[Senate Report 106-309]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 596
106th Congress Report
SENATE
2d Session 106-309
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2001
_______
June 14, 2000.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Shelby, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 2720]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 2720)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001,
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2001
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $15,295,400,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2001........................ 16,146,737,000
Fiscal year 2000 enacted................................ 14,429,976,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Page
Total obligational authority..................................... 5
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Immediate Office of the Secretary................................ 10
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary......................... 11
Office of the General Counsel.................................... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..................... 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs........................................................ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs........ 12
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs....... 13
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration............. 13
Office of Public Affairs......................................... 14
Executive Secretariat............................................ 14
Board of Contract Appeals........................................ 14
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........... 14
Office of Intelligence and Security.............................. 15
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................... 15
Office of Intermodalism.......................................... 15
Office of Civil Rights........................................... 15
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 16
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 17
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund......... 18
Rental Payments.................................................. 21
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 23
Minority business outreach....................................... 23
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................... 29
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 36
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 41
Alteration of bridges............................................ 42
Retired pay...................................................... 43
Reserve training................................................. 43
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 44
Boat safety...................................................... 45
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations....................................................... 48
Facilities and equipment......................................... 57
Research, engineering, and development........................... 77
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 80
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses............................ 90
Federal-aid highways............................................. 92
Limitation on Transportation Research............................ 101
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System................ 107
Magnetic levitation transportation............................... 108
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.............................. 109
Liquidation of Contract Authorization............................ 110
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor carrier safety: Limitation on administrative expense....... 111
National motor carrier safety program............................ 114
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research.......................................... 116
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 123
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations............................................ 125
Railroad research and development................................ 127
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program........ 128
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 129
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 131
West Virginia Rail Development................................... 132
Rhode Island rail development.................................... 132
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)....................................................... 132
Amtrak Reform Council............................................ 135
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project....................... 136
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund................... 136
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses.......................................... 138
Formula grants................................................... 142
University transportation research............................... 144
Transit planning and research.................................... 145
Trust fund share of expenses..................................... 147
Capital investment grants........................................ 147
Discretionary Grants............................................. 162
Job access and reverse commute grants............................ 162
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance....................................... 164
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................................... 165
Pipeline safety.................................................. 169
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 172
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................ 173
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................................ 175
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 177
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 177
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 179
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 182
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 182
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 183
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 187
Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds
In addition to the appropriation of $15,295,400,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2001, large amounts of
contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits
for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The
principal items in this category are the trust funded programs
for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport
development grants. For fiscal year 2001, estimated obligation
limitations total $38,432,600,000.
program, project, and activity
During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions
providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or
accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory
statements of the committee of conference. This definition
shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational)
authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and
discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or
report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made
pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for
facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and
for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard,
shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed
under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified
by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee
reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of
the committee of conference.
transportation equity act for the 21st century
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the
previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and
highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May
22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which
the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law,
most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is,
they are available for obligation without appropriation. The
role of the appropriations process with respect to contract
authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations
so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated
targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the
outlays associated with obligations that have been made.
The Congress recently enacted, and the President signed,
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century, providing the most recent statement of aviation
policy and priorities for fiscal year 2001. The Committee
recommendation, within budgetary realities, attempts to honor
the thrust of the priorities articulated in that legislation.
the government performance and results act
The Government Performance and Results Act [Results Act]
requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual
performance plans and reports. The Department's first multiyear
strategic plan was submitted September 30, 1997. The second
strategic plan will be submitted in September 2000. The
Committee is fully committed to support the Department as it
seeks to implement the requirements of the Results Act.
The Committee commends the Department for its aggressive
implementation of the Results Act.
The combined fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan and fiscal
year 1999 Report was delivered to Congress on schedule March
31, 2000. In the fiscal year 2001 Performance Plan, performance
measures have been identified for all of the Department's major
programs. All of these goals are stated in terms of effects on
the American public, and many reflect ambitious target levels
of performance. The treatment of management challenges
identified by the Inspector General and the General Accounting
Office has been changed to make it clearer how they contribute
to achieving the Department's outcome goals. For most of the
management challenges, specific milestones leading to
resolution have also been included.
The 1999 Performance Report included either final or
preliminary data for over 90 percent of the measures in the
1999 Performance Plan. The Department either met or had a
positive trend for approximately 77 percent of its 1999 goals.
For the five goals missed by a significant amount, the
Department is reviewing its strategies to see if they need to
be changed.
Generally, the goals focus on several of the most important
challenges facing the Department of Transportation. One of the
weaknesses cited by the GAO in its earlier review of the
Department's performance plan was the lack of a consistent link
of the performance goals to the strategic outcomes and the lack
of consistent inclusion of goals and measures for addressing
the management challenges facing the department. That
deficiency has in substantial part been addressed in the 2001
Performance Plan. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) has
repeatedly identified the lack of accountability for financial
activities as a key challenge for the DOT. It remains too early
to tell whether the Department's recognition of this continuing
deficiency has been adequately addressed.
Many of the challenges identified by the GAO and the OIG
are long-standing and will require sustained attention by DOT
and the Congress, but the plan's goals and measures are
objective, quantifiable, and measurable. For all except a few
performance goals, the Department's plan describes target
levels of performance in both annual and multi-year terms. The
Committee has suggested some presentation and reporting
modifications that would improve the clarity and usefulness of
the plan as a management and oversight tool and will watch with
interest as those suggestions are considered by the Department.
The specificity and aggressiveness of activity goals and
measures vary depending on the likelihood of meeting the
relevant challenge. Almost invariably, the goals and measures
move the department toward qualitative or quantitative
improvement in the safety and performance activities generally
considered to be the primary Federal issues relating to
transportation. However, the full value of the plan formulation
process will be realized when it is used as a critical
evaluation tool for gauging the effectiveness of departmental
programs and initiatives for improving performance measures.
That evaluation dynamic has been elusive to date and,
accordingly, the overall potential of the GPRA exercise has yet
to be substantially realized.
Another concern might be the scattershot approach to some
goals as evidenced by the myriad activities to address a
specific challenge, i.e., the identified high-risk information
technology initiative for the FAA's air traffic control
modernization program. The DOT plan could be significantly
improved in this specific area by consistently including goals
and measures for addressing endemic, long-term problems facing
the department in the procurement, information technology, and
financial management arenas.
The plan notes the obvious cross cutting activities at
other Federal agencies, but the subcommittee believes that
cross-cutting issues present an area ripe for efficiencies or
for goal specialization. For example, the plan states that both
FAA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration have
similar performance goals in the area of aviation fatalities.
Another danger of plans built with substantial cross agency
participation and support is that, unless the additional
agencies share the Department's enthusiasm for the program
(i.e., NDGPS, AVTP), the Department may quickly find itself the
single parent of a very resource demanding program in its
infancy. Greater coordination and reconciling of plans and
budget submissions should help foster cross departmental
initiatives.
However, a continuing challenge for the Department is
maintaining the unqualified financial opinion the Department
received for the first time in 1999. The DOT financial
management weaknesses at the FAA contribute significantly to
this problem. The FAA lacks a cost accounting system or an
alternative system for reporting project and activity costs.
This deficiency generally makes it questionable whether the
Department can adequately link costs factors with performance
measures in any area of financial, procurement, or cost
effectiveness.
The Department notes that they are pursuing cost accounting
improvements, but the subcommittee is concerned that any real
improvement in this risk area is at least 2 years off. In
addition, the plan acknowledges identified concerns about
limitations and expresses a willingness and intent to remedy
shortcomings--however, on an anecdotal basis, it is difficult
to identify actions taken toward those ends.
The Department continues to have substantial problems in
two major risk areas: significant cost overruns, schedule
delays and performance shortfalls experienced by the air
traffic control modernization program and serious financial
management weaknesses at the FAA. These problems have been
documented and identified by the OIG, the GAO, the Department
and the Congress and solutions have been suggested. Although
some actions have been taken to address these recommendations,
major performance and management challenges persist. These high
risk areas are not new to the agencies or the Department.
Solutions have been elusive, but the subcommittee has no reason
to question the Department's commitment to finding long term
solutions for any of the GAO or IG identified problems.
Clearly, the Department has made major strides with its
performance plan, but that plan has yet to penetrate the day-
to-day operations of the Department, the modal administrations,
or the procurement or personnel processes. In short, the plans
are very useful documents for determining how the Department
views the relative and absolute importance of its disparate
goals and a valuable gauge of whether the Departmental
leadership is serious about remedying identified deficiencies
or inconsistencies in programs, activities, management, or
direction.
defense activities
For a number of years, the Transportation allocation has
included a defense allocation for national securities of the
Coast Guard in addition to general discretionary resources.
This split support for the Transportation function recognizes
the interrelated nature of the Coast Guard's multiple mission
strategy. In addition, there are a number of other accounts in
the Department that have significant defense aspects to their
primary and secondary missions and the nature of many of the
Department of Transportation programs builds upon, or shares
common elements with Department of Defense missions. For
example, the Department of Defense GPS (Global Positioning
System), that the Department of Defense has spent over
$9,000,000,000 for direct procurement and as much as
$19,000,000,000 for the entire program, is the backbone for
several Department of Transportation modernization programs and
new initiatives. Where possible, the Department should strive
to coordinate with the Department of Defense to maximize the
areas of mutual cooperation, procurement leverage, and program
focus.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $60,852,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 69,186,000
Committee recommendation................................ 57,469,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $1,355,000 for TASC pursuant to
section 319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect $500,000
provided to this account and transferred to EPA pursuant to section 365
of Public Law 106-69.
Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of
October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89-670) provides for establishment
of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The
Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the
Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General
Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for
transportation policy, aviation and international affairs,
budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration.
These secretarial offices have policy development and central
supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall
planning and direction of the Department of Transportation,
including staff assistance and general management supervision
of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of
the Department.
The budget proposes a consolidated appropriation for the
offices funded by this account. The Committee has not approved
the consolidated appropriations request for the various offices
within the Office of the Secretary and has continued to provide
appropriations for each office within the Office of the
Secretary.
The Committee recommends a total of $57,469,000 for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $60,000 for
reception and representation expenses.
Staffing levels.--The Committee notes the current level of
vacancies in the Office of Secretary and recognizing the
traditional and natural attrition that accompanies a change of
administration, the Committee recommendation adjusts the
appropriations for salaries and expenses downward to reflect
the current staffing levels less a portion of the anticipated
turnover. This adjustment is made without prejudice and will be
reviewed during the course of the fiscal year 2001
appropriations process and, if necessary, during consideration
of subsequent fiscal year 2001 supplemental appropriations
vehicles.
General Provisions
Limitation on Political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee recommendation includes a provision (sec. 305)
similar to those carried in previous Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which
limits the number of political and Presidental appointees
funded by this act within the Department of Transportation. The
ceiling for fiscal year 2001 is 104 personnel, which is the
same level enacted in fiscal year 2000 adjusted for the new
political appointees envisioned in the new Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration created in fiscal year 2000 by
Congress. Further, the bill specifies that no political or
presidential appointee may be detailed outside the Department
of Transportation or any other agency funded in this bill.
Discretionary Grants.--The Committee continues to be
concerned by the Department's oversight and review of the modal
administrations discretionary grants, letters of intent, or
full funding grant agreements. The Department is directed to
comply with the letter, the spirit, and the intent of the 3-day
notification language included in the bill (sec. 333) which has
been carried in previous Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations Acts with respect to all
discretionary grants totaling $1,000,000 or more of the Federal
Highway Administration (excluding the emergency relief
program), any program of the Federal Transit Administration
(excluding the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization
programs), and the airport improvement program of the Federal
Aviation Administration. Further, no notification or
announcement should involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Additionally, the Committee is gravely concerned with the
Department's management of the discretionary highway program.
On more than one occasion, the Department has instituted major
initiatives that deviate from the legislative history without
keeping Congress adequately informed. Even more troublesome,
the Department has left no stone unturned in its search for
loopholes that would justify its actions. The Committee reminds
the Department that Executive Branch propensities cannot
substitute for Congress' own statements concerning the best
evidence of Congressional intentions, that is, the official
reports of the Congress. The Office of the Secretary is
directed to submit a report to the Committee by July 1, 2000
that explains how the department will handle such situations in
the future.
Immediate Office of the Secretary
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,867,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (2,031,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 1,800,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and
control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,800,000 consistent with the general
guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $600,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (587,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 500,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the
primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the
overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee
has recommended a total of $500,000 for the Immediate Office of
the Deputy Secretary consistent with the general guidance
provided for the Office of the Secretary.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (11,172,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 9,000,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services
to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the
legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating
administrations. The General Counsel is the chief legal officer
of the Department of Transportation and the final authority
within the Department on all legal questions.
The Committee recommends $9,000,000, the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 2000 for the Office of the General
Counsel, consistent with the general guidance provided for the
Office of the Secretary.
Aviation competition guidelines.--When Congress passed the
Airline Deregulation Act, it decided that the marketplace, and
not regulators, should set airline prices and schedules. That
landmark action has generated enormous benefits for the air
traveling public. However, the Subcommittee on Transportation
Appropriations has been very concerned about barriers to entry
and the health of airline competition which may distort the
competitive landscape. The Subcommittee has held a number of
hearings over the past 3 years and remains convinced that it is
critically important to have a free and competitive market that
provides a framework for competition and permits entry into the
aviation marketplace for new service, low cost competition, and
boutique services. Where robust competition exists, consumers
benefit; where significant market power exists (and is
exercised), consumers pay the oligopolistic premium. While it
should be clear that there is no prospect of support from the
Committee to reregulate the airline industry, it should also be
clear that airline competition is an area of substantial
Congressional interest and attention.
The Committee in the past has suggested that the Department
consider a process in which the Department, upon receiving a
complaint, would refer such alleged activity to the Department
of Justice for further action to determine if it constitutes a
permissible competitive action. This would provide greater
certainty to the airlines as to what constitutes anti-
competitive activity. Such communications between the
Department of Transportation and the Department of Justice
could include patterns of behavior or the omission of
consistent behavior as it relates to potential competitive
services from market participants with varying degrees of
market power. The Committee believes that the staffing
resources provided in the Committee's recommendation are
sufficient for such advisory or referral activity on the part
of the Department of Transportation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,824,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (3,131,500)
Committee recommendation................................ 2,500,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the primary policy
officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary
for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies
and plans for domestic transportation. For fiscal year 2001,
the Committee recommends $2,500,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Policy consistent with the general
guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $7,650,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (7,702,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 7,000,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs is responsible for administering the economic
regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and
provides departmental leadership and coordination on
international transportation policy issues relating to
maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation
programs. As overseer of airline economic regulation, the
Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation
programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness
and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and
special investigations such as airline delays and computer
reservations systems (CRS). For fiscal year 2001, the Committee
recommends $7,000,000 for the Assistant Secretary for Aviation
and International Affairs consistent with the general guidance
provided for the Office of the Secretary.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $6,870,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (7,241,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 6,500,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development,
review, presentation, and execution of the Department's budget
resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of
the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this
office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation
of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to
ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution
with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of
Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for
consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to
advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes
necessary to improve program effectiveness.
The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report
monthly on the status of all outstanding report and reporting
requirements, including how delinquent Congressionally mandated
or requested reports are and an estimated date for delivery.
The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this
responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Budget and Programs.
The Committee recommends a total of $6,500,000 for the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
consistent with the general guidance provided for the Office of
the Secretary. At this level, the Committee has included
$60,000 for reception and representation expenses for the
Secretary.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $2,039,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (2,167,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 2,000,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental
activities and on all Departmental legislative initiatives and
other relationships with Members of the Congress; promotes
effective communication with other Federal agencies and
regional Department officials, and with State and local
governments and national organizations for development of
departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences,
awareness, and needs are brought into the decision-making
process.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs consistent with
the general guidance provided for the Office of the Secretary.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $17,767,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (20,139,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 17,800,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal
adviser to the Secretary on departmental administrative
management matters, and is responsible for personnel and
training, management policy, employment ceiling control
systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations,
real and personal property management, acquisition management,
and grants management.
The Committee recommends $17,800,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration consistent with the
general guidance for the Office of the Secretary and which
includes the Office of the Secretary portion of rent.
Office of Public Affairs
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,800,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (1,714,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news
media on public affairs question. The Office issues news
releases, articles, factsheets, briefing materials,
publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides
information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the
public and news media on transportation programs and issues.
The Committee recommends $1,500,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs consistent with the general guidance for the
Office of the Secretary.
Executive Secretariat
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,102,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (1,181,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 1,181,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary in carrying out their management functions and
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external written materials.
The Committee recommends and appropriation of $1,181,000
for expenses of the Executive Secretariat.
Board of Contract Appeals
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $520,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (496,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 496,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals
is to provide an independent forum for the trial and
adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor
relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as
mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601.
The Committee has provided $496,000 for the Board of
Contract Appeals Board.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,222,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (1,192,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 1,192,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for
small and disadvantaged business participation in the
Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective
execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15
of the Small Business Act, as amended.
The Committee recommends $1,192,000.
Office of Intelligence and Security
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,454,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (3,494,000)
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Intelligence and Security within the Office
of the Secretary coordinates security and intelligence policies
and strategies among the modes of transportation and serves as
liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement
agencies.
The Committee recommends the Office of Intelligence and
Security be funded from funds made available to the Coast Guard
and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. The office is
headed by an official from the Coast Guard and the majority of
the functions of the office relate to Coast Guard and Federal
Aviation Administration missions.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $5,075,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... (6,929,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 6,000,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer.
Office of Intermodalism
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,062,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................ ( \2\ )
\1\ Included within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on
administrative expenses.
\2\ Funding is not included for the Office of Intermodalism in the
Office of the Secretary.
The Committee does not recommend funding for the Office of
Intermodalism in the Office of the Secretary accounts.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $7,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 8,726,000
Committee recommendation................................ 8,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $212,000 for TASC pursuant to section
219 of Public Law 106-69.
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity
matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for
the operating administrations, investigating claims that small
businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as
disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the
Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and
making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In
addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing
laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally
operated and federally assisted transportation programs.
The Committee has provided a funding level of $8,000,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $3,300,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 5,258,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,300,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $10,000 for TASC pursuant to section
319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect reduction of $73,000
pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
The Office of the Secretary performs those research
activities and studies which can more effectively or
appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This
research effort supports the planning, research and development
activities, and systems development needed to assist the
Secretary in the formulation of national transportation
policies. The program is carried out primarily through
contracts with other Federal agencies, educational
institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private
firms. Within the Committee's recommendation, funding is
provided in this account for the 2001 Special Winter Olympics
and for a commission authorized in section 228 of FAIR 21.
Missing children.--The Committee is aware of the effective
work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children
to combat crimes against children and to reunite abducted or
runaway children with their families. There are many
opportunities in the transportation sector to alert the public
to the status of a missing child. For example, truckstops,
airports, rail and bus stations, and other transportation
facilities are utilized by millions of Americans every day.
These are ideal places to raise public awareness of missing
children. Moreover, employees in the transportation sector,
including flight attendants, bus and truck drivers, and ticket
agents, come into contact with hundreds of individuals every
day and could be a key element in identifying abducted
children. When nonlaw enforcement entities adopt procedures
that hinder pedophiles and kidnappers, they are doing a much
needed public service. Of note is WalMart's Code Adam Program.
When a child disappears in a participating store, Code Adam is
addressed over the public address system. Store personnel
immediately stop work to look for the child and monitor all
exits. If the missing child is not located in 10 minutes, or is
seen with someone other than a parent or guardian, the police
are called. This program is implemented in all 2,800 WalMart
and Sam's Club stores. The Committee urges the transportation
sector to consider similar programs.
In addition, transportation facilities are generally public
places and present the same dangers that any public place has
for unaccompanied children. Parents should remember, and
transportation providers can help them to be more aware, that
they should be ever diligent and make certain that they take
precautions to ensure their child's safety while traveling.
The Committee directs the Secretary and each of the modal
administrators to work with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children and the transportation industry to identify
and implement initiatives to maximize the transportation
sector's involvement in the effort to relocate missing
children. The Committee notes that the Secretary's report to
the Committee on Appropriation relating to this initiative
indicated that ``language will be developed to incorporate in
presentations done by the Secretary and other Department
Executives,'' and ``A work group geared at synthesizing the
information provided by NCMEC (National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children) with current Department programs has been
formed. The findings of this group will be reported to the
Appropriations Committee in June 2000.'' The Committee looks
forward to the June 2000 report and for further action on this
initiative by the Department.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, 2000 \1\.................................... ($148,673,000)
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\............................... (163,811,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (173,278,000)
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $15,000,000 pursuant to section 319 of
Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT only.
The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC]
provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide
range of administrative services to the Department and other
customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-
sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services
responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board
of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a
competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents
proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the
beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved
those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full
customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly
performance and financial reports to the Board, makes
recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is
responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT
administrations must procure consolidated administrative
services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the
services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the
Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity
alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to
consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC
services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide
greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual
customers. TASC services include:
--Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF];
--Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and
information technology support operations;
--Systems development staff;
--Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets
facilities; and
--Certain departmental services and administrative
operations, such as human resources management
programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee
wellness including substance awareness and testing.
All of the services of the TASC will be financed through
customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-
service basis.
The bill includes language that includes a limitation on
activities financed through the transportation administrative
service center at $173,278,000. The limitation shall not apply
to non-DOT entities and the Committee directs that activities
shall be provided on a competitive basis. Further, the
Committee directs that the Department shall submit with the
Department's congressional budget submission an approved annual
operating plan of the transportation administrative service
center and quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations.
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $45,000,000
Mandatory authority, 2000 \2\........................... 5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \3\............................... 27,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory authority) \2\......... 22,100,000
Committee recommendation \1\ \2\........................ 50,000,000
\1\ Transfer from FAA operations.
\2\ From overflight fees.
\3\ Transfer from FAA Grants-in-aid for airports.
The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport
Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/
regional airlines to provide air service to small communities
that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural
airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation
Reauthorization Act.
The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes
user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the
United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees were
to go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program
and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to
improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not
available, funding must be transferred from FAA appropriations
to the EAS programs.
Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: 60 of 78
communities receiving subsidized service under the program are
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or
large hub airport. Thirty more communities are located in
Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access
does not exist, and in many instances does not exist at all.
Without air service, such communities would be further isolated
from the Nation's economic centers. The funding provided is
adequate to maintain existing levels of service in Alaska.
Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating
in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service.
Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities'
ability to attract new business or even to retain those they
now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and
loss of jobs.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of March 1, 2000. The
$50,000,000 funding level is sufficient to maintain current
service levels and quality of service at the communities
currently served by the EAS program, although the cost of the
program appears to be increasing.
In the lower 48 States, the tables show distances that EAS
communities are from other air service centers and subsidy-per-
passenger calculations. The distance figures are shown to give
a sense of the degree of isolation of the communities, and the
subsidy-per-passenger figures are a rough measure of the cost
of providing the service compared to the number of passengers
benefiting from the service. Neither of those calculations are
relevant to Alaska. First, only 2 of the 30 subsidized
communities in Alaska have road access to other air service.
Thus, the Alaskan communities are clearly among the most
isolated in the Nation. In fact, many are islands and would be
all but cut off from the rest of the world without air service.
Second, any subsidy-per-passenger calculation would be highly
misleading, at best. While subsidy-per-passenger may be used as
a crude measure of cost benefit in the lower 48, in many of the
subsidized EAS markets the principal traffic being carried on
the EAS flights is food being delivered to the bush community.
Thus, the whole community benefits from--indeed is fully
dependent on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may
actually travel on the flights.
EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF MARCH 1, 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
Estimated enplanements at
mileage to EAS point (year Annual subsidy Subsidy per
States/communities nearest hub ending rates (March 1, passenger
(small, medium, September 30, 2000)
or large) \1\ 1999)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
Kingman................................. 101 6.1 $432,564 $112.76
Page.................................... 282 12.0 686,014 91.25
Prescott................................ 102 21.5 432,564 32.07
Show Low................................ 168 10.7 205,040 30.59
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden........................ 108 5.3 825,569 246.73
Harrison................................ 142 6.5 1,125,591 276.76
Hot Springs............................. 53 8.4 1,125,591 212.86
Jonesboro............................... 79 6.6 825,569 198.50
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City........................... 234 33.4 314,865 15.06
Merced.................................. 114 10.8 951,271 141.14
COLORADO:
Alamosa................................. 162 14.1 1,060,940 120.59
Cortez.................................. 258 26.5 408,227 24.65
Lamar................................... 163 4.9 633,984 205.51
Pueblo.................................. ............... 14.0 500,000 57.08
HAWAII:
Hana.................................... 32 14.8 574,500 62.18
Kamuela................................. 39 4.0 424,559 168.88
Kalaupapa............................... ( \2\ ) 12.4 136,404 17.54
ILLINOIS: Mattoon........................... 126 2.9 540,449 294.20
IOWA: Ottumwa............................... 85 2.5 380,039 238.57
KANSAS:
Dodge City.............................. 149 19.5 463,179 37.94
Garden City............................. 201 29.2 463,179 25.36
Goodland................................ 176 3.4 909,597 432.11
Great Bend.............................. 120 15.7 693,209 70.60
Hays.................................... 180 17.2 693,209 64.41
Liberal/Guymon.......................... 142 13.9 633,984 72.81
Topeka.................................. 71 12.7 722,141 90.96
MAINE:
Augusta/Waterville...................... 71 10.8 596,806 88.42
Bar Harbor.............................. 157 35.8 596,806 26.64
Rockland................................ 80 22.4 596,806 42.47
MICHIGAN:
Ironwood/Ashland........................ 218 6.1 684,239 180.35
Iron Mountain/Kingsford................. 101 26.6 473,599 28.41
Manistee................................ 115 4.2 361,808 138.94
MINNESOTA: Mankato.......................... 75 ............... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau.......................... 138 28.6 278,560 15.58
Fort Leonard Wood....................... 130 18.2 337,124 29.60
Kirksville.............................. 137 4.2 450,736 172.37
MONTANA:
Glasgow................................. 763 6.2 671,032 173.35
Glendive................................ 624 3.7 671,032 289.74
Havre................................... 674 4.3 671,032 248.71
Lewistown............................... 558 3.4 671,032 317.72
Miles City.............................. 529 4.7 671,032 229.10
Sidney.................................. 653 7.6 671,032 140.15
Wolf Point.............................. 698 4.8 671,032 222.34
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................................ 256 5.9 770,950 210.24
Chadron................................. 311 5.3 770,950 231.03
Hastings................................ 162 ............... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
Kearney................................. 181 21.4 839,487 62.69
McCook.................................. 271 7.4 1,401,900 302.59
Norfolk................................. 109 5.8 431,660 118.78
North Platte............................ 277 26.4 106,006 6.42
NEVADA: Ely................................. 237 2.8 1,087,340 627.79
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB................. 91 9.8 777,127 126.61
Clovis.................................. 105 12.6 926,594 117.53
Gallup.................................. 143 8.2 691,080 134.27
Silver City/Hurley/Deming............... 133 10.1 872,204 138.29
NEW YORK:
Massena................................. 115 10.5 371,836 56.45
Ogdensburg.............................. 123 8.9 371,836 66.97
Watertown............................... 65 24.1 371,836 24.70
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake............................. 396 10.5 613,389 93.40
Dickinson............................... 490 12.1 247,255 32.66
Jamestown............................... 302 10.0 613,389 97.95
Williston............................... 592 19.0 244,216 20.49
OKLAHOMA:
Enid.................................... 84 6.3 972,122 246.61
Ponca City.............................. 81 8.4 972,122 185.73
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin............. 86 29.3 510,261 27.86
PUERTO RICO: Ponce.......................... 77 32.8 500,000 24.34
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings............................... 57 5.9 881,662 240.56
Mitchell................................ 69 ............... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
Yankton................................. 81 4.8 640,976 212.95
TEXAS: Brownwood............................ 138 4.7 865,886 295.42
UTAH:
Cedar City.............................. 178 23.6 679,450 45.93
Moab.................................... 240 6.0 595,373 158.64
Vernal.................................. 174 11.8 661,624 89.77
VERMONT: Rutland............................ 144 9.8 596,806 97.60
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake............. 101 37.1 514,313 22.17
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley................................. 173 7.9 627,512 126.54
Princeton/Bluefield..................... 137 7.2 627,512 139.45
WISCONSIN: Oshkosh.......................... 49 13.9 460,392 52.97
WYOMING:
Laramie................................. 144 31.5 671,151 34.00
Rock Springs............................ 184 30.0 493,151 26.26
Worland................................. 398 9.1 671,151 118.33
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The
above distances are based on the 1998 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1998 passenger data.
\2\ There is no FAA-designated small, medium or large hub on the island of Molokai.
\3\ Hiatus in service.
RENTAL PAYMENTS
Until 1997, payments to the General Services Administration
for headquarters and field space rental and related services
for all modes were consolidated into this account. Beginning in
1998, however, all GSA rental payments are reflected in the
modal budgets. The following table displays by modal
administration the GSA rental payments for fiscal years 1999,
2000, and requested for 2001, both in square feet and funding
levels.
GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS
[Dollars and square feet in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 actual Fiscal year 2000 estimate Fiscal year 2001
-------------------------------------------------------- President's budget
Administration ---------------------------
Funding Square feet Funding Square feet Funding Square feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway $17,922 912 $20,400 883 $27,334 883
Administration.............
National Highway Traffic 4,042 178 4,657 182 5,882 196
Safety Administration......
Federal Railroad 3,172 135 3,121 138 3,308 140
Administration.............
Federal Transit 3,500 137 3,913 138 4,304 139
Administration.............
Federal Aviation 75,400 3,128 92,105 3,400 92,000 3,415
Administration.............
U.S. Coast Guard............ 37,450 2,003 34,337 2,027 33,970 2,099
St. Lawrence Seaway 203 7 185 6 212 6
Development Corporation....
Maritime Administration..... 4,234 259 4,597 260 4,676 260
Research and Special 2,215 79 2,389 82 2,654 86
Programs Administration....
Office of Inspector General. 2,510 108 2,800 107 3,056 107
Office of the Secretary of 6,713 204 6,921 204 7,190 204
Transportation (OST).......
Transportation 4,677 215 5,251 216 11,028 382
Administrative Service
Center.....................
Bureau of Transportation 750 20 729 26 930 32
Statistics.................
Federal Motor Carrier Safety ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............
Administration \1\.........
Surface Transportation Board 1,538 66 1,700 66 1,785 66
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of 164,326 7,466 183,105 7,735 198,329 8,015
Transportation.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Included in Federal Highway Administration.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,900,000
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
[OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC].--The OSDBU/
MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working
capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-
owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2001, the
short-term loan program will continue to focus on the lending
of working capital to DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related
projects in order to strengthen their competitive and
productive capabilities.
Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a
separate line item appropriation, which segregated such
activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit
Reform Act of 1990. For fiscal year 2001, the administration
proposes converting this program from a direct loan program to
a guaranteed loan program. The limitation on subsidized loans
under the Minority Business Resource Center is at the
administration's requested level of $13,775,000. The Committee
recognizes that ability of certain institutions to provide
minority business firms with contracting expertise and directs
that the Minority Business Resource Center Program work with
the Alabama State University Business Technology Center and
Alabama A&M University to develop those institutions'
capabilities to assist minority business firms to secure and
execute contracts with the Federal Government.
Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the subsidy
costs for loans not to exceed $13,775,000; and, $400,000 is for
administrative expenses to carry out the Direct Loan Program.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 3,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $18,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects
that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to
historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is
requested by the administration since this program provides
grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and
not just OST purposes.
General Provisions
Advisory committees.--The Committee has retained a general
provision (sec. 325) which would limit the amount of funds that
could be used for the expenses of advisory committees utilized
by the Department of Transportation. The limitation specified
is $1,500,000.
Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments.--The Department
receives funds from various Government programs at different
time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For
example, under the General Services Administration's Travel
Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from
the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element
of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales
arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be
analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be
a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated
with the precise accounting for each such refund is
prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the
source for each repayment the Committee has included language
(sec. 326), as requested, that allows a fair and sensible
allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.
Departmental Aircraft.--The Committee continues to be aware
of the significant difficulty that the department has had in
using aircraft for the movement of Department of Transportation
officials and personnel under the Office of Management and
Budget guidelines. If the department is unable to make use of
dedicated aircraft in an efficient manner, the Committee
believes that there are significant cost savings, flexibility,
and efficiency to be garnered through utilizing the private
sector for the business aircraft requirements of the FAA, the
Office of the Secretary, and to a lesser extent, the Coast
Guard. Accordingly, the Committee has again included bill
language (sec. 332) that permits the fractional ownership of
business aircraft by the department which will allow the
department to sell underutilized business aircraft in the
agency's inventory and utilize those resources for more
critical priorities. Fractional aircraft ownership concepts
provide access to an entire fleet of aircraft, availability of
a mix of aircraft types and sizes, all on very short notice and
are eminently compatible with the OMB guidelines. Costs include
aircraft share, a monthly management fee (to include
maintenance, flight and cabin crew, crew training, and routine
service), and an hourly rate for time aboard the aircraft. The
Committee believes that fractional ownership of administrative
aircraft in a number of situations could prove extremely
beneficial in reducing the costs and inefficiencies of the
aircraft in administrative roles which are currently owned and
operated in the government inventory. Therefore, the Committee
urges the department to submit the study requested in last
year's conference report and establish a test program of
fractional ownership for the Federal Aviation Administration,
at a minimum, to replace existing mission support aircraft used
for administrative requirements, with a mix of light to mid-
size jets to determine the flexibility, efficiency, and cost
benefits for the government. Alternatively, the Department
should submit by July 1, 2000 language that would exempt the
aircraft operations of the Department and the appropriate modal
administrations from the OMB guidelines.
Delinquent reporting requirements.--The Committee is
increasingly concerned by the Department's apparent selective
adherence to required reports and guidance included in the
House and Senate reports. If this reticence is not remedied,
the Committee will provide incentives to prompt greater
attention to Congressional intent.
Safety inspector liability insurance.--The bill includes a
general provision requested by the administration (sec. 339)
which would extend support for the purchase of professional
liability insurance to departmental safety inspectors. Under
current law, Federal agencies can subsidize the purchase of
liability insurance by management grade employees, but not for
non-supervisory employees. Safety inspectors are inherently at
risk for punitive lawsuits and would benefit from having the
same reimbursement opportunity that is currently extended for
management staff. The provision requires that the departmental
share of the liability insurance costs may not exceed one-half.
Other
User fees.--The Committee has included bill language, as
requested, which permits the Office of the Secretary to
continue to credit to this account $1,250,000 in user fees.
In addition, the administration's budget proposal includes
provisions that would authorize the Secretary of Transportation
to charge user fees for Coast Guard, Federal Aviation
Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Research and
Special Programs Administration, Surface Transportation Board,
and National Transportation Safety Board services, totaling
$1,300,000,000. These provisions were drafted to produce the
net effect of reducing the budgetary impact of the
administration's request, but the agencies themselves are
``held harmless'' against potential loss of funds because the
language is contingent upon authorization of the user fees.
Each affected agency would have access to all budgetary
resources provided in the appropriations bill, because the
offsetting collections are not reduced from the general fund
appropriation until the authorizing legislation is enacted.
Despite this fact, the administration's budget takes full
credit for these offsetting collections, artificially reducing
the budget resources required to fund the overall budget
request.
These proposals amount to budgetary ``smoke and mirrors''.
Additionally, these proposed user fees represent new taxes on
many different sectors of U.S. business and the traveling
public. Congress has consistently rejected such user fee
proposals, yet the administration continues to include them in
its budget submissions.
The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 338)
which directs that in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission,
the Department must identify offsets for each proposed user
fee. These identified offsets will be reduced from each
agency's budget if the proposed fees are not authorized and
enacted before the next fiscal year. This provision endeavors
to make the administration fiscally accountable for its user
fee proposals.
Reductions and emergency supplementals in fiscal year 2000
appropriations.--In fiscal year 2000, reductions were made to a
number of accounts due to the limitation or reduction imposed
in the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In
addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 106-
113 rescinded 0.38 percent of discretionary budget authority
and obligation limitations provided for fiscal year 2000. In
the Senate Committee report, each account head shows the amount
appropriated in Public Law 106-69 before the various reductions
or supplementals were made. The table below depicts the amount
of funds appropriated for each of the accounts, and the
reduction and supplementals.
CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 2000 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 106-69 DOT Appropriations Act Public Law 106-113 Public Law Public Law
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 106-79 Sec. 106-31 Sec. Net
Account Appropriations GP 365 Sec. 301 8131 3029 appropriation
and obligation GP 319 TASC GP 338 Motor Transfer to Sec. 225 0.38 percent Transfer Ellsworth and obligation
limitation carrier EPA transit cut from DOD settlement limitation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses................................. 60,852 -1,355 .............. ( \1\ ) ............ ............ ............ ............ 59,497
Transportation planning, research, and development.... 3,300 -73 .............. ............ ............ -10 ............ ............ 3,217
Minority business resources center.................... 1,900 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,900
Minority business outreach............................ 2,900 .............. .............. ............ ............ -18 ............ ............ 2,882
Office of Civil Rights................................ 7,200 -212 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 6,988
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 76,152 -1,640 .............. ............ ............ -28 ............ ............ 74,484
=====================================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
Operating Expenses.................................... 2,781,000 -1,963 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2,779,037
Acquisition, construction, and improvements........... 389,326 -349 .............. ............ ............ -1,478 ............ ............ 387,499
Environmental compliance and restoration.............. 17,000 -11 .............. ............ ............ -65 ............ ............ 16,924
Alteration of bridges................................. 15,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -57 ............ ............ 14,943
Retired pay........................................... 730,327 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 730,327
Reserve training...................................... 72,000 -48 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 71,952
Research, development, test, and evaluation........... 19,000 -7 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 18,993
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 4,023,653 -2,378 .............. ............ ............ -1,600 ............ ............ 4,019,675
=====================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations............................................ 5,900,000 -6,610 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 5,893,390
Facilities and equipment.............................. 2,075,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2,075,000
Rescission, facilities and equipment.................. -30,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ -30,000
Research, engineering, and development................ 156,495 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 156,495
Grants-in-aid for airports (obligation limitation).... 1,950,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -54,362 ............ ............ 1,895,638
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 10,051,495 -6,610 .............. ............ ............ -54,362 ............ ............ 9,990,523
=====================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
Limitation on administrative expenses................. [376,072] [-1,233] [-70,484] ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ [304,355]
Federal-aid highways (obligation limitation).......... 27,701,350 -1,415 -76,058 ............ ............ -105,260 ............ ............ 27,520,032
Exempt obligations.................................... 1,206,702 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 1,206,702
Ellsworth housing settlement.......................... .............. .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ 3,000 3,000
Motor carrier safety grants (obligation limitation)... 105,000 .............. -105,000 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ..............
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 29,013,052 -1,415 -181,058 ............ ............ -105,260 ............ 3,000 28,729,734
=====================================================================================================================================
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration:
Motor carrier safety grants (obligation limitation)... .............. .............. 105,000 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 105,000
Office of Motor Carrier Safety (obligation limitation) .............. .............. 76,058 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 76,058
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ .............. .............. 181,058 ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 181,058
=====================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
Operations and Research, General Fund................. 87,400 -930 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 86,470
Operations and Research, Trust Fund (obligation 72,000 -398 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 71,602
limitation)..........................................
National driver registration.......................... 2,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 2,000
Highway safety grants................................. 206,800 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 206,800
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 368,200 -1,328 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 366,872
=====================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and operations................................. 94,288 -436 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 93,852
Research and development.............................. 22,464 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 22,464
Next generation high speed rail....................... 27,200 .............. .............. ............ ............ -103 ............ ............ 27,097
Alaska railroad rehabilitation........................ 10,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -38 5,000 ............ 14,962
Rhode Island rail development......................... 10,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -38 ............ ............ 9,962
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corp............ 571,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 571,000
Amtrak Reform Council................................. 750 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 750
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 735,702 -436 .............. ............ ............ -179 5,000 ............ 740,087
=====================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses (approps and obligation 60,000 -438 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 59,562
limitation)..........................................
Formula grants (approps and obligation limitation) \3\ 3,048,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 3,048,000
Univ. transportation research (approps and obligation 6,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 6,000
limitation)..........................................
Transit planning and research (approps and obligation 107,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -243 ............ ............ 106,757
limitation)..........................................
Capital investment grants (approps and obligation 2,501,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ -17,381 ............ ............ 2,483,619
limitation) \3\......................................
Capital investment grants (Trust Fund approps)........ .............. .............. .............. ............ 6,000 -23 ............ ............ 5,977
Job access (approps and obligation limitation)........ 75,000 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 75,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 5,797,000 -438 .............. ............ 6,000 -17,647 ............ ............ 5,784,915
=====================================================================================================================================
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corp.: Operations and 12,042 -25 .............. ............ ............ -46 ............ ............ 11,971
maintenance..............................................
=====================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs Administration:
Research and special programs......................... 32,061 -296 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 31,765
Pipeline safety....................................... 36,879 -198 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 36,681
Emergency preparedness grants......................... 200 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 200
Emergency preparedness grants......................... 14,100 .............. .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 14,100
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................ 83,240 -494 .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ 82,746
=====================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \2\................... [31,000] [-182] .............. ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ [30,818]
=====================================================================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses.... 44,840 -224 .............. ............ ............ -170 ............ ............ 44,446
=====================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses....... 17,000 -12 .............. ............ ............ -58 ............ ............ 16,930
=====================================================================================================================================
Total, Department of Transportation, Excluding 50,222,376 -15,000 .............. ............ 6,000 -179,350 5,000 3,000 50,043,441
Maritime Administration............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GP 365 appropriates $500,000 to OST, to be transferred to EPA.
\2\ BTS funding included within Federal-aid highways.
\3\ Reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from formula grants to capital discretionary pursuant to Public Law 106-69.
Note: Above data does not reflect supplemental funding proposals.
U.S. COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established
on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter
Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S.
Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed
by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The
Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement
of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters
subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of
safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation;
protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a
state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the
Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2).
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$4,423,099,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2001. The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2000 enacted recommendations
\1\ 2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \2\ \3\................................... 2,781,000 3,199,000 3,039,460
Acquisition, construction, and improvements \3\ \4\.......... 389,326 520,200 407,748
Environmental compliance and restoration..................... 17,000 16,700 16,700
Alteration of bridges........................................ 15,000 ............... 15,500
Retired pay (mandatory)...................................... 730,327 778,000 778,000
Reserve training............................................. 72,000 73,371 80,371
Research, development, test, and evaluation.................. 19,000 21,320 21,320
Boat safety (mandatory)...................................... 64,000 64,000 64,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 4,087,653 4,672,591 4,423,099
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $2,378,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69 or reflect
reduction of $1,600,000 for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes funding for national security activities of the Coast Guard scored against budget function 050
(defense discretionary) as follows: Fiscal year 2000 enacted amount includes $300,000,000 in defense
discretionary funding; fiscal year 2001 estimate includes $341,000,000 and fiscal year 2001 Committee
recommendation includes $641,000,000.
\3\ Includes proposed navigation assistance fees in fiscal year 2001 as follows: $116,000,000 in operating
expenses, and $96,000,000 in acquisition, construction and improvements.
\4\ Includes $10,000,000 for fiscal year 2001 in asset sales.
Operating Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\.................................. $2,756,000,000 $25,000,000 $2,781,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ \3\............................. 3,174,000,000 25,000,000 3,199,000,000
Committee recommendation \4\.............................. 3,014,460,000 25,000,000 3,039,460,000
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.............. 100,000,000 ................ 100,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total available funds............................... 3,114,460,000 25,000,000 3,139,460,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
Excludes $1,963,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $341,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $116,000,000 for proposed navigation assistance fees.
\4\ Includes $641,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for
the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels,
aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the
coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in
selected areas overseas.
The program activities of this appropriation fall into the
following categories:
Search and rescue.--One of its earliest and most
traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide
system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination
centers on 24-hour alert.
Aids to navigation.--To help mariners determine their
location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a
network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our
coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations
in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed
services and marine and air commerce.
Marine safety.--The Coast Guard insures compliance with
Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in
the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational
boating safety program.
Marine environmental protection.--The primary objectives of
this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution
and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways.
Enforcement of laws and treaties.--The Coast Guard is the
principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal
laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high
seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration,
and hijacking of vessels.
Ice operations.--In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard
icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities
and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters,
and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists
commercial vessels through ice-covered waters.
Defense readiness.--During peacetime the Coast Guard
maintains an effective state of military preparedness to
operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national
emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast
Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports,
waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore.
committee funding recommendation
The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating
expenses is $3,039,460,000, including $25,000,000 from the
oilspill liability trust fund and $641,000,000 from function
050 for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2000 Budget Committee
enacted \1\ request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel resources:
Military pay and benefits. 1,366,152 1,471,495 1,470,491
Civilian pay and benefits. 225,517 243,119 242,945
Military health care...... 139,815 174,769 174,664
Permanent change of 75,045 78,103 69,298
station [PCS] and related
travel and transportation
Training and education.... 81,966 85,557 78,072
Recruiting................ 5,585 5,585 5,585
FECA/UCX.................. 11,091 11,091 11,091
-----------------------------------------
Total, personnel 1,905,171 2,069,719 2,052,146
resources..............
=========================================
Operating funds and unit level
maintenance:
Atlantic area command..... 121,137 125,702 125,509
Pacific area command...... 123,213 118,891 126,625
District commands:
1st district.......... 35,967 36,566 36,566
7th district.......... 47,652 49,043 49,043
8th district.......... 28,168 28,674 28,674
9th district.......... 17,304 17,775 17,775
13th district......... 12,453 13,030 13,030
14th district......... 9,910 9,734 9,734
17th district......... 20,465 20,972 20,972
Headquarters directorates. 184,326 223,413 222,288
Headquarters managed units 45,236 55,342 53,577
Other activities.......... 1,653 1,653 1,653
-----------------------------------------
Total, operating funds 647,484 700,795 705,446
and unit level
maintenance............
=========================================
Depot level maintenance:
Aircraft maintenance...... 149,321 170,101 157,026
Electronic maintenance.... 39,366 42,395 40,895
Ocean engineering and 97,442 105,785 100,785
shore facility
maintenance..............
Vessel maintenance........ 102,255 110,205 105,890
-----------------------------------------
Total, depot level 388,384 428,486 404,596
maintenance............
=========================================
Account-wide adjustments:
TASC reduction............ -1,963 ........... ..............
Undistributed reduction... ........... ........... -122,728
=========================================
Total appropriation..... \2\ 2,779,0 3,199,000 3,039,460
76
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $1,963,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 106-
69.
\2\ Assumes carryover of $160,000,000 from Kosovo emergency
supplemental.
Note.--Fiscal year 2000 enacted and fiscal year 2001 request include
$300,000,000 and $341,000,000, respectively, for national security
activities, budget function 050 (defense).
Military pay and benefit.--The Committee recommends
$1,470,491,000 for military pay and allowances, an increase of
$104,339,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation fully funds the fiscal year 2001 3.7
percent pay raise as well as the budget request for recruiting
and retention bonuses, aviator career continuation pay, and 15
year career bonus payments to personnel affected by the Redux
repeal as authorized under the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2000.
Military health care.--The Committee recommendation
includes $174,664,000 for military health care. This is
$34,849,000 more than last year's enacted level. The Committee
notes that the Coast Guard has allowed active duty personnel,
their dependents, and retirees to enroll in the Uniformed
Health Services Family Plan for their medical care.
Military health care task force.--The Coast Guard, as a
uniformed service, is required by statute to be a full
participant in the Department of Defense TRICARE program. The
health care delivery structural requirements of the Coast
Guard, however, are vastly different from what is necessary for
the Defense Department. Under TRICARE, military personnel and
their dependents are expected to rely on the nearest military
treatment facility for health services. Unlike DOD personnel
who are stationed in large military bases, Coast Guard
personnel typically are assigned to small stations, many of
which are at remote locations a great distance from the nearest
military treatment facility. As a result of this difference,
the Coast Guard cannot justify health care facilities at these
units and must rely on the participation of health care
providers in the community for health services. The Committee
commends the Coast Guard for working with DOD to increase the
reimbursement rates in remote areas to attract greater civilian
participation in TRICARE. Nevertheless, the Committee is
concerned that this alone will not improve the quality of
health care at remote stations. Also, the Coast Guard does not
need to maintain an organic health care system as the military
services must for overseas operations. Given these anomalies,
the Committee directs the Coast Guard to form a task force to
assess the systemic requirements of the Coast Guard in
providing health care to its uniformed personnel and determine
if the Coast Guard should continue its participation in TRICARE
or transition to an alternate health care system, such as the
Federal Employee's Health Benefits Program. The task force
shall analyze such issues as program administration, access to
providers, scope of coverage, and costs to the agency and
individual expenses. The task force shall submit its report and
recommendations to Congress no later than July 1, 2001 and
should provide an interim report for use in the preparation of
the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Aviation detachment support.--The Administration requests
$3,904,000 for personnel, training, fuel, and maintenance to
operate three HH-65 helicopters which will support operations
on the new polar icebreaker. Although funding for these three
helicopters is also requested in the budget estimate, the Coast
Guard does not expect delivery of the helicopters until fiscal
year 2003. Because the Coast Guard will not have the additional
airframes to operate, the Committee expects that this reduction
will have no adverse impact on current operations.
Partnership in maritime medicine.--Of the funds provided,
$1,750,000 is for Tulane University and the University of
Alabama in Birmingham to establish a pilot project to identify
and address the unique occupational and health hazards
affecting Coast Guard personnel. The research will determine
the environmental medicine needs of Coast Guard personnel,
develop safety devices to identify early warnings of potential
hazards, and serve as a primary source of guidance regarding
maritime occupational and environmental health issues.
Permanent change of station.--Within the Committee
recommendation, the Committee has reduced $5,000,000
specifically for permanent change of station based on the
estimated number of travel orders to be issued during fiscal
year 2001 and the projected average cost per move.
Administrative account.--The Committee recommends
$1,653,000 for other activities, the same as the budget
request, which funds the Chief of Staff's Administrative
Account. The Committee understands that the funding in this
account is for agency contingencies, natural or mission related
emergencies below the scope of supplemental appropriations, and
other development initiatives. The Committee directs the Coast
Guard to notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations of the specific use and amount prior to the
obligation of any of the account's funds.
National security.--The accompanying bill provides
$641,000,000 from the defense function for Coast Guard support
of national security activities. This is $300,000,000 more than
the requested level of funding and is $341,000,000 more than
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Coast Guard is one of
the five Armed Services and serves a unique niche within the
national security community. The value of Coast Guard forces to
the national security command was evident by their
participation in support of NATO operations in Yugoslavia and
maritime interception operations to enforce the U.N. embargo
against Iraq. The Coast Guard must maintain a high state of
operational readiness, and the Committee recommendation
provides the necessary resources to ensure that the Coast Guard
is able to meet its national security commitments.
Drug interdiction.--The Committee recommends $565,200,000,
as requested, for drug interdiction activities, and it should
be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug
interdiction funding is distributed. The Committee
recommendation increases funding for drug interdiction by
$46,240,000 from the fiscal year 2000 level. Included in the
Committee recommendation is $17,205,000 to establish a
helicopter squadron (HITRON 10) as the initial operating
capability of the airborne use of force initiative which has
shown promise in improving the Coast Guard's ability to
intercept go-fast boats. The Committee is aware that drug
trafficking, including the use of go-fast boats, in the Eastern
Pacific is rapidly rising and urges the Coast Guard to deploy
and operate the helicopter squadron as a national asset.
Ballast water management program.--The Committee
recommended funding level includes $3,592,000 to continue the
nationwide ballast water management program.
Pacific Area Command.--The Committee recommends
$126,625,000 in funding for the command and control functions
of the Pacific Area Command. This is $7,734,000 more than the
budget estimate and $3,412,000 more than the fiscal year 2000
enacted level. The Administration has requested a change to the
reimbursement policy for polar icebreaking services provided to
the National Science Foundation. Because the three polar
icebreakers fall under the operational control of the Pacific
Area Commander, the budget proposed reducing this account by
$7,800,000. The Committee denies this request and has restored
the funding associated with the proposed policy.
Headquarters directorates.--The Committee recommends
$222,288,000 for headquarters directorates, an increase of
$37,962,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The
Committee recommendation defers $398,000 from the budget
request to develop the International Marine Information and
Safety System (IMISS). The IMISS collects data on a voluntary
basis from maritime industry and analyzes it through a
commercially-operated data center to allow industry
participants to take the necessary precautions to prevent
marine accidents. The Committee believes that it is more
appropriate for industry to fund this system and encourages the
Coast Guard to provide guidance and technical expertise to
industry partners that desire to establish such a system.
Within the funds provided for the Office of the Chief Counsel,
$100,000 is specifically to dispose of the backlog of real
property conveyances that have been authorized for transfer
through legislation.
Maritime transportation system leadership and
coordination.--Due to inadequate justification, the Committee
has deleted $801,000 for the maritime transportation system
leadership and coordination program, a new initiative.
Mackinaw.--The Committee recommendation includes $6,181,000
in funding for continued operation and maintenance of the
icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 2001.
AMSEA.--The Committee recommends $350,000 to be available
only for this marine safety training program that trains
fishermen and children in cold water marine safety techniques.
Oil spill geographic information system.--Within the funds
provided, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for the
development of a geographic information system for oil spill
planning, response, and damage assessment in Alabama and
Mississippi, including State waters bordering the Gulf of
Mexico. The Committee notes that oil spill managers have
utilized the baseline maps and related databases of a similar
system that was developed for Louisiana in planning for and
responding to such incidents.
Marine Fire and Safety Association.--The Committee remains
supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association
[MFSA] to provide specialized firefighting training and
maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia
River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide
funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and directs
the Secretary to provide $135,500 to continue efforts by the
nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments
on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be
utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting
training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response
contingency plan for the Columbia River.
Indonesian Coast Guard.--Five of the world's busiest
shipping lanes and 40 percent of world's shipping pass through
the territorial waters of the Republic of Indonesia. At the
urging of the United States, Indonesia is separating its coast
guard from the military into an independent agency. The
Committee directs the Coast Guard to work with representatives
from the Indonesian government on officer training and to study
turning over surplus vessels for the purpose of improving the
capability of the Indonesian Coast Guard fleet.
Depot level maintenance and repair.--The Committee
recommends $404,596,000 for depot level maintenance and repair,
which is $23,890,000 lower than the budget request. The
Committee notes that these funds were requested to address
spare part shortages and deferred maintenance activities during
fiscal year 2000. The Committee has provided funding
specifically to eliminate the recurring and non-recurring
backlog in all Coast Guard maintenance accounts in another
appropriations bill.
bill language
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.--The bill
includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to
$100,000,000 from Federal Aviation Administration operations to
Coast Guard operating expenses for the purposes of providing
additional funds for drug interdiction activities or activities
related to the Office of Intelligence and Security.
Maritime user fees.--The accompanying bill includes a
provision that prohibits the planning, finalization, or
implementation of any regulation that would promulgate new
maritime user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this act.
Audit Reimbursement.--The bill includes a provision to
transfer $5,000,000 to the Department of Transportation
Inspector General. The transferred funding will reimburse the
IG for audits and investigations of Coast Guard-related issues,
programs, and systems. Other agencies are also required to
transfer funds to the department IG.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
User fees.--The Fiscal Year 2000 Transportation
Appropriations Act included a provision prohibiting the Coast
Guard from levying new user fees that Congress has not
authorized. Notwithstanding this prohibition, the
administration's budget request proposes to collect
$212,000,000 from new user fees for navigation services
provided by the Coast Guard. Although the Committee has
rejected the administration's proposal to raise taxes on
transportation users year after year, the administration has
again resorted to such budget gimmickry because it presents a
budget request that is artificially high.
The Committee is exasperated with the continued submission
of user fees proposals in the budget request that the Committee
has not approved. The Committee, therefore, has included a
general provision (sec. 338) that requires the Department to
identify a specific spending offset in its budget request for
each dollar that is proposed to be collect by new user fees not
authorized by Congress. This provision will encourage
responsibility and accountability in future budget requests.
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill retains a general provision (sec. 313)
that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement
regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety
fairway less than 5 miles wide between the Santa Barbara
traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the
originally proposed 5-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide
fairways separated by a 2-mile-wide area where off-shore oil
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to
oil rigs because the 2-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\........................................ $369,326,000 $20,000,000 $389,326,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ \3\................................... 500,200,000 20,000,000 520,200,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 387,747,660 20,000,000 407,747,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $349,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69. Excludes $1,478,000
reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $10,000,000 in asset sales funding for Y2K.
\3\ Includes $96,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.
This appropriation provides for the major acquisition,
construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore
units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the
Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation
approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to
399-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an
inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.
The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations,
support and supply centers, communications facilities, and
other shore units. The Coast Guard provides over 48,000
navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio
navigational stations.
committee recommendation
The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate \2\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.................................................... $134,560,000 $257,180,000 $145,936,660
Deepwater replacement project.............................. 44,200,000 42,300,000 42,300,000
Aircraft................................................... 44,210,000 43,650,000 41,650,000
Other equipment............................................ 51,626,000 60,313,000 54,304,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.................... 63,800,000 61,606,000 68,406,000
Personnel and related support.............................. 50,930,000 55,151,000 55,151,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 389,326,000 520,200,000 407,747,660
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $340,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69. Excludes $1,478,000
reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $96,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees. Also includes $10,000,000 in asset sales.
vessels
The Committee recommends $145,936,660 for vessel
acquisition and improvements. The projected allocation of these
funds is shown in the table below:
VESSELS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2001 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] $123,730 $82,486
replacement........................
Follow-on for polar icebreaker 1,000 1,000
replacement........................
87-foot Patrol Boat (WPB) 7,000 7,000
replacement........................
Survey and design--cutters and boats 500 500
Great Lakes icebreaker (GLIB) 110,000 40,000
replacement........................
Surface search radar replacement 1,150 1,150
project............................
Repair, renovate, or improve existing
vessels and small boats:
Configuration management............ 3,600 3,600
Alex Haley Conversion Project....... 3,200 3,200
Over-the-Horizon Cutter Boats....... 1,500 1,500
Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) 1,000 1,000
Conversion Project.................
Polar class icebreaker reliability 4,500 4,500
improvement project [RIP]..........
-------------------------------
Total (new program level)......... 257,180 145,937
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement.--The Committee
recommends $82,486,660 for the procurement of 2 Juniper class
Seagoing Buoy Tenders (WLB) but defers the budget request of
$41,243,340 for a third buoy tender. The reduction is without
prejudice and is due to the fact that guaranteed spending
greatly reduces the Committee's ability to fund other
priorities that are not protected by a firewall.
Great Lakes icebreaker.--In August 1999, the Coast Guard
received authorization to proceed with validation, full-scale
development, and production of a vessel to replace the
Mackinaw, the 56-year-old heavy icebreaker for the Great Lakes.
The Committee is very supportive of retaining a heavy
icebreaking capability in the Great Lakes and concurs with the
Coast Guard recommendation to replace the Mackinaw with a new
vessel. The Committee, however, is concerned with the estimated
costs to design and build a replacement for the Mackinaw. The
National Science Foundation leases the R/V Nathaniel B. Palmer,
an icebreaker with capabilities similar what the Coast Guard
proposed for the Great Lakes Icebreaker (GLIB). Although the
Palmer cost $70,000,000 to design and build, the Coast Guard
projects to spend approximately $130,000,000 on the GLIB. By
another comparison, the USCG Healy, a polar icebreaker with
more robust capabilities, was designed and constructed for
$25,000 a ton and the GLIB will cost $52,000 a ton. The
Committee urges the Coast Guard to follow the ship building
acquisition strategies of the Navy, especially in regards to
government design, which have proven to reduce costs.
The Committee recommends $40,000,000 and the accompanying
bill provides the Commandant with the authority to enter into a
contract for the GLIB on an incremental basis. If the Coast
Guard provides the Committee with an additional justification
of the cost and procurement strategy outlined for the GLIB, the
Committee is willing to reconsider this approach in conference
with the House. The Committee also directs the Department's
Inspector General to certify to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations that the design specifications and
requirements of the Request for Proposals (RFP) will not
preclude full and fair competition.
DEEPWATER PROJECT
In fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard received approval to
initiate the Integrated Deepwater Systems project, a major
acquisition of surface ships, aircraft, sensors, and
communications equipment to conduct operations beyond 50 miles
offshore. The Deepwater project is projected to be the largest
and most expensive acquisition program in the Coast Guard's
history. It also promises to be its most complex acquisition.
While the Committee finds merit in an acquisition strategy that
avoids a one-for-one asset replacement, the Committee is
concerned that it may be too ambitious and unproven for an
agency that has experienced difficulty in managing large and
complex acquisition programs. In addition, the Committee
remains concerned that the acquisition of Deepwater assets
under this project, which is projected to reach $500,000,000
annually, is not affordable within current budget constraints
and could preclude funding for other important projects, such
as the modernization of the National Distress System. The
Committee's concerns have been echoed by the Department's
Inspector General which recently added the Deepwater program to
its list of the top 12 management challenges facing the
Department of Transportation. The Committee urges the Coast
Guard to identify and manage the risk associated with a project
of this magnitude.
Notwithstanding these concerns, the Committee
recommendation fully funds the budget request of $42,300,000 to
complete the functional design and proposal review phases of
the Deepwater project. It is the Committee's understanding that
the Coast Guard intends to request $350,000,000 for the
Deepwater project in the fiscal year 2002 budget submission.
The industry teams' proposals, however, are not due until April
2001 and the final decision on which assets will be replaced or
modernized will not occur until July 2001. This is inconsistent
with best acquisition management practices and fails to
acknowledge the experience in other major procurements, such as
those by the Federal Aviation Administration, which have shown
that lack of certainty in design and funding increases the
likelihood that projects will undergo schedule slippages and
cost overruns. As this project transitions from design
development to asset acquisition, the Committee urges the Coast
Guard to adopt budget planning practices that use information
available from the industry teams to develop cost and schedule
estimates to justify the fiscal year 2002 budget request. The
Committee also directs the Coast Guard to identify in their
fiscal year 2002 budget justification specific assets to be
acquired or modernized, the quantity requested, and the cost
associated with each item. Failure to provide this
justification will contribute to the already substantial
challenge of meeting the projected budgetary requirements for
outyear funding of this project.
aircraft
For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends
$41,650,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as
follows:
AIRCRAFT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2001 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH-65 helicoper mission computer unit 3,650 3,650
replacement............................
HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost 1,000 11,000
reduction..............................
Aviation simulator modernization project 3,000 3,000
Coast Guard cutter Healy aviation 36,000 24,000
support................................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 43,650 41,650
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH-65 helicopter engine.--The Committee recommends
$11,000,000 for the HH-65 LTS-101 engine life cycle cost
reduction, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget
estimate. The increased funding is specifically to initiate the
non-recurring engineering phase of the HH-65 engine power
restoration program. Due to aircraft modifications and the
Rescue Swimmer requirement, additional weight has been added to
the HH-65 helicopter without comparable improvements in engine
performance. The Coast Guard has identified the need to improve
the performance of the LTS-101 engine to extend the mission
endurance, range, and on-station time of the HH-65 helicopter.
The Committee believes the power restoration initiative
complements the life cycle cost reduction program and that by
accelerating this program, the Coast Guard will develop an
improved engine capability more efficiently.
USCG Cutter Healy aviation support.--The Committee
recommends $24,000,000 for the procurement of two HH-65
aircraft and associated equipment to support polar icebreaking
operations. The Committee recommendation deletes $12,000,000
and the request to acquire a third airframe due to budget
constraints.
other equipment
The Committee recommends $54,304,000 for other equipment.
The following table displays the project allocations:
OTHER EQUIPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2001 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]............ 5,500 5,500
Ports and waterways safety system 8,100 7,550
[PAWSS]................................
Marine information for safety and law 8,500 8,500
enforcement [MISLE]....................
Defense message system [DMS] 2,471 2,471
impementation..........................
Global maritime distress and safety 3,083 3,083
system (GMDSS).........................
Personnel management information system/ 2,000 2,000
joint uniform military pay system II...
Aviation logistics management 1,100 1,100
information system [ALMIS].............
National distress system modernization.. 22,000 22,000
Search and rescue capabilities 1,500 1,500
enhancement project....................
Commercial satellite communication 5,459 ..............
upgrade................................
Local notice to mariners (LNM) 600 600
automation.............................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 60,313 54,304
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ports and waterways safety systems.--The Committee
recommends $7,550,000 for installation of the Ports and
Waterway Safety System at Berwick Bay, Louisiana and Sault
Saint Marie. The Committee recommendation is $3,050,000 more
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $550,000 below the
budget request. The Committee believes that the recommended
level is sufficient and urges the Coast Guard to reduce
unnecessary costs associated with the system.
National Distress System.--The Committee has provided
$22,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System
(NDRS) modernization project. The Committee urges the Coast
Guard to expeditiously develop an upgraded system.
Commercial satellite communications.--The Committee defers
the $5,459,000 requested for the acquisition of commercial
satellite communications equipment. The Committee has provided
funding for this project in another appropriations act.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
The program level recommended is $68,406,000.
SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2001 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
Survey and design shore projects.. 7,000 7,000
Minor AC&I shore construction 8,000 8,000
projects.........................
Coast Guard housing............... 12,400 12,400
Shore--Air stations: Renovate air 8,200 8,200
station hangar, Kodiak...............
Shore--Centers/groups/stations:
Transportation improvements--Coast 8,000 8,000
Guard Island, Alameda, CA.......
Coast Guard medium endurance 2,400 2,400
cutter waterfront improvements,
Portsmouth, VA...................
Homeporting pier construction-- ............... 5,800
Homer, AK........................
Modernize CG facilities--based, 5,800 5,800
Cape May, NJ.....................
Rebuild CG Station, Port Huron, 1,300 1,300
MI--Phase I......................
Modernize air station, Port 3,800 3,800
Angeles hangar, Port Angeles, WA.
Helipad modernization, Craig, AK.. ............... 1,000
Aids to navigation facilities: 4,706 4,706
Waterways aids-to-navigation projects
---------------------------------
Total........................... 61,606 68,406
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT
The program level recommended is $55,151,000. Within the
amount provided, $1,000,000 shall be for core acquisition
costs. The Committee has provided the full amount requested for
AC&I personnel and related support.
BILL LANGUAGE
Capital investment plan.--The Committee is extremely
disappointed that the administration ignored the provision in
last year's act requiring the submission of a 5-year capital
investment plan no later than the date of the initial
submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget request.
The Committee does not request reports unnecessarily, and the
failure to deliver this particular report suggests that there
are systemic failures in the planning and budgeting of capital
assets. The Committee has included a provision which prohibits
the obligation of funds made available for the Integrated
Deepwater Replacement Project until the report is delivered to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision
crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease
of the Coast Guard's surplus property. The bill does not
include language that the administration requested which would
have reduced appropriations under this heading as asset sales
or leases are realized. This Committee believes that would
provide a disincentive for the timely disposal of surplus
property.
GENERAL PROVISION
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Committee has included
a general provision reinstating a requirement that the Coast
Guard submit a quarterly report regarding the status of major
acquisition programs.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 16,700,000
Committee recommendation................................ 16,700,000
\1\ Excludes $11,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of
Public Law 106-69. Excludes $65,000 reduction for the 0.38 percent
reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account
provides funds to address environmental problems at former and
current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal,
State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned
expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to
petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of
contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at
hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys
and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and
vessels into compliance with environmental laws and
regulations.
The accompanying bill provides $16,700,000 for
environmental compliance and restoration. The recommendation is
the same as the budget request and $300,000 less the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level. Within the amount provided, the
Commandant is directed to provide $100,000 in reimbursement to
the current owner of the former Coast Guard lighthouse facility
at Cape May, New Jersey for costs incurred for clean-up of lead
contaminated soil at that facility. This reimbursement shall be
made only if such payment is authorized in law.
Alteration of Bridges
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $15,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................ 15,500,000
\1\ Excludes $57,000 reduction for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant
to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Up to $11,000,000 which will be reimbursed from Federal-aid
highways.
The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds
for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing
bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the
Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et
seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is
required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and
publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement
of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in
accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516.
The administration has not requested appropriated funds for
the alteration of bridges that are unreasonable obstructions to
maritime trade and transportation. Instead, the President's
budget requests funding from the Federal-Aid Highways program
for the alternation of highway bridges, with program
administration remaining under the Coast Guard. The Committee
disagrees with this approach because it is inconsistent with
the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs Act. Also, it would preclude
funding for modifications to railroad bridges which impede
marine navigation because they are not eligible under the
Federal-Aid Highway program.
The Committee has provided an appropriation from the
highway trust fund of $15,500,000 for the alteration of
bridges, which is $500,000 more than the fiscal year 2000
enacted level and $4,500,000 more than the highway trust fund
limitation requested by the administration. The Committee
recommendation is to be distributed as follows:
Committee
recommendation
Florida Avenue Bridge, New Orleans, LA.................. $3,750,000
Sidney Lanier Bridge, Brunswick, GA..................... 2,000,000
CSX Railroad Bridge, Mobile, AL......................... 3,750,000
Elign, Joliet, and Eastern RR Bridge, Divine, IL........ 3,000,000
Limehouse Highway Bridge, Johns Island, SC.............. 3,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 15,500,000
Retired Pay
Appropriations, 2000 (mandatory)........................ $730,327,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory)....................... 778,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 778,000,000
The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay
of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard
Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for
annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military
personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan
(10 U.S.C. 1431-1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C.
1447-1455), and for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average
number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be
33,499 in fiscal year 2001, as compared with an estimated
32,684 in fiscal year 2000 and 31,812 in fiscal year 1999.
Reserve Training
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $72,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 73,371,000
Committee recommendation................................ 80,371,000
\1\ Excludes $48,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of
Public Law 106-69.
Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of
Transportation is required to adequately support the
development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the
Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and
equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of
the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and
qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of
war or national emergency, or at such other times as the
national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also
train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast
Guard in times of war, such as port security operations
associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ]
mission and include deployable port security units.
The Committee has included $80,371,000 for reserve
training. This is $7,000,000 above the budget request and
$8,371,000 more than last year's enacted level. The
administration proposed reducing more than 700 reserve billets
to support a Selected Reserve strength of 7,300. The Coast
Guard would implement this reduction in reserve personnel by
reducing accessions and offering enlisted and commissioned
reservists voluntary separations, and if necessary seek
involuntary separations. The administration also recommended a
commensurate reduction to the number of full-time support
personnel assigned to the Reserve. This request is counter-
productive to an organization with pressing readiness concerns,
considering that Reservists are largely integrated into active
component commands and perform virtually all the operational
duties of their active duty counterparts. Furthermore, it
contradicts the aggressive 3-year recruiting effort to
eliminate the personnel shortfall below the level of 8,000
which was reached at the beginning of fiscal year 2000. The
Committee recommendation fully maintains a Selected Reserve
level of at least 8,000 and provides Reserve training funding
as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Functional program element 2000 levels 2001 estimate recommendation
\1\ (7,300 SELRES) (8,000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training................................................ 2,581 2,650 4,170
Continuing training............................................. 43,844 45,574 49,429
Operation and maintenance support............................... 15,672 15,915 16,398
Program management and administration........................... 9,903 9,232 10,374
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 72,000 73,371 80,371
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $48,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\........................................ $15,500,000 $3,500,000 $19,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................................... 17,820,000 3,500,000 21,320,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 17,820,000 3,500,000 21,320,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $7,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to
improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries
out its varied operational missions and to increase the
knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory
responsibilities.
The Committee recommends a funding level of $21,320,000 for
research and development projects, which is $2,320,000 more
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of this amount
$3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust
fund. This recommendation is consistent with the budget
request.
Budget justification.--The Committee is disappointed by the
lack of specificity in the budget justification for RDT&E
projects and funding as well as by non-responsive answers to
hearing questions. The Committee expects the Coast Guard in its
fiscal year 2002 budget justification to submit detailed
funding data and project descriptions for each of the seven
programs in the RDT&E appropriation.
Marine Environmental Protection.--The Committee has
included not less than $1,000,000 to continue the development
and testing of methods to verify appropriate ship ballast
exchange to ensure that alien aquatic species are not
introduced into American waterways.
Inspector general report.--The Committee is concerned that
the research and development program lacks focus and is
uncertain of the contribution of research activities to
acquisition programs and the agency's operational capability.
To exercise appropriate congressional oversight, the Committee
believes it would be beneficial for an external review of this
program. The Committee directs the Department's Inspector
General to conduct a systematic analysis of the Coast Guard's
research and development program. The Inspector General should
analyze the management and direction of research and the
allocation of funds. The report should also examine if the
Coast Guard has sufficiently defined how individual projects
further the Department's performance goals.
Boat Safety
(aquatic resources trust fund)
Appropriations, 2000 (mandatory)........................ $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 (mandatory)....................... 64,000,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 64,000,000
This account provides financial assistance for a
coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for
the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section
13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the
Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist
in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying
State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts
transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from
the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon).
The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century
provides $64,000,000 of mandatory funding from the ``Aquatic
Resources Trust fund'' annually for this program. Of this
amount, $59,000,000 is provided for grants to States and
$5,000,000 for Coast Guard administration. The President's
budget requests no discretionary appropriations for fiscal year
2000.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to
the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal
Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways
Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and
parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an
administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1,
1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October
15, 1966).
