from the controlled pilots, the project will result in a 
common access architecture that: (1) improves physical access control; 
(2) improves logical access control; and (3) interoperates with the 
federated identify authentication services. DOT's strategy for this 
program is to fund the program from the DOT OCIO budget through fiscal 
year 2009, and then to collaborate with operating administrations to 
establish fiscal year 2010 and beyond requirements. The following 
project plan highlights CAA milestones and schedule.



    Question. What is the projected out-year funding requirement by 
fiscal year for the Common Access Architecture project?
    Answer. The information follows.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2006........................................      $2,530,000
Fiscal year 2007........................................      11,590,000
Fiscal year 2008........................................       2,980,000
Fiscal year 2009........................................       4,690,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Fiscal year 2007 includes costs for full implementation of CAA 
infrastructure within the Department.
    Question. How much of the requested amount will be allocated to 
studies of biometrics and other technologies?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2005, $25,000 is allocated for studies of 
biometrics and other technologies. DOT expects to minimize the cost of 
studies based on the previous work that has been accomplished in these 
areas by government and industry and to adopt existing Federal 
standards where practical.
    Question. How much of the request for Common Access Architecture is 
for program administration?
    Answer. The fiscal year 2005 Common Access Architecture request for 
program administration is $400,000.

                        ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE

    Question. Please provide a list of major contractors and consulting 
services supporting the CIO's Enterprise Architecture Implementation 
project and the value of each contract.
    Answer. The information follows:
  --Contractor.--Bowhead Transportation Company, Inc.
  --Services.--Enterprise Architecture Sustainment and Expert Support.
  --Contract Value (Fiscal Year 2004 Funds).--$544,552.
    DOT's current EA support task order with Bowhead Transportation 
Company concludes on September 30, 2004. A new contract has not been 
awarded. The fiscal year 2004 contract value was $544,552 for 
Enterprise Architecture sustainment and expert support. And while 
fiscal year 2005 work will be similar, the proposed contract dollar 
value will be for full effort funding at $1,933,918, rather than the 
significantly reduced amount required by the fiscal year 2004 funding 
level.
    Question. How much of the request for Enterprise Architecture 
Implementation is for program administration?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2004, $306,082 has been requested for 
Enterprise Architecture (EA) Implementation program administration.
    Question. Please provide a schedule and funding profile for each 
project identified under Enterprise Architecture Implementation.
    Answer. The Enterprise Architecture implementation activities are 
all interrelated and do not lend themselves to being broken out as 
discrete projects. The DOT Enterprise Architecture Program Management 
Office (EAPMO), supported by contracted expert consultants, will be 
evaluating numerous business needs/requirements of the Department in 
support of the IT infrastructure consolidation efforts for the move to 
the new DOT Headquarters Building, as well as the attainment of the 
goals set forth in our EA Modernization Blueprint. These project 
activities are scheduled to run throughout fiscal year 2005. Estimated 
funding to provide support for these activities in fiscal year 2005 is 
$2,515,000. For individual project and scheduling details for the 
Enterprise Architecture Implementation for fiscal year 2005, please see 
the proposed DOT fiscal year 2004 IT Roadmap v.8 below.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Activity                     Start              Finish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT GOVERNANCE....................  10/1/04...........  9/1/05
Develop Fiscal Year 2006           10/1/04...........  11/11/04
 Implementation Plan.
Departmental IRB--Investments....  10/15/04..........  10/15/04
Conduct Fiscal Year 2004           10/20/04..........  11/26/04
 Implementation Plan Outreach
 Mtgs with OA's.
Departmental IRB--Control........  11/12/04..........  11/12/04
Departmental IRB--Investments....  1/14/05...........  1/14/05
ARB..............................  1/11/05...........  1/11/05
Departmental IRB--Control Review.  2/11/05...........  2/11/05
ARB..............................  2/8/05............  2/8/05
CIO Council......................  2/3/05............  2/3/05
Initial Fiscal Year 2006 IT        3/1/05............  3/31/05
 Budget Guidance.
ARB..............................  3/8/05............  3/8/05
CIO Council......................  3/10/05...........  3/10/05
ARB..............................  4/12/05...........  4/12/05
CIO Council......................  4/7/05............  4/7/05
Departmental IRB--Investments....  4/15/05...........  4/15/05
Revised Fiscal Year 2006 IT        5/3/05............  5/3/05
 Budget Guidance.
ARB..............................  5/10/05...........  5/10/05
CIO Council......................  5/5/05............  5/5/05
Departmental IRB--Control........  5/13/05...........  5/13/05
ARB..............................  6/14/05...........  6/14/05
CIO Council......................  6/2/05............  6/2/05
Departmental IRB--Control........  7/15/05...........  7/15/05
ARB..............................  7/12/05...........  7/12/05
CIO Council......................  7/7/05............  7/7/05
ARB..............................  8/9/05............  8/9/05
CIO Council......................  8/4/05............  8/4/05
Departmental IRB--Investments....  8/26/05...........  8/26/05
CIO Council......................  9/1/05............  9/1/05
IT CPIC--SELECT..................  10/27/04..........  9/6/05
Update Screening and Scoring       10/27/04..........  11/30/04
 Criteria.
Update Prioritization Process....  11/3/04...........  12/3/04
Update IT Portfolio Management     11/3/04...........  12/31/04
 Process and Analysis.
Conduct Fiscal Year 2006 Passback  11/26/04..........  2/1/05
 and Revised Exhibit 53 Support.
Provide Preliminary Fiscal Year    4/5/05............  5/30/05
 2007 Portfolio Support.
Present Proposed Fiscal Year 2007  5/16/05...........  5/20/05
 Portfolio to OA IRB.
OA's Submit Exhibit 300s to OST/   6/1/05............  6/1/05
 OCIO.
Present Proposed Fiscal Year 2006  6/13/05...........  6/17/05
 Portfolio Development &
 Prioritization to ARB/CIO
 Council.
Conduct Capital Planning Working   6/1/05............  6/30/05
 Group (CPWG) Internal Reviews of
 Fiscal Year 2007 Exhibit 300s.
OA's Submit Exhibit 53's to OST/   7/29/05...........  7/29/05
 OCIO.
Submit Final Exhibit 300's to OST/ 8/12/05...........  8/12/05
 OCIO.
Present Final Fiscal Year 2007     8/26/05...........  8/26/05
 Portfolio to Departmental IRB
 for Approval Prior to OMB
 Submission.
Submit Final Exhibit 300's and     9/6/05............  9/6/05
 53's to OMB.
IT CPIC--CONTROL.................  10/18/04..........  7/15/05
OA Initiative Owners Submit        10/18/04..........  10/22/04
 Control Data.
Departmental IRB/Control Review..  11/12/04..........  11/12/04
Quarterly Portfolio Assessment...  12/31/04..........  1/13/05
OA Initiative Owners Submit        1/24/05...........  1/28/05
 Control Data.
Departmental IRB/Control Review..  2/11/05...........  2/11/05
Quarterly Portfolio Assessment...  3/31/05...........  4/13/05
OA Initiative Owners Submit        4/25/05...........  4/29/05
 Control Data.
Departmental IRB/Control Review..  5/13/05...........  5/13/05
Quarterly Portfolio Assessment...  7/1/05............  7/7/05
OA Initiative Owners Submit        7/1/05............  7/7/05
 Control Data.
Departmental IRB/Control Review..  7/15/05...........  7/15/05
IT CPIC--EVALUATE................  2/1/05............  7/6/05
Revise PIR Methodology Based on    2/1/05............  2/28/05
 Pilot Results.
Conduct PIR for Major System.....  4/4/05............  5/17/05
Conduct PIR for Major System.....  6/2/05............  7/6/05
eCPIC............................  4/4/05............  4/15/05
Conduct Refresher User Training..  4/4/05............  4/15/05
OST/OCIO TRAINING................  11/26/04..........  7/11/05
Supplemental OA Budget Support     11/26/04..........  1/31/05
 for OMB Passback Issues, as
 needed.
Enterprise Architecture (BRM,      2/25/05...........  2/25/05
 PRM, TRM, DRM, SRM).
Earned Value Analysis............  2/21/05...........  2/23/05
Risk Management..................  4/4/05............  4/4/05
IT Security, Cost Estimating       4/18/05...........  4/18/05
 Tool, Privacy Impact Assessments.
Lifecycle Costs/Alternative        2/14/05...........  2/14/05
 Analysis.
Performance Measurement..........  3/7/05............  3/11/05
OMB Update Training--Revisions to  7/11/05...........  7/11/05
 A-11.
ENTERPRISE ARCHITECTURE (EA).....  10/1/04...........  9/30/05
Update 2005 Communications Plan..  10/1/04...........  11/1/04
Update Technical Reference Model.  10/1/04...........  11/18/04
Update DOT EA Methodology........  10/1/04...........  11/16/04
Provide Guidance to OA's on EA     12/2/04...........  2/1/05
 Baseline, Target, and
 Implementation Plan Development.
Update EA Repository.............  1/3/05............  1/31/05
Identify Fiscal Year 2007          1/3/05............  1/31/05
 Enterprise Initiatives.
Provide Input for OMB Exhibit      2/1/05............  6/16/05
 300s.
Develop Baseline/Target for all    3/1/05............  6/29/05
 Cross Cutting LOB Identified as
 Priority.
Provide Guidance to OA's to        3/1/05............  6/29/05
 Develop Their Baseline/All
 Mission LOBs.
OA's Deliver Mission Baselines &   6/30/05...........  6/30/05
 Targets.
Develop High Level Implementation  4/4/05............  9/2/05
 Timelines for Cross-Cutting LOBs.
OA's Deliver High Level            6/1/05............  9/2/05
 Implementation Timelines.
Executive Briefing Highlighting    8/1/05............  9/30/05
 EA Plans Developed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                      DOT INVESTMENT REVIEW BOARD

    Question. How does the Department Investment Review Board (IRB) 
decide which topics or issues to focus on?
    Answer. The DOT Office of the CIO (OCIO) maintains a system 
inventory database containing current performance, schedule, cost, 
measurement, risk and other information for all major IT projects. 
Also, basic information on non-major IT projects for which the 
Operating Administrations (OA) have primary responsibility is 
maintained in the database. The investment system information is the 
same as required by Federal Information Security Management Act 
(FISMA). The Departmental IRB conducts control reviews on at risk IT 
projects at least on a quarterly basis throughout the year. Projects 
are selected for review based upon one or more of the following 
factors:
  --Criticality to achieving Presidential Management Agenda goals.
  --Criticality to achieving DOT strategic goals and objectives.
  --High dollar value.
  --High risks.
  --Significant performance variances, and schedule or cost variances 
        exceeding 10 percent.
  --Overall need for executive level management attention to ensure 
        project success.
  --Need for information to support planned project funding requests.
    On an annual basis, the Departmental IRB and its staff performs a 
comprehensive select review of all IT projects in support of the budget 
process. This ensures that the DOT-wide portfolio of IT projects meet 
modernization goals and contains an appropriate and affordable mix of 
projects that will assure accomplishment of DOT missions. The DOT CIO 
makes recommendations to the IRB to consolidate redundant IT spending 
amongst the Operating Administrations and to establish cross-cutting 
initiatives that will benefit multiple agencies.
    Question. Please provide a list of projects that the IRB reviewed 
during fiscal year 2003 and to date in fiscal year 2004.
    Answer. The DOT IRB reviewed the following projects in fiscal year 
2003:
  --Artemis (Tread Act Implementation)--NHTSA
  --Delphi (Departmental Financial System)--OST
  --Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS)--OST
  --Geospatial--BTS
  --Safety Monitoring and Reporting Tool (SMART)--RSPA
  --Intermodal Transportation Data Base (ITD)--BTS
  --National Transit Database (NTD)--FTA
    The DOT IRB reviewed the following projects as of the second 
quarter of fiscal year 2004:
  --Artemis (Tread Act Implementation)--NHTSA
  --Financial Management Information System (FMIS)--FHWA
  --Motor Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS)--FMCSA
  --ASDE-X (Surface Surveillance)--FAA
  --Operational and Supportability Implementation System (OASIS)--FAA
  --Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)--FAA
    Question. In the last fiscal year, what percentage of the overall 
IT projects did the IRB actively review?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Departmental IRB reviewed 2 
percent ($34.2 million) of the Department's Major IT Projects ($1,715.5 
million). In fiscal year 2004 to date, the Departmental IRB reviewed 
6.4 percent ($105.2 million) of the Department's Major IT Projects 
($1,642.1 million).
    Question. What are the costs of the IT projects that the IRB 
reviewed? What are the total costs by operating administration of all 
IT modernization occurring in the department?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the Departmental IRB reviewed 2 
percent ($34.2 million) of the Department's Major IT Projects ($1,715.5 
million). In fiscal year 2004 to date, the Departmental IRB reviewed 
6.4 percent ($105.2 million) of the Department's Major IT Projects 
($1,642.1 million). The following table identifies the total cost by 
Operating Administration (OA) for all IT modernization occurring in the 
Department for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 as reported by the 
OAs in their OMB exhibit 53 submissions.

                 DEVELOPMENT/MODERNIZATION/ENHANCEMENT (DME) BY OA FROM EXHIBIT 53 IT PORTFOLIO
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal Year                 Fiscal Year
                      Organization                           2004 IT      DME 2004       2005 IT      DME 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTS.....................................................          5.6           0.8           7.1           2
FAA.....................................................      2,459.70      1,512.20      2,298.70      1,315.50
FHWA....................................................         42.3           3.7          63.5           2.2
FMCSA...................................................         24.3          15            25.9          13.3
FRA.....................................................         19.1           3.5          12.3           1.9
FTA.....................................................         12.9   ............         15.6   ............
MARAD...................................................          9.8           6.5          11.3           7.5
NHTSA...................................................         23             3.3          20.4           3
OIG.....................................................          1     ............          0.9   ............
OST.....................................................        216.8          80.5         300.8         136.7
RSPA....................................................         19.1           1.7          18.8           1.2
SLSDC...................................................          0.1   ............          0.1   ............
STB.....................................................          1.5   ............          1.6   ............
WCF.....................................................          2     ............          2     ............
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................................      2,837.2       1,627.2       2,779         1,483.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How many IT investment projects did the IRB terminate or 
seriously modify through a corrective action plan?
    Answer. To date, the Departmental IRB has not terminated any 
projects. However, in fiscal year 2003 seven investments (total value 
$37.5 million) were required to take corrective actions based on the 
IRB review. In fiscal year 2004 five (total value $96.8 million) were 
required to take corrective actions. All of these projects have 
accomplished, or are on schedule, with regard to required corrective 
actions.
    Question. In the past, operating administrations have contracted 
with the Volpe Center to develop and define requirements for IT 
systems. What is the assessment of the CIO of Volpe's capability in 
this regard?
    Answer. Volpe performance has been varied. Volpe has had both 
successful and marginal engagements and is changing its contracting and 
management practices to achieve better consistency.
    Question. What guidance, support, or oversight does the CIO provide 
to FAA for facility and equipment acquisition?
    Answer. The CIO performs Exhibit 300 (business Case) review and 
training.
    Question. Do the CIO or the IRB review all of the IT requests 
throughout the Department before the budget is submitted to OMB?
    Answer. Yes. The CIO office conducts reviews of IT requests 
delineated in the budget process. The IRB reviews the final DOT IT 
portfolio and the recommendations made by the CIO each August prior to 
budget submission.
    Question. Does the CIO oversee the IT acquisitions made in the 
Office of Intelligence and Security?
    Answer. No. The CIO's office does not oversee the IT acquisitions 
made in the Office of Intelligence and Security.