The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 2001 amounts to $12,540,358,000. The following table
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2001 budget recommendation
2000 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations \1\............................................... 5,900,000 6,592,235 \2\ 6,470,250
Direct appropriation..................................... ............... 5,587,235 6,350,250
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority............. ............... ............... 100,000
User fees: Budget authority (mandatory) \3\.............. ............... 1,005,000 50,000
Facilities and equipment \4\................................. 2,075,000 2,495,000 2,656,765
Research, engineering, and development....................... 156,495 184,366 183,343
Airport improvement program \5\.............................. 1,950,000 1,950,000 3,200,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total available budget resources....................... 10,081,495 11,221,601 12,540,358
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program if necessary to maintain aviation
safety.
\3\ Includes $965,000,000 new user fees proposed in President's budget request.
\4\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 rescission of prior year balances pursuant to Public Law 106-69.
\5\ Excludes fiscal year 2000 reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
The FAA is a complex and multilayered organization that
consistently defies any rational management models. The
organization has the best and the worst organizational
characteristics of a bureaucracy: intense stability and intense
resistance to change. Accordingly, technological modernization
of air traffic systems, streamlining of regulatory processes,
personnel changes, accounting changes, and program reviews meet
broad institutional resistance while the entire organization
would ostensibly concur with the goal of each such initiative.
The FAA was reauthorized in early 2000 and unprecedented
resources for the Facilities and Equipment and Airport
Improvement Program accounts were authorized. The Committee
recommendation has made every attempt to honor those authorized
levels in the hope that these additional resources may help
alleviate the anticipated capacity constraints that accompany
increased air traffic operations and passenger enplanements.
However, the Committee anticipates that the solution to the
aviation industries' growing pains is not simply one of
committing more Federal resources to infrastructure investment
or air traffic control modernization, as important as those
investments are. Unfortunately, the formula for growing the
capacity of the nation's airways is one that cannot be solved
without increased efficiency and substantial managerial
improvement at the FAA in all aspects of its missions; two
goals that have been elusive or unattainable to date.
For the past several years, the Committee has focused
aviation capital investment on airport infrastructure, on
technology that will allow airports and the airlines to be more
efficient, and on technology and process changes that will
increase the efficiency of the air traffic control system and
personnel. While the progress is not as rapid as the Committee
would like and the promised efficiencies from the new
controller agreement have yet to be realized, the Committee
anticipates that the pressures on the operations account
culminating from the FAA's failure to manage its workforce or
program to appropriated levels combined with the increased
pressure on those accounts from the focus of the recently
enacted and signed Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and
Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR 21) on the capital
accounts will necessitate a comprehensive reevaluation of the
agency's approach to operational functions.
It's also important to note that FAA's budget growth has
come in an environment where their workload has only grown 2
percent over the past 10 years. The FAA moves airplanes, not
passengers and operations are currently projected to grow at an
average 2.1 percent per year over the next 10 years which is
far in excess of the historical experience. The estimate for
operations growth from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2001 is
1.5 percent. Traditionally, the FAA's estimates have been high
by 50-100 percent on enplanements and by slightly less on
operations. But, assuming the projections are correct (even
though they are being made in a period of unprecedented
economic growth), the FAA's appropriation will undoubtably
continue to outpace, in percentage terms, the growth in the
FAA's workload. Unfortunately, the missing piece of the
equation is significant productivity gains and cost saving
measures on the part of the FAA.
The President's budget request for the FAA proposed more
than 10 percent growth over last year's appropriation. The
budget request is not lean, particularly when viewed in the
context of the current budgetary constraints and compared to
other agencies in the Federal Government, or even within the
Department of Transportation.
Since the submission of the budget request, the Congress
has passed and the President has signed an authorization for
the FAA which envisions an appropriation for the agency in
excess of $12,600,000,000, more than 25 percent growth over
fiscal year 2000. Given the budgetary constraints facing the
Committee, this level of growth is difficult to sustain and
absent some dramatic change in the performance of the FAA in
program execution, is difficult to justify on any objective
measure. The focus of the Congress and the Administration
should not be on whether we are committed to spending increased
resources on the FAA--clearly that question is answered by how
much scarce Federal resources have been committed to the FAA.
The question that remains is whether the FAA is capable of
spending these resources wisely and whether this spending will
translate into increased aviation safety and productivity.
Clearly, some of the refocusing that the FAA Administrator
has done with the Facilities and Equipment budget--emphasizing
the Free Flight Phase I initiative, for example--provides the
Committee with a sense that the agency's modernization
priorities are becoming more aligned with the Congressional
focus. However, some of the continuing problems with some of
the Agency's largest procurements fuel concern that the agency
continues to face substantial difficulties in the
administration of major procurements. Clearly, there is a
critical need for continued, and perhaps increased oversight,
from within the FAA, and from organizations like the Department
of Transportation Inspector General, the General Accounting
Office, and the Congress.
Expenditures on FAA programs continue to exceed the taxes
paid into the aviation trust fund, demonstrating the importance
the Congress places on maintaining a robust investment in the
air transportation system. The Committee's focus as we review
the FAA's programs is on how to do things better, not how to
insulate the FAA from oversight or to create additional
restraints on the FAA Administrator's attempts to manage the
agency.
Operations
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $5,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 6,592,235,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 6,470,250,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $6,610,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law
106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program
if necessary to maintain aviation safety.
FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the
operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of
the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities.
It also covers the administration and management of the
regulatory, commercial space, medical, engineering, and
development programs.
User fees.--The administration proposed to collect
$965,000,000 in new user fee taxes from commercial aviation
users of the air traffic control system. The fees would be
available for appropriation only for aviation purposes. The
administration, at the time of the submission of the budget
request, also estimated collecting $22,000,000 of the
$50,000,000 authorized in overflight fees for fiscal year 2001.
These fees are to be available without Appropriations Committee
action for the essential air service program (under the Office
of the Secretary of Transportation) and rural airport safety.
FAA's operations costs have risen from $3,800,000,000 in
1990 to nearly $6,000,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 and these
figures continue to rise. FAA's fiscal year 2001 operations
budget request of almost $6,600,000,000 is a 12 percent
increase over fiscal year 2000 figures. By 2003, FAA projects
its Operations account will grow to about $7,200,000,000. This
Committee has repeatedly cautioned that FAA's operations costs
need to be contained. In fiscal year 1999, FAA faced an
operations shortfall of over $280,000,000 which required cuts
in safety and non-safety programs alike. This year the agency
requested a $77,000,000 supplemental appropriation to fund
operations activities such as controller training and contract
maintenance for the air traffic control system. These
shortfalls are clear examples of the need for FAA to contain
its rising costs of operations.
Provisions of FAIR 21 underscore the need for FAA to
substantially improve its fiscal management. FAIR 21 provides
FAA with $18,500,000,000 in committed funding for capital
investment over the next 3 years but provides only enough trust
fund revenue to meet about 65 percent of FAA's projected
operations requirements for that period. In addition, the
significant increases in capital investment provided by FAIR 21
will require improvements in FAA's oversight of its contracting
actions. This must include ensuring that independent government
cost estimates are prepared, reflect accurate pricing, and are
not inflated. Audits of proposed contract costs and actual
charges are also necessary. Since 1996, FAA's reliance on
Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) has dropped significantly
as evidenced by the number of audits performed. For example, in
1996 approximately 185 DCAA audits were performed on FAA
contracts. However, in 1999, the number of audits had dropped
to only 37. To protect the increased capital investment
provided by FAIR 21, the Committee expects that FAA will obtain
the needed contract audit support from DCAA and the DOT IG is
instructed to monitor FAA's progress in this regard.
The need for FAA to improve its fiscal responsibility is
clear. In February of this year, the DOT IG testified before
this Committee that a necessary tool for improving FAA's fiscal
management was development of a strategic business plan. This
plan should, at a minimum, (1) describe corporate strategies
and operating plans, (2) define long-term capital requirements
and strategies for investing in infrastructure and future
technology, and (3) provide strategies for controlling costs
and enhancing productivity. The Committee agrees that such a
plan would be beneficial providing that it is specific enough
to identify savings and efficiencies at all levels of the
agency. The Committee is specifically concerned about FAA's
oversight of areas particularly susceptible to waste and abuse
such as extended employee travel, substantial delinquencies
involving employee use of government credit cards, and curbing
employee parking at private garages where other DOT agencies do
not offer similar benefits. Accordingly, the DOT IG is
instructed to evaluate FAA's actions in these areas and report
on their results.
The bill includes $4,414,869,000 for the operations
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the
airport and airway trust fund. An additional $120,000,000 is
made available from the airport and airway trust fund for air
traffic services through the AIP program. The balance of the
operations appropriation will come from the general fund.
As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to
the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are
insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic
control system.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000 program 2001 budget Committee
level \1\ estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services.................................. 4,648,907 5,210,434 \2\ 5,159,391
Aviation regulation and certification................. 640,162 691,979 691,979
Civil aviation security............................... 131,474 144,328 138,462
Research and acquisitions............................. 174,083 196,497 182,401
Commercial space transportation....................... 6,560 12,607 10,000
Regional coordination................................. 95,321 .................. 99,347
Human resources....................................... 52,809 .................. 49,906
Financial services.................................... 38,981 .................. 43,000
Staff offices......................................... 73,093 \3\ 336,390 95,764
Essential air service................................. 32,000 ( \4\ ) ( \5\ )
---------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................... 5,893,390 6,592,235 6,470,250
=========================================================
New user fees......................................... ................. (965,000) .................
Appropriated funds.................................... ................. 6,592,235 6,470,250
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.......... ................. .................. 100,000
---------------------------------------------------------
Total available funds........................... 5,893,390 6,592,235 6,570,250
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $6,610,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available from the Airport Improvement Program if necessary to maintain aviation
safety.
\3\ Proposes to consolidate Human resources, Region/center operations, and Financial services into the Staff
offices line of business in fiscal year 2001.
\4\ Proposes that the Essential air service (EAS) payment be paid out of the Airport Improvement Program in
fiscal year 2001.
\5\ Includes funds generated by overflight user fee and fiscal year 2001 payment.
air traffic services
The Committee recommendation makes available a total of
$5,159,391,000 for the operation and maintenance of the
national air traffic control and flight service system.
The Committee is confident that this level, although
constrained, is sufficient for air traffic services and offers
the following analysis for illustration of the flexibility
represented by the Committee's recommendation. The requirements
for funding for this activity could be predicated on a series
of adjustments to the prior fiscal year appropriated level.
Initially, the appropriation could be adjusted downward for the
overflight fees that were not forthcoming in prior fiscal
years, but are currently anticipated at a level of $22,100,000
for fiscal year 2001. The Administrator and the Secretary have
both indicated that the FAA has been able to maintain a safe
air traffic control environment notwithstanding the inability
to access the revenues that would have come from these fees
although the administration has proposed supplemental funding
that has yet to be enacted. In addition, substantial controller
staff years in this appropriation are directly attributable
solely to union activities and over $62,000,000 is attributable
to direct overtime staffing. Given the high level of staff-
years committed to union activities viewed in conjunction with
the seemingly unalterable trend for substantial reliance on
overtime staffing, the Committee encourages the Federal
Aviation Administration to pursue greater flexibility in
staffing arrangements to reduce the current reliance on
overtime.
While the Committee does not recommend reducing the
appropriation by the approximately 38 percent growth in
overtime staffing over the past 2 years and the over
$200,000,000 of other special pay allotments, the FAA should
pursue efficiencies that would result from a greater
coordination of activities in this area. Reductions have been
assumed for $65,726,000 in NAS plan handoff costs above the
fiscal year 2000 appropriated level and for other savings
discussed elsewhere in the report.
Further, the Committee notes that the FAA forecasting of
aviation activity has tended to be overly optimistic as
discussed later in this report. The FAA has consistently
overestimated future aviation activity which has a cascading
impact on the Air Traffic Services budget as it takes 3 to 5
years to fully train a new controller. Overestimates in the
need for new controllers 5 years from now will likely lead to
significant future expenditures for unnecessary resources. Air
traffic control operation costs continue to increase faster
than demand for FAA air traffic control services. The high
likelihood that future FAA workloads are overestimated provide
ample guidance for FAA management adjustments as resource
constraints are addressed.
In addition, the FAA must increase the efficiency of the
air traffic control work force. Some of those possible
efficiencies are mentioned in this and other reports. The
average annual growth in operations at air traffic control
towers, en route centers, and flight service stations from 1992
to 1997 has been 0.05 percent, 2.13 percent, and 0.55 percent,
respectively. Current average aircraft handled per hour at en
route centers are just over 3 per controller hour, and current
average operations per hour at air traffic control towers are
approximately 6 per controller hour. Those averages would seem
to indicate that there is some room for improvement in
controller efficiency or staffing coordination.
The Committee is confident that careful management of the
funds provided in this act will ensure sufficient resources are
available to cover the substantial salary increases contained
in the controller's pay agreement.
Maintenance concerns.--The Committee is aware of increasing
concerns and complaints about the FAA's decisions to impose
agency-wide spending restrictions on activities funded by the
operations appropriation while excluding other similar
activities elsewhere in the account from similar restrictions.
The Committee has refrained from earmarking more money for
specific items such as staffing and training in the operations
account to provide the maximum level of flexibility for the
Administrator as she manages the FAA workforce but reiterates
the concern that adequate resources are committed to
maintaining the FAA's capital plant.
Remote maintenance and monitoring.--The Committee
recommendation includes $350,000 for expansion of RMMS to
Beaumont and Longview, Texas. The Committee encourages the FAA
to explore remote certification and maintenance options for
older, remotely located radar systems. The Committee
understands that COTS technology allows for remote maintenance
and certification of several systems in the FAA inventory by
continuously measuring the facility's critical performance
parameters and transmitting the test results through a standard
phone line to appropriate FAA officials. The Committee
recommendation includes funds for a greater exploration and
implementation of RMM capabilities.
Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $55,300,000 for the contract tower program as well as
$5,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharing program. The
$5,000,000 is in addition to those funds provided for the
regular contract tower program.
The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has
found that the contract tower program has provided level I air
traffic control services at a lower cost for 110 towers
previously operated by the FAA and provided air traffic control
services at 50 towers the FAA could not have afforded to staff.
The cost sharing program allows those towers that fall
below the FAA threshold to participate in the program by
contributing a local match. This program enables small airports
to have their tower staffed with an FAA certified air traffic
controller; thereby ensuring the safe and efficient movement of
people and goods.
The program continues to receive strong user and airport
support as a cost-effective way to enhance aviation safety.
Additionally, the Department of Transportation Inspector
General just completed a new audit of the program validating
its safety and cost benefits and the National Transportation
Safety Board has added its support. The Committee continues to
fully support this program and the contract tower cost-sharing
program. Therefore, the bill includes resources to fully fund
the contract tower program including a pilot program to expand
the program at the discretion of the Administrator to two
visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control towers operated by
the FAA, and additional funds are provided for the cost-sharing
program. It should be noted that the Committee is concerned
that earlier this year the FAA considered contract tower
funding reductions that could have eliminated nearly half the
airports that benefit from the program. No such program cuts
should be proposed in the future because aviation safety would
be jeopardized and the FAA effectively would be penalizing a
program that has proved its cost effectiveness and its
significant aviation safety benefits. The Committee understands
that the appropriated levels for contract tower operations are
sufficient to maintain operations at all eligible contract
tower facilities.
Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the FAA
Administrator is directed to provide to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee the plan proposing the extension of
the contract tower program requested in prior appropriations
bills. The plan should identify potential cost savings and
other benefits, such as the positive impact on controller
staffing at busier FAA air traffic facilities, and include a
timeline for expanding the contract tower program to these
facilities during the fiscal year. Average savings from the
current contract tower program as compared to an FAA managed
baseline average about $250,000 per facility annually.
Accordingly, since the savings should be greater with a former
level II or III VFR tower, the Committee believes that savings
from expanding the program to two towers offer substantial
savings.
Inclusion of Olive Branch Airport, Henderson Airport, and
Tupelo Municipal Airport in the contract tower program.--The
Committee bill recommendation includes funding for inclusion of
the Olive Branch, Henderson, and Tupelo Municipal Airports in
the contract tower program. It is the Committee's understanding
that these airports are eligible for the program and encourages
the FAA to work with the local airport authority to facilitate
its participation in the program.
Lawton Air Traffic Control Tower.--The Committee has been
advised that the U.S. Army intends to discontinue operation of
the Fort Sill Army Radar Approach Control (ARAC) at the Henry
Post Army Airfield. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FAA
to work with the local aviation officials to facilitate the
transfer of the operation of that facility or coordination of a
joint operational agreement that will continue the operation of
air traffic control services in that airspace in an appropriate
manner that will preserve aviation safety and efficient
airspace management. The Committee recommendation provides up
to $1,500,000 for a continuation of air traffic control
services in that airspace.
Introduction of Regional Jets.--The Committee directs the
FAA to develop strategies and procedures to maximize the
efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) as it relates
to the integration of increased operations of regional jets at
the nations most congested airports. This initiative should
include strategies to maximize the use of runway 11/29 at
Newark International airport by all aircraft and investigating
the impacts of the integration of regional jet operations on
air traffic efficiency in the New York TRACON airspace and
balancing current traffic flows to maximize airspace capacity
for arrivals and departures in that airspace. FAA should
consult and collaborate with all impacted airport sponsors and
airport users to develop and implement procedures pursuant to
this effort.
GPS approaches.--The Committee recommendation includes
sufficient funds to continue the FAA's work on GPS approaches
and to initiate preliminary consideration and analysis of GPS
approaches for helipads to be integrated with helipad lighting
design, in addition to the funds made available in the Airport
Improvement Program account. The Committee recommendation also
includes funding for a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport in
Butte, MT.
National airspace redesign.--Of the funds appropriated for
this activity, the $8,500,000 for the NY/NJ Airspace Redesign
cannot be reprogrammed by the FAA for other activities,
including airspace redesign activities outside the NY/NJ metro
area.
Oceanic Traffic Services.--Given the difficulty that the
FAA has experienced in modernizing the oceanic service
function, the Committee has once again provided discretionary
authority to the FAA Administrator permitting the contracting
out of the oceanic services function. The Committee notes that
the FAA Administrator has the discretion under this authority
to establish requisite staffing standards and requirements. The
demands on the air traffic routes in the Pacific and the North
Atlantic desperately require the capacity enhancement that
technological and operational modernization promises for
oceanic services. The Committee will continue to watch the
progress of the procurement for improved oceanic communications
closely and would anticipate that the FAA Administrator would
avail herself of the authority granted to the agency in the
areas of procurement reform and in this legislation that permit
her great flexibility in modernizing this system. The Committee
emphasizes that this authority is permissive as opposed to
directive and encourages the FAA Administrator to exercise this
authority if the agency continues to experience difficulty in
the modernization of this capability.
The Committee also notes that the FAA elected to pay the
potential contractors to participate in the procurement and
anticipates that there will be no slippage from the current
schedule. Given the pay to participate scenario that the FAA is
currently operating under, if the schedule does slip, the
Committee assumes any unsolicited proposal that promises a cost
effective alternative system would be given every appropriate
consideration. Further, recognizing the immediate benefits of
improved oceanic communication, particularly over the Pacific,
the Committee urges the Administrator to field an operational
system in Anchorage, Alaska and Oakland, California within 12
months of contract signing.
NAS Handoff.--The Committee recommendation includes
$69,700,000 for NAS handoff activities. This is the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 2000. The Committee notes that the
FAA anticipates spending only $44,400,000 on NAS handoff
activities in fiscal year 2000 and that only $13,000,000 will
come from the Operations appropriations under current execution
plans at the FAA. The Committee assumes that appropriate
notification to the Committees on Appropriations will occur as
the FAA executes this and other activities.
Training.--The Committee notes and commends the FAA on its
commitment to operational training over the past several years
in light of budgetary constraints and competing operational
priorities. However, the Committee remains concerned about the
short term pressure on training resources in light of immediate
budgetary pressures. Specifically, the Committee is concerned
that the requested operational training program levels appear
inadequate to meet the required controller proficiency and
developmental training requirement to maintain operational
safety and improve efficiency. In addition, the Committee is
concerned that the FAA has slipped into a practice of utilizing
members of the Controller Work Force (CWF) rather than the Air
Traffic Instructional Services (ATIS) program contract.
Accordingly, the Committee recommendation includes $23,000,000,
which is less than the $25,000,000 in training needs identified
by the ATC facilities participating in the ATIS program for
training activities under the training contract. Further, the
Committee directs that the FAA not utilize CWF members for this
training if such utilization would result in an increase in the
direct or indirect use of overtime funds. Within the
limitations of this policy, the Committee expects the
Administrator to ensure that controllers are fully trained for
their programmed positions at tower, TRACON, and center
facilities, especially at the nation's busier facilities during
the summer travel season. The Committee further directs the FAA
to coordinate with the Committee before utilizing these funds
for any activities other than air traffic instructional
services training at field facilities for developmental and
proficiency training of controllers.
Adak, Alaska.--The Committee directs the FAA to report on
the condition of existing aviation infrastructure at Adak,
Alaska and the necessary improvements for safety and improved
efficiency for aviation commercialization.
NIOSH study.--The Committee notes the great challenges
pilots flying in remote locations of Alaska face from severe
climatic conditions, extreme geographical features including
the nation's highest mountain ranges, and an inadequate
aviation infrastructure such as basic runway lights, in an area
one-fifth the size of the continental United States. It
strongly supports the interagency cooperative effort of the
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
the National Transportation Safety Board, other Federal, State,
and private parties, and FAA efforts to improve aviation safety
in the State through cooperative review and enhancement of
safety procedures and practices. The Committee directs FAA to
continue its participation in this important endeavor at
existing levels.
Aviation Regulation and Certification
The Committee provides $691,979,000 for aviation regulation
and certification, the same level as the budget request.
Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service
conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP),
which produces and distributes safety educational programs and
materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority
of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation
accidents, the Committee believes this is a valuable program
and should not be reduced in funding below the fiscal year 2000
level.
Boeing 737 flight data recorders.--Appropriate
consideration should be given to ensure that the technological
feasibility of any final rule requiring airlines to further
upgrade and retrofit flight data recorders on all 737 aircraft.
Timeframes established for compliance should be realistic and
to the extent consistent with safety, the FAA is encouraged to
offer appropriate relief to carriers which have been aggressive
and early in terms of compliance with existing FAA regulations
in this area. Carriers should have incentives to comply with
FAA safety regulations early and to be aggressive in their
implementation schedules. When a carrier has demonstrated such
aggressiveness and early compliance, the FAA Administrator
should, consistent with other safety considerations, consider
that behavior when promulgating follow on rulemakings. To fail
to do so could provide a strong disincentive to implement
safety enhancements any sooner than absolutely necessary under
existing law or regulation.
Civil Aviation Security
The Committee provides $138,462,000 for civil aviation
security. The Committee has provided substantial budgetary
increases for FAA's civil aviation security function over the
past several years, and yet has difficulty determining whether
those additional resources are translating into substantial
improvements in aviation security. The FAA is directed to
develop and submit with the fiscal year 2002 budget request the
strategic plan for pursuit of the civil aviation security
program recommended by the Inspector General in 1998.
Research and Acquisitions
The Committee provides $182,401,000 for research and
acquisition, an increase of 8 percent above the fiscal year
2000 enacted level. The Committee believes this level to be
adequate for the activities of this office coordinating the
financing, planning, and management of the FAA's acquisition
and research functions.
Next generation e-mail.--The Committee recommends an
increase of $4,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 level for
improvements to the FAA's e-mail systems.
Telecommunications bandwidth.--The Committee recommendation
defers the requested upgrades to the bandwidth of certain
telecommunications systems.
Commercial Space Transportation
The Committee provides $10,000,000 for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation. The reduction below the budget
request is made without prejudice due to budgetary constraints.
The Committee notes that the recommended amount provided by the
Committee represents an increase of 46 percent above fiscal
year 2000 levels.
Financial Services
The Committee provides $43,000,000 for financial services,
an increase of 2.4 percent above fiscal year 2000 levels.
Restraints on growth.--The budget request envisioned
substantial funding for new program initiatives or programmatic
growth that cannot be accommodated given the budget constraints
facing the operations account. While providing resources that
accommodate the base funding levels for these initiatives, the
Committee recommendation does not fully fund the new
initiatives. A comparison of some of these initiatives with
recommended levels is presented below.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------
Activity 2001
2000 enacted recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELPHI implementation................... $100,000 $3,800,000
IPPS replacement........................ 50,000 4,400,000
Asset management........................ 2,516,000 3,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources
The Committee provides $49,906,000 for human resources, an
increase of 2.4 percent above the fiscal year 2000 level. The
reduction is due to budget constraints and is made without
prejudice. The budget request presented this office under the
request for ``staff offices.'' The Committee bill maintains the
budget presentation enacted in prior fiscal years and
encourages the FAA to present the request for fiscal year 2002
consistent with the structure in this, and last year's,
appropriations legislation.
Regional Coordination
The Committee provides $99,347,000 for regional
coordination, an increase of 1.5 percent above the fiscal year
2000 enacted level. The budget request presented this funding
in the ``Staff offices'' request. The Committee bill maintains
the budgeting approach enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Staff Offices
The Committee provides $95,764,000 for staff offices, which
is 22 percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
Second career training program.--The Committee has included
bill language which was included in the President's budget
request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the
second career training program. This prohibition has been
carried in annual appropriations acts for many years.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision, first
included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which
prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those
cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This
provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal
years 1995-2000. It was requested by the administration for
fiscal year 2001.
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
has retained bill language which was requested by the
administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a
manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous
United States. There is no funding provided in the
``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2001.
Secretary's discretionary transfer funds.--The Committee
has included language that provides authority for the Secretary
to transfer up to $100,000,000 from Coast Guard operating
expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and
maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security.
OIG audit reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation
directs the FAA to reimburse the Office of Inspector General
$19,000,000 for audit and other aviation review work conducted
in that office.
Restriction on multiyear leases.--The bill maintains a
restriction on multiyear leases as enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Charting Services.--For several years, the DOT and NOAA
have attempted to transfer the aeronautical charting and
cartography functions from NOAA to the DOT. Public Law 106-181
authorizes the transfer of these activities from the Department
of Commerce to the FAA by October 1, 2000 which the Committee
supports. If the FAA is unable to accept the transfer of the
functions by October 1, 2000 and seeks legislative relief from
the requirements included in Public Law 106-181, the Committee
expects that the FAA would pay the full cost of any services
provided by NOAA.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $2,075,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 2,495,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,656,765,000
\1\ Excludes $30,000,000 rescission of prior year balances.
Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation,
safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system
are improved by the procurement and installation of new
equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities
to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with
the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital
investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace
system [NAS] plan.
The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate
is that it will spend approximately $37,500,000,000 on the Air
Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004.
The estimate for the modernization of the system has continued
to evolve and escalate and the FAA has deployed several new
systems since 1981. However, the FAA has not delivered
virtually any system (and certainly not any major ones) within
cost, schedule, or performance goals due primarily to a
complete failure to impose acquisition management discipline.
Last year, the General Accounting Office testified:
``From the inception of the air traffic control
modernization program to today, FAA has not
consistently followed a disciplined management approach
for acquiring new systems. In the 1980's and early
1990's, FAA did not follow the phased approach of
Federal acquisition guidance designed to help mitigate
the cost, schedule, and performance risk associated
with the development of major systems. The agency
believed that it could develop and install new systems
more quickly by combining several of the five phases
outlined in this guidance. However, as a result of not
following this disciplined, phased approach, FAA often
encountered major difficulties such as those associated
with developing the Advanced Automation System. In
1995, the Congress exempted FAA from many Federal
procurement rules and regulations, in April, 1996, FAA
implemented an acquisition management system, which
emphasized, once again, the need for a disciplined
approach to acquisition management. However, we (GAO)
found continuing weaknesses in key areas such as how
FAA monitors the status of projects throughout their
life-cycle.''
Earlier this year, the Department of Transportation
Inspector General testified:
``The problems with these acquisitions (WAAS, STARS,
AMASS) are not the result of a lack of funding or the
result of burdensome procurement and personnel rules.
What all these systems have in common are difficulties
with software development and human factors. . . . As a
result of these problems, schedules have proven to be
unrealistic and costs have increased. FAA has taken
steps to address problems with WAAS, STARS, and AMASS
but only after major problems have surfaced. FAA can do
more to protect the Government, make contractors more
accountable, and address human factors issues earlier
in the development and acquisition processes.
``In addition, FAA needs to identify and resolve
human factors concerns early in the acquisition process
to avoid cost overruns and schedule delays.
``In fairness to FAA, we must recognize that the
development of new technologies, particularly those
involving complex software and new aircraft avionics,
involve research and development risks for which the
United States bears much of the cost. Many of the firms
developing these systems for FAA rank among the most
technologically sophisticated in the world. Once
developed, this technology is considered `off the
shelf' and can be sold at a fraction of the costs to
other ATC providers.''
Further, the Department of Inspector General's Top 12
Management Issues Report highlighted air traffic control
modernization stated:
``FAA acknowledges past problems and is addressing
them with a more incremental approach--`build a little,
test a little'--to some acquisitions. . . . Also, FAA
completed the initial phase of the HOST Replacement
program, on schedule and within budget, before the year
2000. Further, FAA is currently on schedule with the
Display System Replacement program, which modernizes
domestic enroute centers by replacing aging and
unsupportable display equipment.''
Clearly, management and modernization of the National
Airspace System is a herculean and complicated task, and a
challenge which will continue as long as air travel is the
fastest, most cost-effective, and safest means of traveling
significant distances. Modernization is an incremental and
persistent responsibility. Although FAA has recently modified
procurement processes and implemented an acquisition management
system in 1996, the schedule delays, cost escalations, and
performance problems continue to plague modernization efforts.
While there are several core issues that continue to appear as
reasons for the problems as noted above, most of those core
issues are arguably rooted in the FAA's organizational culture.
Many observers of the FAA acquisition dynamic have concluded
that the FAA culture has led employees to act in ways that do
not evidence a strong commitment to mission focus,
accountability, coordination, and adaptability. The
Administrator is currently undertaking a number of steps to
change the FAA culture, and some anecdotal examples may
indicate that those efforts are having some success at the
margin.
Some have expressed the concern that the cited examples of
success are distinguishable on the specific circumstances:
DSR's problems, delays, and cost overruns were relegated to the
procurement's predecessor and HOST was up against a firm
deadline (Y2K) which precluded the FAA's from any reengineering
or changing any significant aspect of the procurement. If those
concerns have merit, it may well be that the FAA's traditional
approach to procurements is flawed from the start. Perhaps the
Congress and the FAA should spend less time with cost benefit
analysis, that invariably become moot as decision-making tools
as costs escalate, as relating to major procurements and more
time engaged in a dialogue with all interested stakeholders
about what the system of the future should look like and what
we can commit for such a system. The Committee believes that a
dialogue of that nature would inevitably lead to greater buy-in
up front by the users (industry), the operators (controllers,
maintenance personnel), and the Congress. In addition, such a
dialogue should have the added benefit of providing greater
certainty for the program managers and the contractors
concerning requirement changes or developmental modifications
and would facilitate greater agency accountability.
Clearly, changing the FAA culture is a long term
proposition, but the Committee recommendations have been
reviewed with a focus on reinforcing greater accountability,
mission focus, and striving for better or alternative ways of
improving the system.
CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year of first-site Year of last-site
implementation implementation
System name 1983 NAS -------------------------------- 2000 CIP 1983 NAS ------------------------------ 1999 CIP 2000 CIP
plan 1991 1993 1998 1999 plan
CIP CIP CIP CIP 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1998 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System (AAS)........ 1990 1991 1991 ( \1\ ( \1\ ( \1\ ) 1994 2001 2004 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
) )
Display System Replacement (DSR).... ........ ...... ...... 1998 1998 1998 ........ ........ ........ 2000 2000 2000
Standard Terminal Automation ........ ...... ...... 1998 ( \2\ \3\ 1999 ........ ........ ........ 2005 ( \2\ ) 2008
Replacement System (STARS)......... )
Tower Automation Program (TAP)...... ........ ...... ...... ( \4\ ( \4\ ( \4\ ) ........ ........ ........ ( \4\ ) ( \4\ ) ( \4\ )
) )
Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR-4)... 1988 1993 1994 1996 1996 1996 1991 1996 1996 1999 1999 2000
Airport Surface Detection Equipment 1987 1992 1993 1993 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999 1999 2002
(ASDE-3)...............................
Automated Weather Observing System 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 2002 2002 2002
(AWOS)/Automated Surface Observing
System (ASOS)..........................
Central Weather Processor (CWP)......... 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \5\ 1992 \5\ 1993 \5\ 1993 \5\ 1993
Flight Service Automation System (FSAS). 1984 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995 1995 1995
Mode-S.................................. 1988 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 \6\ 1999 \6\ 1999 \7\ 2004
Radio Microwave Link (RML) Replacement 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993 1993 1993
and Expan- sion.......................
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR)... ( \8\ ) 1993 1994 1994 1994 1994 ( \8\ ) 1996 1996 2001 2000 2000
Voice Switching and Control System 1989 1995 1995 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 1997
(VSCS).................................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En Route (DSR), Terminal (STARS), and Tower (TAP).
\2\ STARS schedule is under review.
\3\ First IOC for Early Display Configuration for STARS.
\4\ The Tower Automation Program (TAP) has been terminated.
\5\ Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP-RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into
the Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) Program.
\6\ Dates denoted are for Interim Beacon Interrogator (IBI) Last-Site Implementation.
\7\ Date denoted is for full Mode-S Last-Site Implementation.
\8\ TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS Plan.
Source: FAA 1983 NAS Plan; 1991, and 1993 CIP; February 1998 GAO testimony Observations on FAA's Modernization Program and December 1998 GAO report
Status of the FAA's Modernization Program.
REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System name Reasons for delay
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System In general, AAS delays were due to an
(AAS). overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA
oversight of the contractor, and
ineffective resolution of requirements
issues. The AAS Program has been
restructured into three areas: En
Route, Terminal, and Tower.
Air Route Surveillance Radar Problems with the radar's development
(ARSR-4). and site preparation delayed first-site
implementation. Testing took longer
than originally expected. Delays have
also occurred due to changes in system
design, interface problems with other
ATC systems, and slips in site
construction. Past delays were due to
environmental issues at Ajo, Arizona
and typhoon damage at Mount Santa Rosa,
Guam (which was commissioned in January
2000). However, the AJO system has been
further delayed until completion of the
technician familiarization training and
the evaluation of system reliability.
Airport Surface Detection Original delays occurred because FAA and
Equipment (ASDE-3). the contractor under-estimated software
complexity. FAA changed some
requirements, and testing uncovered
some performance problems. Software
development, establishing remote
towers, site selection/preparation, and
the addition of seven systems further
delayed the program. Though the agency
previously experienced site preparation
delays which subsequently delayed
installations, only the La Guardia and
Charlotte systems now remained to be
installed. One ASDE-3 system had been
used to provide spare parts and the
time necessary to refurbish it has
caused the recent delay in last-site
implementation.
Automated Weather Observing Site prep, installation, and maintenance
System (AWOS)/Automated problems, as well as delays in
Surface Observing System receiving Government-furnished
(ASOS). equipment contributed to original
delays. Last-site implementation delay
occurred because of communications
funding shortfalls and installation
delays of the communications
infrastructure to deliver weather
information. Recent delays are
associated with the addition of ASOS
systems per fiscal year 1997 and fiscal
year 1998 Congressional direction.
Central Weather Processor Early software development problems and
(CWP). software discrepancies during testing
delayed the system in early stages. The
program was descoped to just the CWP-
MWP I segment, which is now fully
implemented.
Flight Service Automation Original delays occurred because of
System (FSAS). software development and testing
problems with the Model I system.
Program implementation is complete.
Mode S........................ Problems in developing hardware and
software during initial phases delayed
the system, and software problems
caused a delay in first-site
implementation. Implementation of the
last-site initially moved out due to en
route interface requirements and site
preparation delays. Recent delays in
the last-site implementation are
attributed to a deferral of all funding
for the Mode-S program from fiscal year
1998-fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year
2001-04. The FAA chose to defer the
funding as it was determined that the
interim capability (interim beacon
interrogator) of Mode-S was acceptable
and satisfied the capability
requirements over the past several
years. However, implementation of the
full capability of Mode-S is critical
to meet the end-state requirements of
the NAS. With funding restored in
fiscal year 2001-fiscal year 2004, the
last site implementation in full Mode-S
will be 2004.
Radar Microwave Link (RML) In the early stages, site acquisition
Replacement and Expansion. and prep problems delayed the system.
Other delays occurred because of a
change in the prime contractor and due
to problems encountered during
operational test and evaluation.
Program implementation is complete.
Standard Terminal Automation Delays are primarily associated with new
Replacement System (STARS). computer-human interface requirements
that require custom software
development, a fundamental change in
the STARS program acquisition strategy.