                          IT CAPITAL PLANNING

    Question. Are contractors or consulting services used to support 
the CIO's capital planning and investment control (CPIC) process? If 
they are, please provide a list of major contractors, the services 
provided, and the value of each contract.
    Answer. The CIO employs one contractor performing two tasks in 
support of the Departmental CPIC process.
  --Contractor.--Booz-Allen & Hamilton
  --Services Provided.--IT CPIC Process Development and Implementation
  --Contract Value (Fiscal year 2004 funds).--$358,000
  --Contract Value (Fiscal year 2005 planned).--$539,689 (Contract Face 
        Amount)
  --Contractor.--Booz-Allen & Hamilton
  --Services Provided.--e-CPIC Software and Database Support
  --Contract Value (Fiscal year 2004 funds).--$63,938
  --Contract Value (Fiscal year 2005 planned).--$75,000 (Planned 
        Contract Amount)

                         SECTION 508 COMPLIANCE

    Question. What percentage of DOT websites comply with section 508 
of the Rehabilitation Act?
    Answer. DOT has more than a thousand websites hosting over 2 
million web pages. In 2004, DOT conducted an evaluation on whether its 
most frequently accessed web pages were accessible to people with 
disabilities. Across the Department, the OCIO evaluated the 259 web 
pages most visited by DOT stakeholders. Of the pages tested, 79 percent 
were in compliance. The remaining 21 percent are being remediated by 
webmasters/page owners. DOT plans to expand its Section 508 website 
evaluation program over the next 2 years to determine DOT-wide 508 
compliance as part of the CIO's fiscal year 2005 budget request.

                              IT SECURITY

    Question. Is the DOT computer system a secure system?
    Answer. DOT has a complex array of integrated and independent 
computer systems in its inventory, many shared within individual 
agencies, and some shared across Operating Administrations. DOT also 
has a complex IT infrastructure supporting the communications 
requirements of its headquarters campus and support for remote 
locations. The DOT computer system and infrastructure environment is 
secure.
    Question. If it is secure, who certifies that it is secure?
    Answer. DOT computer systems go through a formal certification and 
accreditation (C&A) process. Numerous qualified C&A vendors conduct C&A 
review and documentation processes using recognized and approved 
criteria, standards and processes. C&A results are reviewed and signed 
off on by the Government's system owners. The DOT CIO, in compliance 
with Clinger-Cohen, reviews and signs off on the systems' security for 
FISMA.
    Question. What is the annual cost to maintain the system?
    Answer. DOT computer systems maintenance costs vary by system, type 
of maintenance, service provider, software and other attributes, 
including discounts. The fiscal year 2005 budget proposes $1,298.4 
million for the maintenance of all DOT computer systems, with $166.1 
million of that for maintenance of IT Infrastructure. A key benefit of 
the OCIO driven consolidation is to reduce the number of systems, 
components, and thus their maintenance overhead, as well as reduce the 
annual cost to maintain the Departments vast inventory of computer 
systems.
    Question. How many users have access to the system?
    Answer. Nearly 60,000 users have access to DOT systems. Users have 
access based on need and privilege, and include Government and contract 
employees. Some portions of the DOT network are accessed by several 
tens of thousands of users daily, typically for email and data entry 
and retrieval. OCIO security and common access architecture initiatives 
are key components in maintaining the integrity of DOT systems through 
standardized user access and security requirements and access 
monitoring.
    Question. Please describe in detail any contract or consulting 
expenses anticipated under the CIO's strategic management effort.
    Answer. The following table describes detail concerning the CIO's 
fiscal year 2005 strategic management effort spend plan estimates 
regarding contractor support:

                 DEVELOPMENT/MODERNIZATION/ENHANCEMENT (DME) BY OA FROM EXHIBIT 53 IT PORTFOLIO
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Fiscal Year                 Fiscal Year
                      Organization                           2004 IT      DME 2004       2005 IT      DME 2005
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTS.....................................................          5.6           0.8           7.1           2
FAA.....................................................      2,459.70      1,512.20      2,298.70      1,315.50
FHWA....................................................         42.3           3.7          63.5           2.2
FMCSA...................................................         24.3          15            25.9          13.3
FRA.....................................................         19.1           3.5          12.3           1.9
FTA.....................................................         12.9   ............         15.6   ............
MARAD...................................................          9.8           6.5          11.3           7.5
NHTSA...................................................         23             3.3          20.4           3
OIG.....................................................          1     ............          0.9   ............
OST.....................................................        216.8          80.5         300.8         136.7
RSPA....................................................         19.1           1.7          18.8           1.2
SLSDC...................................................          0.1   ............          0.1   ............
STB.....................................................          1.5   ............          1.6   ............
WCF.....................................................          2     ............          2     ............
                                                         -------------------------------------------------------
      TOTAL.............................................      2,837.2       1,627.2       2,779         1,483.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In fiscal year 2003, the Departmental IRB reviewed 2 percent ($34.2 
million) of the Department's Major IT Projects ($1,715.5 million). In 
fiscal year 2004 to date, the Departmental IRB reviewed 6.4 percent 
($105.2 million) of the Department's Major IT Projects ($1,642.1 
million). The following table identifies the total cost by Operating 
Administration (OA) for all IT modernization occurring in the 
Department for fiscal year 2004 and fiscal year 2005 as reported by the 
OAs in their OMB exhibit 53 submissions.

                            IT CONSOLIDATION

    Question. Please breakdown in greater detail the request for the 
CIO's IT consolidation and operations support.
    Answer. The following provides a work breakdown structure (WBS) for 
the $4,200,000 budget request.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Funds
                        WBS Item                             Requested
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Network/Server Co-Location..............................      $1,500,000
Storage Consolidation...................................       1,000,000
Digital Document Management.............................         500,000
Contract/Support Consolidation..........................         300,000
Centralized Call Center/Full Remedy Implementation......         300,000
Standard Desktop Image Implementation...................         300,000
Centralized Help Desk...................................         300,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. There appears to be a considerable amount of duplication 
in the justifications for IT consolidation and operations support with 
other projects in the CIO's request--for example, ``updated and new IT 
Security Policies,'' ``user identification and password 
administration,'' and IT improvements related to the planned move to 
the new DOT headquarters building. Are these examples and others in the 
justification distinct from similar projects in IT security, Enterprise 
Architecture Implementation, and other activities?
    Answer. The Office of the CIO (OCIO) performs two distinct 
missions. One is policy and compliance and the other is operational. 
The specific missions are: (1) providing department-wide IT program 
strategy, policy, direction and compliance/oversight; and (2) 
delivering IT services to DOT customers that conform to departmental 
policies (i.e. IT security policies). Both missions are complementary 
but have different scopes and investment requirements. Both require 
funding as included in our fiscal year 2005 request.
    In the OCIO fiscal year 2005 justification, any apparent 
duplication of efforts between these two missions results when 
performance outputs are defined for: (1) the development of strategies 
and policies for a particular activity (e.g., update IT security 
policies, IT consolidation), and (2) for the operational implementation 
of the same activity. Each phase of the activity is categorized and 
managed separately within the OCIO's office depending on if it is in 
the development stage or the implementation/operational stage. None of 
these activities are duplicative; rather, they are distinct phases of 
the same activity. The OCIO's office recognizes the importance of 
managing these phases separately to ensure the most efficient use of 
its resources.
    In providing IT program leadership, the OCIO oversees the 
development of an enterprise architecture or blueprint for future IT 
investments and ensures compliance department-wide. It also provides 
departmental policies and guidance for securing IT systems, monitors 
departmental and operating administration compliance and leads 
strategic projects to improve enterprise security (e.g. the Common 
Access Architecture). Specifically, to ensure compliance with statutory 
requirements for the security of critical networks and systems across 
DOT, the OCIO manages the Transportation Cyber Incident Response Center 
(TCIRC) and department-wide testing of systems. In this enterprise 
security role, the DOT OCIO monitors approximately 500 operational 
networks and systems throughout DOT, to include those within the FAA 
and the CIO-operated infrastructure. Funding has been requested for 
this policy/compliance mission in areas of Enterprise Architecture and 
Enterprise Security.
    In its role as an IT service provider to customers within DOT, the 
OCIO is directly responsible for running approximately 50 systems and 
one backbone network, and makes investments that improve service 
delivery and comply with the enterprise architecture. It also ensures 
that specific OST infrastructure and operational systems are secure 
based on departmental guidelines. Day-to-day operations include such 
diverse activities as implementing network controls, implementing 
software patches, the administration of passwords, installing virus 
software on servers and maintaining disaster recovery capabilities.
    The operational role of the CIO is expanding through the 
consolidation of multiple infrastructures within the DOT headquarters 
building. This effort offers a significant opportunity to improve 
infrastructure security, reduce service costs and facilitate the move 
to a new headquarters building. The Department's Enterprise 
Architecture is providing a basis for building a common operating 
environment (COE) of desktops, servers, and telecommunications. The COE 
will become a one of over 25 components of the Department's enterprise 
architecture. Additionally, the common operating environment will 
improve security through investments in hardware and software to 
centralized security management of the entire infrastructure. Funding 
has be requested for IT operations and consolidation that includes 
investments to improve security of the infrastructure and to align with 
the DOT enterprise architecture.

                              E-GOVERNMENT

    Question. How much of the funding requested for e-government will 
be transferred to the President's Management Council, Federal CIO, CFO 
and Procurement Executive Councils? How does this compare to fiscal 
year 2002 and fiscal year 2003?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2004, DOT transferred $492,020 to the GSA 
Interagency Council ``Pass-the-Hat'' initiative which supports 
Government-wide financial, information technology, procurement and 
other management innovations, initiatives, and activities as approved 
by the Director of OMB. The councils covered under this initiative for 
fiscal year 2004 are: the CFO Council, the CIO Council, the Federal 
Acquisition Council (FAC) and the Chief Human Capital Officers Council.
    In 2003, DOT paid $690,265 to GSA for this Pass-the-Hat initiative.
    In 2002, DOT also paid $690,265 to GSA for this initiative.

    STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT FISCAL YEAR 2005 CONTRACT SUPPORT ESTIMATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------------------------
GPEA/Forms/Digital Signatures/Records Management........        $115,000
Privacy Program Contract Services.......................         100,000
Section 508 Software maintenance/program implementation.          82,000
Information Collection Burden program support...........          80,000
Performance Measurement/IT Workforce Planning...........          60,000
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................         437,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please breakdown the request for e-government by planned 
activity.
    Answer. DOT continues to use technology to save taxpayer dollars 
and to improve how the Department provides services and information to 
citizens, business and other government agencies. The fiscal year 2005 
funding request is for FTE and contractor staff to improve project 
management skills within DOT and to lead e-government initiatives to 
improve service delivery, manage risks and keep projects on schedule 
and within budget.
    The specific planned activities include:
  --Creating processes, standards, guidelines and a project life cycle 
        framework to guide all DOT project managers;
  --Ensuring that 100 percent of all major new IT investments are 
        managed by a qualified project manager;
  --Improving access to and quality of information internally and to 
        citizens and business through enterprise content management 
        capabilities;
  --Migrating DOT to a governmental personnel and payroll system;
  --Improving mission performance through web portals like Geospatial 
        One-Stop, Grants.gov and Business Gateway; and
  --Improving the quality and consistency of human resource data by 
        integrating multiple data bases and sharing information among 
        multiple systems and processes.
    Question. Is funding requested for development of the Department's 
internet home page?
    Answer. Yes. In fiscal year 2005 the CIO will invest $175,000 in 
improvements to the Department's internet home page, including content 
management.
    Question. What is the funding request for development of an 
intranet? Would the modes have access to the intranet? Have any of the 
modes already developed intranets? If they do, how does the CIO plan to 
make them interoperable or compatible with a department-wide intranet? 
What capability does an intranet provided that does not exist 
currently?
    Answer. The CIO's fiscal year 2005 funding request includes $50,000 
for the DOT intranet. Modes have access to the current DOT intranet, 
and will have access to future DOT sponsored intranet services. The 
Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration, 
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, National Highway Traffic 
Safety Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration have 
developed certain intranet capabilities accessible internally by their 
employees. Through the commonality of format and best practices content 
management and portal implementations, the CIO will drive intranet 
consistency across a department-wide intranet environment, improving 
such aspects as ease of use, information availability, and remote 
access.
    Question. What is your plan to get from ``red'' to ``green'' in the 
President's management agenda? What progress does the Department expect 
to make in fiscal year 2004? Since the fiscal year 2005 budget request 
was transmitted in February, what specific steps has CIO taken to work 
with OMB to get to ``green''?
    Answer. Through the Office of the Chief Information Officer, DOT 
has instituted three department-wide processes to get from red to green 
in the President's Management Agenda. First, DOT has established a 
Department Wide Capital Planning and Investment Control Process, led by 
a Departmental Investment Review Board (IRB). This group, chaired by 
the DOT Deputy Secretary and comprised of the DOT Assistant Secretary 
for Budget and Programs, the Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
the General Counsel, four Operating Administrations executives; and the 
Chief Information Officer, meet quarterly, with reviews and approval 
oversight for all initiatives and business cases in DOT's IT Portfolio. 
The IRB also provides control reviews of DOT IT programs to ensure they 
stay within 10 percent of cost, schedule, and performance goals.
    Second, the DOT has established an enterprise architecture and 
modernization blueprint that identifies DOT's cross-cutting business 
processes, the IT initiatives supporting these processes, and outlines 
an implementation plan to eliminate redundant systems while 
strategically investing in programs that better support safety, 
mobility, and organizational excellence goals.
    Third, the DOT has implemented an Enterprise IT Security Program 
which has completed certification/accreditation of more than 90 percent 
of all DOT systems, and has implemented an Inspector General-verified 
Plan of Action and Milestone (POA&M) Remediation Process to resolve any 
remaining system weaknesses identified in the certification/
accreditation process.
    Fourth, the DOT is currently supporting e-government initiatives 
that improve how DOT provides information and services to American 
citizens, businesses, other government entities and internally, and a 
Program Management Office to oversee these initiatives.
    In fiscal year 2004, DOT instituted the processes outlined above, 
resulting in the following accomplishments as of June 30, 2004:
  --All business cases have received a passing score from OMB;
  --All major IT initiatives programs are within 10 percent cost, 
        schedule, performance variance or have a corrective action plan 
        that will be tracked by the Departmental IRB on a quarterly 
        basis;
  --A Modernization Blueprint that outlines DOT's IT investment 
        priorities and strategies has been completed;
  --Over 90 percent of all DOT systems have had certification/
        accreditation or have implemented an IG-verified POA&M process; 
        and,
  --Active participation in e-government initiatives has been positive.