Additional requirements to the program
including Automated Radar Terminal
System (ARTS) color displays at
selected Terminal Radar Approach
Control (TRACON) facilities, ARTS IIIE
systems for 3 TRACONs, and Early
Display Configuration development and
deployment at up to 16 sites
contributed to the delays.
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar Site availability and land acquisition
(TDWR). problems have delayed last-site
implementation. Recent delays are
associated with land procurement and
environmental issues at the last 2
sites (Chicago-Midway and New York.
Voice Switching and Control Early delays were due to the two
System (VSCS). prototype contracts having technical
difficulties in meeting FAA's
requirements for system reliability.
Additional delays occurred because of
software development and integration
problems during the upgrade of the
prototype to a production model. The
implementation schedule has not changed
since the 1991 CIP. The last site
implementation was achieved on schedule
in February 1997.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill includes an appropriation of $2,656,765,000 for
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. This appropriation represents an increase of 28
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The bill
does not provide the advanced appropriations requested by the
administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
Program name 2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING................ $26,696,300 $40,848,000 $45,848,000
SAFE FLIGHT 21............................................... 16,000,000 25,000,000 35,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--ADV DEV/PROTOTYPING.......................... 42,696,300 65,848,000 80,848,000
==================================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS....................... 23,862,000 15,400,000 15,400,000
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION.......................................... 6,000,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM.................................... 27,000,000 51,970,000 51,970,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS.................... 25,000,000 30,200,000 30,200,000
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM................. 6,100,000 12,300,000 12,300,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE........................................ 179,625,000 170,800,000 175,800,000
FREE FLIGHT PHASE TWO........................................ ............... 50,000,000 25,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................ 267,587,000 345,270,000 325,270,000
==================================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS).................................. 112,440,000 114,850,000 116,850,000
==================================================
AFSS VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT................................ 1,000,000 ............... ...............
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS)................ ............... 9,300,000 37,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS)......................... ............... 65,000,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING/NAVAIDS.............................. 1,000,000 74,300,000 37,000,000
==================================================
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITY--BUILDING LEASE................ 1,322,500 ............... ...............
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY................. ............... 2,162,000 2,162,000
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES.................................. 11,477,500 8,795,500 8,795,000
TECHNICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE SUSTAINMENT.................. ............... 2,726,000 2,726,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES............... 12,800,000 13,683,500 13,683,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 1....................................... 436,523,300 613,951,500 573,651,000
==================================================
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION.......................................... 160,000,000 122,200,000 122,200,000
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD)....................... 4,900,000 4,100,000 4,100,000
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT............................ ............... 940,000 940,000
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP)........................... 15,000,000 24,710,000 24,710,000
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS.................... ............... 1,200,000 1,200,000
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS............... 36,900,000 58,000,000 58,950,000
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS).................... 17,500,000 ............... ...............
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT....................................... 15,000,000 25,944,000 25,944,000
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT.............................. 850,000 1,880,000 1,880,000
DOD BASE CLOSURE--FACILITY TRANSFER.......................... 3,900,000 ............... ...............
BACK-UP EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS (BUEC)...................... 1,580,000 ............... ...............
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION INFRASTRUCTURE...................... ............... 16,074,000 16,074,000
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION RFI ELIMINATION..................... 1,700,000 ............... ...............
VOLCANO MONITOR.............................................. 2,000,000 ............... 2,000,000
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT.................. 25,000,000 77,612,000 77,612,000
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES................................ 2,700,000 2,844,000 2,844,000
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT............ 1,430,000 5,031,606 7,631,000
RCF FACILITIES--EXPAND/RELOCATE.............................. 6,700,000 ............... ...............
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS....................... ............... 8,218,000 8,218,000
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE........................ 6,100,000 29,400,000 29,400,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS............................ 301,260,000 378,153,606 383,703,000
==================================================
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE)................... 10,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE-X)................. ............... 8,400,000 8,400,000
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)--PROVIDE............... 9,300,000 5,100,000 5,100,000
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS).................................. 82,800,000 75,550,000 75,550,000
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES--REPLACE............. 78,900,000 105,000,000 117,100,000
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES--IMPROVE..................... 24,782,700 40,259,672 40,259,672
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS................ 10,900,000 5,000,000 10,900,000
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS....... 22,000,000 28,400,000 28,400,000
CHICAGO METROPLEX............................................ 700,000 ............... ...............
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM.............................. 1,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
POTOMAC METROPLEX............................................ 17,100,000 25,800,000 25,800,000
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX................................ 17,500,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
ATLANTA METROPLEX............................................ 7,700,000 3,400,000 3,400,000
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS).................. 3,520,000 13,100,000 13,100,000
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR-9)........................... 4,000,000 4,722,000 17,000,000
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS).................. 18,200,000 20,650,000 20,650,000
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM........................... 2,500,000 2,632,000 3,632,000
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR-11).............................. 76,100,000 108,250,000 75,000,000
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR.................................... 24,000,000 22,400,000 22,400,000
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER.............................. 3,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS.................................... 3,300,000 2,000,000 17,000,000
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE................................ 3,838,800 3,233,600 3,233,000
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS......................... 1,124,000 1,250,700 1,550,700
RCE EQUIPMENT................................................ 3,400,000 ............... ...............
MODE S--PROVIDE.............................................. ............... 1,974,000 1,974,000
TERMINAL APPLIED ENGINEERING................................. ............... 6,700,000 6,700,000
REMOTE RADAR CAPABILITY...................................... 900,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL PROGRAMS............................ 417,065,500 494,921,972 508,249,372
==================================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS).................... 9,900,000 8,213,900 13,213,900
OASIS........................................................ 10,000,000 23,100,000 23,100,000
WEATHER MESSAGE SWITCHING CENTER REPLACEMENT................. ............... 2,500,000 2,500,000
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT........................ 1,364,400 1,277,500 1,277,500
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION SWITCH MODERNIZATION.................. ............... 6,000,000 6,000,000
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION......................... 2,600,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS...................... 23,864,400 45,091,400 50,091,400
==================================================
VOR.......................................................... 2,000,000 2,632,000 2,632,000
NEXT GENERATION NAVIGATION/LANDING SYSTEMS................... 114,000,000 ............... 164,400,000
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE........... ............... 16,000,000 ...............
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C............................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 ...............
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS)..................... 2,200,000 5,734,000 5,734,000
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR).................................... 6,300,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS)......................... ............... 46,000,000 ...............
NDB SUSTAIN.................................................. 1,000,000 940,000 940,000
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--IMPROVE....................... 3,146,800 2,955,922 2,955,922
ILS--REPLACE GRN-27.......................................... ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP)................. 8,700,000 1,040,000 21,450,000
PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI).................... 3,500,000 ............... 6,000,000
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT (DME)........................... 1,200,000 1,128,000 1,428,000
VISUAL NAVAIDS............................................... 1,000,000 2,820,000 2,820,000
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA)............. 900,000 ............... ...............
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM.............................. ............... 1,900,000 3,600,000
LORAN-C UPGRADE/MODERNIZATION................................ ............... 20,000,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS................ 144,946,800 106,149,922 215,959,922
==================================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS)................ 3,600,000 2,500,000 7,200,000
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING................. 10,500,000 10,500,000 10,500,000
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--IMPROVE/MODERNIZE............... 4,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN/SUPPORT.................... 17,500,000 28,200,000 28,200,000
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS).............. 2,000,000 1,880,000 1,880,000
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM........................... 1,840,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT............... 3,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
SPECIAL USE AIRSPACE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (SAMS)................ ............... 5,400,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC FACILITIES......................... 42,440,000 67,080,000 66,380,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 2....................................... 929,576,700 1,091,396,900 1,224,383,694
==================================================
NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP)................... 800,000 1,034,000 1,034,000
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT............................... 22,500,000 22,600,000 22,600,000
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS)....................... 14,000,000 15,980,000 15,980,000
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS).................... 600,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
FAA EMPLOYEE HOUSING--PROVIDE................................ 8,000,000 ............... ...............
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES...................... 2,300,000 7,500,000 7,500,000
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE SUPPORT.......................... 1,000,000 940,000 940,000
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE.......................... 3,000,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS)................. 5,200,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER......................... 1,500,000 1,800,000 1,800,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)........................... ............... 4,700,000 4,700,000
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM............................... 5,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION TECHNOLOGY............................... 97,500,000 97,500,000 99,500,000
FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT............................ 11,500,000 19,339,000 19,339,000
INFORMATION SECURITY......................................... 7,500,000 11,200,000 11,200,000
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM)........................... 1,000,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT EQUIPMENT............................ 181,400,000 190,693,000 192,693,000
==================================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER INFRASTRUCTURE MODERNIZATION............. ............... 7,200,000 7,200,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES........... ............... 1,880,000 1,880,000
DISTANCE LEARNING............................................ ............... 2,162,000 2,162,000
--------------------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES.............. ............... 11,242,000 11,242,000
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 3....................................... 181,400,000 201,935,000 203,935,000
==================================================
MISSION SUPPORT
SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT................... 22,200,000 24,711,000 24,711,000
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES....................................... 31,100,000 33,800,000 33,800,000
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES................................... 5,600,000 6,300,000 6,300,000
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER--LEASE..................... 14,600,000 14,000,000 14,000,000
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES....................... 2,800,000 2,619,000 2,619,000
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT............................... 38,700,000 37,539,000 37,539,000
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING--PROVIDE.................. 3,000,000 2,900,000 2,900,000
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES............................ 2,500,000 26,400,000 26,400,000
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE...................................... 1,000,000 3,534,000 3,534,000
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC)................... 40,000,000 44,911,000 44,911,000
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM.................................... ............... 3,450,000 3,450,000
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE)............. 61,000,000 63,400,000 68,400,000
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION...................... 69,700,000 \1\ 135,000,000 63,578,706
==================================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 4....................................... 222,500,000 263,564,000 332,142,706
==================================================
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES............................... 295,000,000 322,652,600 322,652,600
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Requested in operations.
engineering, development, test, and evaluation
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.--The
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping covers a range
of timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering,
Development, Test and Evaluation activity. The Committee
recommendation provides $45,848,000 for this activity including
the airport-related research proposed for funding under the
airport improvement program request and $2,000,000 for the
airfield pavement improvement program authorized under section
905 of Public Law 106-181. In addition, funding is included in
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping for ADS-B, GPS
availability, accuracy, and integrity including $2,600,000 for
GPS harmonization work to be undertaken as part of a multi-
agency initiative to explore the vulnerability of the GPS
signal to interference and $1,000,000 for anti-jamming work. In
addition, the Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for
Commercial Remote Sensing Products and Spatial Information
Technologies.
Universal Access Systems (UAS).--FAA is directed to work
with organizations representing airports, airline pilots, and
other interested parties to deploy expeditiously the
continuously-updated data needed on approved flight crew
members that will allow universal access systems to operate
properly. Existing systems that deliver data and other
information to airport computer systems should be used if they
will facilitate rapid deployment and provide the best cost,
benefit, and data security. This program presents an
opportunity for the FAA to partner with industry to develop the
universal data and standards needed to make such security
systems available in the near future, and utilize digital
networks already designed for airport sponsors maximizing the
incentives to field universal security systems on a voluntary
basis.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation provides
$35,000,000 for the Safe Flight 21 initiatives. Half the
additional funding above the request is to extend the Capstone
program into Southeastern Alaska including communications
upgrades. The other half of the increase is to expand the Ohio
Valley program with a specific focus on utilizing ADS-B
technologies to contribute to runway incursion solutions. The
Committee is encouraged by initial reports of the progress of
the Safe Flight initiative and commends the FAA for the
approach and focus of the effort in this area.
En route programs
Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee
recommendation fully funds the budget request for Aviation
Weather Service Improvements and notes that weather is the
major contributor to air traffic delays, accounting for 65
percent of all delays and a factor in 40 percent of accidents.
En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation fully
funds the en route automation requests and provides $65,000,000
for Eunomia to develop and en route communications gateway that
will replace current Peripheral Adapter Module Replacement Item
(PAMRI) functionality which has demonstrated increasingly
difficult to maintain.
Oceanic Automation System.--The Committee fully funds the
request for the Oceanic ATOP procurement and notes that the FAA
recently downselected from three vendors to two. The FAA
anticipates a further downselect before the end of the calendar
year. As noted elsewhere in the report, the Oceanic procurement
has experienced substantial delays and difficulties in the past
and the Committee encourages the FAA to aggressively manage
this procurement to field improved capability in the oceanic
environment. The Committee has provided authority for the FAA
to contract out this entire function at the discretion of the
FAA Administrator if the current procurement strategy
experiences further difficulties in order to expedite this
modernization and to provide the greatest possible flexibility
in this regard for the administrator.
Free Flight Phase One.--The Committee recommendation
provides $175,800,000 for the Free Flight Phase One activities.
Within the amount provided for Free Flight Phase I, the
Committee has provided $5,000,000 for the continued expansion
and improvement of the Departure Spacing Program (DSP). Within
this amount, sufficient funding (approximately $2,000,000) is
for the installation of bar-coded strips at the tower
facilities serving Newark International Airport, LaGuardia
Airport, Kennedy International Airport and Philadelphia
International Airport. This enhancement is expected to improve
both the safety and efficiency of the DSP program in that
region. The Committee notes that the DSP program holds great
promise for providing improved data on the frequency and cause
of delays at these airports. The Administrator is encouraged to
design and implement improvements to the program so as to
maximize the opportunities for data gathering and information
sharing on the matter of delays.
Free Flight Phase Two.--The Committee recommendation
provides $25,000,000 for the expansion of the Free Flight
initiatives, half of the budget request. The reduction to the
request is made without prejudice and will be revisited as the
fiscal year 2000 Free Flight activities progress with a focus
on whether such an aggressive expansion of the program can be
successfully implemented in fiscal year 2001. Within the
Committee recommendation, funding is included to provide pFast
for Denver International Airport.
Terminal programs
Terminal Automation (STARS).--The Committee recommendation
includes $2,000,000 above the budget requests for the Terminal
Automation program and is heartened by the positive reports
from the users of the initially deployed system in the field.
The additional funds are to be used for activity 2 efforts and
to deploy a DBRITE system to the Mid-Delta regional airport.
The Committee has become aware that the FAA is considering
disbursing used radar equipment to the new St. Louis Gateway
TRACON due to open in 2001. It is the Committee's understanding
that all of the equipment designated to go in the new TRACON is
state-of-the-art except for the vitally important radar scopes.
The Committee requests that the FAA review its decision
regarding the radar scopes for the St. Louis Gateway TRACON.
Local Area Augmentation System For GPS (LAAS).--The
Committee recommendation provides funding the LAAS program from
within the Next Generation Navigation systems. The Committee
provides $37,000,000 for the LAAS program within this line and
notes that there has been substantial private development of
the LAAS capability and that an agreement has recently been
reached to install a LAAS system at Memphis Airport. The FAA is
encouraged to take full advantage of the private investment in
this initiative. Further, the Committee is concerned that the
integrity issue that has recently plagued the Wide Area
Augmentation System procurement (WAAS) be aggressively managed
as it relates to the LAAS system so as to minimize the impact
that integrity issues may ultimately have on both the cost and
schedule for the LAAS procurement. $4,000,000 of the increased
funding for this program is for a continuation of the
development work on a low cost next generation precision
gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. The
Committee continues to view developmental work in this area as
critical to extending the benefits of satellite based
navigational services to the general aviation community by
providing the technological developments that will permit
affordable inertial navigational capability for general
aviation users.
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).--The Committee
recommendation within the Next Generation Navigational/Landing
Systems line for WAAS is the budget request adjusted for the
shifts announced by the FAA after discovery of the most recent
schedule and technical delays in the program and taking into
account the funding provided in the Advance Technology
Development and Prototyping line for the developmental work
funded in that line. The Committee remains concerned about the
single strand nature of this procurement and encourages the FAA
to proceed cautiously with this procurement. In addition, the
Committee encourages the FAA to take full advantage of the
secondary or ancillary benefits that the WAAS signal may
provide for other aviation purposes. Accordingly, the FAA
should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good in this
regard and should explore what applications of the technology
might be of use to the aviation community notwithstanding the
certification difficulties of the current system. Clearly, the
value of the WAAS signal to airports, general aviation users,
avionics manufacturers, and others is significant even before
the primary use of the signal is capable of being certified.
The FAA should pursue incremental uses and applications of
applying the WAAS signal as a potential solution for runway
incursion issues, and other critical aviation challenges. The
following table outlines the progression of this procurement to
ever higher costs, ever diminished capability, and ever longer
schedule to full operating capability, however reduced:
DEVELOPMENT COSTS, SCHEDULES, AND PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS FOR WAAS
[Dollars in millions]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated Initial
Year development operating Performance Full operating Performance
costs capability expectation capability expectation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
June 1994.................... $508 June 1997...... Precision Dec. 2000...... Precision
approach approach
capability was capability was
for a 19.2 for a 19.2
meter Vertical meter Vertical
Protection Protection
Limit, with 95 Limit, with
percent 99.999 percent
availability, availability,
throughout 50 throughout 100
percent of the percent of the
continental total NAS. In
United States. the best case,
In the best this would
case, this provide
would provide Category I
Category I precision
precision approach minima
approach minima (200 feet
(200 feet height above
height above touchdown and
touchdown and \3/4\ mile
\3/4\mile visibility, \1/
visibility, \1/ 2\ mile with
2\ mile with approach
approach lights).
lights).
Jan. 1998.................... \1\ 1,007 July 1999...... Same as June Dec. 2001...... Same as June
1994. 1994.
Jan. 1999.................... 1,007 Sept. 2000..... Same as June To be Same as June
1994. determined. 1994.
Sept. 1999................... \2\ 2,484 Sept. 2000..... Same as June Dec. 2006...... Same as June
1994. 1994.
June 2000.................... \3\ 2,724 Dec. 2002...... Limited To be To be
precision determined. determined.
approach
capability to
50 meters
Vertical
Protection
Limit, with 95
percent
availability,
throughout 75
percent of the
continental
United States.
In the best
case, this
would provide
vertically
guided approach
to at around a
350 feet height
above touchdown
and 1 mile
visibility.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Jan. 1998 program development costs for WAAS include the prime contractor costs, development of
standards and procedures, technical engineering and program support, and the first year of costs for
satellites. According to FAA, a primary reason for the cost growth between June 1994 and January 1998 was due
to unanticipated development costs to build greater reliability into the WAAS ground component.
\2\ The Sept. 1999 estimate for WAAS development includes $1,300,000,000 in satellite service acquisition
through 2020. In earlier estimates, satellite service acquisition costs were included in the cost of operating
WAAS.
\3\ GAO estimated the increase between the Sept. 1999 and June 2000 based on information provided by FAA and its
experts. We estimate that meeting the June 1994 performance expectation for initial WAAS could add up to
$240,000,000 to the cost of developing WAAS and potentially take 3 years or more beyond Sept. 2000.
Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation
provides for the full request for technical center facilities
although the justification describes activities that would more
appropriately be funded in the operations account.
Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment
En Route programs
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee
provides full funding of the requests for Aeronautical Data
Link (ADL) and encourages the FAA to pursue this capability
aggressively in order to achieve the advantages that it
promises for elements of the Free Flight Phase 1 initiative as
well as improving the safety and efficiency of the NAS. The Air
Transport Association (ATA) has identified $4,000,000 of
unnecessary costs, in part due to air traffic control
communications-related inefficiencies, and has stated that ADL
is one of the key elements of NAS automation needed to reduce
these inefficiency costs. Specifically, the en route Controller
Pilot Data Link Communication module should be reviewed to
determine where the greatest work load relief and
communications traffic volume can be addressed. The Committee
is informed that over 50 percent of the communications between
controllers in the en route environment and commercial pilots
are a function of handing off aircraft from one sector to
another. If this category of communications could be addressed
through application of data link and cooperative coordination
with the airlines, the risk of controller/pilot confusion could
be minimized and substantial efficiencies could be realized. In
addition, the FAA should consider contracting for the National
Airspace System's air-ground communications system with a
provider who would build, operate and evolve a single system to
support both air traffic control and airline operations
communications in order to reduce the complexity and other
risks in the FAA's air-ground digital communications program,
to rationalize FAA's spending on communications, and to
eliminate the present redundancy in the air-ground
communication system.
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The
Committee recommendation provides $58,950,000 for this
activity, including $13,950,000 for the full cost of the
Combined En Route Radar Approach (CERAP) ASOS Controller
Equipment/Information Display System (ACE-IDS).
Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommendation
provides the requested level for Air Traffic Management
although the justification describes activities more
appropriately funded in the operations account.
Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommendation provides
$2,000,000 for the volcano monitor activity, the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
En Route Communications and Control Facilities
Improvement.--The Committee recommends $7,631,000 for this
program. Of the funds provided, $3,200,000 is only for the
relocation of RTR-A and RTR-D systems at Lambert-St. Louis
International Airport.
Terminal programs
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The
Committee recommendation provides $117,100,000 for this
program. The recommendation provides funding for the following
projects:
Chantilly, VA........................................... $75,000
Gulfport, MS............................................ 75,000
Kalamazoo, MI........................................... 75,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 75,000
Broomfield, CO.......................................... 75,000
Wilmington, DE.......................................... 305,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................ 959,200
Miami, FL............................................... 51,900
Orlando, FL............................................. 177,900
Atlanta, GA............................................. 167,900
Newburgh, NY............................................ 1,000,000
Champaign, IL........................................... 749,000
Topeka, KS.............................................. 4,361,840
Savannah, GA............................................ 7,741,015
La Guardia, NY.......................................... 25,440,000
Boston, MA.............................................. 24,944,308
Oakland, CA............................................. 25,912,347
St. Louis, MO........................................... 3,317,000
Billings-Logan, MT...................................... 3,100,000
Houston Hobby, TX....................................... 818,550
Little Rock, AR......................................... 642,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 2,140,000
Seattle, WA............................................. 25,000
Bedford, MA............................................. 535,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 267,500
Newark, NJ.............................................. 2,407,500
Merrill Field, AK....................................... 321,000
Pt. Columbus, OH........................................ 1,000,000
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................ 214,000
Birmingham, AL.......................................... 1,359,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................ 267,000
W.K. Kellogg, MI........................................ 1,000,000
Missoula, MT............................................ 500,000
Pangborn, WA............................................ 1,000,000
Paine Field, WA......................................... 1,000,000
Martin State, MD........................................ 1,000,000
McArthur Airport, NY.................................... 1,000,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 1,000,000
Rogue Valley, OR........................................ 1,000,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 1,000,000
Control Tower/Tracon Facilities--Improve.--The Committee
recommendation provides $40,259,672 for this program, including
funding to continue the cable loop relocation project at
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport and $2,400,000 for the
removal and relocation of the ASR-9 at that airport.
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR)/ETVS.--The
Committee recommendation provides $10,900,000 for the program,
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Employee Safety/OSHA and Environmental Compliance
Standards.--The Committee recommendation provides $28,400,000
for this program. The Committee notes that the budget
justification fails to provide the greater detail for this
program requested in the fiscal year 2000 Committee report. The
administration should expect reductions in the appropriation
for this program if such justification is not forthcoming.
Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee recommendation provides
$17,100,000, the same level provide in fiscal year 2000 and
leaving slightly less than that amount for future funding
requirements.
Precision Runway Monitors.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding above the request for acquisition of
additional precision runway monitor equipment. The Committee
recommendation provides necessary resources for the
installation of a precision runway monitor at Newark
International Airport.
Airport Surveillance Radar.--The Committee recommendation
provides $17,000,000 for this program including preliminary
funding for radars for Palm Springs Regional Airport, Yakutat
Airport, Gallatin Field, Central Oregon Regional, Eagle County
Regional Airport, and Salt Lake City International Airport.
Further, the power systems upgrades envisioned in this program,
whether a new design or an existing system requiring
modernization, shall be subject to competitive bidding by GSA
approved contractors and will utilize commercial off the shelf
(COTS) products when available. Priority will be given to power
system components that meet the established quality standards
of the FAA, are compatible with the existing power system
infrastructure, are of the latest proven technology, and
provide the most cost-effective solution.
Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee
recommendation provides $3,632,000 for this program. The
Committee directs the FAA to conduct a study evaluating the
benefits and advisability of deployable flight data recorders
to complementing current voice and data recorders and provide
the report with the fiscal year 2002 budget request.
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee
recommendation provides $75,000,000 for continued production of
the digital airport surveillance radar system. Air Force
operation tests completed in February 2000 indicted several
developmental issues that must be resolved. Problems included
generation of false weather cells, loss of aircraft detection
capability close to the airport, and a shortfall in computer
processor capability which limits the system's ability to
handle future requirements. The Air Force Operational Test and
Evaluation Center recommended that the problems be corrected
prior to the fielding of low initial productions units. The
appropriated level is sufficient given the delays due to the
current deficiencies identified in the testing.
Terminal Communications Improvements.--The Committee
provides $1,550,700 for the terminal communications
improvements program, including funding for the installation of
remote air-ground communications facilities for Park City and
Heber Valley airports in support of the 2002 Winter Olympic
Games.
Flight Service Programs
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $5,000,000 above the request to upgrade
existing systems with poor reliability and outdated technology
with modern equipment.
Flight Service Station Modernization.--The Committee
recommendation provides the full budget request for this
program. Further, the power systems upgrades envisioned in this
program, whether a new design or an existing system requiring
modernization, shall be subject to competitive bidding by GSA
approved contractors and will utilized commercial off the shelf
(COTS) products when available. Priority will be given to power
system components that meet the established quality standards
of the FAA, are compatible with the existing power system
infrastructure, are of the latest proven technology, and
provide the most cost-effective solution.
Landing and Navigational Aids
Next Generation Navigation System.--The Committee provides
$164,400,000 for the various initiatives under this heading, to
be distributed as follows:
Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS).................... $73,000,000
Instrument Landing System Establishment................. 43,700,000
ILS--Replace Mark 1A, 1B, and 1C........................ 1,000,000
ILS--Replace GRN-27..................................... 1,000,000
Nationwide Differential Global Positioning System....... 18,700,000
Loran-C Upgrade/Modernization........................... 25,000,000
TLS..................................................... 2,000,000
Instrument Landing System Establishment/upgrade.--The
Committee recommends $43,700,000 to be distributed as follows:
Meridian/Key Field Airport.............................. $2,000,000
Hartsfield (5th runway)................................. 4,900,000
Evanston Airport, WY.................................... 2,500,000
Muscatine Municipal Airport............................. 1,600,000
Lafayette Regional Airport.............................. 1,000,000
Kalealoa Airport........................................ 2,300,000
Athens-Decatur.......................................... 1,000,000
Gulf Shores Municipal Airport........................... 1,300,000
Lehigh Valley International Airport..................... 2,000,000
Klawock Airport......................................... 1,000,000
Mexico, MO.............................................. 2,000,000
Harry Browne Airport.................................... 1,000,000
Wexford County Airport.................................. 1,500,000
London-Corbin Airport................................... 1,600,000
Cat I/II/III ILS and associated equipment............... 18,000,000
Runway Visual Range (RVR).--The Committee recommendation
provides $5,000,000 for this program including $300,000 for
Sawyer Airport RVR equipment and tower equipment and $1,000,000
for Reading, PA RVR equipment.
Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The
Committee recommends $21,450,000, to be distributed as follows:
Meridian/Key Field MALSR................................ $2,300,000
Hartsfield MALSR........................................ 2,300,000
Juneau Airport ALSIP.................................... 2,000,000
Las Cruces International Airport ALSIP.................. 2,750,000
Salt Lake City International Airport ALSIP.............. 3,000,000
Newport Airport ALSIP................................... 2,500,000
Bethel Airport ALSIP.................................... 2,000,000
North Bend ALSIP........................................ 1,000,000
Saginaw MBS International Airport ALSIP................. 500,000
Baton Rouge MALSR....................................... 2,000,000
ALSIP procurement and related expenses.................. 1,100,000
Distance Measuring Equipment (DME).--The Committee
recommendation provides $1,428,000 for the DME program. The
additional funding above the request is for the installation of
a DME on Newark Runway 11, where the ILS has no marker beacons
to identify key points on the ILS approach.
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program.--The Committee
recommendation provides $3,600,000 to accelerate the
implementation of CNS in the Gulf of Mexico.
Other ATC Facilities
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Comm System (ANICS).--The
Committee recommendation provides $7,200,000 to remedy prior
years budget reductions consistent with the recently completed
GAO review of the cost benefit analysis of the ANICS program.
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.--The Committee
provides $28,200,000 for this program. The power systems
upgrades envisioned in this program, whether a new design or an
existing system requiring modernization, shall be subject to
competitive bidding by GSA approved contractors and will
utilize commercial off the shelf (COTS) products when
available. Priority will be given to power system components
that meet the established quality standards of the FAA, are
compatible with the existing power system infrastructure, are
of the latest proven technology, and provide the most cost-
effective solution.
Special Use Airspace Management System (SAMS).--The
Committee does not provide the recommended funding for lack of
complete justification. This activity will be reviewed prior to
conclusion of the fiscal year 2001 appropriation process.
Non ATC Facilities and Equipment
Explosive detection technology.--The Committee
recommendation provides $99,500,000 for this activity,
$2,000,000 above the request. The recommended level includes
$2,000,000 for the Safe Passenger Alliance (SAFPAS) initiative
to study the requisite technology to develop remote check-in
locations in and around cities.
Mission Support
Center For Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE).--The
Committee recommendation includes an additional $5,000,000 for
the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development consistent
with the budget request for other FAA CAASD activities. Funding
is included within this recommendation to continue the
development of Flight Management System procedures for Newark
and Teterboro airports at MITRE/CAASD.
National Airspace System Implementation.--The Committee
recommendation includes $63,578,706 for this activity,
$71,422,000 below the budget request.
major equipment activity
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
City Acceptance Commissioning dates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Memphis.................................. July 1993........................... December 1994
Houston Intercontinental................. March 1993.......................... July 1994
Atlanta.................................. April 1993.......................... December 1995
Washington National...................... February 1994....................... January 1996
Denver................................... December 1993....................... August 1995
Chicago O'Hare........................... March 1994.......................... July 1996
St. Louis................................ May 1994............................ February 1995
Orlando.................................. June 1994........................... April 1996
New Orleans.............................. July 1994........................... March 1996
Tampa.................................... July 1994........................... March 1996
Miami.................................... November 1995....................... June 1996
Pittsburgh............................... December 1994....................... July 1997
Andrews AFB.............................. December 1994....................... August 1996
Newark................................... December 1994....................... October 1997
Boston................................... April 1995.......................... January 1996
Kansas City.............................. December 1994....................... July 1995
Detroit.................................. March 1996.......................... September 1996
Houston Hobby............................ August 1995......................... July 1996
Dallas/Love.............................. May 1995............................ January 1996
Dallas/Fort Worth........................ June 1995........................... June 1996
Dayton................................... May 1995............................ April 1998
Wichita.................................. June 1995........................... September 1995
Indianapolis............................. July 1995........................... October 1996
Cincinnati............................... July 1996........................... June 1997
Philadelphia............................. July 1996........................... October 1997
Phoenix.................................. April 1997.......................... April 1998
Milwaukee................................ September 1997...................... November 1997
Chicago Midway........................... April 1999.......................... November 2000
Cleveland................................ July 1996........................... October 1996
Columbus................................. December 1996....................... May 1997
San Juan................................. November 1998....................... August 2000
West Palm Beach.......................... February 1996....................... May 1997
Nashville................................ December 1997....................... April 1998
Louisville............................... December 1997....................... March 1999
Washington Dulles........................ November 1996....................... May 1998
Charlotte................................ September 1995...................... December 1995
Salt Lake City........................... September 1997...................... November 1999
Fort Lauderdale.......................... November 1998....................... November 1999
Baltimore................................ November 1996....................... May 1997
Raleigh-Durham........................... December 1997....................... January 1998
Minneapolis.............................. April 1997.......................... May 1997
Oklahoma City............................ April 1997.......................... September 1997
Tulsa.................................... July 1997........................... May 1998
New York City (JFK and LGA).............. August 1999......................... November 2000
Las Vegas................................ April 1999.......................... June 2000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE-3]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commissioning
Site location Delivery date date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FAA Academy \1\............... ..................... .................
WJH Technical Center \2\...... ..................... .................
Pittsburgh, PA................ December 1989........ June 1996
San Francisco................. November 1991........ October 1995
Dallas/Fort Worth \3\......... February 1992........ March 1995
Philadelphia.................. February 1992........ March 1996
Los Angeles \3\............... August 1992.......... April 1995
Detroit....................... August 1992.......... December 1994
Cleveland..................... August 1992.......... December 1994
Boston........................ August 1992.......... March 1995
Portland...................... August 1992.......... December 1994
Atlanta....................... September 1992....... January 1995
Seattle....................... September 1992....... December 1993
Los Angeles \3\............... February 1993........ February 1995
Denver (DIA) \3\.............. March 1993........... May 1995
St. Louis..................... December 1993........ February 1995
Denver (DIA) \3\.............. December 1993........ October 1995
New York-Kennedy.............. January 1994......... February 1995
Minneapolis................... July 1994............ March 1995
Anchorage..................... August 1994.......... October 1995
New Orleans................... October 1994......... September 1995
Baltimore..................... November 1994........ June 1995
Kansas City................... December 1994........ May 1995
Miami......................... February 1995........ November 1996
Houston \3\................... February 1995........ August 1995
Memphis....................... June 1995............ December 1997
Chicago....................... June 1995............ April 1996
Houston \3\................... August 1996.......... July 1997
Charlotte..................... February 2001........ May 2002
Louisville \4\................ August 1998.......... September 1999
Reagan Washington National.... February 1996........ TBD \5\
Cincinnati.................... October 1995......... September 1996
Dulles........................ May 1997............. February 1998
San Diego..................... November 1995........ November 1996
Dallas-Fort Worth \3\ \4\..... November 1996........ February 1998
Andrews AFB................... January 1998......... February 1999
Salt Lake City................ March 1998........... June 1999
Las Vegas \4\................. June 1999............ December 2000
New York-LaGuardia............ February 2000........ June 2001
Newark........................ June 1998............ May 1999
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ FAA training/field support/depot support facility.
\2\ To be relocated to Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City.
\3\ Dual sensor facilities.
\4\ Asset redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange County.
\5\ A study is underway on the relocation of the ASDE-3 antenna to
address multipath issues.
Terminal air traffic control facilities
Funding for terminal air traffic control started in previous years:
St. Louis (TRACON), MO
Houston (Hobby), TX
Little Rock, AR
Roanoke, VA
Seattle (ATCT), WA
Bedford, MA
Salina, KS
Newark, NJ
Merrill Field, AK
Pt. Columbus, OH
North Las Vegas, NV
Birmingham, AL
Grand Canyon, AZ
Phase III funding for terminal air traffic control facilities
started in fiscal year 1998 and before:
Topeka, KS
Savannah, GA
LaGuardia, NY
Boston, MA
Oakland, CA
Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities:
Wilmington, DE
Wilkes Barre, PA
Miami, FL
Orlando, FL
Atlanta, GA
Newburgh (Stewart), NY
Champaign, IL
Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be
replaced in fiscal year 2001:
Chantilly, VA
Gulfport, MS
Kalamazoo, MI
Deer Valley, AZ
Broomfield, CO
advance appropriations
The Committee has not included the advance appropriations
for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 requested by the
administration.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $156,495,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 184,366,000
Committee recommendation................................ 183,343,000
This appropriation finances research, engineering, and
development programs to improve the national air traffic
control system by increasing its safety, security,
productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet
the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote
flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current
system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the
environment; and to modernize the system through improvements
in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order
to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle
the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the
future.
The Committee directs the FAA to provide greater detail in
the budget justification presentation of the Research,
Engineering, and Development account similar to the detail
provided in the Facilities and Equipment account. In
particular, the justification should continue to provide cost
breakouts for the individual initiatives within each budget
item, and should provide cumulative prior years' appropriations
for each initiative and anticipated future year funding
requirement to achieve articulated program goals. The Committee
appreciates the effort to cross reference the various
initiatives with agency goals and looks forward to future
development of performance measures where appropriate and
meaningful.
The bill includes $183,343,000 for research, engineering,
and development. The Committee recommendation provides the
following allocation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Committee
Program Name 2000 Enacted 2001 Estimate Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
System planning and resource management.................. $1,164,000 $1,350,000 $1,164,000
Technical laboratory facility............................ 11,075,000 13,431,000 13,431,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.......... 4,900,000 5,000,000 ...............
Information security..................................... ............... 5,500,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 17,139,000 25,281,000 14,595,000
==================================================
Weather:
National laboratory program.............................. 11,000,000 16,398,000 16,648,000
In-house support......................................... 2,500,000 4,391,000 4,391,000
Center for Wind, Ice and Fog............................. 700,000 700,000 700,000
Juneau, AK............................................... 3,100,000 3,100,000 3,100,000
SOCRATES................................................. 2,000,000 3,200,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 19,300,000 27,789,000 24,839,000
==================================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
Aircraft systems fire safety............................. 4,750,000 5,451,000 4,750,000
Advanced materials/structural safety..................... 2,338,000 2,797,000 2,797,000
Propulsion and fuel systems.............................. 3,126,000 5,200,000 7,200,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research............... 3,844,000 4,109,000 4,109,000
Aging aircraft........................................... 21,594,000 22,384,000 34,684,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........ 1,981,000 2,782,000 2,782,000
Aviation safety risk analysis............................ 6,824,000 6,657,000 6,657,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 44,457,000 49,380,000 62,979,000
==================================================
System Security Technology:
Explosives and weapons detection and aircraft hardening.. 42,606,000 37,460,000 42,606,000
Aircraft hardening....................................... ............... 4,307,000 4,307,000
Airport security technology integration.................. 2,285,000 2,462,000 2,462,000
Aviation security human factors.......................... 5,256,000 5,145,000 5,145,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 50,147,000 49,374,000 54,520,000
==================================================
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine:
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors. 9,142,000 10,100,000 10,100,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors...... 8,000,000 9,950,000 8,000,000
Aeromedical research..................................... 4,829,000 5,049,000 4,829,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 21,971,000 25,099,000 22,929,000
==================================================
Environment and Energy....................................... 3,481,000 7,443,000 3,481,000
==================================================
Total appropriation.................................... 156,495,000 184,366,000 183,343,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the
major activities in FAA's Research, Engineering, and
Development Program are discussed below.
system development and infrastructure
Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach
and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive
research, engineering, and development program and (2)
visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the
research, engineering, and development activities.
System planning and resource management.--The Committee
recommends $1,164,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal
year 2000.
FAA technical laboratory facility.--The administration's
request was $13,431,000 for work at the FAA Technical Center.
The Committee provides the full budget request.
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.--The
Committee provides the appropriation for the Center for
Advanced Aviation System Development within the Facilities and
Equipment appropriation.
Information Security.--The Committee recommendation deletes
the funding for this activity due to budget constraints.
weather
Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of
weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase
system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic
control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and
increase productivity.
National laboratory program.--The Committee recommends
$16,648,000 for the National laboratory program including
$250,000 to develop and test an aviation weather hazard
characterization and depiction system at the University of
Oklahoma College of Geosciences.
SOCRATES.--The Committee recommendation deletes the funding
for this program due to budget constraints.
aircraft safety technology
Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and
maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft
safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation
environment.
This research supports airborne data monitoring systems,
advanced materials and crashworthiness research, the Center for
Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR), and the Aging Aircraft
Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC), which
conduct research in the area of aircraft safety technology. The
research initiatives in this area are a unique and
comprehensive effort to improve the safety of aging aircraft by
applying new technical capabilities in inspection, and drawing
upon expertise in government, university and industry.
Aircraft systems fire safety.--The Committee recommends
$4,750,000, the same level provided in fiscal year 2000.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--The Committee recommends
$7,200,000 for the Propulsion and fuel systems program
including $2,000,000 for the Specialty Metals Processing
Consortium.
Aging Aircraft.--The Committee recommends $34,684,000 for
this program, including an increase of $1,800,000 above the
budget request for the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability
(CASR). This funding represents a slight increase above the
average commitment to the level of effort at CASR on enhancing
the reliability of airframes and related initiatives and
provides necessary funding to establish research efforts in
fluorescent penetrant inspection. In addition, the recommended
level includes $2,200,000 above the budget request for
activities of the engine titanium consortium effort and
$11,300,000 for the activities of the Airworthiness Assurance
Center of Excellence including the research at the
nondestructive inspection validation center.
system security technology
Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews
in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC
facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter
terrorist activities.
Explosives and Weapon Detection.--The Committee recommends
$42,606,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Of this amount $6,000,000 is to continue development of the
pulsed fast neutron analysis (PFNA) cargo inspection system and
$1,000,000 is for the Safe Skies initiative involving research
and development of explosives and chemical or biological agents
currently being conducted by the Institute of Biological
Detection Systems. Further, the Committee directs that the FAA
continue to fund dual use X-ray technology, which moves large
amounts of palletized cargo through scanning systems with very
high levels of contraband and threat detection.
human factors and aviation medicine
Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness
of human performance in the operation of the aviation system
and to seek better methods for preventing human error,
accidents, and incidents.
Flight deck, Maintenance, System Integration Human
Factors.--The Committee provides $10,100,000, the requested
budget level and directs the FAA to evaluate the need for a
pilot training module designed to instruct pilots on how to
respond to loss-of-control aircraft, the second leading cause
of airline accidents.
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The
Committee recommends $8,000,000 for this program, the same
level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Aeromedical research.--The Committee recommends $4,829,000,
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
environment and energy
Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy,
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and
competitive. The Committee recommends $3,481,000, the same
level appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,750,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,960,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,200,000,000
Chapter 471 of title 49, U.S.C. authorizes a program of
grants to fund airport planning and development and noise
compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in
all States and territories.
The Committee recommends $3,200,000,000 in liquidating cash
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for
fiscal year 2001 and for the payment of previous years'
obligations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Obligation limitation, 2000 \1\......................... $1,950,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 1,950,000,000
Committee recommendation...............................\2\ 3,200,000,000
\1\ Reflects reduction of $54,362,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public
Law 106-113.
\2\ Includes $120,000,000 available for air traffic services if
necessary to maintain aviation safety.
The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2001
for grants-in-aid to airports is $3,200,000,000 and is intended
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing
airport and airway safety, ensuring that airport standards can
be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing
additional capacity. The amount provided includes $120,000,000
which may be available for air traffic services to maintain
aviation safety.
The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of
funding is available to airports in the form of passenger
facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for
airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as
of March 1, 2000, 314 airports have been approved for
collection of PFC's in the amount of $24,700,000,000. During
calendar year 1999 airports collected $1,515,000,000 in PFC
charges and $1,550,000,000 is estimated to be collected in
calendar year 2000. Of the airports collecting PFC's,
approximately one-fourth collected about 90 percent of the
total, and all of these are either large or medium hub
airports. Prior to the authorized increase in PFC charges, the
DOT estimated that these airports will collect more than
$1,400,000,000 in calendar year 2000, depending on the number
of applications received and approved and assuming current
statutory authority. Eventually, the funding to airports from
the 50 percent nominal increase in authorized passenger
facility charges will result in dramatically increased
resources for airport improvements, expansions, and
enhancements.
Limitation On Obligations
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. This is $1,250,000,000
(64.1 percent) above the President's budget request and the
same amount above the fiscal year 2000 level.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2000 levels and the President's budget request
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements................................................. $1,100,434,505 $1,127,704,636 $1,943,417,033
Primary airports......................................... 556,348,911 566,769,374 1,056,383,909
Cargo airports (3 percent)............................... 55,519,140 55,850,610 93,350,610
Alaska supplemental...................................... 10,672,557 10,672,557 21,345,114
States (20 percent)...................................... 342,368,030 344,412,095 622,337,400
Carryover entitlement.................................... 135,525,867 150,000,000 150,000,000
Small Airport Fund........................................... 142,204,990 146,461,513 274,936,625
Non hub.................................................. 81,259,994 83,692,293 157,106,643
Non commercial service................................... 40,629,997 41,846,147 78,553,321
Small hub................................................ 20,314,999 20,923,073 39,276,661
Discretionary Set Asides..................................... 231,039,432 223,257,924 345,362,670
Noise (34 percent of discretionary)...................... 206,719,492 199,757,089 303,733,336
Reliever (0.66 percent of discretionary)................. ............... ............... 5,896,000
Military airport program (4 percent of discretionary).... 24,319,940 23,500,835 35,733,334
Other Discretionary.......................................... 376,959,073 364,262,927 583,280,675
Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................... 282,719,305 273,197,195 410,978,004
Remaining discretionary.................................. 94,239,768 91,065,732 172,302,671
Administration............................................... 45,000,000 53,003,000 53,000,000
Airport Research............................................. ............... 7,380,000 ...............
Essential Air Service........................................ ............... 27,900,000 ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total limitation on obligations........................ 1,895,638,000 1,950,000,000 3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AIRPORT DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill,
$928,643,345 is available for discretionary grants to airports.
The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal
year 2001. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give
priority consideration to applications for the projects listed
below in the catergories of the AIP for which they are
eligible. If funds in the remaining discretionary category are
used for any projects in fiscal year 2000 that are not listed
below, the Committee expects that they will be for projects for
which FAA has issued letters of intent (including letters of
intent the Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently
issues), or for projects that will produce significant aviation
safety improvements or significant improvements in systemwide
capacity or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio.
Within the program levels recommended, the Committee
directs that priority be given to applications involving the
further development of the following airports:
Abbeville Airport, AL
Abilene Regional Airport, TX
Abrams Municipal Airport in Grand Ledge, MI
Akutan Airport, AK
Albany International Airport, NY
Anaconda/Deer Lodge County Airport, MT
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Arnold Palmer Regional Airport, PA
Atka Airport, AK
Augusta Regional Airport, GA
Austin Straubel International Airport, WI
Baltimore Washington International Airport, MD
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport, LA
Bay Bridge Airport, MD
Bay Minette Municipal Airport, AL
Beaver Head County Airport, MT
Benedum Airport, WV
Bennington Airport, VT
Billings-Logan International Airport, MT
Birmingham International Airport, AL
Bishop International Airport, MI
Boeing Field, WA
Braxton County Airport, WV
Brookhaven-Lincoln County Airport, MS
Bucyrus City Airport, OH
Buffalo Airport Center, NY
Butler County Airport, PA
Carroll County Airport, MD
Charlottesville-Albemarle Airport, VA
Cherry Capitol Airport New Airport, MI
Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK
Chippewa County International Airport, MI
Chippewa Valley Regional Airport, WI
Clayton Airport, AL
Cochran Municipal Airport, GA
Concord Regional Airport, NC
County Airport in Escanaba, MI
Cumberland Regional Airport, MD
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA
Detroit City Airport, MI
Detroit Metroit, Oakland County International, MI
Dillingham Airport, AK
Dona Ana County Airport, NM
Eastern West Virginia Airport, WV
Edward F. Knapp Airport, VT
Elba Municipal Airport, AL
Elkins-Randolph County Airport, WV
Erie International Airport, PA
Fairhope Municipal Airport, AL
Fayette County Airport, PA
Felts Field, WA
Ford Airport, GA
Frederick Municipal Airport, MD
Freeport Alterbertus Airport, IL
Fulton County Airport, GA
Gadsen Airport, AL
Garrett County Airport, MD
Gary Airport, IN
George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston, TX
Gerald R. Ford International Airport, MI
Glacier Park International Airport, MT
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS
Great Falls International Airport, MT
Greenville Municipal Airport, AL
Greenwood-Leflore Airport, MS
Gulfport-Biloxi Regional Airport, MS
Hagerstown Regional Airport, MD
Harrisburg International Airport, PA
Hawkins Field Airport, MS
Headland Municipal Airport, AL
Heart of Georgia Airport, Eastman, GA
Heber City Municipal Airport, UT
Helena Regional Airport, MT
Henry E. Rohlsen Airport on St. Croix, U.S. Virgin Islands
Henry Tift Meyers Airport, GA
Gladwin Airport, Gladwin, MI
Grant County Airport, WV
Greenbrier Valley, WV
Hoonah Airport, AK
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI
Indiana County Airport, PA
Iuka Airport, MS
Jackson County Airport, WV
Jackson International Airport, MS
Juneau International Airport, AK
Kalamazoo-Battle Creek International, MI
Kalispell City Airport, MT
Kee Field Airport, WV
Kent County International Airport, MD
Key Field Airport, MS
Klawock Airport, AK
Knapp Airport, Berlin, VT
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA
Lanawee County Airport, MI
Lancaster Airport, PA
Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA
Lewistown Municipal Airport, MT
Livingston County Airport, Howell, MI
Logan County Airport, WV
Louisville International-Standiford Field (Jim DeLong-Regional
Airport), KY
Madison County Executive Airport, AL
Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA
Marin County Airport (Goss Field), CA
Marshall City Airport, WV
Mason County Airport, WV
McAllen Miller International Airport, TX
Memphis International Airport, TN
Memphis-Shelby County Airport, TN
Mercer City Airport, WV
Mid-Delta Regional Airport, MS
Midland-Bay-Saginaw International Airport, MI
Mingo County Airport, WV
Minot International Airport, ND
Missoula International Airport, MT
Montgomery Regional Airport, AL
Moorehead Municipal Airport, MN
Morgantown Airport, WV
Mt. Washington Regional Airport, Whitefield, NH
Nashville International Airport, TN
Newport News/Williamsburg International Airport, VA
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
Ohio University Airport, OH
Olive Branch Airport, MS
Oscoda-Wurthsmith Airport, MI
Palmer Municipal Airport, AK
Palwaukee Municipal Airport, IL
Pease International Tradeport Airport, NH
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS
Phillips Army Air Field at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD
Picayune Municipal Airport, MS
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA
Ponca City Municipal Airport, OK
Port Columbus International Airport, OH
Prattville Autauga County Airport, AL
Provo Municipal Airport, UT
Pryor Field Regional Airport, AL
Quillayute Airport, WA
Raleigh City Memorial Airport, WV
Reading Municipal, General Carl A Spaatz Field, PA
Reynolds Airport, Jackson County, MI
Richard B. Russell Field, GA
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
Roberts Field/Redmond Municipal Airport, OR
Rock County Airport, WI
Russellville Municipal Airport, AL
Rutland State Airport, VT
Salisbury/Wicomico Regional Airport, MD
Salt Lake City International Airport, UT
Sawyer Airport, MI
Southern Illinois Airport, IL
Southwest Georgia Regional Airport, GA
Southwest Michigan Regional Airport, MI
Spokane International Airport, WA
Springfield-Branson Regional Airport, MO
Statesboro Municipal Airport, GA
Stennis International Airport, MS
Summersville Airport,
Syracuse Hancock International, NY
Tishomingo County Airport, MS
Toledo Express Airport, OH
Tooele Valley Airport, UT
Tri-State Airport, WV
Troy Municipal Airport, AL
Tulip City Airport, MI
Tunica Municipal Airport, MS
Tupelo Municipal Airport, MS
University-Oxford Airport, MS
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, FL
Walker County Airport, AL
Waynesboro Municipal, MS
Wendover Airport, UT
Westmoreland County Airport, PA
Wheeling-Ohio City Airport, WV
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA
William B. Hartsfield-Atlanta International, GA
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA
Will Rogers World Airport, OK
Wittman Regional Airport, WI
Wood County Airport, WV
Wright Army Airfield, GA
Yeager Airport, WV
Abbeville Airport, AL.--The FAA Administrator is urged to
work with the Abbeville Airport and interested local officials
to foster the inclusion of this important local aviation
facility on the NPIAS. Upon inclusion, the airport safety and
expansion projects should be given priority consideration by
the FAA Administrator.
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the adequacy of the security provided for the
entire airport at Ogden-Hinckley Airport, not just the small,
immediate area around the terminal. While security fencing of
the immediate area of the terminal might address the security
needs of the airport in its existing role as a weather divert
airport, that fencing is inadequate to prepare properly for the
airport's role during the Olympics or for anticipated growth.
The Committee is concerned about the vulnerability of the
runways, taxiways, hangars, tie-downs, the heli-pad, the de-
icing area and other facilities outside the 650 feet of fencing
immediately adjacent to the terminal. Notwithstanding the
current lack of commercial traffic, the Committee directs the
Administrator to give priority consideration to providing
funding for the erection of a fence and gateways to provide
physical security around the entire perimeter of the airport
and which meets the antiterrorism plans of the Olympic
Organizing Committee.
Lafayette Airport, Louisiana.--The Committee urges the FAA
to give priority consideration to discretionary funding for
runway, taxiway, landing and lighting system, and equipment
improvements. There are critical runway upgrades that must be
addressed immediately including rubber removal, seal-coating,
groove and mark striping of runway 4R/22L as well as an
extension of the north safety area of runway 4R/22L to 1,000
feet.
Jackson International Airport, Jackson, MS.--The Committee
is aware that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has
undertaken the phased construction of a new air cargo park at
the Jackson International Airport, for which $7,000,000 in FAA,
EDA and local funding has already been committed. In order to
meet schedule requirements for final design and construction of
Segment I of the project, the Committee encourages the FAA to
give priority consideration to requests by the Jackson
International Airport for discretionary funding to complete
construction of the air cargo apron and related improvements,
including the paving of the taxi connection to the runway.
Albany International Airport, New York.--The Committee
urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a discretionary
application for funding to extend Runway 10-28.
South Central Alaska float plane facility.--The Committee
directs the FAA to work with the State of Alaska, local
aviation officials, and interested aviation operators and float
plane enthusiasts to study possible locations for a new float
plane facility in South Central Alaska to minimize air traffic
conflicts and to efficiently service the large float plane
population. The Committee notes that Alaska has the highest
rate of small plane ownership in the country and that Lake Hood
in Anchorage is the busiest float plane base in the world. The
FAA shall study possible locations for a new float plane base
to address the backlog of slips at Lake Hood. Suitable
locations should be less than 1 hour by road or marine link
from Anchorage and Wasilla.
Syracuse Hancock International Airport, New York.--The
Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to a
request for discretionary funding to repair the aircraft rescue
and fire fighting building at Syracuse Hancock International
Airport.
Buffalo Niagara International Airport, New York.--The
Committee directs the FAA Administrator to give priority
consideration to two projects at the Buffalo Niagara
International Airport to extend Runway 14-32 and other safety
improvements. This first project provides for the extension of
the airport's crosswind runway, Runway 14-32, by approximately
1,790 feet to accommodate carriers in the event that the
airport's main runway, Runway 5-23, is disabled by weather or
repair work. At present, air carrier operators may not use
Runway 14-32 because of its inadequate length and because of
its poor instrumentation. The project would improve those
instrumentation deficiencies and remove a remote refueling
station which is located in the prospective Taxiway Object Free
Area (OFA) of the extended Runway 14-32. The second project is
to expand the apron and to make east access improvements to the
airport to facilitate the East Terminal expansion.
Rickenbacker International Airport, Columbus, OH.--The
Committee is pleased to note the continued significant progress
made in the transition of the former Rickenbacker Air Force
Base to the Rickenbacker International Airport and Foreign
Trade Zone No. 138. The Committee directs the FAA to give
priority consideration to grant applications within available
discretionary programs, including the Military Airports
Program, that will support Rickenbacker's 5-year capital
improvement plan to address essential infrastructure needs.
George Bush InterContinental Airport, TX.--The Committee
directs the FAA Administrator to give priority consideration to
the airport's $2,000,000 discretionary request for a fuel-cell
demonstration project to evaluate an emergency airport vehicle
technology to meet the power demands of airline ground service
equipment while concurrently cutting air emissions at airports.
Port Columbus International Airport, OH.--The Committee
directs the FAA Administrator to give priority consideration to
a terminal apron reconstruction (pavement overlay) and a
partial reconstruction of the terminal apron pavement. In
addition, the airport is in need of a glycol retention and
treatment system to meet National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting requirements.
Concord Regional Airport, NC.--The Committee directs that
the Administrator give priority consideration to the airport
improvement, expansion, and safety projects at the Concord
Regional Airport. In addition, the Committee is concerned that
the Concord Regional Airport, and other similarly situated
airports not be penalized by the Block Grant Program policy as
implemented by the FAA. An airport offered for priority
consideration by the Congress should not be frustrated in the
discretionary grant process by virtue of the host state's
participation in the Block Grant Program. The operations at the
Concord Regional Airport grew from 45,000 in 1998 to almost
67,000 in 1999, and are projected to exceed 80,000 by the end
of calendar year 2000. Clearly, any blanket policy that
effectively precludes an airport experiencing this type of
operational growth from participating in the discretionary
grant process is flawed and should either be revised or
rescinded. The FAA is directed to respond to the Committee
regarding the impact of this policy on airports such as Concord
Regional, proposed safeguards to remedy the described impact on
this airport, and a justification for continuing the policy, if
warranted.
Baton Rouge, LA.--The Committee directs the FAA
Administrator to give priority consideration to the noise
mitigation program at Baton Rouge Airport in Louisiana and to a
series of projects to reconstruct taxiway ``F'' and the east
side apron, the perimeter road (phase I) project, construction
of taxiway ``C'', pavement overlay for runway 13L-31R, and the
reconstruction of runway 4L-22R.
Abilene Regional Airport, TX.--The Committee is aware of
plans for essential infrastructure improvements to enhance
competition, capacity and safety at the Abilene Regional
Airport. Given the economic potential and immediate needs of
this regional facility, the Committee encourages the FAA to
give priority consideration to requests for discretionary
funding that will assist the Abilene Regional Airport with
various capital improvements such as terminal expansion,
taxiway extension and emergency response vehicle procurement.
LETTERS OF INTENT
Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to
fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will
significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also
to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining
whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of
committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted
discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security,
and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as
reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other
worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and
airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in
planning and funding airport development.
Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year
2001 grant allocations:
Alaska: Anchorage International......................... $5,018,750
Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas)............. 7,000,000
California: Sacramento Metro............................ 1,600,000
Florida:
Fort Myers Southwest Florida International.......... 4,000,000
Orlando International............................... 6,473,591
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International............... 9,998,300
Illinois:
Mid-America, Belleville reliever.................... 14,000,000
Chicago Midway...................................... 9,000,000
Kentucky:
Greater Cincinnati.................................. 1,561,725
Louisville.......................................... 3,525,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan.......................... 16,850,000
Minnesota: Minneapolis-St. Paul International........... 10,000,000
Missouri: St. Louis Lambert International............... 13,910,000
Nevada:
Reno/Tahoe International............................ 7,600,000
Las Vegas-Henderson Sky Harbor...................... 2,540,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State................... 1,100,000
Tennessee: Memphis International........................ 6,800,000
Texas:
New Austin at Bergstrom............................. 6,775,188
Midland............................................. 1,194,207
Utah: Salt Lake City International...................... 9,000,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National.................... 13,249,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................ 11,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 162,895,761
In addition, applications are pending for capacity
enhancement projects which would, if constructed, significantly
reduce congestion and delay. These projects require multiyear
funding commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA
enter into letters of intent for multiyear funding of such
capacity enhancement projects.
Baltimore-Washington International Airport.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the application of Baltimore-Washington International Airport
for a letter of intent for a major capital improvement program
including expansion of existing piers, runway and taxiway
rehabilitation projects, and a mid-field cargo complex.
Memphis International Airport, TN.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Memphis International Airport's application for a letter of
intent for the airport expansion and improvement projects
described in the authority's application. The projects include
the reconstruction of runway 18R-36L, the extension of taxiway
N to the south end of runway 18R-36L, construction of an
aircraft apron at the south end of taxiway N, reconstruction of
taxiway M, and the equipping of taxiway M as a temporary
runway. The Committee is informed that substantial safety,
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion
of this project.
Anchorage International Airport, AK.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Anchorage International Airport's application for a letter
of intent for the North/South Runway Parallel taxiways, SAP
taxiways, WAP taxiways, roads and utilities relocations, Runway
extension, Apron construction and reconstructions. The
Anchorage International Airport is a major passenger,
international cargo, and float plane facility. The Committee is
informed that substantial safety, system capacity, efficiency,
and furtherance of the Gateway program will result from the
planned improvements at the airport.
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a letter
of intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and
related improvements described in the authority's application,
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety,
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion
of this project.
George Bush Intercontinental Airport/Houston.--The
Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate
consideration to the George Bush Intercontinental Airport's
request for a letter of intent for its proposed capital
improvement program which includes terminal and airfield
development, a new runway, and extension and widening of an
existing runway. The Committee is informed that the airport
improvement will have national capacity enhancing impacts and
will increase the efficiency of the airport contributing to a
reduction in congestion at the airport and throughout the
system.
ADMINISTRATION
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $53,000,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA. Of those funds, $4,500,000 is only
available for the development of GPS approaches at airports
that experience capacity constraints and significant
operational delays due to weather. The Committee is convinced
that substantial individual airport capacity and system-wide
benefits will accrue through the FAA's aggressive development
of GPS approaches at selected airports. In this regard, the FAA
should develop a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport and work
with the State of Oregon to facilitate the development of GPS
approaches within their State program. This effort can be
accommodated within the substantial growth in the
administrative funding for the airports program.
general provision
FAA Facilities on Airport Property.--The bill contains a
provision (sec. 340) concerning FAA facilities on airport
property. In order to maintain the FAA's future ability to
secure below-market financing of FAA facilities located on
airport property, the Committee believes FAA should continue
its decades-old practice of paying below-market rates for the
construction of buildings, maintenance, utilities and expenses
(including replacement costs of older buildings) to airport
sponsors for space in airport buildings relating to ATC, FSS/
FSDO, air navigation and ATC weather-reporting and
communication activities. As local governmental entities,
airport sponsors have saved FAA significant real estate expense
by providing the Agency, at the sponsor's risk, below-market
financing for buildings required for ATC facilities. The
Committee continues to agree with the long-standing airport
grant assurance, ``Land for Federal Facilities,'' which
specifies that airport sponsors shall furnish without cost to
the FAA land for ATC facilities. However, that assurance also
specifies that building expenses are permitted to be paid by
the FAA, and the Committee agrees that it is in the best long-
term economic interest of the FAA's current and future need for
ATC building facilities to continue to pay reasonable rental
rates for FAA space occupied in airport sponsor-owned
buildings. As such, the Committee believes that FAA should not
pursue guidelines that would require airport sponsors to
provide cost-free space. In addition, the Department of
Transportation Inspector General should provide the Committee
with a study assessing the cost to airport sponsors of changing
the current practice.
GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
The bill includes a rescission of $579,000,000 in contract
authority. This budget authority was made available in Public
Law 106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2000. However,
since such funds are above the obligation limitation for that
year, they are not available for obligation and are therefore
available for rescission. This recommendation will have no
programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently
available for use in the AIP program.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The principle missions of the Federal Highway
Administration are: to provide Federal financial and technical
assistance to the States to plan, construct, and improve the
National Highway System, urban and rural roads, and bridges; to
foster the development of a safe, efficient, and effective
highway and intermodal system nationwide; and to provide access
to and within National Forests, National Parks, Indian Lands
and other public lands.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $30,701,382,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2001. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels,
the fiscal year 2001 program request and the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
Program 2000 program 2001 budget recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways limitation \1\ \2\......................... 27,701,350 29,318,806 29,661,806
Limitation on administrative expenses \3\................... (376,072) (315,834) (386,658)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations.................................. 1,206,702 1,039,576 1,039,576
Emergency relief supplemental obligations....................... .............. .............. ..............
Ellsworth \4\................................................... (3,000) .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 28,908,052 30,358,382 30,701,382
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program and in 2000 includes $76,000,000
in administrative expenses for motor carriers.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $105,260,000 pursuant to 0.38 percent reduction in section 301 of Public Law
106-113.
\3\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69; fiscal year 2000 includes
$76,058,000 for administrative expenses of the Office of Motor Carriers.
\4\ Pursuant to section 3029 of Public Law 106-31.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $376,072,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... 315,834,000
Committee recommendation \1\............................ 386,657,840
\1\ In fiscal year 2001, funding for motor carrier administration
expenses is included as a separate limitation in the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration.
The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending
for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal
Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century changed the funding source for the highway
research accounts from the administrative takedown of the
Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority
provisions. The Committee recommends a limitation of
$386,657,840. This limitation excludes funding for the
operations of the office of motor carriers, which is now
provided in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration,
consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999. The budget request included a number of legislative set-
asides within this limitation. The Committee has not included
these items legislatively in the bill.
The following table reflects the fiscal year 2000 level,
the 2001 level requested by the administration, and the
Committee's recommendation:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------- Committee
Program 2001 budget recommendation
2000 level \1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
Salaries and benefits.................................... 202,756 210,748 210,748
Travel................................................... 9,473 9,473 9,473
Transportation........................................... 663 465 465
GSA rent................................................. 20,275 16,537 16,537
Communications, rent, and utilities...................... 9,955 9,857 9,857
Printing................................................. 1,609 1,512 1,512
TASC..................................................... 7,764 6,621 6,621
Supplies................................................. 2,079 2,021 2,021
Equipment................................................ 4,947 6,947 4,947
Sec. 1102(f) restorations................................ 98,500 ( \2\ ) 96,231
Other.................................................... 44,834 51,653 28,246
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 304,355 315,834 386,658
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects reduction of $1,233,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Administration requests for these programs were included elsewhere in Federal Highways.
Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends
$210,748,000 for this appropriation. The Committee
recommendation for administrative expenses provides FHWA the
flexibility to allocate the appropriation among such expenses
as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation,
salaries and benefits consistent with the other recommendations
in the report. The Committee notes that the on-board workforce
is 200 FTE below authorized levels for fiscal year 2000 which
should provide ample flexibility to execute the program within
the appropriated level.
Information technology activities.--The Committee has
deferred increases in information technology activities
totaling $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2001 pending a review of the
need and compatibility by the Department of Transportation
chief information officer of the proposed new systems and
enhancements and a determination of outyear costs.
Workforce development.--The Committee recommendation
includes the requested $4,330,000 for workforce development
activities.
Rural transportation planning initiative.--The Committee
recommendation deletes the requested funding for the new rural
transportation planning initiative as potentially duplicative
of the LTAP and RTAP efforts and encourages the FHWA to
initiate with the FTA, within those programs, appropriate
modules to identify or address the most pressing rural
transportation deficiencies.
Climate change center.--The Committee recommendation
deletes the request for funding to establish a climate change
center, which would conduct and coordinate the Department of
Transportation's research on environmental strategies. The
Committee recommendation provides funds within the FHWA
research and technology program for the conduct of
environmental research and questions the necessity of
establishing a new center to coordinate this specific research.
Delta initiative.--The Committee recommendation does not
include funding for the Delta initiative as requested in the
budget due to budget constraints, incomplete articulation of
programmatic objectives, and the applicability of other
authorized programs to address elements of the initiative. The
Committee seeks greater understanding of the administration's
goals in this regard and stands ready to work with the
administration to identify available funding for these and
other economically beneficial initiatives for rurally
impoverished regions of the country.
Technology sharing and transfer activities.--The Committee
recommendation does not include the funding requested to
encourage greater sharing among the Department of
Transportation various administrations and their research and
technology constituencies. Sufficient funding is provided for
training and education activities in the highway research and
technology programs to further the goals of this initiative.
National personal transportation survey.--The Committee
recommendation does not provide the request for a national
personal transportation survey under this heading. The
Committee has included funding for this activity within the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics appropriation.
International trade data systems.--The Committee
recommendation includes the requested funding for international
trade data systems. Within the funding provided, the Committee
directs the FHWA to conduct a study with the University of
Texas at El Paso and Dowling College of Long Island, NY through
the NAFTA Intermodal Transportation Institute on transportation
issues emerging from NAFTA and to work with the Arctic Council
to identify opportunities for international cooperation and
development in the circumpolar region.
OIG audit reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation
directs the FHWA to reimburse the Office of Inspector General
$10,000,000 for audit and other highway related review work
conducted in that office.
Federal-Aid Highways
(limitation on obligations)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, 2000
($27,701,350,000)
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\
(29,318,806,000)
Committee recommendation \2\
(29,661,806,000)
\1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $3,058,000,000
associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which $598,000,000
is transferred to other modal administrations. The request also includes
$255,000,000 in additional obligation authority.
\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,603,806,000 in guaranteed
obligations, and $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue
aligned budget authority, consistent with current law.
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2001 Federal-aid highways obligations to $29,661,806,000,
an increase of $1,960,456,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and $343,000,000 over the budget request. The recommended
level is the level assumed in TEA21.
The obligation limitation for the Federal-aid highways
program included in this bill includes $3,058,000,000 in
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority.
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the Federal-aid
highways program budget authority and obligation authority in
any budget year in which projected income to the highway
account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted.
Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget
authority to be distributed proportionately among Federal-aid
highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the
overall Federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of
increased income, and therefore, budget authority and
obligations for fiscal year 2001 is $3,058,000,000.
The budget request--in contravention of provisions of
TEA21--proposed to allocate this additional obligation
authority in fiscal year 2001 to other programs, including
NHTSA's operations and research program; FTA's job access and
reverse commute program; high speed rail activities; and the
commercial drivers license program.
In addition, the budget request included several proposals
which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These
proposals included: (1) a set aside of $1,200,000 from funds
made available for administrative expenses for training on
Indian reservations; (2) an additional $25,000,000 for the
transportation and community and system preservation program;
(3) an additional $140,000,000 for the national corridor
planning and border infrastructure program; (4) an additional
$221,500,000 for transportation research programs; and (5)
$398,000,000 to implement an emergency relief reserve fund.
These proposals have not been approved by the Committee as they
are unauthorized and if adopted would have required
corresponding reductions in the States' apportionments and
their obligation authority in fiscal year 2001.
The following table indicates estimated obligations by
State within the $29,661,806,000 provided by this Act and in
permanent law:
ESTIMATED FISCAL YEAR 2001 DISTRIBUTION OF OBLIGATION LIMITATION AND REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY (RABA)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OBLIGATION
STATES LIMITATION \1\ RABA TOTAL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama...................................................... $478,393,294 $60,783,866 $539,177,160
Alaska....................................................... 273,338,905 35,732,730 309,071,635
Arizona...................................................... 386,599,345 49,704,732 436,304,077
Arkansas..................................................... 312,654,965 39,628,622 352,283,587
California................................................... 2,211,981,611 281,962,890 2,493,944,501
Colorado..................................................... 275,490,135 35,004,926 310,495,061
Connecticut.................................................. 353,217,355 45,542,794 398,760,149
Delaware..................................................... 103,731,809 13,268,662 117,000,471
District of Columbia......................................... 93,741,325 11,865,040 105,606,365
Florida...................................................... 1,121,666,241 144,774,894 1,266,441,135
Georgia...................................................... 832,178,590 106,971,898 939,150,488
Hawaii....................................................... 121,240,964 15,525,466 136,766,430
Idaho........................................................ 181,168,531 23,146,002 204,314,533
Illinois..................................................... 795,299,213 101,421,628 896,720,841
Indiana...................................................... 555,444,640 71,291,154 626,735,794
Iowa......................................................... 283,379,331 36,047,704 319,427,035
Kansas....................................................... 276,678,619 35,139,478 311,818,097
Kentucky..................................................... 423,684,551 54,114,368 477,798,919
Louisiana.................................................... 376,584,623 48,126,804 424,711,427
Maine........................................................ 124,948,152 15,782,338 140,730,490
Maryland..................................................... 386,612,173 49,395,874 436,008,047
Massachusetts................................................ 440,827,553 55,894,124 496,721,677
Michigan..................................................... 770,487,758 98,736,704 869,224,462
Minnesota.................................................... 352,733,729 44,961,774 397,695,503
Mississippi.................................................. 295,425,345 37,695,966 333,121,311
Missouri..................................................... 585,613,867 74,578,504 660,192,371
Montana...................................................... 230,749,423 29,775,746 260,525,169
Nebraska..................................................... 183,090,968 23,295,844 206,386,812
Nevada....................................................... 169,145,618 21,736,264 190,881,882
New Hampshire................................................ 121,821,196 15,482,654 137,303,850
New Jersey................................................... 632,567,758 80,764,838 713,332,596
New Mexico................................................... 231,198,136 29,641,194 260,839,330
New York..................................................... 1,211,655,529 154,826,540 1,366,482,069
North Carolina............................................... 662,205,968 84,939,008 747,144,976
North Dakota................................................. 153,765,807 19,650,708 173,416,515
Ohio......................................................... 823,947,807 105,158,504 929,106,311
Oklahoma..................................................... 364,937,744 46,417,382 411,355,126
Oregon....................................................... 291,813,790 36,536,984 328,350,774
Pennsylvania................................................. 1,190,371,427 149,606,534 1,339,977,961
Rhode Island................................................. 139,958,730 17,867,894 157,826,624
South Carolina............................................... 393,474,564 50,215,418 443,689,982
South Dakota................................................. 171,367,488 21,439,638 192,807,126
Tennessee.................................................... 544,746,298 69,511,398 614,257,696
Texas........................................................ 1,785,645,239 229,230,738 2,014,875,977
Utah......................................................... 190,699,752 24,332,506 215,032,258
Vermont...................................................... 107,423,888 13,715,130 121,139,018
Virginia..................................................... 615,042,972 78,633,412 693,676,384
Washington................................................... 421,802,708 53,606,740 475,409,448
West Virginia................................................ 267,976,665 33,943,800 301,920,465
Wisconsin.................................................... 465,112,354 59,725,798 524,838,152
Wyoming...................................................... 163,917,007 20,846,386 184,763,393
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 23,947,561,460 3,058,000,000 27,005,561,460
==================================================
Allocation Programs \2\...................................... 2,656,244,540 ............... 2,656,244,540
==================================================
Total.................................................. 26,603,806,000 3,058,000,000 29,661,806,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Special Limitation (Minimum Guarantee, Appalachian Development Highway, High Priority Projects).