                            IT MODERNIZATION

    Question. What are the Department's goals for modernization in 
fiscal year 2005?
    Answer. The DOT CIO's mission is to support the Secretary's vision 
of a safer, simpler, smarter transportation system. DOT has published 
the DOT Modernization Blueprint V.2. that outlines DOT's specific 
modernization goals to accomplish this vision. DOT began implementing 
this modernization strategy in fiscal year 2004 and will continue 
implementing the strategy in fiscal year 2005 and beyond through the 
accomplishment of three primary goals: modernize cross-cutting systems 
as a means of eliminating redundant IT systems and services and 
reinvest those savings into mission support initiatives; consolidate 
redundant infrastructure operations into a common operating 
environment; and improve the security of critical DOT networks and 
systems.
    In terms of cross-cutting systems, as a first goal the DOT 
Investment Review Board (IRB) has established ten system modernization 
priorities:
  --Financial Management;
  --Grants Management;
  --Recruitment;
  --Personal/Payroll Systems;
  --Internal Rulemaking Tracking;
  --Procurement Management;
  --Enterprise Document Management;
  --Training;
  --Intermodal Transportation Data System (ITDS); and
  --Hazmat Data Sharing.
    Inter-modal teams have been established to create business cases 
and associated timeframes and to execute agreed upon strategies. In 
several cases, planning is being done with Federal e-government 
programs, such as the ITDS and Personal/Payroll initiatives. In 
conjunction with this goal, the DOT is establishing a Program 
Management Office (PMO) to oversee these initiatives, and to ensure 
that Project Managers are qualified.
    The second modernization goal is to consolidate redundant IT 
infrastructure operations. DOT's consolidation strategy consists of 
three major phases:
    Phase 1 (fiscal year 2004-fiscal year 2005).--Establish common 
network, server, and desktop standards and consolidate redundant 
infrastructures for all organizations (OST staff offices and Operating 
Administrations) moving to the new DOT Headquarters building into a 
Common Operating Environment (COE) based on these standards.
    Phase 2 (fiscal year 2006-fiscal year 2008).--Expand the COE to 
include DOT field offices and components of FAA where practical.
    Phase 3 (fiscal year 2008 and beyond).--Continue to modernize the 
DOT infrastructure to improve service and provide enhanced services to 
DOT stakeholders through the use of technology.
    The third modernization goal is to improve the security of DOT's 
networks and systems. This goal will be accomplished through the CIO's 
requested funding for the Enterprise IT Security Program, and will 
include: contractor staffing to operate a 24/7 monitoring and incident 
detection/response center; improved and updated enterprise-wide 
policies, procedures, hardware and software to monitor and protect all 
systems within the Common Operating Environment; and through the 
execution of the Common Access Architecture Project, described later in 
this document.

                             IT PROCUREMENT

    Question. Does all centralized IT purchasing come through the CIO's 
office? For all modes or just OST? What centralized purchases are made 
now that were not made in fiscal year 2003?
    Answer. The DOT does not have centralized IT purchasing. Each mode 
and OST has its own acquisition office to make IT purchases. However, 
to ensure that the department is making the right investments, the 
department uses its Enterprise Architecture processes to establish 
standards and establish enterprise licenses and the Capital Planning 
and Investment Control process to review proposed IT investments as a 
part of the budget process. Starting in fiscal year 2005, the 
department's efforts to reduce redundant IT investments through the 
consolidation of IT infrastructures will lead to more centralized 
purchasing as the Department moves to a shared infrastructure among the 
modes. Also in fiscal year 2005 the DOT CIO will concur with all 
significant DOT IT procurement requests to ensure consistency with IT 
budget plans.
    Question. Breakout the FTEs by function in the CIO's office.
    Answer. The following table shows the FTEs in the CIO's office by 
function.

      OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER--STAFFING BY FUNCTION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Function                              Title
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Executive Management.................  CIO
Executive Management.................  Deputy CIO
Executive Administration.............  Prog Anal
Executive Administration.............  Staff Asst
Staff Administrative Support.........  Admin Asst
Budget and Administration............  Sup Prog Anal
S&E Budget...........................  Prog Anal
S&E Projects.........................  Prog Anal
Internet/DOT Web.....................  Prog Anal
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Assoc CIO IT Prog
 Planning; Strategic Integration; IT
 Security.
IT Security..........................  Comp Spec.
IT Security..........................  Prog Anal
Personnel/Systems Security...........  Prog Anal
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Comp Spec.
 Planning.
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Comp Spec.
 Planning.
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Comp Spec.
 Planning.
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Prog Anal
 Planning.
Enterprise Architecture/Capital        Sup Prog Anal
 Planning.
Strategic Integration................  Prog Anal
Strategic Integration................  Prog Anal
Strategic Integration................  Prog Anal
IT Consolidation Program Office......  Doc Sys Prog Mgr
IT Implementations...................  Comp Spec.
Enterprise Projects..................  Sup Prog Anal
Enterprise Projects..................  Comp Spec.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                 DELPHI

    Question. Please provide the cost and justification data for 
Delphi. Is this system complete? If not, what is the estimated cost to 
complete? If it is complete, what is the cost to maintain the system?
    Answer. Delphi, DOT's new financial management system, is a state-
of-the-art, single-instance, non-customized, commercial off-the-shelf 
(COTS) accounting and financial management system. Delphi offers 
flexibility and maintainability at the functional user level; modular, 
tight integration of functional components; single source data capture; 
electronic routing and approval; web-enabled processes and report 
accessibility; electronic commerce capabilities; and, FFMIA compliance.
    Delphi uses release 11.5.9 of Oracle Federal Financials, which is 
COTS software from Oracle Corporation that has been certified by the 
Joint Financial Management Improvement Program as meeting all Federal 
accounting requirements. Delphi has replaced DOT's outdated, non-
compliant legacy accounting system, which was sunset in March 2004 and 
is no longer in production.
    Benefits of Delphi include:
  --Complies with Standard General Ledger.
  --Provides a single Accounting Classification Structure throughout 
        DOT.
  --Provides Financial Statements from its core system, not external 
        spreadsheets.
  --Enables DOT to meet OMB's accelerated schedule for year-end closing 
        and Financial Statements.
  --Provides the basis for Managerial Cost Accounting through the 
        Project Accounting module.
  --Incorporates best business accounting practices.
  --Provides advanced security through audit trails and Roles and 
        Responsibilities.
  --Offers simplified upgrading to take advantage of evolving 
        capabilities.
  --Eliminates paper, makes documents immediately available to all, and 
        provides sophisticated tracking through the integrated Invoice 
        Imaging & Workflow System.
    Delphi is considered fully implemented and is a steady-state 
system. No funds are needed to complete Delphi. Delphi implementation 
costs from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003 totaled $125 
million. The cost to maintain Delphi in fiscal year 2004 is $22.05 
million.

                          TCI RESPONSE CENTER

    Question. Please breakout the response center costs.
    Answer. The following table breaks out the ``TCI Response Center 
Budget--Fiscal Year 2005.''

              TCI RESPONSE CENTER BUDGET--FISCAL YEAR 2005
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Enterprise
                                                             TCIRC/IT
                      Cost Category                          Security
                                                             Advice &
                                                            Assistance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel & Benefits:
    Manager.............................................        $114,505
    Vacant assistant position...........................         114,505
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................         229,010
                                                         ===============
Travel..................................................               0
Contract Services:
    Senior Analyst......................................         163,637
    Senior Analyst......................................         195,000
    Mid-level analyst...................................         120,000
    Mid-level analyst...................................         115,000
    Senior level analyst................................         190,000
    TCIRC Staff Training................................         100,000
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal Labor....................................         883,637
                                                         ===============
Supplies................................................          15,000
Equipment, Non-Capital (software, scanning, patch mgmt,        1,632,144
 Security portal development, etc.).....................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal Other Costs..............................       1,647,144
                                                         ===============
WCF Intrafund:
    Rent Intrafund......................................          77,427
    Other (computers, supplies).........................         215,055
    Contract costs......................................          61,136
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................         353,618
                                                         ===============
Overhead:
    IT Admin & Special Projects.........................          36,902
    Financial Mgt Group.................................          44,302
    WCF Overhead........................................          10,388
    Enterprise Network Operations Center (7/24                   522,000
     monitoring)........................................
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................         613,591
                                                         ===============
      Grand Total TCIRC.................................       3,727,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          CRITICAL IT SYSTEMS

    Question. What progress has the Department made in protecting 
critical IT systems at OST and the modes?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2003, the DOT OCIO initiated two major 
programs to protect OST and Operating Administration critical IT 
systems: (1) a program to certify and accredit all of the Department's 
IT systems; and (2) implementation of the Transportation Cyber Incident 
Response Center (TCIRC).
    In terms of certification/accreditation, the DOT OCIO established a 
specialized team and standard methodology, worked with OST and the OAs 
to establish a schedule, and executed a plan completing certification/
accreditation for over 90 percent of the DOT computer systems by June 
2004. As of September 30, 2003, approximately 40 percent of DOT's IT 
systems were certified and accredited in accordance with statutory, 
OMB, and NIST guidance. As of June 15, 2004, DOT has certified and 
accredited 95.6 percent of all IT systems. Efforts to now correct 
weaknesses identified through this process, and to test contingency 
planning efforts, will continue under this program in fiscal year 2005 
and the DOT OCIO will also perform compliance reviews of modal IT 
systems to ensure that the certification and accreditations remain 
valid and all security controls are being implemented properly.
    In terms of the TCIRC, DOT implemented this capability in fiscal 
year 2003. Today, the TCIRC monitors all DOT network access points, web 
sites, and other critical systems on a 24/7 basis, operates a 
vulnerability remediation management program that includes weekly 
vulnerability scanning and analysis, installs and configures intrusion 
detection at key network entry points, and provides critical system 
patch installation assistance to protect DOT IT systems from hackers 
and other threats. Based on the successful performance of the TCIRC, 
DOT has had no downtime of mission critical system networks or systems 
over the past year.
    Additionally, the TCIRC monitors all DOT IT systems across the 
country to determine if illegal software is installed on DOT computer 
systems, such as peer-to-peer software, which places networks at risk 
to intrusions or other illegal file sharing activities (such as sharing 
illegal music). Based on the successful efforts of the TCIRC to 
identify and eliminate the use of this software, DOT has decreased 
instances of this software from an average of 25 a month to 1 a month. 
By providing the TCIRC at the Department-level, DOT is able to 
capitalize on economies of scale in terms of contracting for 
specialized contract support, and purchasing hardware and software once 
to service the entire Department, and is also able to quarantine any 
potential problems found in one OA immediately so other OAs are not 
impacted.

                        CIO CHARGES TO THE MODES

    Question. Please provide a detailed break out of all CIO costs 
charged to the operating administrations, including what these costs 
are and how the cost was determined for fiscal years 2002, 2003, and 
2004 to date.
    Answer. There are no CIO costs charged to the Operating 
Administrations in fiscal years 2002 or 2003. In fiscal year 2004, 
reprogramming authority was requested to cover a funding shortfall in 
the enterprise IT security program area that affected security coverage 
across DOT Operating Administrations. The table below reflects that 
reprogramming allocation.

                      IT SECURITY FISCAL YEAR 2004 CHARGES FOR TCI RESPONSE CENTER AND C&A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            TCI
                                      Email    Percent    Response    No. of   Percent      C&A        OA TOTAL
                                      Count                Center    Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reprogram Summary:
    BTS............................      286      0.49       $6,281  .......      0.00  ...........       $6,281
    FAA............................   45,046     77.47     $989,247       69     55.65     $556,452   $1,545,699
    FHWA...........................    4,826      8.30     $105,983        3      2.42      $24,194     $130,176
    FMCSA..........................    1,465      2.52      $32,173        1      0.81       $8,065      $40,237
    FRA............................    1,041      1.79      $22,861  .......      0.00  ...........      $22,861
    FTA............................      691      1.19      $15,175       18     14.52     $145,161     $160,336
    MARAD..........................      648      1.11      $14,231        7      5.65      $56,452      $70,682
    NHTSA..........................    1,524      2.62      $33,468        3      2.42      $24,194      $57,662
    OIG............................      471      0.81      $10,344  .......      0.00  ...........      $10,344
    RSPA...........................      654      1.12      $14,362        1      0.81       $8,065      $22,427
    SLSDC..........................       88      0.15       $1,933  .......      0.00  ...........       $1,933
    VOLPE..........................    1,409      2.42      $30,943       22     17.74     $177,419     $208,362
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Reprogram Subtotal...........   58,149    100.00   $1,277,000      124    100.00   $1,000,000   $2,277,000
OST Additional Contribution........  .......  ........  ...........  .......  ........  ...........     $200,000
                                    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Reprogramming and OST    .......  ........  ...........  .......  ........  ...........   $2,477,000
       Contribution................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                   DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE

    Question. Please provide an update on the work of the Secretary's 
senior level task force on Disadvantaged Business Enterprise fraud. How 
often has this task force met? What recommendations, if any, have the 
task force produced? Have they met with the staff of the DOT IG to 
build on that office's recommendations?
    Answer. The Task Force was established to examine the DBE Program 
and to develop recommendations on improving the ability of the program 
to meet its objectives. The Task Force was charged with reviewing the 
findings of the OIG on a number of fraud incidents as well as reviewing 
the findings of the report initiated at the request of the House 
Appropriations Committee. The DBE Task Force meets once bi-monthly and 
has regular meetings with the Department's IG Office to discuss that 
office's ongoing DBE recommendations.
    We expect to be able to implement a series of reforms which will 
have the effect of improving the management of the program, clarify its 
purpose, simplify its procedures and insure those who would misuse the 
DBE program are held to account. The Secretary charged the Task Force 
with developing recommendations on ways that the DOT can most 
efficiently and cost effectively increase oversight of the DBE Program, 
in order to reduce incidents of fraud.
    Additionally, the administration's SAFETEA proposal contained a 
provision in Section 1802(d) which would mandate debarment of 
contractors who have been convicted of fraud related to Federal-aid 
highway or transit programs, and mandate the suspension of contractors 
who have been indicted for offenses relating to fraud. This would 
codify the debarment of convicted contractors, which under current DOT 
regulations is a discretionary measure. Under this provision, the 
Secretary would have the authority to waive suspension and debarment 
actions to address circumstances relating to non-affiliated 
subsidiaries of an indicted contractor, and national security concerns.

                         WORKFORCE RECRUITMENT

    Question. Please provide an update on what the Department is doing 
to recruit and retain the best talent available. The IG has identified 
that the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defense 
have personnel rules and pay flexibility to assist with retention and 
recruitment. What is the Department doing to ensure the same benefits 
for its workforce?
    Answer. In our quest to recruit and retain the best talent, DOT has 
obtained a synergy of effort through intermodal cooperation in 
implementing a corporate recruitment approach. In particular, during 
the last year, DOT convened an intermodal Corporate Recruitment 
Workgroup, consisting of 16 representatives from the different 
components and offices within DOT. It meets on a bi-monthly basis to 
collaboratively address ongoing DOT recruitment initiatives in support 
of closing the DOT skills gaps identified by our ONE DOT Workforce 
Plan; to identify those strategies that can assist Departmental efforts 
to develop the next generation of DOT employees; and to look for ways 
to present a corporate DOT image to the applicants we are trying to 
attract.
    One key activity of the Corporate Recruitment Workgroup is to 
identify redundancies in recruitment efforts across the Department. As 
a result, the modes saved money by sharing costs, and DOT jobs have 
greater visibility by reaching and attracting a wider diverse audience. 
We outreach to specific groups to recruit a high quality, diverse 
applicant pool, in cooperation with Selective Placement Coordinators. 
We continue to evaluate and refine our efforts through quarterly hiring 
reports (fiscal year 2004 will be our baseline for future outyear 
comparisons).
    We strongly encourage our components to use all of the 
flexibilities available to them whenever possible, including pay and 
bonus-related flexibilities (e.g., superior qualifications appointments 
and recruitment, retention, and relocation bonuses), scheduling 
flexibilities (e.g., telework and alternative work schedules), and the 
various special appointing authorities (e.g., the Federal Career Intern 
Program). Our largest component, the Federal Aviation Administration 
(FAA), has a number of unique statutory flexibilities that FAA uses to 
attract and retain a quality workforce. Once the results of the 
implementation of the Departments of Homeland Security and Defense 
flexibilities are apparent, we will be in a better position to know how 
we compete with them for a high quality, diverse workforce and whether 
similar statutory changes for DOT will be necessary to ensure 
successful recruitment and retention of the best talent available.

                                 DELPHI

    Question. What is the status of the implementation of Delphi by the 
modal administrations?
    Answer. All DOT modal operating administrations (OAs) have 
implemented Delphi and are using it for accounting operations and 
financial management. The first OA to covert was the Federal Railroad 
Administration in April 2000 and the last was the Federal Aviation 
Administration on November 10, 2003.
    DOT is the first cabinet level agency to completely convert all its 
operating units to a single instance, state-of-the-art, fully compliant 
COTS financial software package.
    The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was also set up on 
Delphi when TSA was created in DOT in February 2002. TSA has continued 
to use Delphi as its accounting system since being transferred to the 
new Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in March 2003.
    Question. Are any of the development costs or operating costs of 
Delphi expected to be paid by the modal administrations?
    Answer. Through fiscal year 2004, all of the development and 
operating costs for Delphi and for the legacy accounting system that it 
replaced have been shared by the DOT modal administrations and TSA 
under an annual reimbursable agreement with the Federal Aviation 
Administration's Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center in Oklahoma City, 
where Delphi is hosted, operated and maintained.
    The distribution of Delphi development and operating costs is 
reviewed annually and agreed to by the Delphi Management Committee 
(DMC). The DMC is composed of representatives from all Delphi 
customers, currently all DOT modal administrations and the 
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). TSA has informed DOT that 
they plan to convert from Delphi to the U.S. Coast Guard's Oracle 
Federal Financials system in fiscal year 2005.

                          COMPETITIVE SOURCING

    Question. Please describe in greater detail the training proposal 
related to competitive sourcing. How many employees are expected to 
receive such training?
    Answer. OMB Circular A-76 requires the use of the Win.COMPARE 
software tool to accomplish competitions. The $15,000 training estimate 
was based on a contractor providing two Win.COMPARE courses that will 
allow us up to 20 students per class on site. The training is required 
to provide instruction for multiple study participants across the 
Department in the use of this mandated tool to accomplish both Standard 
and Streamlined competitions during the execution of the Department's 
Competitive Sourcing ``Green'' Plan for the upcoming year and beyond. 
The Department will identify the exact number of employees that will 
benefit from this training once OMB has approved DOT's ``Green'' Plan.

                           ELECTRONIC GRANTS

    Question. Which DOT grant making agencies are currently capable of 
processing grant applications and grant awards through electronic 
means?
    Answer. DOT's E-Grant Task Group is currently in the process of 
conducting a comprehensive inventory of all electronic methods used in 
each one of the Department's 59 grant programs. In conjunction with the 
inventory, they are also performing an analysis of the various system 
functionalities and the technologies used. This effort is expected to 
be completed within the next 90 days (September 2004) in concert with 
the Department's initial e-grant plan.
    For purposes of clarification, the Department generally associates 
the terminology, ``. . . grant applications and grant awards . . .'', 
with competitive discretionary type programs. Approximately 99 percent 
of DOT programs are Mandatory type programs where funds are 
congressionally apportioned for each State, or based on Formula. DOT 
Mandatory/Formula programs require States to submit comprehensive State 
plans versus an ``application'', inasmuch as recipients are already 
determined along with funding apportionments, unlike discretionary 
programs that must undergo a ``competitive'' application process. 
However, for both mandatory and discretionary programs within the 
Department we expect the results of our inventory to show that several 
programs, use electronic methods to perform some function of their 
grants life cycle process.
    Question. What are the out-year cost estimates for the DOT 
contribution to the e-grant portal/system?
    Answer. The out-year cost estimates are as follows: fiscal year 
2005--$754,467; fiscal year 2006--$754,467 to maintain, support and 
enhance the Grants.gov ``find'' and ``apply'' functionality that 
currently exists. In addition, OMB is sponsoring the Grants Line of 
Business initiative which is attempting to identify common internal 
grant processes. This initiative, for which a business case has not yet 
been developed (and for which agency contributions have not yet been 
determined), will be the follow-on to the Grants.gov initiative, 
enabling certain internal functions to be performed using shared 
technology services/tools.
    Question. How much has DOT obligated to date, by year, in support 
of this effort?
    Answer. DOT has obligated a total of $2,735,410 (fiscal year 2002--
$88,590; fiscal year 2003--$1,411,410; fiscal year 2004--$1,235,410). 
There is also one DOT employee detailed for a period of 6 months to 
work in the Grants.gov Program Management Office.
    Question. Are the other partnering agencies making the same 
contribution?
    Answer. There are 26 grant making agencies in total. Currently 11 
Partner agencies, including DOT, serve as part of the Grants.gov 
Executive Board and contribute both fiscal and personnel resources. In 
August 2002, a funding algorithm and payment schedule was approved by 
the Executive Board to allocate the funding requirements across the 11 
Partner agencies. The specific amount of the contribution is determined 
by the agency's designation as a ``large'', ``medium'' or ``small'' 
agency, based on the total grant dollars awarded. DOT is categorized as 
a ``large'' grant making agency; and is contributing the same amount as 
HHS, HUD and others in the same category. OMB has directed the 
Grants.gov PMO to move to a usage-based model in fiscal year 2005 that 
will require contributions by all grant making agencies.

                         ELECTRONIC RULEMAKING

    Question. What is the schedule and funding profile for the DOT 
contribution to the E-Rulemaking initiative?
    Answer. As the managing partner for this initiative, EPA 
established the following plan for implementing the Federal Dockets 
Management System (FDMS), the second phase of the E-Rulemaking 
initiative:
  --Develop agency implementation plans and dates.--July-August 2004;
  --Test the FDMS.--October-December 2004;
  --Migrate agencies to the FDMS.--January-October 2005.
    The DOT funding profile for this effort is: fiscal year 2004--
$775,000; fiscal year 2005--$885,000; fiscal year 2006--$955,000 
(estimated).
    All rulemaking documents published in the Federal Register by any 
DOT agency since the site was established are/were accessible via 
Regulations.gov, an internet portal (the first phase of the 
initiative). To date DOT has received 74 comments submitted from the 
site. Sixty-five were docketed and nine were rejected because they were 
either test entries, irrelevant, or blank.
    Question. How much has DOT obligated to date, by year in support of 
this effort?
    Answer. To date, DOT has obligated the following:
  --Fiscal year 2003.--$4,547,500;
  --Fiscal year 2004.--$544,208; \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Funding for the remaining $230,792 to meet the fiscal year 2004 
DOT commitment of $775,000 has been requested from the U.S. Coast Guard 
and the Transportation Security Administration, who are users of the 
DOT dockets system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Question. Please list the other partnering agencies in the E-
Rulemaking initiative and provide the contribution each is expected to 
make.
    Answer. EPA is the managing partner for this initiative and led the 
effort to define required contribution levels. Expected contributions 
for fiscal year 2005 for their partner agencies are:

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Department of Transportation............................        $885,000
Department of Labor.....................................         885,000
Department of Agriculture...............................         885,000
Health and Human Services...............................         885,000
Federal Communications Commission.......................         355,000
Department of Justice...................................         355,000
Housing and Urban Development...........................         355,000
General Services Administration.........................         180,000
National Archives and Records Administration............         100,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Are any other funds requested for E-Rulemaking besides 
the $800,000 in the Office of General Counsel?
    Answer. No, this is the only amount being requested in the 
Department's budget.

                     ELECTRONIC BUSINESS PRACTICES

    Question. Please compare the fiscal year 2005 budget request for 
electronic business practices with fiscal years 2003 and 2004.
    Answer. DOT's funding requests for ``Electronic Business 
Practices'' for fiscal year 2003 through fiscal year 2005 include 
different initiatives. In fiscal year 2003 ($125,000) and fiscal year 
2004 ($176,000), for example, this request was primarily to cover the 
cost of DOT's contribution to participate in government-wide electronic 
acquisition initiatives. In fiscal year 2005 ($875,000), however, the 
request significantly increased to reflect the estimated cost of 
procuring software licenses for a department-wide acquisition business 
system (i.e., a contract writing and management system), as mandated by 
the DOT Investment Review Board.
    Question. Please breakdown the request for consolidated HR benefits 
assistance by specific efforts and also provide a projection of the 
future developmental requirements under this program.
    Answer. The information follows.

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

------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESI integrated solution procurement......  $250,000
ESI payroll data download................  $25,000
Estimated DOI/FPPS programming start-up    $30,000-$50,000
 costs.
Retirement and related benefits training   $75,000
 (10-12 sessions including contractor
 time & travel) \1\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ With the increasing number of employees who are becoming eligible
  for retirement, the demand for retirement and benefit counseling and
  information is increasing substantially. Contractor resources are
  necessary in order to deliver this service nationwide to DOT
  employees.

    The future developmental requirement under this program is the 
development and implementation of an electronic record keeping system 
that will replace the current official personnel file (OPF).

                   HUMAN RESOURCES INFORMATION SYSTEM

    Question. Please provide a schedule and funding history and plan of 
the Enterprise Human Resources Information System (EHRIS). Please 
include a breakdown of each modal administration's anticipated share of 
the costs of development.
    Answer. The Enterprise Human Resources Information System (EHRIS) 
project was intended to implement an ORACLE enterprise application to 
meet the human resources, training administration, and time collection 
requirements of the Department of Transportation (DOT), excluding the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). A companion project, the 
Corporate Human Resource Information System (CHRIS) was underway in the 
FAA, with the same goal. The projects were merged with the ORACLE 
Financial Management implementation within DOT in July, 2002, but never 
got beyond the planning stage when the project was superseded by the e-
Payroll initiative in December of 2002. EHRIS was projected to have 
been implemented by the end of fiscal year 2004. Approximately $10 
million was included in the budget requests between fiscal year 2003 
and 2004, of the total projected cost of $14.175 million. The cost 
distribution to the modal administrations is reflected below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   As of  9/
          Administration             30/01      Percent    Dollar Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
OST..............................        539        3.59        $509,253
USCG.............................      6,121       40.80      $5,783,188
FHWA.............................      2,934       19.56      $2,772,076
FMCSA............................        787        5.25        $743,566
FRA..............................        776        5.17        $733,173
SLSDC............................        152        1.01        $143,611
FTA..............................        500        3.33        $472,406
NHTSA............................        660        4.40        $623,575
RSPA.............................        964        6.43        $910,798
OIG..............................        455        3.03        $429,889
MARAD............................        869        5.79        $821,041
STB..............................        142        0.95        $134,163
BTS..............................        104        0.69         $98,260
                                  --------------------------------------
      Total......................     15,003      100.00     $14,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The funds requested for EHRIS for fiscal year 2003 and fiscal year 
2004 were redirected to fund the Departmental migration to the e-
Payroll initiative and no funds were requested in fiscal year 2005.
    Question. What is the status of the EHRIS contracts?
    Answer. The EHRIS contracts were for program management and systems 
integration support; the work orders issued on behalf of EHRIS have 
expired.
    Question. Please compare the projected requirements or capabilities 
of the Enterprise Human Resources Information System (EHRIS) to the 
Federal Personnel and Payroll System (FPPS).
    Answer. At a high level, EHRIS was projected to use Commercial Off 
the Shelf (COTS) software in an enterprise model to support human 
resources, training administration, and time collection requirements. 
EHRIS was not slated to replace the legacy DOT payroll system. The 
Federal Personnel and Payroll System, implemented in 1997, is an 
integrated human resources and payroll system. It does not support 
training administration or meet DOT requirements for time collection.
    Question. The justification states FPPS does not address training. 
Would EHRIS have addressed this? If this is a necessary requirement 
primarily because of FAA's needs, then should FAA cover those costs?
    Answer. EHRIS was slated to address the DOT requirements for 
training administration, through the use of the ORACLE application 
software.
    With the discontinuation of the EHRIS project in fiscal year 2002, 
the eLMS system, implemented under the auspices of the e-Training 
initiative as part of--and funded by--the DOT FPPS migration project, 
is intended to meet the training administration requirements of all of 
DOT. Although the training needs of the FAA are highly visible, other 
modal administrations, such as the Federal Highways Administration, 
have vigorous training programs which require automated support. The 
operating costs of the training system will be shared proportionately, 
in relation to the size of workforce, among DOT's Operating 
Administrations.
    Question. What are the out-year funding requirements for converting 
to FPPS?
    Answer. The funding for FPPS was based on the EHRIS budget which 
did not include the FAA requirements. There were no funds requested in 
the fiscal year 2005 budget for EHRIS, subsequently there are none 
identified for FPPS. There currently is an estimated shortfall of $9.4 
million in fiscal year 2005. It is currently anticipated that 
approximately $858,000 will be requested in fiscal year 2006 to support 
costs incurred in that year.

          OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

    Question. Please provide a table to breakdown the object class 
``other costs'' in the Office of Administration and compare the request 
to the fiscal year 2004 enacted level after the across the board 
rescission. Also, please include the amount that was rescinded pursuant 
to Division H, sec. 168(b) of Public Law 108-199.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Object                                    Fiscal Year      Fiscal Year
 Class                                    2004 Enacted    2005 Estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Recission pursuant to Division            $145.0  ...............
      H, Sec 168(b) Public Law 108-
      199
     Across the board reduction per           1,482.0  ...............
      Title 5, Sec 517 of Public Law
      108-199
 1XXXPC&B                                     6,265.0         $7,535.2
   21Travel                                      53.0             70.0
   23Rental payments to GSA                   7,836.0          9,014.0

   25          OTHER COSTS
     MSI Program                                  0.0            130.0
     E-Grants                                     4.0            350.0
     Electronic Business Process                126.0            943.0
     Online Internet Research Svcs               68.0            110.0
     Security Investigations                     80.0             85.0
     New Hqs Building Security                    0.0            130.0
     Training                                    25.0            183.0
     Corporate Recruitment                        0.0            500.0
     Consolidated Benefits                        0.0            400.0
      Assistance
     Federal Personnel and Payroll              153.0            846.8
      System
     OST Cost to WCF                          7,856.0         10,030.0
     Reimbursement to USCG Clinic                42.0             37.0
     Workforce Improvements                      66.0            208.0
      Initiative
     DOT-wide Admin and Mgmt                    277.0            143.2
      Services
     Subscriptions                               19.0             28.3
     Procurement Strategy Council                 0.0             45.0
     Electronic Official Personnel                0.0          1,000.0
      Folders
     Centralized Workers'                         0.0            250.0
      Compensation
     E-Training Initiative                        0.0            750.0
     CPMIS Charges                               65.0             85.0
     Federal Employment Information              23.0             36.7
      Svcs
   26Supplies & Materials                        27.0             24.8
                                     -----------------------------------
           Total                             24,612.0         32,935.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS

    Question. Please provide detailed justification for the fiscal year 
2005 budget request for the Office of Civil Rights by object class.
    Answer. 11 and 12.1 PC&B (Includes Transit Benefits and Workmen's 
Comp).--DOCR's PC&B request in fiscal year 2005, $9,382, is based on 
the assumption that DOCR will maintain current fiscal year 2004 
staffing levels. This relatively small increase is due to mandatory 
increases such as pay raises, within-grade-raises and inflation.
    21.1 Travel and Transportation of Things ($210).--DOCR staff 
travels to conduct EEO compliance reviews, participate in panels at 
conferences and workshops giving presentations and speeches, and to 
obtain training associated with carrying out the organization's 
mission. DOCR's IT Division provides IT infrastructure, 
telecommunication, application and database services to Departmental 
Office of Civil Rights (DOCR) employees located in Cambridge, MA, 
Atlanta, GA, Chicago, IL, Dallas, TX, and San Francisco, CA. Periodic 
inspections and routine modifications must be performed at each 
location to ensure adequacy, accuracy and timeliness of the delivery of 
many of the Departmental Office of Civil Rights (DOCR) mission products 
and services.
    25.2 Other Services ($2,686).--Other Services include:
  --Alternative Dispute Resolution.--DOCR has administrative 
        responsibility for providing mediation services to DOT's 10 
        operating administrations (OAs). DOCR ensures the program has 
        skilled mediators and coordinates annual training to meet 
        programmatic and EEOC requirements. DOCR also coordinates 
        assignment of mediators and schedules mediation sessions, 
        ensures that evaluations are completed, and tracks data 
        relating to mediated cases. Finally, DOCR is available to 
        assist OAs with training of EEO Counselors relative to the ADR 
        program. While each OA has responsibility for training its 
        managers and overall workforce, DOCR has increased its 
        assistance for ADR training in order to promote and market the 
        ADR program.
  --EEO Training and Other Training.--DOCR will conduct program 
        reviews; and direct, administer, and manage DOT's EEO and 
        affirmative employment programs for managers, employees and 
        applicants for employment.
  --Automated Case Tracking Systems (COS).--DOCR's automated tracking 
        systems--Web Case Management System (WebCMS), Disadvantage 
        Business Enterprise (DBE) Appeals System, and the External Case 
        Tracking System (XTRAK)--serve as the official Departmental 
        repository for maintaining accurate complaint and appeals 
        information. These critical systems ensure that DOCR meets 
        Secretarial, statutory, regulatory and other reporting 
        requirements.
  --Section 504 Studies & Evaluations.--Funding will be used to 
        implement recommendations derived from the Department's ongoing 
        Section 504 Self Evaluation and Transition Plan for the 
        accessibility of its facilities and programs to people with 
        disabilities.
  --Final Agency Decision (FADs) Writing.--Funds will be used to fund 
        preparation of FADs associated with equal employment 
        opportunity (EEO) complaints filed against DOT, including 
        decisions on the merits, compensatory damages assessments, 
        sexual orientation complaint requests for reconsideration, and 
        attorney's fees.
  --Contractual Support.--DOCR utilizes contractual services to augment 
        in-house EEO investigations. In addition, contractual EEO 
        services are required for situations where a regional office 
        may temporarily be short-staffed, or an urgent timeframe is 
        ordered by EEOC or a Court Judge. DOCR also requires funding 
        for contractual administrative and clerical support functions 
        in order for organizational components to meet its critical 
        mission needs in the most efficient manner possible.
  --Working Capital Fund.--Pays for administrative support services. 
        These services include building security, copy centers, 
        Departmental programs, the Disability Resource Center, DOT's 
        Worklife initiatives, and other proportional charges that are 
        expended for common services.
  --Reimbursable Service Agreements (Regional Offices).--Provide for 
        telecommunication resources, information technology support, 
        administrative support, including mail service and employee 
        transit benefits.
  --Relocation Expenses (San Francisco Regional Office).--DOCR prepared 
        an Occupancy Agreement managed by General Services 
        Administration (GSA) to relocate from San Francisco to Los 
        Angeles, CA. DOCR expects to occupy new office space by 
        December 2004.
  --Continuity of Operations.--The Federal Preparedness Circular, 
        Number 65, dated July 6, 1999, issued by the Federal Emergency 
        Management Agency, requires all agencies to have a facility 
        from which continued essential agency functions remain 
        operational should the primary facility be rendered unusable 
        during an emergency. DOCR has met this requirement and must 
        provide oversight, which requires site visits, for 
        organizations contracted to provide these services on its 
        behalf.
  --Program Evaluation.--Funds will be used to assess the manner and 
        extent to which DOT civil rights programs achieve intended 
        objectives. In addition, the President's Management Agenda 
        (2002) further identifies the need for devising aggressive 
        strategies for improving the management of the Federal 
        Government.
  --Telecommuting/Telework Program.--Funds are required to provide 
        technological support for DOCR's participation in DOT's 
        telecommuting/telework program. Information resources include 
        hardware, software, data and records, and telecommunications 
        connectivity.
  --Information Technology Services.--Funding will support one of the 
        strategic goals outlined in the President's Management Agenda--
        reducing the barriers of information and communication within 
        DOT by implementing a new Civil Rights Case Management System.
    26.0 Supplies and Materials.--Supplies and materials are required 
to support daily operations, i.e. paper, writing utensils, ink 
cartridges, research manuals, periodicals, and subscription services. 
Supplies and materials are also needed to support staff participation 
at conferences and workshops. Funds are also used to support 
Presidential interagency efforts and other efforts such as the 
interagency Holocaust Remembrance event.
    31.0 Equipment.--The funding will be used to replace obsolete 
equipment and computers in DOCR. The Office of Information Technology 
(IT) and Program Evaluation division integrates equipment that can 
enhance DOT's Civil Right's business processes. The equipment supports 
testing and implementation of telecommuting, backup and recovery, 
presentations, document production and other functions. DOCR's IT 
Division is responsible for procuring and maintaining all information 
technology equipment and hardware purchased with Federal funding in 
support of DOCR's mission. Within the infrastructure, approximately 70 
workstations, desktop and network printers, fax machines, digital 
senders, and scanners are used to provide an effective and efficient 
business environment to employees. This hardware requires periodic 
maintenance, upgrades or replacement. During fiscal year 2004 and 
fiscal year 2005, DOCR's infrastructure must be prepared to support DOT 
security, telecommuting, human capital, and electronic initiatives.
    Question. Please explain in detail the assumptions used to develop 
the request for personnel compensation and benefits of the Office of 
Civil Rights.
    Answer. DOCR's PC&B request in fiscal year 2005, $9,382, is based 
on the assumption that DOCR will maintain current fiscal year 2004 
staffing levels. This relatively small increase is due to mandatory 
increases such as pay raises, within-grade-raises and inflation.
    Question. Please provide the number of staffing positions and FTE 
requested, indicating direct and reimbursable, for the Office of Civil 
Rights.
    Answer. In its fiscal year 2005 budget, DOCR requested 64 direct 
staffing positions and FTE. There are no reimbursable FTE.
    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing for the 
Office of Civil Rights compared to levels at the end of each quarter of 
past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                                            DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTAL OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS STAFFING
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          12/31/   3/31/   6/18/  12/31/   3/31/   6/30/   9/30/  12/31/   3/31/   6/30/   9/30/  12/31/   3/31/   6/30/   9/30/  12/31/   3/31/   6/30/   9/30/
                                           2003    2004    2004    2002    2003    2003    2003    2001    2002    2002    2002    2000    2001    2001    2001    1999    2000    2000    2000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year 2004:
    1st Quarter.........................      55  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    2nd Quarter.........................  ......      58  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    3rd Quarter.........................  ......  ......      57  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Fiscal Year 2003:
    1st Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......      52  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    2nd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......      52  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    3rd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      52  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    4th Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      53  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Fiscal Year 2002:
    1st Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      47  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    2nd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      48  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    3rd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      51  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    4th Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      52  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
Fiscal Year 2001:
    1st Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      44  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    2nd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      45  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    3rd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      44  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......
    4th Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      44  ......  ......  ......  ......
Fiscal Year 2000:
    1st Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      38  ......  ......  ......
    2nd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      39  ......  ......
    3rd Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      43  ......
    4th Quarter.........................  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......  ......      43
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide details on anticipated contract expenses 
in the Office of Civil Rights.
    Answer. Final Agency Decisions (FADs).--Transfer of U.S. Coast 
Guard to the Department of Homeland Security on September 30, 2003, 
decreased the workload, but the projected increase in cost per FAD 
estimated at 5 percent resulted in no change in the total contract 
amount requested, $250,000.
    Administrative and Clerical Support.--DOCR provides administrative 
and clerical support functions to organizational components to meet 
critical mission needs in the most efficient and effective manner 
possible. Clerical support is critical to accomplishing the workload in 
several of DOCR's divisional offices, $225,000.
    EEO Investigations.--DOCR utilizes contractual services to augment 
in-house EEO investigations. During fiscal year 2004, many internal 
complaints of employment discrimination were outsourced for 
investigation to eliminate DOCR's backlog of overage cases. While the 
goal of a zero-backlog was realized by September 30, 2000, it is 
necessary to maintain funding for contractual services to prevent 
future backlogs. In addition, contractual EEO services are required for 
situations where a regional office may temporarily be short-staffed, or 
an urgent timeframe is ordered by EEOC or a district court judge, 
$250,000.
    Reimbursable Services.--In addition, DOCR obtains contractual 
support from DOT's OAs for its regional offices that are located in 
DOT-owned facilities. The services provided include telecommunication 
resources, information technology, email, and lease charges, $220,000.
    Information Technology Support and Tracking Systems.--DOCR employs 
the services of IMSG Inc., Actionet, Inc., and Micropact, Inc., to 
support the products and services required by DOT's internal and 
external customers. The services supplied by these contractors support 
the DOCR mission through software development, website and database 
hosting, software upgrades, and commercial off the shelf license 
renewal. In addition, DOCR utilizes IT contracts to support 
requirements outlined in the President's Management Agenda, which 
include enterprise architecture administration, capital planning 
support, and security requirements. Finally, DOCR utilizes IT contract 
support to supply information to complex civil rights queries 
supporting the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the 
Department of Justice, and many freedom of information requests, 
$300,000.
    Question. What is the current backlog of complaints at the Office 
of Civil Rights? Please compare to last 5 years.
    Answer. Currently, and over the past 5 years, DOCR has experienced 
no backlog of complaints.
    Question. What is the status of the relocation of the San Francisco 
Regional Office?
    Answer. DOCR conducted a site search in the Los Angeles area, 
identified a location, and prepared an occupancy agreement. The new 
leased site will be managed by the General Services Administration 
(GSA). DOCR expects to occupy the new location by December 2004. Thus, 
DOCR plans to close the San Francisco office and relocate to the new 
site in the Los Angeles area. GSA will assist in all aspects of the 
move. All employees in the San Francisco office have been notified of 
the pending move to the new location. DOT's Human Resources office will 
issue a final letter to all employees. Following receipt of the letter, 
each employee will designate his or her intention to relocate to the 
new location or separate from Federal service.
    Question. Are the costs requested for the San Francisco Regional 
Office relocation one-time expenses?
    Answer. In fiscal year 2004, the cost of the initial relocation of 
SFRO employees to Los Angeles, CA, is estimated to cost $370,000. In 
order to obtain new office space (2,000 sq. ft.) and effect a 
reimbursable agreement with the Federal Aviation Administration's 
Western Region located in Los Angeles, CA, DOCR requested start-up 
funds of approximately $100,000. Other costs associated with the 
relocation include shipping furniture and equipment and the cost of 
relocating current employees. Miscellaneous costs, i.e., printing of 
stationery, is an example of a one-time expense. DOCR's fiscal year 
2005 budget request reflects an additional $250,000. This estimate is 
based on the more generous relocation allowance for real estate costs 
authorized in 2005 by the General Services Administration. As actual 
moves occur, some of these funds may be reallocated to personal 
services to support relocation costs properly reflected as benefits. It 
also reflects a small budget for shipping charges for supplies, 
subscriptions and equipment.