\2\ Includes Territorial High Priority Projects.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAMS
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
Federal-State partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate Federal-aid projects subject to FHWA
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
Federal Government provides financial support for construction
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary
with the type of road.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21),
the highway, highway safety, and transit authorization through
fiscal year 2003 makes funds available in the following major
categories:
National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 authorized the
National Highway System (NHS), which was subsequently
established as a 163,000-mile road system by the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995. This system serves
major population centers, intermodal transportation facilities,
national border crossings, and major destinations. It is
comprised of all interstate routes, selected urban and
principal rural arterials, defense highways, and major highway
connectors carrying up to 75 percent of commercial truck
traffic and 40 percent of all vehicle traffic. States may
transfer up to half of its NHS funds to the Surface
Transportation program (STP) and all NHS funds with the
concurrence of the Secretary of Transportation. The Federal
share of the NHS is an 80 percent match and funds remain
available for 4 fiscal years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,000-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
All remaining Federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the Federal share of the cost to their interstate
maintenance program.
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds.
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The Federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for
high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges.
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's
apportionment formula for the following year.
National Historic Covered Bridge Preservation Program.--The
Committee recommendation provides $10,000,000 for the covered
bridge program elsewhere in the bill, $2,000,000 above the
level provided in the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill. The
Committee directs the FHWA to provide priority consideration
for bridges within this $10,000,000 that are in eminent danger
of failure absent remedial attention. The Committee has been
made aware of one such bridge, the Cambridge Junction Covered
Bridge, which was included in last year's report but which the
FHWA has, to date, failed to address.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to States to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT,
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a State
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be
used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile
source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides
authorizations through three major categories--Indian
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
The Committee directs that the funds allocated for this
program in this bill and in permanent law are to be derived
from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not
from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions.
Funds provided for the Federal lands program in fiscal year
2001 shall be available for the following activities:
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road............ $1,900,000
NM Route 4 Jemez Pueble Bypass.......................... 1,000,000
Giant Springs Road relocation L&C Interpretive Center
(Great Falls, MT)................................... 1,600,000
Highway 323 between Elzada and Ekalaka.................. 1,000,000
Highway 419 reconstruction.............................. 5,200,000
Charles M. Russell/Fort Peck Roads coalition access
project............................................. 1,000,000
New River Gorge National River road and safety
improvements........................................ 3,500,000
Natchez Trace Parkway multi-use trail................... 675,000
Acadia National Park trails and road projects........... 500,000
Rampart Road Eureka connector........................... 1,000,000
Sawtooth National Forest access (phase 2)............... 550,000
Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area.................... 2,000,000
Teton Trail Pass (phase 3).............................. 1,000,000
Cedar Pass landslide stabilization, Badlands National
Park................................................ 1,750,000
James Campbell National Wildlife Refuge, Haleakala
National Park, Maui, Hawaii Volcanoes National Park,
Hakalau Forest National Refuge, Puuhonua Honaunau
National Historic Park, and Hanalei National
Wildlife Refuge..................................... 2,150,000
Forest Highway 26....................................... 1,300,000
Western Canal-Arena Reach Walkway....................... 500,000
Boyer Chute NWR paving project.......................... 3,000,000
Hoover Dam bypass 4-lane bridge......................... 11,000,000
Lake Cumberland access road and improvements............ 1,250,000
US 95 Widening Between Laughlin Cutoff and Railroad Pass 2,500,000
Milford lake replacement bridge (Corps of Engineers
lake)............................................... 500,000
Old Lock I Park access road............................. 1,600,000
Chugach Road............................................ 500,000
Iditarod (Millenium trail).............................. 1,900,000
Metlakatla/Walden Point Road............................ 2,000,000
Pasagshak Road Realignment and improvement.............. 700,000
U.S. 26 Upgrade......................................... 500,000
Silvio Conte National Wildlife Refuge public roads...... 1,000,000
Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge access road.--The
Committee has allocated $1,900,000 for the construction of an
access road to the Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge in Box
Elder County, Utah. The Committee directs the FHWA to manage
and oversee the environmental work, design, engineering and
final construction of this access road using funds appropriated
for this project as well as any local matching funds. Local
funding may include contributions of right of way by both
private and public entities. The Committee further directs FHWA
to work cooperatively with local county and State governments
in moving this project forward.
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
Beginning in fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides that
guaranteed funding levels for the Federal-aid highways and
highway safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt
estimates for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In
conjunction with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23,
entitled the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA),
authorizes contract authority in an amount equal to the
additional obligation limitation. This follows through on the
TEA21 philosophy that highway program funding levels are linked
to receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
In fiscal year 2001, the RABA adjustment is $3,058,000,000.
The budget request proposes to reallocate a portion of the RABA
to Administration priorities. Of the $3,058,000,000 adjustment,
$741,000,000 would be transferred to these initiatives, and
$2,317,000,000 would be distributed to Federal-aid and motor
carrier programs as described by TEA21 and amended by the Motor
Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999.
The following table presents the State-by-State allocation
revenue aligned budget authority:
REVENUE ALIGNED BUDGET AUTHORITY
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full RABA
State Admin. distr. TEA21 distr. committee
recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA......................................................... 41,620 56,296 60,784
ALASKA.......................................................... 24,403 33,019 35,733
ARIZONA......................................................... 33,982 45,989 49,705
ARKANSAS........................................................ 27,252 36,857 39,629
CALIFORNIA...................................................... 192,556 260,472 281,963
COLORADO........................................................ 23,972 32,437 35,005
CONNECTICUT..................................................... 31,060 42,018 45,543
DELAWARE........................................................ 9,079 12,289 13,269
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA............................................ 8,094 10,950 11,865
FLORIDA......................................................... 98,866 133,774 144,775
GEORGIA......................................................... 72,971 98,720 106,972
HAWAII.......................................................... 10,580 14,312 15,525
IDAHO........................................................... 15,797 21,359 23,146
ILLINOIS........................................................ 69,077 93,428 101,422
INDIANA......................................................... 48,609 65,756 71,291
IOWA............................................................ 24,576 33,244 36,048
KANSAS.......................................................... 23,951 32,399 35,139
KENTUCKY........................................................ 36,905 49,925 54,114
LOUISIANA....................................................... 32,778 44,332 48,127
MAINE........................................................... 10,896 14,739 15,782
MARYLAND........................................................ 33,696 45,585 49,396
MASSACHUSETTS................................................... 38,389 51,919 55,894
MICHIGAN........................................................ 67,305 91,044 98,737
MINNESOTA....................................................... 30,608 41,395 44,962
MISSISSIPPI..................................................... 25,698 34,763 37,696
MISSOURI........................................................ 50,947 68,911 74,579
MONTANA......................................................... 20,374 27,577 29,776
NEBRASKA........................................................ 15,929 21,557 23,296
NEVADA.......................................................... 14,846 20,089 21,736
NEW HAMPSHIRE................................................... 10,601 14,335 15,483
NEW JERSEY...................................................... 55,014 74,409 80,765
NEW MEXICO...................................................... 20,219 27,353 29,641
NEW YORK........................................................ 105,420 142,576 154,827
NORTH CAROLINA.................................................. 57,943 78,390 84,939
NORTH DAKOTA.................................................... 13,438 18,187 19,651
OHIO............................................................ 71,674 96,952 105,159
OKLAHOMA........................................................ 31,735 42,934 46,417
OREGON.......................................................... 25,248 34,140 36,537
PENNSYLVANIA.................................................... 102,976 139,222 149,607
RHODE ISLAND.................................................... 12,276 16,612 17,868
SOUTH CAROLINA.................................................. 34,553 46,751 50,215
SOUTH DAKOTA.................................................... 14,918 20,176 21,440
TENNESSEE....................................................... 47,385 64,099 69,511
TEXAS........................................................... 156,693 212,010 229,231
UTAH............................................................ 16,581 22,429 24,333
VERMONT......................................................... 9,372 12,682 13,715
VIRGINIA........................................................ 53,715 72,671 78,633
WASHINGTON...................................................... 36,508 49,378 53,607
WEST VIRGINIA................................................... 23,057 31,172 33,944
WISCONSIN....................................................... 40,737 55,111 59,726
WYOMING......................................................... 14,316 19,373 20,846
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2,800,000,000 nationally is available to the
States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements
related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety,
and sub-State allocations do not apply), and any remaining
amounts are distributed among core highway programs.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects
totals $9,500,000,000 over the 6 year period with a specified
percentage of the project funds made available each year.
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated
with the projects does not expire.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under TEA21, and this bill, funding totalling
$450,000,000 will be available for fiscal year 2001 and will be
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete
estimate. The committee is supportive of a strong Federal
commitment to complete these overdue safety and economic
development infrastructure improvements within the timeframe
anticipated by TEA21.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA21 created a new national corridor planning and
development program that identifies funds for planning, design,
and construction of highway corridors of national significance,
economic growth, and international or interregional trade.
Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section
1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations
outlined in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure
program is established to improve the safe movement of people
and goods at or across the U.S./Mexico and U.S/Canada borders.
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats
and ferry terminal facilities. The Committee notes that
$20,000,000 of the funds in this program have been statutorily
reserved and directs the FHWA to work with the State of Alaska
to develop fast ferries for Southeast Alaska. Of the remaining
appropriation, funds shall be available for the following
projects:
Dorena Ferry Mississippi River Crossing................. $500,000
Vallejo Baylink......................................... 500,000
SANDAG Highspeed ferry service.......................... 500,000
Providence and New Port ferry........................... 500,000
Savannah Water Taxi..................................... 500,000
Alabama ferry docks..................................... 1,000,000
Curtis Vessel replacement for Rockland and Vinal Haven.. 1,000,000
State of Ohio ferries................................... 1,000,000
New London, CT ferry expansion and improvement.......... 1,000,000
Treasure Island Ferry Service initiation................ 500,000
Port of Corpus Christi (North Harbor) Ferry facility.... 1,000,000
Champlain Ferry Terminals............................... 1,000,000
Provincetown Terminal Improvements...................... 800,000
Gees Bend Ferry......................................... 1,000,000
Penns Landing Dock improvements......................... 800,000
The Committee has provided substantial funding in this bill
and in previous appropriations Acts to improve waterborne
transportation systems for commuters throughout U.S. cities and
ports. The Committee is concerned that existing regulations
regarding the chartering of passenger vessels may have the
effect of allowing foreign corporations to operate commuter
ferries in the United States, which the Committee believes is
contrary to the intent of laws reserving these and similar
transportation operations for U.S. owned and controlled
companies.
Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA21 created a new transportation and community and
system preservation program that provides grants to States and
local governments for planning, developing, and implementing
strategies to integrate transportation and community and system
preservation plans and projects. These grants may be used to
improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce
transportation externalities and the need for future
infrastructure investment, and improve transportation
efficiency and access consistent with community character.
Funds provided for this program for fiscal year 2001 shall be
available for the following activities:
Auburn, AL transportation facilities improvement project $800,000
Bangor, ME intermodal hub facility, crossing
improvements, bike/pedestrian trails................ 600,000
Bedford, NH corridor planning study..................... 250,000
Billings, MT open space improvement project............. 575,000
Bowling Green, KY Riverfront Development transportation
enhancements........................................ 800,000
Burlington, VT North Street and Church Street
Marcketplace community planning and improvements.... 1,100,000
Charleston, WV Kanawha Boulevard Walkway project........ 2,000,000
Claiborne County, MS access road for new port facility.. 400,000
Concord, NH 20/20 vision project........................ 500,000
Dayton, OH Huffman Prairie Flying Field multimodal
gateway entrance.................................... 700,000
Fairbanks, AK downtown transit/cultural integration
planning............................................ 750,000
Flint, MI transportation planning and origin and
destination shipping study.......................... 150,000
Heritage Corridor Project study, IL..................... 200,000
Houston, TX Main Street connectivity project............ 750,000
GM&O intermodal center track alignment.................. 500,000
Hudson River Waterfront Walkway, NJ..................... 1,500,000
Jackson, MS traffic congestion mitigation project....... 600,000
Johnstown, PA pedestrian and streetscape improvements... 450,000
Kansas City, MO Illus Davis Mall enhancements........... 350,000
Las Cruces, NM railroad and transportation museum....... 200,000
Marked Tree, AR U.S. Highway 63 improvements............ 600,000
Mobile, Alabama State Docks............................. 1,500,000
Montana DOT/Western Montana College statewide geological
sign project........................................ 400,000
Montana statewide rail grade separation study and
environmental review................................ 500,000
North Metro, MN trunk highway 610/10 improvement project 775,000
Olympic Discovery Trail, WA............................. 500,000
Omaha, NE access and redevelopment project.............. 300,000
Palmer, AK urban revitalization......................... 200,000
Pittsburgh, PA Roberto Clemente Park pedestrian
improvements........................................ 600,000
Portland, OR Pioneer Courthouse Square renovation
project............................................. 400,000
Quincy, IL 18th Street Bridge project................... 300,000
Raton, NM rail depot/intermodal center redevelopment.... 750,000
Roseville, CA historic district revitalization project.. 500,000
Saddle Road, HI improvements............................ 1,000,000
Soldotna, AK East Redoubt Avenue improvements........... 750,000
Springfield, MO center city plan........................ 750,000
Talkeetna, AK parking lot/pedestrian underpass.......... 400,000
Utah-Colorado ``Isolated Empire'' Rail Connector........ 500,000
Virginia Beach, VA bike trail........................... 400,000
Wheeling, WV Victorian Village transportation initiative 500,000
City of New Bedford, MA North Terminal Project.......... 200,000
LIMITATION ON TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Limitation, 2000 \1\....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\...............................................
Committee recommendation \1\............................ ($437,250,000)
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year
2001 are assumed within the Federal-aid highways obligation limitation.
The limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology programs of the FHWA. This limitation
includes the intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research. The
Committee recommendation provides an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $437,250,000 for the following
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
programs:
Surface transportation research......................... $98,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 45,000,000
Training and education.................................. 18,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and
development......................................... 100,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 118,000,000
University transportation research...................... 27,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 437,250,000
Surface Transportation Research.--Within the funds provided
for surface transportation research and development, the
accompanying bill provides funding for the following activities
in the specified amounts consistent with the provisions of
TEA21:
Technology assessment and deployment.................... $14,000,000
International activities................................ 500,000
Research and technology support......................... 7,500,000
Highway research and development........................ 66,000,000
LTPP.................................................... 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 98,000,000
Within the funds provided for highway research and
development, the Committee recommends that $66,000,000 be
allocated for the following activities in the specified
amounts:
Safety.................................................. $15,000,000
Pavements............................................... 15,000,000
Structures.............................................. 15,000,000
Environment............................................. 6,200,000
Policy.................................................. 4,600,000
Planning and real estate................................ 4,100,000
Advanced research....................................... 900,000
Highway operations and asset management................. 5,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 66,000,000
The Committee has allocated the surface transportation
research and development account in the same manner as it has
historically, rather than in the new configuration proposed by
FHWA. This allocation will not interfere with the performance-
based approach required under GPRA, but will ensure that the
flow of Federal investments can be monitored easily. The
Committee's allocation concentrates funds in the three
foundations of FHWA's research and development program: safety,
pavements, and structures. To respond to the pressing
challenges of today's highway environment, increased funds also
have been made available for highway operations and asset
management.
The Committee also seeks to ensure that FHWA continues to
focus on research and development, and therefore, does not
approve the use of any funds specified under highway research
and development to support technology deployment, assessment,
or other programmatic purposes as proposed by FHWA. Instead,
under the surface transportation research and development
subaccount, the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be allocated
for technology deployment and assessment activities to expedite
the transfer of advanced technologies to state and local
governments. Next year, FHWA should be prepared to show how
funds to advance research and development were tracked
separately from funds spent on technology deployment and
assessment functions.
In the fiscal year 2002 budget justification, the Committee
expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface
transportation research and development funds using the same
categorical basis displayed in this report. The FHWA should
document how it proposes to allocate the technology assessment
and deployment funds by specific projects or activities to be
conducted by the core business units, state division offices,
or resource centers. The justification will include a separate
discussion of how the technology deployment program funds will
be integrated with the surface transportation R&D funds.
The Committee deletes funding for various administrative
activities from the surface transportation R&D account and
notes that funding under the general operating expense account
(LAE) are available for many of these activities.
Safety Research.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for
safety research and development activities. The Committee
commends FHWA for the development of various safety-oriented
technologies and its assistance to States to reduce run-off-the
road crashes, increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve
roadside design and hardware, reduce hazards in work zones,
advance safety and speed management systems, and further
highway safety information systems.
The Committee has increased funds above the requested
amount to allow FHWA to expand its efforts to improve traffic
safety at various types of intersections. Almost 25 percent of
all fatal motor vehicle crashes are intersection-related.
Intersection safety is a concern in both rural and urban
areas--44 percent of intersection-related fatal crashes occur
in rural areas and 56 percent in urban areas. Providing
increased funds for this area of research is consistent with
the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies
improving the design and operation of highway intersections as
1 of its 22 strategies to reduce highway deaths and injuries.
FHWA should identify the most common and severe safety problems
at intersections and compile information on effective
applications and design of innovative infrastructure
configurations and treatments at both signalized and
unsignalized intersections and interchanges. Within the funds
provided, up to $500,000 is to explore traffic striping
technology improvements which enhance reflectivity in heavy
rain. The Committee recommendation provides up to $2,000,000 is
available for research into the Freezefree anti-icing system
initiative. In addition, up to $2,000,000 may be used for
cooperative research at the Western Washington University
Vehicle Research Institute for safety and related initiatives
and $500,000 is for rural bridge safety research in cooperation
with the Vermont Agency of Transportation.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for
pavements research and development, including work on asphalt,
Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials.
This increase in funding above the fiscal year 2000
appropriation, along with the funds provided for the LTPP, will
allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the
Nation's infrastructure. In the effort to identify and develop
better asphalt pavements, the FHWA should not overlook the
significance of high quality initial asphalt products before
the application of additives or the introduction of composites.
The Committee has been informed that the introduction of
additives or composites may simply restore the durability and
performance specifications of high quality asphalt products
that actually cost less than the compound hybrid products. The
FHWA should seek the lowest cost, highest quality products in
the research effort regardless of whether that solution
involves composites, polymers, additives, or simply better
quality concretes or asphalts. Within the recommended
appropriation, up to $750,000 is for the Portland cement
concrete pavement research at the Iowa State University Center
for Transportation Research and Education Center, up to
$2,000,000 is for alkali silica reactivity research with
lithium based technologies, $2,500,000 is for the National
Center for Asphalt Technology Pavement Research at Auburn
University, up to $2,000,000 is for the cooperative polymer
additive demonstration involving the South Carolina Department
of Transportation, South Carolina State University, and Clemson
University, up to $2,000,000 is for further research into the
GSB-88 emulsified sealer/binder treatment, and up to $1,000,000
is for geosynthetic material pavement research at the Western
Transportation Institute.
Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for
structures research and development. These funds will help FHWA
make progress towards its performance goal to reduce
deficiencies on NHS bridges from 25 percent to 20 percent and
reduce deficiencies on all bridges from 31.4 percent to 25
percent by 2007. This funding will ensure continued progress on
high performance materials and engineering applications to
efficiently design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges.
Of the funds provided, up to $2,000,000 is available for
research at the Center for Advanced Bridge Engineering at Wayne
State University, up to $2,000,000 is for the continuing
destructive testing research at the Utah Transportation Center,
up to $1,500,000 is for advanced sensor and inspection research
at the New Mexico State University Bridge Research Center, up
to $2,000,000 is for earthquake hazards mitigation research at
University of Missouri-Rolla, up to $2,000,000 is for research
into composite structure and related engineering research at
West Virginia University, up to $2,000,000 is for polymer
matrix composite research for wood structures at the University
of Maine, up to $2,000,000 is for completion of the rust
proofing and paint technology transfer project using the I-110
bridge from I-10 to U.S. 90, and up to $1,500,000 is for
cooperative work with the Transportation Research Center (TRAC)
at the Washington State University.
The Committee is aware of the critical need for addressing
bridge safety requirements at the Delaware Memorial Bridge.
With the deepening of the shipping channel for the Delaware
River from 40 feet to 45 feet to facilitate the transit of
supertankers, the need exists to protect the base of the
Delaware Memorial Bridge by installing a state-of-the-art,
composite materials bridge fendering system. Noting that the
Delaware Valley has the largest complex of oil refineries on
the East Coast and that the Delaware Memorial Bridge is the
major route for traffic between the Washington D.C.-Baltimore
area and the New York City-New England area, the Committee is
concerned for the severe impact both on the economy and the
defense posture of our Nation should the Delaware Memorial
Bridge be struck by a supertanker run errant while transiting
the Delaware River. The Committee encourages the Federal
Highway Administration to enter into discussions with the DRBA
with a view to including funding for this bridge fendering
system in the FHWA's budget request for fiscal year 2002.
Policy Research.--The Committee recommends $4,600,000 for
policy research. Additional funds to complete the NPTS should
be obtained from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee has deleted
funds for research cooperation with various international
organizations and requests to be consulted before future
international agreements are consummated that are likely to
require financial support.
Planning and Real Estate Research.--The Committee
recommends $4,100,000 for planning and real estate research,
including an increase of $100,000 in the real estate services
portion of the planning R&D budget above the amount specified
last year. These additional funds will help FHWA respond to
requests from AASHTO and other groups for increased research in
the real estate service area.
Highway Operations and Asset Management.--The Committee
recommends $5,200,000 for highway operations and asset
management. Funds provided under this category support a
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway
operations, including work to improve the manual of uniform
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather
conditions, and freight management operations. Of the $600,000
provided for asset management, the Committee has not included
any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality
Initiative. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics. Of the funds provided, up to
$800,000 is to support the innovative infrastructure financing
best practices research ongoing at the University of Southern
California and up to $1,000,000 is for the road life research
program at New Mexico Highway 44.
Environment Research.--The Committee recommends $6,200,000
for research on environmental issues affecting highway
operations and construction. Within the appropriated funds, up
to $1,000,000 is for the Sustainable Transportation Systems Lab
and the National Center for Transportation Technology (NIATT)
for mitigation effort research for heavily trafficked national
parks, $1,500,000 is for a dust and persistent particulate
abatement demonstration study at Kotzebue, Alaska and
$1,000,000 is to facilitate the work at the National
Environmental Respiratory Center on air quality. The Committee
is aware that the Department has not been responsive to the
National Environmental Research Center in its efforts to
establish a collaborative relationship as was encouraged in the
fiscal year 2000 conference agreement, and directs FHWA to
provide a letter report to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations on the agency's efforts to work with NERC before
November 30, 2000.
R&T Technical Support.--The Committee has limited funds for
R&T technical support to $7,500,000. Funding for other agency-
wide initiatives requested under the category ``Agency R&T
Programs'' have not been approved, unless otherwise specified
under the limitation on general operating expenses.
R&D Partnership Initiative.--The Committee continues to
support FHWA's participation in the National R&T Partnership
Initiative. As part of this partnership, five working groups
have been formed to advance a national research agenda in the
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and
systems monitoring. Key partners and stakeholders, including,
State DOTs, academia, local governmental officials, and private
sector representatives, are participating along with FHWA as
part of this effort. The products of this initiative will
provide input to the FHWA and other participants in shaping R&D
directions and priorities, and increase opportunities for
collaborative approaches to conducting high-priority R&T
activities. The Committee notes that the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) has taken a significant role in
facilitating this effort, and that the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has voiced
strong support and participates actively in this effort. The
Committee encourages FHWA's continued support of this
partnership initiative and appreciates the involvement of TRB,
AASHTO, and others to advance the overall highway R&T program.
ITS Standards, Research, Operational Tests, Development,
and Deployment.--The Committee recommends that the $218,000,000
authorized in TEA21 for ITS research and associated activities
in fiscal year 2001 be allocated in the following manner:
Research and Development................................ $48,680,000
Operational Tests....................................... 11,820,000
Evaluation/Program Policy Assessment.................... 7,750,000
Architecture and Standards.............................. 13,750,000
Program Support......................................... 9,000,000
Integration Support..................................... 9,000,000
ITS Deployment Incentive Program........................ 118,000,000
The Committee commends the ITS program office on the
detailed and exhaustive justification for the ITS Standards,
Research, Operational Tests, and Development justification. In
future justifications, the Committee requests that the
justification spending plan summary table (pp. 1-5) also
include the immediately prior 2 fiscal years' funding levels
for the individual activity or project.
ITS rail-highway crossing.--The Committee has included
$500,000 to initiate the design, engineering and installation
of intelligent transportation systems at railroad-highway
crossings on rail corridors that are being equipped with
positive train control systems. These funds will be used to
perform the preliminary engineering needed to determine the
costs to equip those corridors to improve safety by providing
warnings to motorists of arriving trains and by providing
warnings to trains that are blocked by obstacles in the
crossings. This project should be viewed by the Joint Program
Office as a multi-year effort to advance this technology. The
Federal Railroad Administration had included this new program
in its railroad research and development request, but would
have contracted with the FHWA JPO to manage the research
program.
IVI Research.--The Committees's allowance includes
$30,000,000 for the Intelligent Vehicle Program. The Committee
notes that the focus of the IVI program is divided between
truck and light vehicle initiatives. The Committee's
recommendation provides adequate resources for the FHWA to
pursue an additional operational test and encourages the FHWA
to develop an additional operational test on advanced collision
avoidance technologies on the light vehicle platform to
maximize the future safety benefits and to maintain a relative
balance in the program.
Specified ITS Deployment Projects.--It is the intent of the
Committee that the following projects contribute to the
integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under
section 5208 of the TEA21 and promote deployment of the
commercial vehicle intelligent transportation system
infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of the TEA21.
Funding for deployment activities are to be available as
follows:
Calhoun County, MI...................................... $500,000
Wayne County, MI........................................ 1,500,000
Southeast Michigan...................................... 1,000,000
Indiana Statewide (SAFE-T).............................. 1,500,000
Salt Lake City (Olympic Games).......................... 2,000,000
State of New Mexico..................................... 1,500,000
Santa Teresa, NM........................................ 1,000,000
State of Missouri (Rural)............................... 1,000,000
Springfield-Branson, MO................................. 1,500,000
Kansas City, MO......................................... 2,500,000
Inglewood, CA........................................... 1,200,000
Lewis & Clark trail, MT................................. 1,250,000
State of Montana........................................ 1,500,000
Fort Collins, CO........................................ 2,000,000
Arapahoe County, CO..................................... 1,000,000
I-70 West project, CO................................... 1,000,000
I-81 Safety Corridor, VA................................ 1,000,000
Aquidneck Island, RI.................................... 750,000
Hattiesburg, MS......................................... 1,000,000
Jackson, MS............................................. 1,000,000
Grand Forks, ND......................................... 1,000,000
Moscow, ID.............................................. 1,750,000
State of Ohio........................................... 2,500,000
State of Connecticut.................................... 3,000,000
Illinois Statewide...................................... 2,000,000
Charlotte, NC........................................... 1,250,000
Nashville, TN........................................... 1,000,000
State of Tennessee...................................... 2,600,000
Spokane, WA............................................. 1,000,000
Bellingham, WA.......................................... 700,000
Puget Sound Regional Fare Coordination.................. 2,000,000
Bay County, FL.......................................... 1,000,000
Iowa statewide (traffic enforcement).................... 3,000,000
State of Nebraska....................................... 2,600,000
State of North Carolina................................. 3,000,000
South Carolina statewide................................ 2,000,000
San Antonio, TX......................................... 200,000
Beaumont, TX............................................ 300,000
Corpus Christi, TX (vehicle dispatching)................ 1,500,000
Williamson County/Round Rock, TX........................ 500,000
Austin, TX.............................................. 500,000
Texas Border Phase I Houston, TX........................ 1,000,000
Oklahoma statewide...................................... 2,000,000
Vermont statewide....................................... 1,000,000
Vermont rural ITS....................................... 1,500,000
State of Wisconsin...................................... 3,600,000
Tucson, AZ.............................................. 2,500,000
Cargo Mate, NJ.......................................... 1,000,000
New Jersey regional integration/TRANSCOM................ 4,000,000
State of Kentucky....................................... 2,000,000
State of Maryland....................................... 4,000,000
Sacramento to Reno, I-80 corridor....................... 200,000
Washoe County, NV....................................... 200,000
North Las Vegas, NV..................................... 1,800,000
Delaware statewide...................................... 1,000,000
North Central Pennsylvania.............................. 1,500,000
Delaware River Port Authority........................... 3,500,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission........................ 3,000,000
Huntsville, AL.......................................... 2,000,000
Tuscaloosa/Muscle Shoals................................ 3,000,000
Automated crash notification system, UAB................ 2,000,000
Oregon statewide........................................ 1,500,000
Alaska statewide........................................ 4,200,000
South Dakota commercial vehicle ITS..................... 1,500,000
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Appropriations, 2000.................................... ($5,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001................................... (18,700,000)
Committee recommendation \1\............................................
\1\ Funding for NDGPS provided within FAA ``facilities and equipment''
account.
The administration has requested that $18,700,000 be
provided for the fiscal year 2001 nationwide differential
global positioning system (NDGPS) within the Federal Highway
Administration's highway research and development program,
using transferred revenue aligned budget authority. The
Committee does not concur in the proposed RABA transfer, but
has provided the requested NDGPS program funding within the
Federal Aviation Administration's facilities and equipment
account under the landing and navigational aids sub-account.
Of the recommended funding level of $18,700,000,
$13,200,000 will be utilized for capital costs, and $5,500,000
will be spent for operating expenses. By the end of this
calendar year, 23 decommissioned U.S. Air Force ground wave
emergency network (GWEN) transmitting sites will have been
converted to a differential GPS system and integrated into the
nationwide network. DOT plans to establish an additional 28
sites in fiscal year 2001, and the remaining 16 sites to
complete the national system will be established in fiscal year
2002. There is an estimated annualized operating cost of
$6,900,000 for operating and maintaining the NDGPS.
The Committee has expressed concern over the last 2 years
that, while system benefits directly accrue to the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and many other Federal,
State and local agencies have public safety and mapping needs
that will be indirectly aided by the availability of a
differential GPS system, DOT is the only Federal agency that
requests appropriated funds for the development and operation
of the NDGPS system. The Committee directs that a cost-sharing
plan involving at least both DOT and the Department of Commerce
be developed and conveyed to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than July 31, 2000, and that this cost-
sharing plan be reflected in these two departmental budget
requests for fiscal year 2002. The Committee will not support
an ongoing commitment to annual operating costs for the NDGPS
system if DOT remains the only Federal entity which directly
supports those operations.
Magnetic Levitation Transportation
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM
(Limitation on obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... ($20,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001................................... (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation (section 1218 funds)........... (25,000,000)
Committee recommendation (section 3015(c) funds)........ (5,000,000)
Section 1218 of TEA21 provides $25,000,000 in highway trust
funds contract authority for Maglev preconstruction activities
in fiscal year 2001. Additionally, Section 3015(c) of TEA21
provides $5,000,000 from FHWA's technology deployment program
for the development of low speed magnetic levitation technology
in fiscal year 2001, bringing the total guaranteed contract
authority available for maglev activities to $30,000,000.
The high speed maglev program is administered by the
Federal Railroad Administration; the low speed maglev program
is administered by the Federal Transit Administration. A total
of $5,000,000 of the funds provided between fiscal year 1999
and 2001 in Section 1218 of TEA21 must be made available for
research and development of low speed magnetic levitation for
urban public transportation purposes. Thus far, $2,000,000 of
the high speed maglev program funds have been transferred to
FTA for the low speed urban maglev program. Therefore, in
fiscal year 2001, FTA will receive directly or be transferred a
total of $8,000,000 for low speed maglev development
($3,000,000 from Section 1218 and $5,000,000 from Section
3015(c)). The Federal Railroad Administration will be
transferred $22,000,000 for the deployment of high speed maglev
projects. This is the final year of guaranteed contract
authority funding for the high speed maglev program under the
TEA21 authorization cycle.
High-speed maglev deployment program.--The administration
has requested that $2,000,000 of the Section 1218 funds be made
available for FRA's administration of the high speed maglev
program. The Committee recommendation provides $25,000,000 for
the high speed magnetic levitation technology deployment
program, of which not more than $1,000,000 shall be available
to the Federal Railroad Administration for administrative
expenses and technical assistance. Within the high speed maglev
program funds made available for fiscal year 2001, the
Committee recommends the following amounts be made available
for preconstruction planning and environmental impact
assessments:
Port Authority of Allegheny County, Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh
International Airport link................................$7,000,000
Maryland Department of Transportation: Baltimore-Washington
International Airport-Washington, D.C. link............... 4,000,000
California-Nevada super speed train commission, Las Vegas, NV
to Anaheim, CA............................................ 4,000,000
Georgia/Atlanta Regional Commission, Atlanta to Chattanooga... 3,000,000
Southern California Association of Governments: Los Angeles
International Airport to March Air Force Base............. 3,000,000
Low-speed maglev program.--Within the $8,000,000 total low
speed maglev program funds made available for fiscal year 2001,
the Committee recommends the following amounts be made
available for research and development of low speed magnetic
levitation for urban public transportation purposes:
Segmented rail phased induction electric magnetic motor
(SERAPHIM) project........................................$2,000,000
Colorado Intermountain Fixed Guideway Authority airport link
project................................................... 2,000,000
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania airborne shuttle system (PASS)....... 2,000,000
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
(limitation on obligations)
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ ($31,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001................................... (31,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (31,000,000)
\1\ Excludes reduction of $182,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of
Public Law 106-69.
The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was
established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and
make accessible information on the Nation's transportation
systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical
programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year
2001, the Committee recommends a funding level of $31,000,000.
BTS offices include the Director, Statistical Programs and
Services, Transportation Studies, and the Office of Airline
Information [OAI]. In addition, effective January 1, 1996, the
responsibility to collect motor carrier financial data was
transferred to the BTS after the sunset of the Interstate
Commerce Commission.
The Office of Airline Information collects and compiles
financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This
information provides the Government with uniform and
comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline
operations. This program includes a small field office located
in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government
with airline data related to essential air service and the
intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data
compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics,
ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and
certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other
business and consumer directed statistics. These statistics are
vitally important to the Federal Government and the aviation
industry. In some cases, it is statutorily required that these
statistics be used by the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in allocation of
trust funds, aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal
transportation policy decisionmaking.
National Quality Initiative.--Of the funds provided,
$600,000 is for statistical analysis of the National Quality
Initiative.
National Passenger Transportation Survey (NPTS).--Of the
funds provided to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, up
to $5,000,000 may be used for the NPTS.
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston,
Massachusetts.--Originally estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in
1985, the Project is now estimated to top over $13,100,000,000.
In May 1999, the Inspector General (IG) questioned the
Project's use of an $826,000,000 credit that it planned to
obtain by overpaying for insurance and investing the excess
until 2017. The Project was carrying the credit as an offset to
current costs. In October 1999, the IG issued a draft report
which identified $142,000,000 of cost overruns and suggested
that the cost could increase by another $942,000,000. The IG
also identified that the Project's finance plans did not
adequately disclose costs on the Project. Both FHWA and Project
management officials disagreed with the IG's warning that
Project's costs could rise.
In January 2000, Project officials submitted a revised
finance plan to the FHWA. Ignoring the IG's earlier warnings
that costs could rise and finance plans were incomplete, FHWA
approved the revised finance plan on February 1, 2000. Later
that same day, the Project surprised FHWA by announcing a
$1,400,000,000 cost increase. Project officials have since
acknowledged that they were well aware of cost escalation when
they replied to the IG. Project management withheld that
information from the Federal government.
The withholding of information by Project officials,
however egregious, does not excuse FHWA. FHWA had not performed
its oversight duties and was unaware of the cost increases
until they were announced by the Project. The Secretary of
Transportation later termed the actions ``unconscionable'' and
promised to reform FHWA's major project oversight. The
Committee accepts the conclusions and recommendations of the
department's task force but remains skeptical that they will be
implemented effectively. FHWA's long established approach to
``partnering'' on all large highway projects must include
strong and effective verification mechanisms to prevent the
recurrence of situations similar to those on the Central
Artery.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriations, 2000
($26,000,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001
(28,000,000,000)
Committee recommendation
(28,000,000,000)
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $28,000,000,000.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act (Public Law 106-159), which established
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within
the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation,
motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the
Federal Highway Administration.
The preeminent mission of the FMCSA is to improve the
safety of commercial vehicle operations on the nation's
highways. A primary goal of the agency is to reduce the number
of accidents and fatalities due to truck accidents. FMCSA
resources and activities contribute to safety in commercial
vehicle operations through enforcement, safety regulation,
technological innovation, improvements in information systems,
training, and improvements to commercial driver's license
testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To achieve these goals,
the FMCSA works with Federal, State, and local enforcement
agencies, the motor carrier industry, and highway safety
organizations.