                       MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH

    Question. How much of the $3,000,000 fiscal year 2005 budget 
request for Minority Business Outreach funds PC&B?
    Answer. The $3,000,000 request for the Minority Business Outreach 
fund does not include PC&B cost. The Office of the Secretary's Office 
of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) provides 
oversight for this program; PC&B are included in the S&E fund.
    The Minority Business Outreach fund is used to support partnership 
agreements with chambers of commerce and trade associations which offer 
a comprehensive delivery system that targets services towards small 
Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs) by: (1) Increasing the number 
of disadvantaged businesses that enter into transportation-related 
contracts; (2) Increasing the number of DBE firms that receive surety 
bonds and working capital through DOT's financial assistance Short Term 
Lending program and the Bonding Assistance Program; (3) Increasing the 
number of DBE businesses participating in hands-on-training that is 
related to specific disciplines required for obtaining transportation 
related contracts; and, (4) Operating the National Information 
Clearinghouse (NIC) which provides outreach and contract information to 
DBE firms.
    The Minority Business Outreach fund also supports the 
Entrepreneurial Training and Technical Assistance Program (ETTAP) 
through Partnership Agreements with Minority Educational Institutions 
(MEIs) including Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic 
Serving Institutions and Tribal Colleges. This program combines the 
efforts of MEIs, government, and the private sector to focus on 
providing transportation-related assistance and procurement information 
to women-owned and disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs).
    Question. Please provide the number of requested staffing positions 
and FTE, indicating direct and reimbursable, under the Minority 
Business Outreach appropriation.
    Answer. FTE were not requested under the Minority Business Outreach 
appropriation.
    Question. Please provide a table listing current staffing under 
Minority Business Outreach compared to levels at the end of each 
quarter of past 5 fiscal years.
    Answer. There are no current or past staffing levels under the 
Minority Business Outreach fund.
    Question. Please describe efforts of the Minority Business Outreach 
program to encourage and assist Alaska Native Corporations to 
participate in DOT contracts and grants.
    Answer. The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Short Term 
Lending Program (STLP) provides revolving lines of credit to finance 
accounts receivable arising from transportation-related contracts. The 
primary collateral consists of the proceeds of the contracts. One of 
our Bank Lenders is the Native American Bank, National Association 
(``NAB'') which is a federally-chartered bank that is owned by Native 
American Bank Corporation, a bank holding company that has been 
organized by a group of Tribal Nations and Alaska Native Corporations.
    Through this resource partner, we have established a significant 
Indian presence for our outreach efforts. We will continue to seek out 
opportunities to increase DOT contracting with Native Corporations and 
to increase the number of DBE Alaska Native Corporations who 
participate in transportation related contracts. Most of our DOT funds 
are administered by our contract and grant recipients, through the 
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the Federal Transit 
Administration (FTA), and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). 
All recipients are required to have a DBE program. Under the provisions 
of 49 CFR parts 23 and 26, Alaska Native Corporations are presumed to 
be qualified eligible for DBE program participation.
    Additionally, we assist Alaska Native Corporations in participating 
in DOT contracts. Bowhead, a Native Alaskan Corporation currently 
provides Information Technology services to the DOT Chief Information 
office under contract.
    During fiscal year 2004, the USDOT Northwest TEAM and the DOT Bond 
Agent from Seattle, Washington traveled to Anchorage, Alaska to 
participate in an outreach event, hosted by the Port of Anchorage to 
support the efforts of the Port of Anchorage International Expansion 
Project. The event was entitled ``Industry Day''. The Maritime 
Administration (MARAD) made a request of the OSDBU Minority Resource 
Center to send representatives to seek out Alaska firms who could bid 
on contracts with the Intermodal Expansion Project. This is a $260 
million project funded through the Maritime Administration. Our TEAM 
service provider, accompanied by a staff member from HCDI, the Minority 
Resource Center/OSDBU's contractor for the Marketplace Conferences 
project participated in this outreach event.
    The purpose of the ``Industry Day'' outreach event was to help 
inform local ANC and DBE firms about potential opportunities from the 
Port Expansion Project. Topics ranged from the specifics of the 
project, the project schedule and contract and subcontracting upcoming 
opportunities.
    Koniag Services, Inc. (KSI) a Native American 8(a) firm, was 
awarded the contract for project management for the ``Industry Day'' 
event and was responsible for hosting the meeting.

                     NEW DOT HEADQUARTERS BUILDING

    Question. What is the unobligated balance of funds made available 
for the DOT headquarters building?
    Answer. The $42 million was apportioned by March 2004, and we are 
working with GSA to ensure obligation of the full amount by the end of 
the fiscal year. One-third of the funds are being obligated by the end 
of June with the balance by the end of September 2004.
    Question. Please compare the projected lease rates of the new 
headquarters building with the terms of the lease of the Nassif 
building?
    Answer. The following chart compares the projected lease rates of 
the new headquarters building with the lease terms of Nassif building 
for the period of fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2007. The 
current Nassif lease expires March 2006, and DOT's projected move to 
the new facility will be completed in November 2006. It is anticipated 
DOT and GSA will request authority to exercise a short-term lease 
extension for approximately 10 months.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                      Rent                             2004            2005            2006            2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New HQ Bldg.....................................  ..............  ..............     $32,928,750     $40,435,470
Nassif Building.................................     $37,000,000     $37,740,000      43,500,000      48,500,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please provide a comprehensive list of projects and 
associated funding amounts for improvements to the Nassif building?
    Answer. The Nassif building has been occupied for almost 30 years. 
There are no comprehensive records going back that far to draw upon to 
provide the requested information. However, through anecdotal 
information, the following projects and funding for the Nassif building 
capital improvements was compiled.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Project                       Dates              Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacement of auxiliary cooling    1995-1996...........        $452,335
 equipment.
Conversion of below ground space    1995-1996...........         700,000
 from parking space to office
 space.
Fitness Center Renovation.........  1997................         482,000
500 KW Emergency Generator (This    1999................         500,000
 item will be relocated to new
 headquarters building.).
Emergency Command Center Expansion/ 2001-2002...........         804,938
 Renovation.
Installation of Loading Dock Doors  2001-2002...........          34,464
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. Please breakdown in greater detail the fiscal year 2005 
request for the new headquarters building.
    Answer. The information follows.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal Year
                 Description Soft Costs                     2005 Funds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GSA Managed Contracts:
    Ai:
        Acoustical/Audio Visual Engineer................  ..............
        Engineering (MEP) DIDs..........................  ..............
        Structural Engineering..........................  ..............
        Architectural/Construction Admin................  ..............
        Disaster Planning...............................        $101,115
        Fitness Center Consultant.......................  ..............
        Food Service Consultant.........................  ..............
        Health Unit Consultant..........................  ..............
        Signage Consultant..............................  ..............
        Commissioning...................................         200,000
        LEEDS Certification.............................         450,000
        Building Automation System......................          40,000
        Financial Consultant............................  ..............
        GSA advanced funds..............................  ..............
    ARA: Security DIDs..................................          50,000
    CQM Awardee:
        Project Administration for Estimating,                   400,000
         Scheduling & Inspections for Customization
         Compo-  nents).................................
        Other...........................................          19,847
        IT/Telecom Design...............................  ..............
        Guard Service (Site Access/Dock/Floor)..........       1,300,000
        Move Consultant.................................  ..............
        Moves (Box, Telecommunications, Furn.)..........       1,350,000
        Occupant Emergency Plan (OEP) Consultant........         135,000
        Systems Furniture Consultant....................         125,000
        Interior Design Consultant......................         100,000
        MEP Consultant..................................  ..............
        Document Repository.............................         100,000
        Employee Handbook...............................         325,000
JBG: CDs--Developer's A/E (26 Design Action Item).......  ..............
                                                         ---------------
      Subtotal..........................................       4,895,962
                                                         ---------------
GSA (WCF): Telecommunications Design....................               0
DOT Contracts: Security Consultant......................         100,000
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................       4,995,962
                                                         ===============
Hard Costs:
    GSA:
        Furniture.......................................      21,100,000
        Security Equipment..............................       8,265,000
    JBG:
        Base Building Enhancements......................       7,973,000
        Interior Fitout.................................      30,000,000
        Building Automation System......................       2,500,000
                                                         ---------------
          Subtotal......................................      69,838,000
                                                         ---------------
GSA (WCF): Telecommunications Hardware..................      81,639,600
DOT.....................................................  ..............
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................     151,477,600
                                                         ===============
Other Costs:
    GSA FEE (PBS PM Fee)................................         526,438
    GSA FEE (FSS Fee)...................................       3,000,000
                                                         ---------------
      TOTAL.............................................       3,526,438
                                                         ===============
      TOTAL.............................................     160,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Question. How much is the new building expected to cost?
    Answer. As identified in the lease agreement negotiated by the 
General Services Administration, the new facility direct base building 
construction cost is estimated to be $206 million. In addition, the 
land and tenant improvement allowance costs are $40.5 million and $23.8 
million respectively. DOT's estimated multi-year appropriated funding 
request for personal property, tenant fit-out and relocation expenses 
is estimated at $314.2 million.
    Question. Please define in detail what customization will be 
necessary and what the costs of each project are projected to be.
    Answer. Customization (tenant fit-out) costs are estimated at $40 
million and are comprised of the following specific items:
    Interior Tenant Fit Out.--$40,000,000.00:
  --Carpet (150,000 SF@$35/SF=$5.25 million)
  --Raised Flooring (49,000 SF@$20/SF=$0.980 million)
  --Millwork (40,000 SF@$5/SF=$0.2 million)
  --Window Treatment (75,000 SF@$1.50/SF=$0.075 million)
  --Signage (1.35 million SF@$1/SF=$1.35 million)
  --Finishes (1.35 million SF@$35/SF=$5.25 million)
  --Pantries (1,280 SF@$30/SF=$.0384 million)
  --Upgrade to Building Standard: Lighting, HVAC (General office), 
        Plumbing, Electrical, Telephone Infrastructure, Acoustical 
        Ceiling Tiles and Grid, Hardware (Doors, hardware) (1.35 
        million SF@$19.90/SF=$26.865 million).

                                DOT RENT

    Question. Please compare what has been appropriated for rental of 
leased space to actual expenses over the past 5 years.
    Answer. Over the past 5 years, the Government's annual appropriated 
rent payment has been approximately $37 million per year to cover 
actual rent expenditures for the DOT Nassif building.

                          WORKING CAPITAL FUND

    Question. Please provide a break out of what is included in the 
request of each modal administration for the Working Capital Fund and 
identify which account includes such funding.
    Answer. The information follows.

    OPERATING ADMINISTRATIONS WORKING CAPITAL FUND REQUEST BY ACCOUNT
                        [In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Fiscal Year
                                                           2005 Request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Aviation Administration: Operations.............          24,626
Federal Highway Administration: LAE.....................           8,299
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Motor                 3,586
 Carrier Safety Operations & Programs...................
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    General Fund........................................           7,660
    Trust Fund..........................................           7,660
Federal Railroad Administration: Safety and Operations..           2,928
Federal Transit Administration: Administrative Expense..           3,152
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: Saint Lawrence                 376
 Seaway Development Corp................................
Research and Special Programs Admin:
    Research and Special Programs.......................           2,518
    Pipeline Safety.....................................             847
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and Expenses..           2,218
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and Expenses.....              90
Bureau of Transportation Statistics: Federal aid to                4,093
 Highways allocation....................................
Maritime Administration: Operations and Training........           5,926
Office of the Secretary: Salaries & Expenses, Office of           19,062
 Civil Rights...........................................
                                                         ---------------
      Total.............................................          93,040
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates are provided to the operating administrations to assist 
them in their budget formulation process. These estimates are used as a 
building block for the WCF budget request but do not represent the 
total WCF budget estimate. The WCF obligation request is built upon the 
customer estimates and additional obligation authority that is used to 
cover the potential to compete for business which results in higher 
demand levels for WCF services. For example, increases to demand come 
about during times of heightened security levels. The WCF budget 
estimate is developed based on the potential for the WCF to provide 
business services. Additionally, obligations for capital assets are 
required in 1 year but are provided to the operating administrations 
over multiple years based on the depreciation schedule.
    Question. Please breakout according to the fiscal year 2005 budget 
request, the obligations in the Working Capital Fund by line of 
business and compare to obligations over the past 3 fiscal years.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                              WORKING CAPITAL FUND
                                            [In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year     Fiscal Year
                                                    2002 Actual     2003 Actual    2004 Enacted    2005 Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for                 374              96             323             394
 Administration.................................
Office of Strategic Initiatives.................             426             512             722             717
Office of Financial Management..................           5,935           5,749          16,095          13,980
Office of Human Resource Management.............          10,254          10,686           9,923          11,481
Office of Transportation and Facilities Services         135,237         184,793         212,793         225,222
Office of Information Services..................          24,087          18,421          20,007          21,966
Office of Headquarters Building and Space                  5,585           5,372           5,112           6,050
 Management.....................................
Office of Security..............................          10,689           9,993          14,767          17,271
Office of the Senior Procurement Executive......         152,465         225,236         126,269         118,439
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
      Total Office of the Assistant Secretary            345,052         460,858         406,011         415,520
       for Administration.......................
      Total Office of the Chief Information               26,199          28,990          53,216          73,378
       Officer..................................
                                                 ===============================================================
      Total Working Capital Fund................         371,251         489,848         459,227         488,898
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                 AUTHORIZATION OF DOT PROGRAMS AND FEES

    Question. Please list by agency of the Department of Transportation 
all appropriations or obligation limitations that are currently 
unauthorized. Also please provide the year in which the authorization 
expired.
    Answer. The information follows.
    The DOT accounts which require authorization/reauthorization in 
fiscal year 2005 include the following:

                                      APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                     Amount of     Last Year of    Authorization   in Last Year
               Agency and Account                 Program or New   Authorization       Level            of
                                                       Fees                                        Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Transit Administration:
    Administrative Expenses.....................         $79,931            2004     \2\ $56,290  ..............
    Formula Grants..............................  ..............            2004   \2\ 2,862,262  ..............
    University Transportation Research..........  ..............            2004       \2\ 4,473  ..............
    Transit Planning and Research...............  ..............            2004      \2\ 93,942  ..............
    Job Access and Reverse Commute..............  ..............            2004      \2\ 93,196  ..............
    Capital Investment Grants...................  ..............            2004   \2\ 2,339,241  ..............
    Major Capital Investment Grants.............   \1\ 1,563,198  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Formula Grants and Research.................   \1\ 5,622,871  ..............  ..............  ..............
Research and Special Programs:
    Research and Special Programs (Hazardous              25,486            1997          19,670         $15,268
     Materials Safety)..........................
    Emergency Preparedness Grants...............          14,300            1998          21,250           7,970
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: \3\
    Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs         228,000             N/A             N/A             N/A
    Motor Carrier Safety Grants.................         227,000             N/A             N/A             N/A
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Operations & Research--General Fund.........         139,300  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Operations & Research--Trust Fund...........          90,000            2003          72,000      \4\ 71,532
    National Driver Register....................           4,000            2003           2,000       \4\ 1,987
    Highway Traffic Safety Grants...............         456,000            2003         225,000     \4\ 223,537
Federal Railroad Administration:
    Safety and Operations \5\...................         142,396            1998  ..............  ..............
    Railroad Safety.............................             N/A            1998          90,739          57,050
    Grants to the National Passenger Railroad            900,000            2002         955,000         826,476
     Corp.......................................
Surface Transportation Board....................          20,621            1998          12,000          13,850
Federal Highway Administration: Federal-aid       \6\ 34,282,000            2004  \7\ 26,433,750  \8\ 33,643,326
 Highway Program................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Major Capital Investment Grants and Formula Grants and Research reflect a proposed restructuring of
  accounts.
\2\ Reflects amounts authorized in Public Law 108-224 for the period October 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
\3\ New Account Structure Proposed in Fiscal Year 2004 and Submitted Again in Fiscal Year 2005--Pending
  Enactment of SAFETEA.
\4\ Fiscal year 2003 Appropriation reflects 0.65 percent across-the-board reduction pursuant to Public Law 108-
  7.
\5\ Was formerly the Office of the Administrator and Railroad Safety Accounts. The Office of the Administrator
  had general authority under 49 U.S.C. Section 103, however, no specific amount was authorized.
\6\ Includes all elements except the Emergency Relief program.
\7\ Reflects amounts authorized in Public Law 108-224 for the period October 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
\8\ Represents the limitation on obligations enacted for fiscal year 2004 in Public Law 108-199, net of 0.59
  percent rescission. Does not includes exempt obligations for Minimum Guarantee.

    Question. Please provide a list of all new programs or fees that 
require authorization.
    Answer. The information follows.

                                      APPROPRIATIONS NOT AUTHORIZED BY LAW
                                             [Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  Appropriations
                                                     Amount of     Last Year of    Authorization   in Last Year
               Agency and Account                 Program or New   Authorization       Level            of
                                                       Fees                                        Authorization
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Transit Administration:
    Major Capital Investment Grants.............  \1\ $1,563,198  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Formula Grants and Research.................   \1\ 5,622,871  ..............  ..............  ..............
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: \2\
    Motor Carrier Safety Operations and Programs         228,000             N/A             N/A             N/A
    Motor Carrier Safety Grants.................         227,000             N/A             N/A             N/A
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
    Operations & Research--General Fund.........         139,300  ..............  ..............  ..............
    Operations & Research--Trust Fund...........          90,000            2004     \3\ $53,681     \4\ $71,575
    National Driver Register....................           4,000            2004       \3\ 2,684       \4\ 3,579
    Highway Traffic Safety Grants...............         456,000            2004     \3\ 167,754     \4\ 223,673
Federal Highway Administration: Federal-aid       \5\ 34,282,000            2004  \6\ 26,433,750  \7\ 33,643,326
 Highway Program................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Major Capital Investment Grants and Formula Grants and Research reflect a proposed restructuring of
  accounts.
\2\ New Account Structure Proposed in Fiscal Year 2004 and Submitted Again in Fiscal Year 2005--Pending
  Enactment of SAFETEA.
\3\ Reflects amounts authorized in Public Law 108-224 for the period October 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
\4\ Represents the limitation on obligations enacted for fiscal year 2004 in Public Law 108-199, net of 0.59
  percent rescission.
\5\ Includes all elements except the Emergency Relief program.
\6\ Reflects amounts authorized in Public Law 108-224 for the period October 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004.
\7\ Represents the limitation on obligations enacted for fiscal year 2004 in Public Law 108-199, net of 0.59
  percent rescission. Does not include exempt obligations for Minimum Guarantee.

                       AIRLINE STABILIZATION ACT

    Question. What is the unobligated balance of funds made available 
by the Airline Stabilization Act?
    Answer. As of June 1, 2004, the program maintained a balance of 
approximately $270 million for remaining obligations, including the 
litigation reserve.
    Question. What is the amount of funds made available by the Airline 
Stabilization Act that is under consideration for payment or still 
being disputed or litigated?
    Answer. Two hundred seventy million dollars, including a 
``litigation reserve.'' Were the Department not to prevail in its 
litigation with Federal Express and two other smaller carriers, it is 
possible that the Court of Appeals, in framing its decision, could be 
sufficiently broad in its language so as to permit some other carriers 
to attempt to revise their applications and seek supplemental payments. 
Thus, the full balance has been maintained so as to include this 
litigation reserve. We expect the Court to act very soon in issuing its 
decision, and are hopeful that this figure can be revised downward 
thereafter to reflect a favorable outcome in the case.
                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Robert F. Bennett

     TRANSPORTATION OF DIAGNOSTIC AND INFECTIOUS MEDICAL SPECIMENS

    Question. The following Medical Specimen Transport White Paper was 
sent to me by ARUP Laboratories, a medical laboratory affiliated with 
the University of Utah's Medical Center. I am submitting it for the 
record so that Secretary Mineta can comment on the concerns raised and 
the questions I will supply at the end of this document.
``Introduction
    ``As a result of recent interpretations provided to ARUP 
Laboratories by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Federal 
Aviation Administration (FAA), an atmosphere of uncertainty now exists 
within the air transportation system. Medical specimen shipments from 
hospitals and laboratories in a number of locations within the United 
States are being rejected for air transport, creating the potential to 
cause patient harm through delayed testing and result availability.
``Background
    ``Prior to February 14, 2003, the United States Department of 
Transportation (DOT) did not regulate the transportation of medical 
specimens sent for diagnostic purposes within the United States. Prior 
to January 1, 2003, the International Air Transport Association (IATA), 
a trade association of the airlines, instructed that medical specimens 
transported by air were to be divided into two categories: Diagnostic 
Specimens and Infectious Substances. This requirement was based on 
regulations put forth by the United Nations International Civil 
Aviation Organization (UN (ICAO)). Under UN (ICAO) and IATA, Infectious 
Substances were, and still are, regulated as hazardous materials. The 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the enforcement agent for DOT, 
recognizes ICAO regulations, but does not reference IATA rules in their 
enforcement actions.
    ``Prior to January 1, 2003, medical specimens that were identified 
as Diagnostic Specimens could not contain any known or suspected 
infectious agent. Any specimen that was identified as having an 
infectious agent required shipment as an Infectious Substance. 
Infectious Substance shipments could only be transported by airlines 
that were considered as `Will Carry' airlines, meaning that they 
provide formal training and handling information to cargo personnel on 
Hazardous Materials. Diagnostic Specimens could be shipped by any 
airline at that time.
    ``On February 14, 2003, revised DOT regulations went into effect 
that incorporated a definition for Diagnostic Specimens into the 
hazardous materials regulations. As a result of this revision, the DOT 
and FAA are now instructing any airline that is considered a `Will Not 
Carry' airline to avoid carrying ALL Diagnostic Specimens.
    ``Airline routing changes and service discontinuation, partly due 
to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, have resulted in an 
increasing number of areas now served almost exclusively by `Will Not 
Carry' regional airlines. Under the new regulations, these airlines can 
no longer carry shipments they had previously been allowed to carry. 
Delays in diagnostic testing for patients in those areas have the 
potential to prolong patient management and hospital stays. This will 
increase medical costs, and could affect as many as 6,000 patients per 
day receiving results from ARUP Laboratories alone. Other laboratories 
may have similar issues.
    ``The DOT offers an exemption for specimens that are not considered 
infectious in DOT 49 CFR 173.134(b)(2). This exemption is not clearly 
defined, nor are there any specific instructions for the shipping of 
these specimens. If we assume, as we have been told, that this 
exemption creates a new unregulated category, i.e. medical specimen, 
there is no assurance airlines will recognize such an unregulated term. 
Because personnel training is a requirement of the regulations, it is, 
at present, unclear what terminology will be recognized for this 
category of unregulated specimens. Efforts to quickly and effectively 
revise existing medical specimen training programs will be further 
impeded until these concerns are resolved.
    ``In excess of 80 percent of clinical data is represented by 
laboratory results. The specimens from which 5 to 10 percent of this 
clinical data is derived are shipped between requesting and testing 
locations within the United States that may be affected by these 
regulatory changes. Lack of consistency between regulatory agencies, 
the transportation industry, and health care entities (as shippers) 
potentially create unnecessary liability and may compromise patient 
care.
    ``In conclusion, it is noteworthy that the laboratory industry for 
many years has been a leader in developing safe handling practices to 
deal with the fact that every single medical specimen is a potentially 
hazardous material. The industry as a whole has a remarkable and 
enviable safety record in the transportation of medical specimens.''

    Is it the intent of DOT regulations to limit the transport of 
diagnostic specimens by ``will-not-carry'' airlines?
    Answer. No, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Hazardous 
Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR Parts 171-180) establish safety and 
security requirements for the commercial transportation of hazardous 
materials by all modes. The regulations are not intended to limit the 
transportation of hazardous materials by certain types of carriers; 
rather the regulations set forth the safety and security requirements 
that must be met by shippers and carriers who choose to transport 
hazardous materials.
    The decision not to carry one or more types of hazardous materials 
rests with individual carriers, not DOT. Since economic deregulation, 
air carriers have been able to accept or reject hazardous materials. 
Air carriers making a business decision to accept hazardous materials 
are called ``will-carry'' air carriers and those deciding not to accept 
hazardous materials are called ``will-not-carry'' air carriers. These 
business decisions are influenced by factors such as insurance rates 
and anticipated hazmat package volumes. Once an air carrier makes this 
decision, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reviews its hazmat 
training program. Employees of will-carry air carriers are trained to 
recognize and accept hazardous materials while employees of will-not-
carry air carriers are trained to recognize and reject hazmat. Although 
air carriers can change their will/will-not-carry status, the initial 
acceptance procedures applied by their employees is crucial and affects 
subsequent operational decisions.
    Under the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR), infectious 
substances are classed as Division 6.2 materials. An infectious 
substance is a material known to contain or suspected of containing a 
pathogen, which is a virus or microorganism that has the potential to 
cause disease in humans or animals. Infectious substances must be 
packaged, marked, and labeled in accordance with applicable regulatory 
requirements; further, shipments of infectious substances must be 
accompanied by a shipping paper and by appropriate emergency response 
information. Employees of shippers or carriers who handle infectious 
substances must be trained in the regulatory requirements that apply to 
these materials.
    Under the HMR, a diagnostic specimen is defined as human or animal 
material that is being transported for diagnostic or investigational 
purposes. A diagnostic specimen that, in the judgment of a medical 
professional, is known to contain or suspected to contain an infectious 
substance is regulated as a hazardous material under the HMR. However, 
the requirements applicable to the transportation of diagnostic 
specimens are less stringent than those for other types of infectious 
substances. For example, shipments of diagnostic specimens need not be 
accompanied by shipping papers or emergency response information, and 
the required training for hazmat employees is less rigorous than for 
other types of infectious substances.
    Under the HMR, a diagnostic specimen that, in the judgment of a 
medical professional, is not likely to contain an infectious substance 
is not regulated as a hazardous material and may be transported by a 
``will-not-carry'' air carrier without limitation. Thus, no packaging, 
shipping documentation, marking or labeling, or training requirements 
would apply.
    Because the HMR exempts diagnostic specimens that do not contain 
infectious substances from all regulatory requirements, many packages 
identified as containing diagnostic specimens may not actually contain 
infectious substances and, thus, could be transported by will-not-carry 
air carriers. DOT is working with the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention and the International Civil Aviation Organization to 
consider whether a unique shipping name is necessary to distinguish 
infectious diagnostic specimens from non-infectious diagnostic 
specimens.
    Question. Has DOT done any analysis with regard to the impact of 
this regulation on States such as Utah and the Intermountain West that 
rely on regional air carriers to transport diagnostic specimens?
    Answer. No, DOT has not analyzed the impact of the regulations on 
States that rely on regional air carriers to transport diagnostic 
specimens. The decision to provide or not provide hazardous materials 
transportation service on a particular air route is a business decision 
of the air carrier. The regulations governing the transportation of 
infectious substances, including diagnostic specimens, were most 
recently revised and updated in a final rule that became effective on 
February 14, 2003. The regulatory evaluation developed in support of 
that rulemaking examined the costs of several regulatory alternatives 
on shippers and carriers of diagnostic specimens and the benefits that 
would be expected to accrue from each regulatory alternative on the 
Nation as a whole.
    Representatives from the FAA have met with the Regional Airline 
Association and the Air Transport Association of America concerning the 
transport of diagnostic specimens to discuss various alternatives. One 
alternative would be for the will-not-carry air carrier to contact 
their diagnostic specimen shipping firms to determine if the packages 
being offered actually contain infectious substance. If the packages do 
not contain infectious substances, will-not-carry airlines would be 
able to accept and transport them.
    Question. What is the typical cost for a regional airline to 
provide training to its employees to qualify to handle ``infectious 
substances''?
    Answer. DOT does not collect nor require regional airlines to 
provide data on costs to qualify employees to handle infectious 
substances.
    The training requirements in the Hazardous Materials Regulations 
(HMR) are flexible performance standards that permit employers that 
assign employees to perform functions regulated by the HMR to meet the 
training requirements using a variety of methods, such as by utilizing 
classroom training, computer- or web-based training, on-the-job 
training, or some combination of these and other training methods. The 
training must include general awareness training that provides 
familiarity with the requirements of the HMR; function-specific 
training that provides an understanding of the requirements of the HMR 
applicable to the specific job each employee performs; safety training 
that provides information on responding to emergency, personal 
protection, and methods for avoiding accidents; and security awareness 
training that familiarizes the employee with the security risks 
associated with hazardous materials transportation. Training costs for 
an individual carrier will vary based on the number of people it 
employs whose job responsibilities directly affect the safety of 
hazardous materials in transportation and the training methods it 
elects to utilize.
    In addition, in accordance with FAA airworthiness requirements, all 
air carriers must provide hazmat training. Will-not-carry air carriers 
must provide some hazmat training to their employees on such topics as 
labeling, marking and general awareness so they can recognize hazmat. A 
rough estimate for a will-not-carry air carrier to provide initial 
training would be $320 per applicable employee. In addition, annual 
recurrent hazmat training for will-not-carry air carriers would be 
approximately $160 per applicable employee. These estimates include the 
cost of the employee's salary while in training. A rough estimate for 
will-carry air carrier initial training would be an additional $880 
(for a total of $1,200) per applicable employee. Annual recurrent 
hazmat training for will-carry air carriers would be an additional $160 
(for a total of $320) per applicable employee.
    Question. What can DOT do to provide these regional/national 
clinical laboratories with regulatory relief so that they can move 
their specimens more efficiently?
    Answer. The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) provide 
significant regulatory exceptions applicable to the transportation of 
diagnostic specimens. A diagnostic specimen that, in the judgment of a 
medical professional, is not likely to contain an infectious substance 
is not regulated as a hazardous material and, therefore, is not subject 
to any regulatory requirements. A diagnostic specimen that, in the 
judgment of a medical professional, contains or is suspected to contain 
an infectious substance is subject to minimal packaging and hazard 
communication requirements, but is not regulated as stringently as 
other types of infectious substances.
    For example, an infectious substance generally must be transported 
in a packaging that has been tested and certified to meet specific 
performance standards. A diagnostic specimen may be transported in a 
less stringent, and therefore less expensive, type of packaging. A 
package containing an infectious substance generally must be marked 
with the United Nations identification number and proper shipping name 
of the material and must be labeled with a Division 6.2 label and must 
be accompanied by a shipping paper and emergency response information. 
A package containing a diagnostic specimen must be marked only with the 
words ``Diagnostic Specimen'' and need not be accompanied by a shipping 
paper or emergency response information. Further, persons who ship or 
transport diagnostic specimen are exempt from the training requirements 
of the HMR; instead employees of such shippers and carriers must be 
informed about the requirements applicable to the transportation of 
diagnostic specimens.
    In addition, in December, 2003, the FAA corresponded with the Air 
Transport Association and the Regional Airline Association suggesting 
that will-not carriers may wish to contact shippers individually. As a 
result, one regional will-not-carry air carrier serving Utah and the 
Intermountain West, SkyWest, has developed a ``shipper's confirmation 
of non-infectious substance form'' that is acceptable to the FAA. The 
form is available on the SkyWest website. In addition, it would be 
acceptable for those offering non-infectious diagnostic specimens to 
simply mark their packages as NOT containing hazardous material. In 
fact the ARUP Laboratories, a large shipper of medical specimens in 
Utah, indicates on their website that it will mark its packages 
``Medical Specimens, non HMR.'' This would also be sufficient to allow 
will-not-carry air carriers to transport the ARUP non-infectious 
packages and is acceptable to the FAA.
    Question. What was the impetus for DOT's revision of the 
regulations on February 14, 2003, incorporating a definition for 
Diagnostic Specimens into hazardous material regulations?
    Answer. DOT's adoption of the regulations for transporting 
infectious substances, including diagnostic specimens, that became 
effective February 14, 2003, was primarily intended to harmonize the 
Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) with international standards 
applicable to such transportation.
    Generally, to facilitate the safe and efficient transportation of 
infectious substances, the HMR permit shipments to be transported under 
provisions of the Technical Instructions for the Safe Transportation of 
Dangerous Goods by Air (Technical Instructions) issued by the 
International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the International 
Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (IMDG Code) issued by the International 
Maritime Organization (IMO), and the Transportation of Dangerous Goods 
Regulations (TDG) issued by Transport Canada, as appropriate. Prior to 
our adoption of the new requirements, however, the HMR did not provide 
for the level of safety achieved by the ICAO Technical Instructions or 
the IMDG Code. Moreover, the HMR at that time included a complete 
exception from all requirements for shipments of diagnostic specimens, 
even those that contained extremely hazardous infectious substances.
    Harmonization of the HMR with the international standards has 
several important benefits. Carriers are able to train their hazmat 
employees in a single set of requirements for the classification, 
packaging, communication of hazards, handling, stowage, and the like, 
thereby minimizing the possibility for improperly transporting a 
shipment of infectious substances because of differences in national 
regulations. Similarly, many shippers find that consistency in 
regulations for the transportation of infectious substances aids their 
understanding of what is required, thereby permitting them to more 
easily comply with these safety regulations when shipping hazardous 
materials to many different countries. Uniformity of national and 
international hazardous materials transportation regulations is 
critical to safety and trade facilitation of hazardous materials 
transportation. Consistency between United States and international 
regulations enhances the safety of international hazardous materials 
transportation through better understanding of the regulations, an 
increased level of industry compliance, the smooth flow of hazardous 
materials from their points of origin to their points of destination, 
and consistent emergency response in the event of a hazardous materials 
incident.
    Question. How would DOT respond to the suggestion of a moratorium 
on the enforcement of the regulations regarding the classification of 
Diagnostic Specimens until such time as a study can be made to assess 
the impact of the regulations on patients, health care, and medical 
practice within the United States and the risks of allowing ``Will-Not-
Carry'' airlines to carry Diagnostic Specimens?
    Answer. DOT strongly opposes an enforcement moratorium applicable 
to the transportation of diagnostic specimens. Surveillance and 
enforcement must reflect the underlying safety requirements.
    A diagnostic specimen known or suspected to contain an infectious 
substance poses a safety, health, and security risk in transportation 
that must be addressed. Diagnostic specimens that contain infectious 
agents such as the HIV or SARS viruses are routinely transported by air 
both domestically and internationally. The regulations governing such 
transportation in the HMR and in international standards protect 
transport workers and the general public from possible exposure to such 
infectious agents. The regulations applicable to the transportation of 
diagnostic specimens were developed through a process that balances 
their potential costs and other impacts with their benefits. The 
packaging and hazard communication requirements minimize the 
possibility that a transport worker or other individual will be exposed 
to an infectious agent and enhance the ability of carriers and 
emergency response personnel to effectively respond to an accident 
involving an infectious agent.
    Question. Would DOT consider the addition of laboratory health care 
professionals to groups studying and promulgating new regulations 
affecting the transport of laboratory specimens?
    Answer. DOT welcomes the participation of laboratory health care or 
other medical professionals as we consider proposals for revising the 
current regulatory requirements applicable to the transportation of 
diagnostic specimens and other types of infectious substances.
    Prior to the adoption of the February 14, 2003 regulations, the 
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) met with laboratory professionals 
and carefully considered their comments and concerns as we developed 
the final regulations. In addition, the American Clinical Laboratory 
Association, the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the 
American Biological Safety Association were among dozens of 
organizations and individuals who offered comments to the rulemaking 
docket on this issue. The international standards applicable to the 
transportation of infectious substances were recently revised. DOT is 
currently considering revisions to the HMR to harmonize our domestic 
requirements with the most recent international revisions. FAA is 
working with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Food 
and Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and other 
national agencies responsible for public health issues.
    In October 2003, FAA hosted a public meeting specifically to 
discuss issues related to the air transportation of diagnostic 
specimens and other infectious substances. In June 2004, the FAA is 
hosting a second meeting to discuss revisions to the international 
transportation standards, including revisions that should help make it 
easier for air carriers to distinguish between diagnostic specimens 
that are regulated for purposes of transportation and diagnostic 
specimens that are exempt from such regulation.