Motor Carrier Safety
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the
salaries, expenses and research funding for the FMCSA. The
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended
Section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of one
percent to be made available to administer motor carrier safety
programs and motor carrier research.
Limitation on administrative Expense
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ ($76,058,000)
Budget estimate, 2001................................... (92,194,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (92,194,000)
\1\ Provided under FHWA's limitation on administrative expenses in
fiscal year 2000. This amount includes funding for administrative
expenses and research and technology initiatives.
The Committee recommendation provides a total of
$92,194,000 for operating expenses and research for the FMCSA
consistent with the budget request. Of the funds provided,
$82,344,000 is for operating expenses and $9,850,000 is for
research and technology initiatives. The recommendation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
provides the following adjustments to the budget request:
High-risk, intrastate carrier information............... -$500,000
Personnel adjustments................................... -460,483
Motor Carrier Safety Advisory Committee................. +100,000
Travel and transportation expenses...................... -500,000
Contract to administer vision exemption program......... -638,000
Uniform carrier registration............................ +1,000,000
Motor carrier research.................................. +200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net............................................... -798,483
High risk, intrastate carrier information.--The Committee
deletes GOE funds for the high-risk, intrastate carrier
information initiative and recommends funding this activity
under the MCSAP program because of its direct relevance to
state motor carrier safety.
Personnel Adjustments.--The Committee has added 2 FTEs for
MCSAP implementation, 1 FTE for an information systems analyst,
and 3 FTEs for vision exemption specialists. The Committee
deletes funds for 4 FTEs for the executive secretariat, 1 FTE
for an international specialist, 1 FTE, for a technology
specialist, and 10 FTEs for motor carrier inspectors.
MCSAP Implementation.--The Committee has added two
additional staff to ensure that the FMCSA conducts proper
oversight over a substantially expanded MCSAP, responds to
concerns and questions of the states in a timely manner, and
assists FMCSA field staff in program implementation.
Safety Investigators.--The Committee has approved 42 FTEs
for new safety investigators. Consistent with the intent of the
MCSIA, those personnel will target their activities to motor
carriers with poor compliance records or high crash rates.
FMCSA is urged to maintain an adequate number of safety
specialists who are conducting compliance reviews on a full-
time basis. The Committee would like to be notified in the
future whenever there are less than 300 safety specialists
(including trainees) conducting this function on a full-time
basis.
Technology and Information Specialists.--The Committee has
approved the addition of three technology specialists, instead
of the four requested. The Committee notes that there are
currently more than 7 employees working to advance the CVO and
PRISM programs. The Committee also has added 1 FTE to assist in
the development of the improved information systems and to
provide technical assistance to field operations on new
computer systems.
Border Personnel.--FMCSA has requested funds for 20
additional employees to inspect vehicles at the border.
However, the Committee notes that the base program already
includes sufficient funds to support 40 Federal personnel
conducting border inspections. Furthermore, additional funds
authorized by the MCSIA will allow border States to increase
substantially the number of State inspectors. The Committee
seeks to ensure that there is an appropriate balance of
inspectors serving the needs of safety at the border relative
to the number of investigators focusing on high-risk motor
carriers that operate throughout the Nation. The Committee's
allowance includes funds for 10 of the 20 additional FTEs and
positions which FMCSA requested to be employed at the border as
safety inspectors. The Committee, however, directs that these
personnel be employed as safety investigators conducting
compliance reviews and that they be assigned to locations
throughout the country, including the borders, based on need.
The FMCSA is directed to submit an analysis to both the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations that assesses the
safety contributions that these 10 personnel are likely to make
as safety investigators compared to their expected
contributions that might be anticipated if these personnel
served as safety inspectors at the border. The analysis should
also take into account workload considerations of both Federal
and State personnel conducting inspections and investigations
(or audits). After consideration of the analysis, the House and
Senate Appropriations Committees will make a determination on
the permanent assignment of those personnel.
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee.--ISTEA, TEA21, and the
MCSIA specify numerous regulatory requirements that will be
promulgated by the FMCSA. To expedite progress on the
development of cost effective regulations, the Committee's
allowance includes $100,000 to provide support for the Motor
Carrier Safety Advisory Committee (MCSAC), which is authorized
in the MCSIA. The MCSAC will bring together diverse elements of
the motor carrier, shipper, insurance, and highway safety
communities to formulate improved regulations and to offer
recommendations to improve relevant safety activities and
information systems. In addition to helping the FMCSA with its
regulatory agenda, MCSAC members will offer recommendations
designed to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of this
agency.
Vision Exemption.--The Committee deletes funding for the
administration of the vision exemption program for commercial
drivers. Processing applications will be a continuing function
that should only be conducted by Federal officials trained in
the motor carrier safety regulations associated with the
exemption program. The three new positions recommended by the
Committee will monitor and review the 50 to 55 applications
that FMCSA typically receives each month under this program and
will assist the agency in developing improved regulations that
set the minimum medical standards for commercial drivers.
Uniform Carrier Registration.--The Committee has increased
funding for the Uniform Carrier Registration Program by
$1,000,000.
Motor Carrier Research.--The Committee recommends
$9,850,000 for motor carrier safety research. The additional
funding above the request permits an increased effort on the
``Share the Road'' initiative, the ``No-zone'' initiative, and
to facilitate a cooperative effort with the Army to develop
safer, more efficient trucks.
Although the Committee notes that the fiscal year 2001
budget justification for motor carrier research is more useful
than previous presentations, there remain additional
opportunities to improve the budget justification. Last year,
consistent with TRB recommendations, the Department was
directed to ensure that ``. . . the justification for new
projects will include an analysis of the possible impacts of
the proposed research to crash reduction.'' This recommendation
was not reflected in the budget request, and consequently,
FMCSA is directed to provide that analysis and consult with
both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations before
initiating any new project. Future budget requests should
provide the recommended analysis to assist the Committee in
ascertaining how each current and proposed R&D project is
expected to reduce the frequency of crashes involving
commercial motor vehicles. The Committee would view favorably
efforts to relate proposed research projects to possible
improvements in FMCSA activities.
The Committee expects that not less than $1,000,000 will be
used to improve the ``share the road'' campaign and associated
activities. Working in conjunction with NHTSA, this initiative
will be used to develop and test innovative approaches to
encourage the motoring public to drive safely in the vicinity
of commercial vehicles. The FMCSA shall enter into cooperative
agreements with two or more states to conduct demonstration
projects to accomplish these objectives.
The Committee's allowance includes sufficient funds for
FMCSA to develop a safety performance and cost model that could
be used to evaluate the expected safety benefits and economic
impacts of proposed regulatory initiatives, new enforcement
strategies, technology advances, or incentive programs on
commercial motor vehicle and driver safety. The computer model
should be designed to easily incorporate new knowledge gained
in the area of crash causation and new crash data obtained
through improved information systems.
GENERAL PROVISION
Hours of service.--The Committee recommendation includes a
general provision (sec. 335) that prohibits the use of funds to
finalize the rulemaking under docket No. FMCSA-97-2350-953.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............ ($105,000,000) ($105,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2001........... (187,000,000) (187,000,000)
Committee recommendation........ (177,000,000) (177,000,000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program was
authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to States to
develop and implement national programs for the uniform
enforcement of Federal and State rules and regulations
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified States
for the development of programs to enforce the Federal motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic.
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor
carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $177,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program. This is an increase of $72,000,000 above the
level enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Limitation on Obligations
The Committee recommends a $177,000,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, which amended TEA21. None of this funding is derived from
revenue aligned budget authority due to lack of authorization.
The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor
carrier safety funds:
Basic motor carrier safety grants....................... $130,000,000
Performance-based incentive grant program............... 10,000,000
Border assistance....................................... 5,500,000
Priority initiatives.................................... 8,000,000
State training and administration....................... 1,500,000
Crash causation......................................... 5,000,000
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives.... 17,000,000
The Department has invested substantial sums developing the
ASPEN, SAFER, Mailbox, and Inspection Selection Systems to
assist MCSAP officers so that they can maximize the
effectiveness and efficiency of their inspection and audit
activities. The Committee encourages FMCSA to provide increased
technical assistance to each of the States to maximize the
potential benefits that could be derived from deploying these
technologies. The additional funds authorized by the MCSIA
provide substantial funds to purchase and maintain these
technologies and associated communication systems.
CDL Improvements.--The funds specified above shall be used
to help the States implement those provisions of the MCSIA that
pertain to the CDL program, and to implement the 5-Year
Strategic Plan to Improve the Effectiveness of the Commercial
Driver's License Program. These additional funds will be used
to address numerous opportunities to improve the CDL program
that have been identified by the American Association of Motor
Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and others. The FMCSA is
directed to work with the AAMVA, the Commercial Vehicle Safety
Alliance, lead MCSAP agencies, and lead driver licensing
agencies to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition
to reviewing the management and operation of the CDL program
and underpinning information systems at both the Federal and
State level, FMCSA shall sponsor two or more pilot projects
involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to
explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers that
have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate
during the period of suspension or revocation. The budget
justification for the fiscal year 2002 request should summarize
the efforts in this regard to improve the CDL program.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA]
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the
escalating number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs
resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the
establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for
motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including
the operation of required testing facilities and the National
Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings
Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed,
collision bumper standards, consumer information activities,
diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later
amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of
Federal automotive fuel economy standards.
The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway
safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together
with supporting research, development, and demonstration
programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code,
technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct
of their highway safety programs, and research and
demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the
effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address
highway safety problems.
Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United
States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and
improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce
traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants
are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety
programs. The occupant protection incentive grants program is
separated into two parts: Section 405 rewards States that
implement strong laws and programs to increase safety belt and
child safety seat use; section 2003(b) of TEA21, the child
passenger protection education grant program, encourages the
States to implement child passenger protection and education
programs such as proper installation of child restraints,
restraint design, placement, and training in all aspects of
child restraint use.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program 2000 enacted 2001 estimate Committee
\1\ \2\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $161,400,000 $286,475,000 $181,876,000
National driver register (HTF)............................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall)..................... 206,800,000 213,000,000 213,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 368,200,000 499,475,000 394,876,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $1,328,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-64.
\2\ Includes $70,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
Operations and Research
(Highway Trust Fund)
For fiscal year 2001, the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA21), as amended, authorizes $181,876,000 of
budget resources for the operations and research account of the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). TEA21
authorizes $72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway
trust fund to finance operations and research activities
eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included
within the firewall guarantee for highway spending and is not
subject to appropriation. The act also includes an
authorization, subject to appropriations, from the highway
trust fund of $2,000,000 to maintain the National Driver
Register. Public Law 106-39, which was enacted last year,
amends TEA21 by increasing the authorization for operations and
research activities related to sections 30104 and 32102 of
title 49 to $107,876,000. This funding is derived from the
general fund and is subject to appropriations.
The Administration is proposing to fund the agency
substantially above the authorized level and has submitted a
budget request of $286,475,000 for NHTSA's operations and
research account. The budget request consists of $72,000,000
from the highway trust fund guarantee for highway safety and
research and analysis programs and $2,000,000 from the highway
trust fund for the National Driver Register. The Administration
also has requested an additional $142,475,000 in trust funds
and to transfer $70,000,000 of revenue aligned budget authority
(RABA).
The Administration has again requested to augment NHTSA's
operations and research by transferring $70,000,000 of highway
construction funds from RABA even though Congress summarily
rejected this approach last year. Disregarding a core provision
of TEA21 highlights the pitfalls of managing programs through
budgetary firewalls. Firewalls predetermine funding levels
which expose unprotected programs to excessive budgetary
pressure and impede the Administration's and Congress's
flexibility to annually assess the balance between
infrastructure investment, safety programs, and other
priorities. Second, the Administration request exceeds the
general fund authorization for NHTSA's operations and research
by $34,599,000. Together with the $70,000,000 diverted from
RABA, these additional sources of funding would boost NHTSA's
operations and research account 58 percent above the increased
authorization level that Congress enacted less than a year ago.
The compilation of a wish list of new programs is not a
substitute for responsible budgeting and program management.
The additional funds would finance new programs, including the
flagship initiatives, that duplicate efforts that are ongoing
in the core safety and vehicle programs and have not been
appropriately justified.
To comply with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century, the Committee has consulted extensively with NHTSA to
revise its budget request. The Committee recommends fully
funding the authorized level, and the accompanying bill
provides appropriations totaling $181,876,000 to be distributed
as follows:
Committee
Program recommendation
Salaries and benefits................................... $55,880,000
Travel.................................................. 1,166,000
Operating expenses...................................... 19,810,000
Contract Programs:
Safety performance.................................. 7,366,000
Safety assurance.................................... 11,377,000
Highway safety...................................... 42,174,000
Research and analysis............................... 54,108,000
General administration.............................. 645,000
Grant administration reimbursement...................... -10,650,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 181,876,000
Salaries and benefits
Staffing level.--The Committee recommends $55,880,000 for
salaries and benefits, which is $2,005,080 below the request
and $3,237,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
The Committee denies the request to increase the number of
authorized full time positions from 621 to 650 because the
existing FTE ceiling is sufficient. The Committee is mindful
that there are a number of vacancies at the NHTSA and that the
agency has experienced difficulty in staffing these positions.
Operating Expenses
The Committee recommendation is $4,454,000 lower than the
requested amount due an increase above the budget request for
grant reimbursement and overall budget constraints. Even though
lower than the budget request, the amount is 16 percent above
what was provided in fiscal year 2000. The Committee asserts
that this level of funding is manageable and gives NHTSA the
flexibility to allocate the recommendation through such means
as limiting the growth for computer support, administrative
support, training, printing, and workforce planning and
development. Within the funding provided for computer support,
sufficient resources are available to provide for computer-
related expenses for all administrative functions, including
civil rights public affairs, counsel, plans and policy, and
administration. The Committee expects NHTSA to focus the
increased funding provided for operating expenses on program
delivery.
safety performance standards
New car assessment program.--The Committee recommends
$5,456,000, the same as the Administration's request, to
evaluate vehicle performance in crash tests and provide vehicle
safety and crash test information to the public. The Committee
expects NHTSA to conduct enough crash tests to provide
consumers with frontal and side impact information on 80 to 90
percent of new vehicles. The Committee denies the request to
expand NCAP by using small size dummy in crash tests. The
Committee believes that test devices should be required for use
in safety standards compliance testing before being considered
for inclusion in NCAP.
Safety Assurance
Safety defects investigation.--The Committee defers the
$145,000 requested to monitor and investigate recreational,
transit, and emergency vehicles. While the Committee is not
opposed to investigations of this nature, NHTSA has failed to
provide a compelling justification for this work, and the
Committee believes that the agency would benefit from
documenting that there is a significant problem with defective
safety-related parts and equipment installed on small
population vehicles that demands its attention in this area. If
NHTSA can demonstrate a significant defects problem, the
Committee would entertain reprogramming funds for this purpose
from within the additional funds to the base level for the
Safety Assurance Program.
Auto safety hotline.--The Committee recommendation deletes
$268,000 from the budget request due to concern with the
management of the hotline. The Committee is confident that the
agency can improve customer service and continue its outreach
program without a 38 percent growth for contract personnel.
highway safety programs
Occupant protection.--The Committee acknowledges the
dedication of NHTSA's staff to promote seat belt usage and
efforts to achieve the Department's worthy goal of 85 percent
seat belt usage by 2000 and 90 percent by 2005. Despite the
combined effort of Federal and State safety officials, and law
enforcement, as well as the strong support and resources of
private organizations and industry, the seat belt usage rate
remains relatively constant over the past few years. The mini-
National Occupant Protection Use Survey (NOPUS), conducted in
December, 1999 revealed the average seat belt use rate
declining to 67 percent; preliminary analysis of another
observational State survey indicates a modest increase in the
use of seat belts to 70 percent. In light of this, the
Committee believes it would be worthwhile to explore whether
NHTSA's efforts could be improved.
The Committee directs the Department's Inspector General to
analyze the effectiveness and efficiency of the occupant
protection program managed by NHTSA's Office of Traffic Safety
Programs. This review should consider the scope and direction
of NHTSA's efforts to increase seat belt use rates and whether
the agency is allocating funds to partnerships, demonstration
projects, and other activities that are most likely to achieve
the Department's performance goals. The review also should
consider the quality and nature of the technical assistance
provided by NHTSA's regional staff to States and local
governments that benefit from highway traffic safety grant
programs.
Seat belt innovative demonstration program.--The Committee
recommends $11,000,000 for the national occupant protection
program, which is $1,258,000 more than last year's enacted
level.
The Committee does not expect much progress in increasing
the seat belt use rate unless more resources are directed to
developing programs to reach high risk groups. NHTSA has
initiated work in this area, but its efforts have been limited.
The Committee directs NHTSA to allocate $1,000,000 to implement
an innovative demonstration program whereby the agency will
award grants of up to $50,000 to municipal, county, and other
local governmental entities to promote seat belt usage. The
grants should conduct an assessment of local challenges to
increasing seat belt use and encourage widespread community and
business participation in locally-developed initiatives. The
Committee expects NHTSA to provide technical assistance and
relevant research, and to coordinate with the Governors'
Highway Safety Representatives to ensure that the new
demonstration grants complement state-wide campaigns and
supplement resources provided to States through highway traffic
safety grants.
Section 157 program.--The Section 157 program was
established to provide grants to States as an incentive to
increase seat belt use. Because the funding is based on
qualification and not on entitlement, some funds may remain
unobligated, which NHTSA is allowed to distribute to States as
grants to conduct innovative strategies to increase seat belt
usage statewide. The Committee has received complaints from
several States concerning the agency's management of the
innovative aspect of the program. Although the States were
required to submit their applications for innovative grants by
March 1, 1999 and asked to respond to additional questions in
August, NHTSA did not award the grants until February 25,
2000--almost 1 year after the application deadline. The
Committee directs the NHTSA Administrator to conduct a review
of the procedures and processes used to administer the
innovative grants provision of the Section 157 program and to
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that details how the administration of these
grants will be improved and expeditiously awarded within the
time constraints of existing law. The report is requested by
December 1, 2000.
Emergency medical services.--The Committee recommends
$2,500,000 for emergency medical services (EMS), $657,000 more
than the requested amount and $1,075,000 more than the fiscal
year 2000 enacted level. The Committee has included $1,000,000
to continue training EMS personnel in delivering pre-hospital
care to patients with traumatic brain injuries. The Committee
urges NHTSA to continue collaborating with the Brain Trauma
Foundation and the University of Alabama in Birmingham in
delivering this training to EMS personnel in as many States as
possible.
Safe Communities.--The Committee has deleted funding for
the safe communities program. The program has not been funded
since completion of the three-year pilot program, and the
Committee asserts that the program duplicates other agency
programs and safety grants.
Aggressive driving research.--The Committee continues to be
concerned with the frequent occurrence of aggressive driving by
motorists, especially in the Washington capital region. To
address this issue, the Committee has included $750,000 for the
Maryland Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) to continue the
regional education and driver modification program to combat
aggressive driving in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of
Columbia. The Committee directs NHTSA to cooperate with the
Maryland DMV in developing methods to evaluate the various
components of the program, such as raising public awareness and
enforcement techniques, and to disseminate successful
strategies developed in this program with other States so they
may benefit from this program.
Rural accidents.--The Committee continues to be concerned
about treatment of trauma victims from automobile accidents in
rural areas who are remote from specialized medical centers.
Within the funds provided for highway safety research, the
Committee has included $250,000 for the University of Vermont's
College of Medicine and Fletcher Allen Health Care to determine
if the survival rate of rural vehicular accidents could be
improved through the application of advanced mobile video
telecommunications links between a Level 1 trauma center and
ambulance crews. This will demonstrate if virtual instant
access to specialized physicians and surgeons at the accident
scene and during ambulance transportation improves patient care
and reduces mortality. The Committee recommendation also
includes $500,000 to continue research being conducted at the
University of South Alabama to improve the prehospital care of
rural vehicular trauma patients and evaluate methods to ensure
timely access to the appropriate medical trauma center.
research and analysis
Safety systems.--The Committee recommendation provides
$8,926,000 for safety systems, which is $68,000 more than the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee encourages NHTSA
to enhance its efforts to test and evaluate advanced air bags
and side impact protection systems. It is essential to minimize
any adverse impact to ensure that these systems benefit all
vehicle occupants. Not only must NHTSA ensure that these
technologies meet its regulatory standards, but NHTSA research
should also serve as a catalyst to developing safer advanced
systems. The research and evaluations should be designed to
minimize any unanticipated adverse consequences associated with
the deployment of such systems.
School bus occupant protection.--The Committee continues to
be concerned about child passenger protection in school bus
crashes, which results in injuries to approximately 8,500
children annually. The revision of school bus safety standards
in 1977 greatly improved school bus occupant protection, but
these standards do not reflect advances in materials science
and manufacturing technology. Accordingly, the Committee's
recommendation for safety systems includes $250,000 for Mercer
University Research Center to support a research initiative on
school bus safety. In coordination with school bus
manufacturers, the research should analyze alternative safety
restraints and seating systems, dynamic computer models of
large and small buses, and potential design changes to improve
occupant protection.
Biomechanics.--The Committee recommends that funding for
the Crash Injury Reduction and Engineering Network (CIREN)
should be at least as much as last year's enacted level. The
Committee remains very supportive of the effort to study the
cause, effects and results of crashes by linking trauma centers
to vehicle engineers.
State Data Program.--Since fiscal year 1999, the Congress
has provided funds for a new program to obtain State crash data
that NHTSA could use to improve highway safety and reduce
deaths, injuries, and medical costs associated with vehicle
crashes. The new program is intended to complement other data
improvement efforts among the States by expediting the
availability of the data. The data targeted by the new program
reside in the electronic files produced by State governments
based on motor vehicle crash reports collected from police
departments. The program was to be implemented and tested among
17 selected States before it becoming a national program.
Although the budget request indicates that the program is
ongoing, the Committee is aware that little progress has been
made.
The agency has expended more than $276,000 in Maryland, but
since August 1999, the program has been stalled and no further
work on the project has been completed. The Committee
understands that some issues have been raised regarding
internet security but knows of no substantive reason for the
delay in completing the work in Maryland and making the project
ready for implementation in the other 16 selected States.
Therefore, the Committee directs NHTSA to either proceed with
the program as planned or provide the Committee with a revised
schedule and cost estimate for completing the work in Maryland
in fiscal year 2001, including resolving the internet security
issues and extending the program to other States.
bill language
NCAP vehicle acquisition.--The accompanying bill includes a
new provision prohibiting NHTSA from purchasing a vehicle for
NCAP testing at a price that exceeds the manufacturer's
suggested retail price.
Rollover rating system.--The Committee is troubled by
NHTSA's proposal that would add a rating of a vehicle's
propensity to rollover based on a static stability measurement
to the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP). The same static
stability factor that NHTSA is now proposing was rejected by
the agency more than 10 years ago. The Committee questions the
utility of a static stability factor in providing useful
information to consumers because it does not take into
consideration other driving conditions that induce rollover
events, vehicle features to prevent rollover, or the
application of technologies to protect occupants during this
type of crash. Also, the Committee believes that the proposed
rating system could confuse, and even mislead, consumers
because the highest possible score varies among different
vehicles types thereby biasing comparative analysis between
vehicle classes.
Considering the degree of uncertainty about the validity
and adequacy of NHTSA's proposal, the Committee has included a
provision that prohibits the agency from finalizing or
implementing the proposed regulation until the Transportation
Research Board of the National Academy of Sciences has reported
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that the
measurement to determine static stability factor is
scientifically valid and benefits consumers by presenting
practical, useful information. The National Academy of Sciences
shall also compare the proposed static stability factor with
dynamic tests that replicate driving conditions and determine
whether it is appropriate to expand rollover rating information
from the NHTSA website to other means. The study commission may
include representatives of consumers and victims of rollover
crashes. The Committee has included $500,000 from the Safety
Performance Standards Program for the National Academy of
Sciences to conduct the study.
Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The Committee has
included a prohibition that has been included in previous
appropriations acts, on any rulemaking which would require that
passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling
resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The Committee has
included this provision because the need for such labels has
not been adequately justified and the additional costs
associated with this proposal would likely be prohibitive.
Native American set-aside.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has deleted language requested by the administration
that aside $1,000,000 for Native American programs.
national driver register
highway trust fund
The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository
of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor
vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The
NDR also contains information on persons who have been
convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving
while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver
licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a
license, for the purpose of determining whether driving
privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other
organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and
the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data
in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S.
transportation operations.
The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR from the highway
trust fund.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $206,800,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 213,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 213,000,000
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety
Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive
Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program,
and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the
Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the
basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402.
Individual States use this funding in national priority areas
established by Congress which have the greatest potential for
achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes,
fatalities, and injuries. Also, the national occupant
protection survey shall be funded from within this amount. The
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant
Program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement
stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from
the roads. The occupant protection program encourages States to
promote and strengthen occupant protection initiatives. The
State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to
improve their collection and dissemination of important highway
safety data.
The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation
of contract authorization of $213,000,000 for the payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant
programs.
The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use
of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or
remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for
State, local, or private buildings or structures.
limitation on obligations
The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be
incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants
programs. Separate obligation limitations are included in the
bill with the following funding allocations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Committee
enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs.................................... $152,800,000 $155,000,000 $155,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants........... 36,000,000 36,000,000 36,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................... 10,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Child passenger protection education grants................ \1\ (7,500,000) \2\ (7,500,000) ...............
State highway safety data grants........................... 8,000,000 9,000,000 9,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 206,800,000 213,000,000 213,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ From Federal Highway Administration.
\2\ From revenue aligned budget authority transferred to NHTSA operations and research.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an
operating administration within the Department of
Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of
Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the
Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department
of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to
rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical
infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad
Administration.
The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation
limitations totaling $725,015,000 for the activities of the
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2001. This is
$468,471,500 less than the budget request.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
Program 2001 budget recommendation
2000 enacted \1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \1\ \2\............................. $94,288,000 $103,210,500 $99,390,000
Railroad research and development \3\..................... 22,464,000 26,800,000 24,725,000
Next generation high-speed rail \4\....................... 27,200,000 22,000,000 24,900,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation \4\ ....................... 10,000,000 ................ 20,000,000
West Virginia Rail Development............................ ................ ................ 15,000,000
Rhode Island rail development \4\......................... 10,000,000 17,000,000 ................
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 571,000,000 521,476,000 521,000,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project................ ................ 20,000,000 20,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council \5\................................. (750,000) (980,000) (495,000)
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund \6\....... ................ 468,000,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........................... 734,952,000 1,178,486,500 725,015,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $436,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $77,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Fiscal year 2001 includes $25,500,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\4\ Does not reflect reductions pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\5\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.
\6\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.
User fees.--Consistent with the Committee's position
outlined in the Office of the Secretary chapter of the report,
the administration's legislative proposal to impose user fees
on rail safety and research services has not been included.
Office of Inspector General audit reimbursement.--The bill
includes a provision to transfer $1,500,000 to the Department
of Transportation Inspector General. The transferred funding
will reimburse the OIG for audits and investigations of rail-
related issues and programs.
Safety and Operations
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $94,288,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\............................... 103,210,500
Adjusted budget estimate, 2001 (including proposed
transfer of $1,500,000 from Public Law 105-178
section 1218 Maglev funding)........................ 104,710,500
Committee recommendation................................ 99,390,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC.
\2\ Includes $77,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA
rail safety activities and all other administrative and
operating activities related to staff and programs. The
Committee recommendation makes the following adjustments to the
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
administration's budget request:
Deny additional staffing request........................ -$564,000
Deny travel increase above base......................... -500,000
Deny program evaluation increase above base............. -500,000
Provide partial funding for requested increase in IT
initiative, web site support, email security........ -1,190,500
Southeast transportation safety center.................. +350,000
Deny employee development program increase above base... -660,000
Increase funding for new fatigue countermeasures pro-
gram................................................ +200,000
Reduce funding for ATIP................................. -200,000
Deny requested inflation/vendor increases............... -1,556,000
Reduction of proposed increases above base in salaries
and expenses........................................ -700,000
Proposed Offset of Administrative Costs with Maglev
Funds.--The budget proposes to pay for Operation Lifesaver
contract support ($600,000), Alaska Railroad liability
reimbursements to the Department of Labor ($763,000), and part
of the agency's automated track inspection program ($137,000)
with magnetic levitation transportation technology deployment
program funds. The maglev program is authorized in section 1218
of TEA21, and is a guaranteed firewall program funded by
highway trust funds. It is inappropriate to transfer these
funds to pay for activities which have always been part of the
administrative and safety budgets of FRA, and such a transfer
masks the true size of the requested increase in funding from
the current fiscal year (a requested increase of $10,422,500,
or 11 percent).
Highway-rail grade crossing safety outreach program.--The
Committee has approved new program funding of $500,000 for
highway-rail grade crossing safety efforts. These new funds
shall be provided to Operation Lifesaver for deployment of the
national public service campaign initiated in the fiscal year
2000 appropriations Act, which will increase awareness of
highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. The
Committee continues to stress the importance of implementing a
unified campaign that has the financial and technical support
of the railroad industry, FRA, and the law enforcement
industry, and directs the FRA Administrator to provide a letter
report to the Committees on Appropriations by July 31, 2000 on
the progress of the national public service campaign,
delineating the contracts and associated funding that have been
approved thus far in this effort and outlining the program
benchmarks and funding schedule for the entire Operation
Lifesaver PSA campaign. In addition to the PSA follow-on funds,
the Committee recommendation includes the administration's
requested funding level of $600,000 for Operation Lifesaver
contract support.
Fatigue countermeasures.--The Committee supports the
fatigue countermeasures campaign proposed in the budget
request, and has provided $500,000 of new funding to support
these efforts. Of these funds, $250,000 shall be used to
develop and implement educational and training programs which
are designed to increase the awareness of the dangers of
fatigue throughout the rail industry, and to develop criteria
with which to evaluate the effectiveness of fatigue
countermeasures. The remaining $250,000 shall be used to
perform in-the-field controlled light eye reaction testing.
Testing and measuring fatigue is necessary to the development
of fatigue countermeasures. Measurement technologies that are
operationally practical, non-invasive and not disruptive are
needed to conduct in-the-field testing for the purposes of
gathering data and gauging the effectiveness of fatigue
countermeasures.
Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 10 new positions
in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommendation denies
funding for these requested staff increases.
Information technology initiative.--FRA requested
$2,161,000 for hardware and software for new information
technology systems. The Committee has partially funded this
request, providing $970,500 for IT infrastructure, internet/
intranet, data management system development and remote access
services.
Southeastern transportation safety center.--The Committee
has included $350,000 for the establishment of an intermodal
emergency response training center for the Southeast region of
the United States, to be located in Meridian, MS. These funds
shall be used for equipment and program costs associated with
establishment of the center, to include rail passenger
equipment and track, a functional rail-highway grade crossing,
rail and motor carrier hazardous materials vehicles and
containers, and other passenger rescue and hazardous materials
training facilities. Federal funds provided for the center
shall be matched with funding and in-kind contributions from
industry, local governments, and other organizations.
Grade crossings in Northeastern Illinois.--The Committee is
aware of an effort by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
to improve safety at rail-grade crossings. The State of
Illinois, and, in particular, Northeastern Illinois have the
largest number of rail-grade crossings and quiet zones in the
country. The Committee recognizes Illinois' efforts to reduce
accidents. The Committee urges the FRA to work with the
affected communities including offering technical assistance,
identifying Federal funding sources, and establishing Federal-
State-local task forces in order to improve rail-grade crossing
safety and reduce accidents. The Committee expects the FRA to
pay particular attention to enforcement enhancements and
improved educational outreach in its efforts to help reduce the
risks to motorists and pedestrians.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $22,464,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... 26,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,725,000
\1\ Includes $25,500,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and
Development Program provides for research in the development of
safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the
evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation
infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$24,725,000 for railroad research and development, $2,075,000
less than the administration's requested level.
TRB R&D review panel.--The Committee notes the recent
improvement in the design and conduct of FRA's research and
development and next generation high-speed rail programs. Some
of these modifications have been implemented in response to
recommendations of the Transportation Research Board Committee
for Review of the FRA Research and Development Program. The
Committee recognizes the contributions of this review panel,
and expects FRA to continue its support.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Railroad research and development programs:
Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials........... $11,200,000
Track and vehicle track interaction..................... 7,950,000
Railroad systems safety................................. 4,650,000
R&D facilities and equipment............................ 925,000
Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials.--The
Committee recommends a program funding level of $11,200,000,
which is $1,050,000 less than the administration's request.
Within this amount, $2,400,000 shall be for a full-scale crash
test of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Test
Center [TTC] near Pueblo, CO. This testing will include dynamic
and static tests using donated passenger car equipment. The
overall objectives of these tests are to demonstrate the
effectiveness and crashworthiness of cab car and coach car
structural designs and the effectiveness of occupant protection
strategies. The Committee does not approve the requested
increases above current services for hazardous materials
transportation or human factors research.
Track and vehicle-track interaction.--The Committee
recommends a program funding level of $7,950,000, $350,000 less
than the administration's request. The Committee's
recommendation includes the requested increases for track and
components safety research in material and rail inspection and
bridge safety and for vehicle/track interaction safety
standards research ($650,000 above current services). The
funding for grade crossings infrastructure research has been
provided within the Federal Highway Administration's ITS
research program and funding for train control research has
been provided with the other positive train control development
and deployment programs under FRA's Next Generation High-Speed
Rail account. The Committee recommendation includes $750,000 in
continued support for the Marshall University/University of
Nebraska safety research project to develop and test a track
stability data processing and feedback system.
Railroad systems safety.--The Committee recommends a
program funding level of $4,650,000, $250,000 less than the
administration's request. This funding level provides half of
the administration's request for a new research program to
evaluate methods for developing performance-based regulations
for their applicability to FRA's regulatory safety process.
Research and development facilities and equipment.--The
Committee recommends a funding level of $925,000 for R&D
facilities and equipment, $425,000 less than the
administration's request. This funding level allows for
continued baseline support for the T-6 track research vehicle,
which is used to assess and develop new technologies for
automated track inspection, and provides half the requested
increase for refurbishment and replacement of facilities and
equipment at the Pueblo, CO Transportation Technology Center.
Research and development cost sharing.--The Committee is
concerned that the level of industry cost-sharing has been
decreasing in some areas of the research and development
program. The Committee encourages FRA to reinvigorate its
efforts to secure cost-sharing from the railroads and
supporting industries, and notes that future budget decisions
will be affected by the agency's success in these efforts.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
Section 502 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2001.
The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program,
as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of
Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State
and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and
corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve,
or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities,
including track, bridges, yards, and shops.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $27,200,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 22,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 24,900,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $103,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
The Committee has provided $24,900,000 in general fund
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT]
Program. The amount provided is $2,900,000 more than the
administration's request.
The Committee first provided funding for the Next
Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995.
The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and
technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster
high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the
country.
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:
Train control systems................................... $9,500,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives..................... 6,800,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................ 4,600,000
Track/structures technology............................. 1,200,000
Corridor planning....................................... 2,800,000
Train control systems.--The Committee has provided a total
of $9,500,000 for positive train control (PTC) systems and
demonstration projects. Of these funds, $2,000,000 shall be for
the Transportation Safety Research Alliance (TSRA) advanced
integrated technology system, which will provide continuous
direction, movement, and highway crossing controls for rail
freight optimized dispatching using PTC-generated information.
Additionally, $3,000,000 shall be for the Michigan incremental
train control system (ITCS) high-speed passenger rail
demonstration project, the same amount as requested by the
administration. Partners in this project are Michigan DOT,
Amtrak, and Harmon Industries, which is supplying the system's
hardware. The requested funding will allow this system to be
adapted to the industry's new PTC modular onboard platform
standards, making the ITCS approach more widely available for
other developing high-speed rail corridors. No less than
$500,000 shall be for the installation of a digital radio
network vehicle tracking system at the Transportation
Technology Center (TTC) in Pueblo, Colorado, giving the TTC the
capability to test and validate various positive train control
architectures and components. This funding was requested in the
FRA research and development budget. The Committee
recommendation also includes $4,000,000 for the North American
joint positive train control program, $3,000,000 less than the
level requested by the administration. The Committee concurs
with concerns expressed by the TRB R&D review panel, which
issued an April 28, 2000 report stating that, ``the project has
become more expensive and complicated than is necessary. The
complexity of the project appears to stem from an effort to
specify standards and design details well beyond the minimum
required to achieve interoperability for a train of one
railroad operating on the tracks of another.'' The Committee
notes that building industry consensus on PTC-related issues is
difficult and that any PTC system placed in service must
satisfy safety requirements, including the emerging FRA PTC
rulemaking. Therefore, slowing the pace of Federal investment
in this project will not have an adverse effect on an already
slow and complex process.
High-speed nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee has
provided a total of $6,800,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric
locomotive program, the level requested by the administration.
The funds for these programs focus on the demonstration of a
high-speed, lightweight fossil fuel locomotive that will be
able to facilitate the testing of an advanced locomotive
propulsion system [ALPS]. The Committee recommends $3,000,000
for the prototype locomotive demonstration and $3,800,000 for
the ALPS program. Each of these two related development and
deployment programs are proceeding well, and extensive high-
speed and operational testing will begin on the high-speed non-
electric passenger demonstration locomotive in late 2000 at the
TTC. Final assembly of the ALPS flywheel-turbine propulsion
system is planned for November 2000, which will then be
integrated into the non-electric locomotive to maximize speed,
acceleration, and fuel economy.
Grade crossing hazard mitigation.--The Committee recommends
$4,600,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation initiatives,
$600,000 more than the level requested by the administration.
The low-cost innovative technologies and grade crossing hazard
mitigation programs are funded at the current services level.
However, the Committee recommends an increase above the
baseline for the North Carolina sealed corridor initiative, for
a total of $1,000,000. FRA is directed to provide a report by
January 31, 2001 to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and to the TRB R&D review panel that documents
the success of the sealed corridor project, including a
scientifically valid estimate of the lives saved by the
improvements that have been installed and an evaluation of
whether the resulting reduction in accidents is sustainable. Up
to $200,000 of the funds provided in this appropriation may be
used to prepare this report.
Track/structures technology.--The Committee has provided
$1,200,000 for the track/structures technology program, the
same level as the administration's request. Within the funds
provided, $100,000 shall be used for analysis in preparing a
letter report which addresses the safety impacts resulting from
operation of passenger trains on freight rail trackage at up to
five inches of cant deficiency for speeds between 80 mph and
110 mph. FRA shall perform an analysis of the specific criteria
it would use to determine compliance with applicable track
standard at locations where trains would operate at five inches
of cant deficiency and whether any flexibility should be
permitted in enforcing those standards to facilitate the
highest possible speeds at these locations that can be achieved
at five inches of cant deficiency. The report shall be provided
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by
November 30, 2000.
Corridor planning.--The Committee recommends $2,800,000 for
passenger rail corridor planning activities authorized by
section 26101 of title 49, United States Code. These funds
shall be distributed as follows:
Midwest Regional Rail Initiative preliminary engineering
and design and eligible right-of-way improvements... $2,000,000
Wilkes-Barre, PA to Scranton, PA--New York corridor
extension
study............................................... 300,000
Boston, MA to Burlington, VT: high-speed corridor
feasibility study................................... 300,000
Southeast corridor extension from Charlotte, NC to
Macon, GA via Atlanta............................... 200,000
Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing
hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for
these funds. Of these set-aside funds, the following
allocations are made:
Georgia high-speed rail corridor between Atlanta and
Macon............................................... $1,000,000
High-speed rail corridor between Mobile, AL and New
Orleans,
LA.................................................. 2,000,000
Wisconsin high-speed rail corridor between Madison and
Milwaukee........................................... 750,000
Keystone high-speed rail corridor, between Harrisburg
and Philadelphia, PA................................ 1,000,000
Pacific Northwest high-speed corridor, crossing
improvements in Salem, OR........................... 500,000
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 20,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $38,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
The Committee has included a total of $20,000,000 for rail
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 498
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in
Alaska, to the city of Fairbanks, and east to the town of North
Pole and Eielson Air Force Base. It carries both passengers and
freight, and provides a critical transportation link for
passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and
harsh climatic conditions.
The funds provided are available until expended and will be
used for the following capital projects:
Track rehabilitation.--The Committee continues its ongoing
support for capital rehabilitation of the Alaska Railroad's
existing track bed and lines used by passenger trains to
improve safety and decrease running time. Congress has
appropriated $10,000,000 annually since fiscal year 1996 for
tie, track and ballast replacement and rehabilitation.
Signalized automated siding access.--This capital
investment project responds to increased rail traffic density
on the railroad's main line corridor and helps prepare the
track between Wasilla and Palmer for implementation of commuter
rail service. Automated siding access will improve operational
running times, enhance safety, and reduce delays along the most
congested 50 mile corridor on the railroad's system.
Track relocation/highway crossing elimination.--This
capital project will reroute the existing line along the
Richardson Highway between Fort Wainwright and North Pole,
eliminating 25 highway-rail crossings.
West Virginia Rail Development
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ $15,000,000
The Committee has provided $15,000,000 for capital costs
associated with track, signal, and crossover rehabilitation and
improvements on the MARC Brunswick line in West Virginia. These
funds shall remain available until expended.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $10,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 17,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $38,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
The Committee recommendation does not provide any fiscal
year 2001 funding for the Rhode Island Rail Development
project, a dedicated freight track paralleling the Northeast
Corridor's newly-electrified passenger tracks between Quonset
Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI. This freight line will
provide sufficient clearance to accommodate double-stack
freight cars, and will enhance safety by avoiding mixing
freight traffic and high-speed passenger rail service. In July
1999, the Rhode Island Department of Transportation (RI DOT)
undertook a comprehensive review of construction cost estimates
to complete the freight rail improvement project. It was
evident from this analysis that actual costs of construction
were likely to be significantly higher than originally
estimated. As a result of this review, as well as delays caused
by Amtrak's North End electrification project, the date that RI
DOT expects to get freight traffic off the main line and on to
the third track has been postponed from Fall 2001 to July 2002.
Total costs for the project are expected to exceed the
original estimate, however, the Committee notes that Federal
funding for the project is capped by law at $55,000,000 (of
which $38,000,000 has been appropriated to date). In addition,
the State of Rhode Island has committed to funding any costs
that would exceed the original Federal-State cost estimate for
the project.
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $571,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 521,476,000
Committee recommendation................................ 521,000,000
For fiscal year 2001, the administration has requested an
appropriation of $521,476,000 for Amtrak capital funding with
the same flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided
to transit grantees.
Amtrak appropriations history--1971-2000
[In millions of dollars]
Fiscal year Annual total
1971-72....................................................... 40.0
1973.......................................................... 170.0
1974.......................................................... 149.1
1975.......................................................... 276.5
1976.......................................................... 471.2
Transition quarter (fiscal year change)....................... 180.0
1977.......................................................... 800.7
1978.......................................................... 1,116.0
1979.......................................................... 1,234.0
1980.......................................................... 1,223.4
1981.......................................................... 1,246.3
1982.......................................................... 905.0
1983.......................................................... 815.0
1984.......................................................... 816.4
1985.......................................................... 707.6
1986.......................................................... 602.7
1987.......................................................... 618.5
1988.......................................................... 608.3
1989.......................................................... 603.6
1990.......................................................... 629.1
1991.......................................................... 798.9
1992.......................................................... 861.2
1993.......................................................... 846.1
1993 supplemental appropriations.............................. 45.0
1994.......................................................... 922.2
1995.......................................................... 972.0
1996.......................................................... 750.0
1997.......................................................... 760.0
Omnibus consolidated appropriations 1997...................... 82.5
1998 Taxpayer Relief Act...................................... 1,091.8
1998 Appropriations, Amtrak operations and Northeast corridor
improvement program....................................... 594.0
1999 Taxpayer Relief Act...................................... 1,091.8
1999 Appropriations........................................... 609.2
2000.......................................................... 571.0
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 23,209.1
Source.--Federal Railroad Administration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $521,000,000 for Amtrak capital
grants in fiscal year 2001. This is the so-called ``glidepath''
level of Federal funding agreed to by the administration and
Amtrak, which called for $5,011,000,000 of Federal support over
5 years (fiscal years 1998 through 2002). This agreed-to level
of Federal funding included both general fund appropriations
($2,828,000,000) and Taxpayer Relief Act funds
($2,183,000,000).
Amtrak's current financial situation remains precarious.
According to FRA, the railroad ended fiscal year 1999 with a
net operating loss of $702,000,000. The railroad's financial
future is equally uncertain. The DOT Office of Inspector
General, which has analyzed Amtrak's strategic business plan to
determine whether the railroad's projections for achieving
operational self-sufficiency by the end of fiscal year 2002 are
reasonable, determined that the funding shortfall between total
capital needs and expected Federal funding is, at a minimum,
$500,000,000 over the remainder of this authorization cycle.
Under the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (Public
Law 105-134), the Amtrak Reform Council (ARC) has the authority
to submit a ``sunset trigger'' action plan to Congress for the
restructuring and rationalization of the national intercity
passenger rail system if the ARC makes a finding that Amtrak
will not meet its financial goal of operating without Federal
operational subsidies. It is uncertain at this time what the
Federal funding role will be in supporting passenger rail
services beyond the end of fiscal year 2002.
Bill language.--Consistent with first-year spending
patterns of capital rail funds and with action taken last year,
the Committee has included bill language that prohibits Amtrak
from obligating more than $208,400,000 prior to September 30,
2001.
South End infrastructure improvements.--In January 2000,
Amtrak released a report in response to a request from the
Committees on Appropriations that described in detail the
planned infrastructure improvements along the south end of the
Northeast corridor between New York City and Washington, D.C.
The report describes the work needed on the fixed capital plant
(track, structures, communications and signalization, electric
traction, facilities, yards and stations), which is owned by
Amtrak and over which approximately 60 percent of the
railroad's ridership is carried. In addition to Amtrak's own
intercity service on this corridor, six public commuter rail
systems operate on the south end, totaling more than 100
million person trips per year. Over the past two decades,
growth in intercity and commuter service on the corridor has
created operational challenges and congestion. Additionally,
Amtrak has deferred many maintenance projects on the south end,
which has led parts of the corridor, particularly around the
Penn Station New York tunnel complex, to fall below modern
standards of design and building code requirements. In the
South End report, Amtrak laid out short term (5-year) and long
term (20-year) investment plans which would address life safety
issues, operational reliability, and enhancement activities.
Amtrak will enter into cost-sharing agreements with other
corridor stakeholders, including the commuter railroads, State
departments of transportation, and freight railroads to protect
the Federal Government's investment in this part of the
railroad's infrastructure. At the time of the report's release,
cost sharing arrangements had not been discussed with Amtrak's
partners and no commitments from other stakeholders had been
made. The Committee directs Amtrak to provide a quarterly
letter report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Senate Commerce Committee, and the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, beginning on
September 30, 2000, which outlines the cost-sharing
arrangements among the corridor stakeholders, as well as
ongoing implementation of the South End corridor infrastructure
improvement plan.
Northeast corridor high-speed rail service.--Amtrak
currently anticipates beginning its Acela express high speed
passenger service in the Northeast corridor in July 2000, about
7 months later than originally planned. Time is growing short
to meet the new start-up date, and according to the DOT
Inspector General, service may either be further delayed or
start with a lower maximum speed and longer running times.
There is a financial impact to this delay in inaugurating the
new service. Amtrak estimates that if Acela service begins in
July 2000 as currently planned, the lost passenger revenues in
fiscal year 2000 associated with the delayed start-up would
total $142,000,000. Amtrak plans to mitigate this revenue loss
with operating expense savings, interest savings, and
contractor penalties for late equipment delivery. The revenue
loss will be higher if delays extend beyond July, and the the
delayed start-up will in turn affect the delivery schedule for
the 20 new Acela trainsets, which were scheduled to be
delivered and in service by December 2000, but which Amtrak now
estimates will be pushed back to March 2001. Successful
implementation of express high-speed passenger service in the
Northeast corridor is a cornerstone of Amtrak's strategic
business plan, and is indispensable to achieving the mandate of
operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. If Amtrak will
not be able to meet its own internal timetables for
establishing this service, the railroad must develop a
financial mitigation plan to delineate how they will make up
the lost revenue and still live within the ``glidepath''
agreement.
Express freight and mail services.--In fiscal year 1999,
Amtrak revenues from U.S. mail service were $80,600,000 and a
net profit of $4,200,000 was realized from the new express
freight services. Amtrak projects fiscal year 2000 revenues
from mail and express freight to be $103,800,000 and
$9,900,000, respectively. Changes to services on several of
Amtrak's existing routes were recommended as part of Amtrak's
market based network analysis to capitalize on express freight
opportunities. Amtrak is directed to provide a letter report to
the Senate Committee on Appropriations no later than August 31,
2000, which outlines potential express freight opportunities on
the Empire Builder route, and which addresses en route hubbing
connections for these services in the State of Montana.
Los Angeles to Las Vegas service.--Amtrak plans to initiate
a new service between Los Angeles, CA and Las Vegas, NV in late
calendar year 2000. Amtrak's fiscal year 1998 and 1999 capital
budgets included a total of $14,000,000 to prepare for this
service, and the Corporation entered into an agreement with
Union Pacific to share the costs of double tracking a 20-mile
segment between Cima and Kelso, CA. Since last year, the cost
estimates for the double tracking increased, and Amtrak
committed the remainder of its previously budgeted funding for
this program to cover these increases. Subsequently, Amtrak's
fiscal year 2000 strategic budget plan includes an additional
$6,202,000 from Taxpayer Relief Act funds to build a station
platform and layover track at the Las Vegas terminus, to enable
the service to begin by the end of the year.
Amtrak Reform Council
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $750,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... 980,000
Committee recommendation................................ 495,000
\1\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented
within the FRA for display purposes only.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,000 for
necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial
funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998
supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105-174; in the
fiscal years 1999 and 2000 transportation appropriations acts,
$450,000 and $750,000, respectively, was appropriated for the
Council. For fiscal year 2001, the administration has requested
an appropriation of $980,000; the ARC itself has requested
$1,400,000. Because the Council is an independent commission,
the Committee's appropriation is not provided within the FRA's
budget, but is provided in a general provision (sec. 328) of
the bill. These funds are available for two years, through
September 30, 2002.
The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11
members, including four Senate appointees, four House
appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of
Transportation. Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC
include evaluating Amtrak's performance and making
recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further
cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial
reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill
language expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to
include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route
analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned.
As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary commission.
By the end of fiscal year 2002, the Council must make a
determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial
goals outlined in the ARAA (though the Council may make a
finding before the end of the current authorization). If the
ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they must then submit
a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit a liquidation
plan.
pennsylvania station redevelopment project
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001................................... $20,000,000
Committee recommendations............................... 20,000,000
In 2000, an advance appropriation of $20,000,000 was
provided for each fiscal year 2001, 2002, and 2003. These funds
support the redevelopment of the Pennsylvania Station in New
York City, including the renovation of the James A. Farley Post
Office building as a train station and commercial center, and
basic upgrades to Pennsylvania Station.
expanded intercity rail passenger service fund
Appropriations, 2000....................................................
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... $468,000,000
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.
The administration is proposing a new grant program to
improve intercity passenger rail service nationwide to be
funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The budget
proposal includes $468,000,000, of which $1,000,000 is for
administrative expenses related to mandatory Environmental
Impact Statements and other analyses. The proposed grants would
be available to Amtrak and/or a partner State or State
consortium to implement capital projects which enhance
intercity rail service.
Funding for the intercity rail passenger service fund has
been denied. Since Amtrak is currently the only intercity rail
provider in the continental United States, these additional
funds should be viewed as an additional Federal subsidy to
Amtrak above the administration's glidepath agreement with the
railroad. Additionally, the Committee categorically opposes the
transfer of revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) to other
non-highway uses. Congress has been clear and emphatic in its
opposition to diversions of RABA funds. The administration has
put forth a number of proposed RABA diversions in its fiscal
year 2001 budget request; none of them have been approved in
this legislation.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The Federal Transit Administration was established as a
component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization
Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred
most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit
Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist
in the development of improved mass transportation facilities,
equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning
and establishment of urban and rural transportation services
needed for economical and desirable development; to provide
mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural
areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and
to provide assistance to State and local governments and their
instrumentalities in financing such services and systems.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In addition to
the guaranteed level of funds under the mass transit
discretionary budget category, the administration proposes
funding of $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $6,271,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2001, which is
the same obligation limitation authorized under the mass
transit category in TEA21. This funding is comprised of
$1,254,000,000 in direct appropriations of general funds and
$5,016,600,000 in limitations on contract authority.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the
administration's request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program 2000 enacted \1\ 2001 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ 60,000 64,000 64,000
Formula grants \2\..................................... 3,048,000 3,345,000 3,345,000
University transportation research..................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
Transit planning and research.......................... 107,000 110,000 110,000
Capital investment grants \2\ \3\...................... 2,507,000 2,646,000 2,646,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \4\.............. 75,000 150,000 100,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 5,803,000 6,321,000 6,271,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reductions totaling $18,085,200 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69 and
for the 0.38 percent reduction pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Fiscal year 2000 reflects transfer of $50,000,000 from Formula grants to Capital investment grants pursuant
to Public Law 106-69.
\3\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $6,000,000 direct appropriation pursuant to section 225 of Public Law 106-113.
\4\ The budget proposal includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
Administrative Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $12,000,000 $48,000,000 $60,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\............................... 12,800,000 51,200,000 64,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,800,000 51,200,000 64,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $438,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
The Committee recommends a total of $64,000,000 in budget
resources funds for administrative expenses.
The Appropriations Committees have directed the DOT
Inspector General (OIG) to track the progress of all fixed
guideway projects of national significance and perform audits
of those experiencing cost, schedule, or financing problems. To
continue this work in fiscal year 2001, the administration
proposes reimbursing the OIG $1,500,000 from FTA's
administrative expenses account. The Committee has increased
this transfer to $3,000,000, and has included bill language
making these funds available to the OIG.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has
not provided an increase of 10 FTE in fiscal year 2001, but
anticipates that the requested fiscal year 2000 reprogramming
to hire 20 positions (+10 FTE) above the enacted staff ceiling
of 485 will be approved before the end of the current fiscal
year. Therefore, the fiscal year 2001 staff ceiling will be 495
FTE instead of the requested 505 FTE, and salaries and benefits
are decreased by -$835,000.
Information technology and other administrative expenses.--
The Committee anticipates that the requested fiscal year 2000
reprogramming request for $2,500,000 in information technology
initiatives will be approved before the end of the current
fiscal year. However, the requested increase above baseline IT
programs for fiscal year 2001 may exceed the agency's ability
to implement projects in a timely and effective manner. The
Committee approves the requests for IT infrastructure data
protection (+$250,000), continued implementation of the
Transportation Electronic Award and Management (TEAM)
application program (+$250,000) and annual electronic
procurement life cycle maintenance, licenses and core
operations (+$150,000). Funding is denied for the remaining IT
requests (-$291,000). The Committee directs FTA to use these
savings to provide regional and state-based grantee workshops
that will better familiarize grantees (especially those who are
making a grant application with FTA for the first time) with
regional planning, transit program development and eligibility,
transit program management, and federally mandated
requirements, as well as with the TEAM electronic application
process.
transit funding equity among states
Transit funding made available to public transit
authorities, state departments of transportation, non-profit
organizations, cities, and other public entities is made
available through four mechanisms: formula grants (49 U.S.C.
sections 5307, 5310, and 5311); capital investment grants (49
U.S.C. section 5309), which include bus and bus facilities
grants, fixed guideway modernization grants, and new fixed
guideway capital grants; job access and reverse commute grants
(49 U.S.C. section 3037); and some planning and research
funding. Of the total $6,271,000,000 in transit funding,
$5,991,000,000 is in section 5307, 5310, 5309, and 5311 funds.
Of this subtotal, the formula program funds and the fixed
guideway modernization program funds go out to public transit
agencies by formulas set in TEA21. The bus and bus facilities
grants and new fixed guideway capital grants have traditionally
been designated by Congress in the annual appropriations
process.
The following table reflects fiscal year 2000 allocations
to States for formula and capital investment grant programs.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 2000 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5310 Elderly State total State
State 5307 Urbanized 5311 Non- and persons 5309 new 5309 fixed 5309 bus selected FTA percentage
area urbanized area with starts quideway allocation programs of total
disability modernization
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama.......................................................... $12,090,034 $4,603,405 $1,263,045 $2,943,236 .............. $25,567,342 $46,467,062 0.8
Alaska........................................................... \1\ 7,242,172 686,467 191,890 14,912,397 .............. 15,378,058 38,410,984 0.7
American Samoa................................................... ................. 97,843 52,634 .............. .............. .............. 150,477 ..........
Arizona.......................................................... 30,821,282 2,015,250 1,112,627 4,905,394 $1,526,094 6,867,664 47,248,311 0.9
Arkansas......................................................... 4,743,949 3,680,231 880,019 .............. .............. 5,062,451 14,366,650 0.3
California....................................................... 447,473,782 8,982,245 6,878,982 191,310,350 95,431,731 37,459,014 787,536,104 14.3
Colorado......................................................... 34,418,914 1,917,350 861,153 38,262,070 1,219,287 9,688,315 86,367,089 1.6
Connecticut...................................................... 48,519,170 1,739,218 987,989 981,079 36,897,367 6,622,392 95,747,215 1.7
Delaware......................................................... 5,673,422 433,893 293,852 981,079 755,391 2,452,737 10,590,374 0.2
District of Columbia............................................. 25,177,344 .............. 291,611 .............. 46,383,358 7,211,050 79,063,363 1.4
Florida.......................................................... 135,953,170 5,774,183 4,639,244 20,112,114 13,823,587 14,471,154 194,773,452 3.5
Georgia.......................................................... 47,474,147 6,730,668 1,640,232 45,268,939 17,521,698 21,338,818 139,974,502 2.5
Guam............................................................. ................. 278,536 133,760 .............. .............. .............. 412,296 ..........
Hawaii........................................................... 23,889,547 755,415 376,045 5,101,609 625,993 4,169,654 34,918,263 0.6
Idaho............................................................ 2,846,734 1,524,027 385,025 .............. .............. .............. 4,755,786 0.1
Illinois......................................................... 190,899,623 6,175,012 2,996,023 31,394,518 114,500,000 8,682,692 354,647,868 6.4
Indiana.......................................................... 30,462,808 5,964,922 1,568,010 4,905,394 7,661,248 9,075,130 59,637,512 1.1
Iowa............................................................. 8,673,972 3,836,697 946,671 .............. .............. 10,384,893 23,842,233 0.4
Kansas........................................................... 7,410,228 3,051,970 792,307 981,079 .............. 6,651,826 18,887,410 0.3
Kentucky......................................................... 15,875,261 5,038,137 1,210,112 .............. .............. 5,886,573 28,010,083 0.5
Louisiana........................................................ 25,638,155 4,166,904 1,214,053 981,079 2,709,022 4,905,476 39,614,689 0.7
Maine............................................................ 2,042,136 2,010,694 483,465 490,539 .............. .............. 5,026,834 0.1
Maryland......................................................... 70,400,537 2,510,254 1,219,834 11,481,577 22,632,029 11,282,593 119,526,824 2.2
Massachusetts.................................................... 106,769,422 2,690,230 1,760,613 54,837,393 63,234,326 12,148,410 241,440,394 4.4
Michigan......................................................... 58,043,917 7,285,603 2,562,126 .............. 440,130 26,980,100 95,311,876 1.7
Minnesota........................................................ 27,237,043 4,192,444 1,237,149 44,933,405 2,874,132 23,804,862 104,279,035 1.9
Mississippi...................................................... 4,279,789 4,091,281 854,719 .............. .............. 5,101,696 14,327,485 0.3
Missouri......................................................... 31,073,608 4,883,117 1,590,250 51,506,633 1,882,830 14,422,098 105,358,536 1.9
Montana.......................................................... 2,154,127 1,234,582 352,572 .............. .............. 588,657 4,329,938 0.1
Nebraska......................................................... 7,485,607 1,862,828 556,193 .............. .............. 988,700 10,893,328 0.2
Nevada........................................................... 17,331,409 608,185 411,680 3,433,775 .............. 5,346,969 27,132,018 0.5
New Hampshire.................................................... 3,018,110 1,610,315 388,463 981,079 .............. 2,943,286 8,941,253 0.2
New Jersey....................................................... 165,120,584 2,302,409 2,115,374 112,333,507 85,635,781 10,693,937 378,201,592 6.9
New Mexico....................................................... 6,248,659 1,810,042 488,168 9,810,787 .............. 8,584,582 26,942,238 0.5
New York......................................................... 474,107,838 8,104,755 4,912,556 6,377,011 316,773,720 26,680,885 836,956,765 15.2
North Carolina................................................... 24,485,967 8,609,644 1,866,530 11,772,945 .............. 7,192,409 53,927,495 1.0
North Dakota..................................................... 2,099,863 913,029 298,904 .............. .............. 981,096 4,292,892 0.1
Northern Marianas................................................ ................. 90,672 52,406 .............. .............. .............. 143,078 ..........
Ohio............................................................. 79,851,933 8,765,216 3,127,059 5,395,934 15,542,858 13,500,115 126,183,115 2.3
Oklahoma......................................................... 10,090,378 3,747,039 1,043,154 .............. .............. 4,905,476 19,786,047 0.4
Oregon........................................................... 24,257,325 2,975,182 969,236 11,343,237 2,868,068 8,290,255 50,703,303 0.9
Pennsylvania..................................................... 130,035,687 9,777,689 3,750,831 23,055,350 96,624,465 28,345,805 291,589,827 5.3
Puerto Rico...................................................... 39,304,948 2,921,881 919,030 31,394,519 1,968,870 588,657 77,097,905 1.4
Rhode Island..................................................... 9,319,486 374,298 429,419 .............. 1,446,893 3,231,728 14,801,824 0.3
South Carolina................................................... 10,155,824 4,309,170 1,008,050 2,452,697 .............. 8,604,204 26,529,945 0.5
South Dakota..................................................... 1,514,777 1,112,911 323,437 .............. .............. 1,471,643 4,422,768 0.1
Tennessee........................................................ 20,372,484 5,562,645 1,492,836 3,924,315 71,083 3,433,833 34,857,196 0.6
Texas............................................................ 146,831,843 11,744,291 3,874,080 106,221,373 5,138,282 16,040,909 289,850,778 5.3
Utah............................................................. 18,137,338 843,648 454,360 47,021,140 .............. 14,029,660 80,486,146 1.5
Vermont.......................................................... 761,283 995,038 265,950 .............. .............. 4,169,654 6,191,925 0.1
Virgin Islands................................................... ................. 212,971 136,122 .............. .............. .............. 349,093 ..........
Virginia......................................................... 56,373,968 4,931,824 1,553,327 27,666,420 987,183 10,483,004 101,995,726 1.9
Washington....................................................... 76,640,808 3,455,667 1,392,260 31,394,519 15,232,451 19,425,683 147,541,388 2.7
West Virginia.................................................... 3,670,219 2,938,313 734,389 .............. .............. 21,093,544 28,436,465 0.5
Wisconsin........................................................ 32,888,049 5,077,060 1,421,596 981,079 639,123 19,867,176 60,874,083 1.1
Wyoming.......................................................... 1,051,862 710,084 224,993 .............. .............. .............. 1,986,939 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................... 2,768,440,542 192,717,384 72,986,415 961,849,571 973,047,000 537,096,865 5,506,137,777 100
==============================================================================================================================
Oversight........................................................ 13,888,701 968,065 .............. 7,353,000 7,353,000 4,096,500 33,659,266 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... \2\ 2,782,329,243 \3\ 193,685,44 \4\ 72,986,415 \5\ 969,202,57 980,400,000 \6\ 541,193,36 5,539,797,043 ..........
9 1 5
==============================================================================================================================
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility.................................. ................. .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 3,700,000 ..........
==============================================================================================================================
Grand Total................................................ 2,782,329,243 193,685,449 72,986,415 969,202,571 980,400,000 541,193,365 5,543,497,043 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds appropriated for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations
\2\ Includes $4,589,012 in reapportioned recoveries.
\3\ Includes $72,481 in reapportioned recoveries.
\4\ Includes $39,614 in reapportioned recoveries.
\5\ Includes a reduction of $11,197,429 as part of Public Law 106-113.
\6\ Includes $1,199,750 of reallocated bus funds as part of Public Law 106-69; and a net reduction of $6,206,385 as part of Public Law 106-113.
Formula Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\.................................. $569,600,000 $2,478,400,000 $3,048,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................................... 669,000,000 2,676,000,000 3,345,000,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 669,000,000 2,676,000,000 3,345,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants.
Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under
this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula
grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C.
sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of
elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C.
sec. 5310); and formula grants for non-urbanized areas (U.S.C.
sec. 5311). In addition, setasides of formula funds are
directed to: a grant program for intercity bus operators to
finance Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility
costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its
passenger operations.
Within the total funding level of $3,345,000,000 for fiscal
year 2001, the statutory distribution of these formula grants
is allocated among these categories as follows:
Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)............................. $2,997,316,081
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)................................. 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................ 78,850,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................... 209,283,168
Over-the-Road Bus Program............................... 4,700,000
Alaska railroad......................................... 4,849,950
Section 3007 of TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula
grants, by striking the authorization to utilize these funds
for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing
the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with
a population of less than 200,000. Generally, urbanized formula
grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance
planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and
associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are
statutorily required to use 1 percent of their annual formula
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art,
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
The following table displays the State-by-State
distribution of the formula program funds within each of the
program categories:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2001 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 elderly and Total formula
State urbanized area nonurbanized persons with programs
area disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... $13,046,848 $4,974,114 $1,363,957 $19,384,919
Alaska...................................... \1\ 7,433,414 741,748 197,821 8,372,983
American Samoa.............................. ............... 105,722 52,867 158,589
Arizona..................................... 33,260,503 2,177,536 1,200,201 36,638,240
Arkansas.................................... 5,119,390 3,976,597 946,967 10,042,954
California.................................. 482,887,208 9,705,577 7,477,863 500,070,648
Colorado.................................... 37,142,854 2,071,753 926,429 40,141,036
Connecticut................................. 52,359,019 1,879,275 1,064,511 55,302,805
Delaware.................................... 6,122,420 468,834 308,825 6,900,079
District of Columbia........................ 27,169,899 ............... 306,385 27,476,284
Florida..................................... 146,712,613 6,239,173 5,039,527 157,991,313
Georgia..................................... 51,231,289 7,272,683 1,774,590 60,278,562
Guam........................................ ............... 300,966 134,536 435,502
Hawaii...................................... 25,780,183 816,248 398,306 26,994,737
Idaho....................................... 3,072,028 1,646,756 408,081 5,126,865
Illinois.................................... 206,007,568 6,672,281 3,250,600 215,930,449
Indiana..................................... 32,873,659 6,445,272 1,695,963 41,014,894
Iowa........................................ 9,360,438 4,145,662 1,019,530 14,525,630
Kansas...................................... 7,996,681 3,297,743 851,478 12,145,902
Kentucky.................................... 17,131,642 5,443,854 1,306,330 23,881,826
Louisiana................................... 27,667,179 4,502,461 1,310,621 33,480,261
Maine....................................... 2,203,751 2,172,613 515,251 4,891,615
Maryland.................................... 75,972,090 2,712,403 1,316,914 80,001,407
Massachusetts............................... 115,219,238 2,906,872 1,905,644 120,031,754
Michigan.................................... 62,637,557 7,872,306 2,778,229 73,288,092
Minnesota................................... 29,392,604 4,530,057 1,335,764 35,258,425
Mississippi................................. 4,618,496 4,420,748 919,424 9,958,668
Missouri.................................... 33,532,798 5,276,351 1,720,175 40,529,324
Montana..................................... 2,324,606 1,334,002 372,751 4,031,359
Nebraska.................................... 8,078,023 2,012,840 594,428 10,685,291
Nevada...................................... 18,703,029 657,162 437,100 19,797,291
New Hampshire............................... 3,256,965 1,739,992 411,825 5,408,782
New Jersey.................................. 178,188,359 2,487,820 2,291,863 182,968,042
New Mexico.................................. 6,743,181 1,955,803 520,371 9,219,355
New York.................................... 511,629,104 8,757,424 5,337,074 525,723,602
North Carolina.............................. 26,423,807 9,302,971 2,020,953 37,747,731
North Dakota................................ 2,266,047 986,554 314,324 3,566,925
Northern Marianas........................... ............... 97,974 52,619 150,593
Ohio........................................ 86,171,474 9,471,071 3,393,254 99,035,799
Oklahoma.................................... 10,888,938 4,048,785 1,124,568 16,062,291
Oregon...................................... 26,177,070 3,214,771 1,044,095 30,435,936
Pennsylvania................................ 140,326,812 10,565,079 4,072,337 154,964,228
Puerto Rico................................. 42,415,576 3,157,178 989,437 46,562,191
Rhode Island................................ 10,057,038 404,440 456,412 10,917,890
South Carolina.............................. 10,959,566 4,656,183 1,086,351 16,702,100
South Dakota................................ 1,634,658 1,202,532 341,032 3,178,222
Tennessee................................... 21,984,782 6,010,601 1,614,124 29,609,507
Texas....................................... 158,452,230 12,690,049 4,206,514 175,348,793
Utah........................................ 19,572,743 911,586 483,564 20,967,893
Vermont..................................... 821,531 1,075,168 278,448 2,175,147
Virgin Islands.............................. ............... 230,121 137,109 367,230
Virginia.................................... 60,835,448 5,328,980 1,679,979 67,844,407
Washington.................................. 82,706,220 3,733,949 1,504,629 87,944,798
West Virginia............................... 3,960,684 3,174,933 788,425 7,924,042
Wisconsin................................... 35,490,834 5,485,912 1,536,567 42,513,313
Wyoming..................................... 1,135,107 767,267 233,859 2,136,233
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 2,987,155,201 208,236,752 78,850,801 3,274,242,754
Oversight................................... 15,010,830 1,046,416 ............... 16,057,246
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 3,002,166,031 209,283,168 78,850,801 3,290,300,000
===================================================================
Clean Fuels................................. ............... ............... ............... 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility............. ............... ............... ............... 4,700,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total........................... ............... ............... ............... 3,345,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
Over-the-road buses.--The Committee has included bill
language that increases, through the current authorization
period, the federal share of the incremental capital and
training costs for the over-the-road bus accessibility program
from the current level of 50 percent to 90 percent. A similar
change in the Federal share for 1 year only was enacted last
year. Section 3038(g) of TEA21 provides a total of $4,700,000
for the over-the-road bus accessibility program costs in fiscal
year 2001.
The Committee has also included bill language which expands
the exemption from Federal axle weight restrictions presently
applicable only to public transit passenger buses to all over-
the-road buses. Over-the-road buses (OTRBs), like urban transit
buses, have been carrying progressively more weight on each
axle due to government mandates relating to safety, the
environment and access for the mobility impaired. Consequently,
fully loaded OTRBs now approach and sometimes may exceed the
federal axle weight restrictions of 34,000 pounds on the tandem
axle, with no single axle allowed to carry more than 20,000
pounds. New emission standards going into effect in 2002 will
only worsen the problem, because engine weight will be
increased by 300 to 800 pounds. The transit bus exemption was
enacted shortly after Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
requirements were imposed on the transit industry in 1991. The
ADA requirements were extended to OTRBs in 1999. Both transit
buses and OTRBs are subject to the same safety, environmental,
and accessibility requirements. It is inconsistent to exempt
only one part of the industry and not the other. In addition, a
study on the applicability of maximum axle weight limitations
to both OTRBs and public transit vehicles is directed to be
submitted to Congress no later than 18 months after enactment
of this Act.
University Transportation Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................ $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................................... 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 1,200,000 4,800,000 6,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5505 of TEA21 provides authorization for the
university transportation research program. The purpose of the
university transportation research program is to become a
national resource and focal point for the support and conduct
of research and training concerning the transportation of
passengers and property. Funds provided under the FTA
university transportation research program are transferred to
and managed by the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA), combined with a transfer from the Federal Highway
Administration of $27,250,000. The transit university
transportation research program funds are statutorily available
only to the following universities: University of Minnesota,
Northwestern University, Morgan State University, and North
Carolina State University.
The Committee action provides $6,000,000 for the university
transportation research program, the same level as provided in
fiscal year 2000.
Transit Planning and Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................ $21,000,000 $86,000,000 $107,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\ ...................................... 22,200,000 87,800,000 110,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 22,200,000 87,800,000 110,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $243,386 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
The Committee action provides $110,000,000 for transit
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying
that $52,113,600 shall be available for the metropolitan
planning program; $5,250,000 for the rural transit assistance
program; $29,500,000 for the national planning and research
program; $10,886,400 for the State planning and research
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute at Rutgers
University.
transit cooperative research program
Within the funds provided for the transit cooperative
research program, the bill contains language directing that
$3,000,000 is available for research conducted by the Great
Cities Universities research consortium, a coalition of 17
urban public research universities. This research shall be a
collaborative effort to develop and enhance software and other
technologies that can be applied directly to transportation
issues in the urban areas in which the institutions are
located, and to work with local government planners and
managers to apply these transportation planning and problem-
solving tools and to evaluate their performance. The
institutions that comprise the Great Cities Universities
research consortium are: University of Alabama at Birmingham,
University of Cincinnati, Cleveland State University, Georgia
State University, University of Houston, University of Illinois
at Chicago, Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis,
University of Massachusetts Boston, University of Memphis,
University of Missouri-Kansas City, University of Missouri-St.
Louis, University of New Orleans, City University of New York/
City College, Portland State University, Virginia