                                 ______
                                 
            Questions Submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin

                                 AMTRAK

    Question. Why did the administration only include $900 million for 
Amtrak in the fiscal year 2005 budget when this level of funding will 
send the company into insolvency?
    Answer. The administration believes that the Federal role in 
intercity passenger rail service needs significant change. While the 
administration supports intercity passenger rail service as a component 
of this Nation's system of passenger mobility, we are not willing to 
commit increasing amounts of limited discretionary funds available for 
transportation investment on a business model that does not work. 
However, the administration is prepared to support higher levels of 
funding for a reformed system of intercity passenger rail service. The 
administration expects that if Amtrak were to receive $900 million, the 
corporation could remain solvent through fiscal year 2005 while 
Congress enacted intercity passenger rail reform legislation, through 
deferral of capital investments, reductions in overhead and, perhaps, 
some cuts in services.
    Question. Does the administration support reauthorization of 
Amtrak? Or would the administration rather break the intercity 
passenger railroad up and privatize operations?
    Answer. The administration's legislative proposal, the Passenger 
Rail Investment Reform Act, outlines a third course of action. The 
administration believes that intercity passenger rail service should 
exist where the States, as the driving force behind surface 
transportation planning, determine that service is an important 
component of an intermodal plan for passenger mobility and thus worthy 
of investment. The States would competitively select operators for 
those services the States deem are important enough to warrant public 
support from among qualified firms, perhaps including a restructured 
Amtrak. While these operators would be private sector companies, they 
would receive operating support from the State(s) and capital 
investment from the States and Federal Government.

                            AVIATION DELAYS

    Question. How do you expect to proceed on addressing aviation 
congestion and flight delays at Chicago O'Hare International Airport in 
addition to the temporary, voluntary flight reductions during peak 
hours? When will data on the flight reductions be available?
    Answer. This administration is committed to addressing aviation 
congestion in both the short- and long-term by working with the 
carriers and local authorities. In Vision 100 (Public Law 108-176), 
Congress gave the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) a number of new 
tools to use when demand exceeds capacity at an airport. Under Section 
422, the FAA can schedule Delay Reduction Meetings; under Section 423, 
the FAA can engage in Collaborative Decision Making. In addition, the 
Administrator retains her authority to issue orders that concern the 
safety or efficiency of the airspace. While these are all short-term 
methods, FAA's long-term goal to address congestion nationwide will be 
accomplished by gaining additional capacity at the Nation's airports. 
FAA will continue to monitor delays and will adjust approaches to air 
traffic delays as needed during the busy summer flying season. Complete 
data on the effectiveness of the actions taken so far at O'Hare and 
possible future actions to reduce delays will not be available until 
after the busy summer flying season.

                      LEVERAGED LEASE TRANSACTIONS

    Question. As you know Mr. Secretary, at the request of the U.S. 
Treasury Department, the Federal Transportation Administration (FTA) 
formally suspended its practice of reviewing and approving proposals 
for leveraged lease transactions involving public transit assets. FTA's 
decision to immediately comply with Treasury's request and suspend 
consideration of the 15 pending transactions could have sizable budget 
implications for the entities that submitted those transactions and 
who, up until that time, had every reason to believe that FTA would 
proceed to review and approve those transactions in the same manner it 
has done for years. Each of these entities likely incurred significant 
costs in negotiating the leases, and had a reasonable expectation of 
realizing substantial revenue from them following FTA approval. What is 
the FTA's plan to reconsider its decision to suspend pending leveraged 
lease transactions absent further action by Congress on this issue?
    Answer. The Department was informed by the Chairman of the Senate 
Finance Committee in November 2003, that his committee was conducting 
an investigation of abusive tax shelters involving subway systems and 
other assets funded with taxpayer dollars and asked for our cooperation 
in the investigation. Also in November 2003, the Department received a 
direct request from the Treasury Department that the Federal Transit 
Administration suspend its review and approval of tax-advantaged lease 
transactions because of concerns about whether the asserted tax 
benefits are allowable.
    FTA notified the transit agencies whose assets would be involved in 
the leasing transactions that reviews would be suspended until the 
Department of Treasury completed its review of these and similar 
transactions. Should the Treasury Department complete its review and 
any rulemaking regarding these leasing transactions, FTA would then act 
in accordance with the resulting instructions from the Treasury 
Department.

                                 ______
                                 
             Questions Submitted by Senator Byron L. Dorgan

                     ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE FUNDING

    Question. I am very upset that the administration continually tries 
to cut back this program which is so important for rural America. Last 
year, for fiscal year 2004, President Bush proposed only $50 million 
for EAS, but we in Congress fought hard to maintain funding, and funded 
EAS at $102 million. This year, even though the FAA reauthorization 
bill allows up to $115 million for the basic program, plus another $12 
million for pilot projects, the administration once again only funds 
EAS at $50 million. Could you tell me why the administration is not 
following Congress' mandate in the FAA reauthorization bill?
    Answer. The administration believes that the EAS program must be 
reformed or the costs will escalate out of control. As more and more 
regional carriers upsize their fleets to larger turboprops or even 
regional jets, it will leave more communities reliant upon subsidized 
EAS. In addition, as the spread of low-fare carriers continues, more 
local communities will be unable to support their local airport's 
service as passengers are willing to drive for a larger part of their 
journeys in order to take advantage of nearby, low-fare jet service. 
EAS service of two or three round trips a day cannot compete with low-
fare jet service, and more and more communities are falling into this 
situation. For example, just a few years ago, Utica, New York generated 
about 24,000 passengers a year, and was served profitably without EAS 
subsidy. Shortly after Southwest inaugurated service at Albany and 
JetBlue at Syracuse (less than 50 miles away), annual, passenger levels 
fell to 3,500 and we were paying well over $1,000,000 in EAS subsidy in 
an attempt to compete with the low-fare, jet service nearby. This 
example illustrates why we need EAS reforms.

                   ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE COST-SHARING

    Question. I was also disappointed that the President seeks to 
require all communities receiving EAS funds to provide non-Federal 
matching funds. Communities fewer than 100 highway miles from a large 
or medium hub airport, 75 miles from a small hub airport, or 50 highway 
miles from a non-hub airport with jet service would have to contribute 
not less than 50 percent and would only be eligible for surface 
transportation subsidies. Communities in North Dakota that participate 
in EAS, such as Devils Lake, Jamestown and Dickinson-Williston, are 
more than 210 highway miles from a medium or large hub airport, and 
will have to provide 10 percent, and all others will have to provide 
not less than 25 percent. This is patently unfair and goes against the 
purpose of the EAS program to promote and protect air service to rural 
areas, and I will fight hard to prevent the President's plan from 
taking effect. Given that Congress explicitly rejected such a harsh 
cost-sharing requirement in the FAA reauthorization process last year, 
why would the administration propose it now after the reauthorization 
bill has passed? Isn't this patently unfair to rural America?
    Answer. Requiring a modest contribution would encourage civic 
officials and business leaders at the local and State levels to 
evaluate the need for the EAS program, given other local funding 
priorities, and, as stakeholders in their service, the communities will 
become key architects in designing their specific transportation 
package based on their need and requirements.

                      AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL TRAINING

    Question. According to the GAO, the FAA will likely need to hire 
thousands of air traffic controllers in the next decade to meet 
increasing traffic demands and to address the anticipated attrition of 
experienced controllers, predominately because of retirement. The GAO 
raised the point that ``the FAA's process of hiring replacements only 
after a current controller leaves does not adequately take into 
consideration the time it takes to train a replacement to become a 
fully certified controller--up to 5 years, which might result in gaps 
of coverage or increased overtime.'' To address this problem, I 
attached an amendment to expressly authorize the FAA to spend such sums 
as may be necessary to carry out and expand the Collegiate Training 
Initiative. As you may know, one of those schools participating is the 
John D. Odegard School of Aerospace Sciences at UND. Knowing this, what 
efforts are being taken at the FAA to address this problem? Would you 
support efforts to add funding for this initiative?
    Answer. Currently, the FAA has no plans to expand the Air Traffic 
Collegiate Training Initiative (AT-CTI) beyond the 13 colleges and 
universities. The AT-CTI candidate pool is fairly large and growing 
(about 361 waiting to be hired). The number of controllers to be hired 
in fiscal year 2004 and beyond is being evaluated. There has been no 
controller hiring since October 2003. We are reluctant to add 
additional colleges until the hiring picture is clearer and the need 
for additional training resources is better quantified.
    If the AT-CTI pool grows too large, FAA runs the risk of not being 
able to hire a significant enough percentage of graduates to make the 
program worthwhile to the colleges. Colleges market this program to 
their students and we maintain a balance between having enough 
candidates and not overstating our ability to hire them. Colleges can 
withdraw at any time; they are not obligated to the FAA.
    The FAA reauthorization bill Vision 100--Century of Aviation 
Reauthorization Act, Public Law 108-176, allows for AT-CTI expansion if 
necessary. However, the Departments of Transportation and Treasury and 
Independent Agencies fiscal year 2004 House Appropriations Report 108-
243 specifically directs FAA not to expand the AT-CTI program. It 
states, ``While the Committee does not oppose continuation of the Air 
Traffic Control Collegiate Training Initiative, the Committee does not 
believe it should be expanded, and directs the FAA not to expand these 
programs.''

                                 AMTRAK

    Question. I was disappointed that the administration has again 
proposed only $900 million for Amtrak this year. I am particularly 
concerned about the impact of any cuts to Amtrak on long distance 
trains, such as the Empire Builder. If enacted, what impact do you 
think your budget request would have on long distance train service?
    Answer. The administration believes that the Federal role in 
intercity passenger rail service needs significant change. While the 
administration supports intercity passenger rail service as a component 
of this Nation's system of passenger mobility, we are not willing to 
commit increasing amounts of limited discretionary funds available for 
transportation investment on a business model that does not work. 
However, the administration is prepared to support higher levels of 
funding for a reformed system of intercity passenger rail service. The 
administration expects that if Amtrak were to receive $900 million, the 
corporation could remain solvent through fiscal year 2005 while 
Congress enacted intercity passenger rail reform legislation, through 
deferral of capital investments, reductions in overhead and, perhaps, 
some cuts in services. Amtrak would determine how to best operate with 
available resources. Therefore, I would prefer not to speculate which, 
if any, route or service type would be impacted in the short-term by 
the administration's budget request of $900 million for Amtrak.

                          SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

    Senator Shelby. Mr. Secretary, I thank you for your 
appearance. As usual, you bring a lot to the table and a past 
friendship too.
    Secretary Mineta. Thank you very much.
    Senator Shelby. This concludes our hearing.
    [Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 9, the 
subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene subject to the call of 
the Chair.]
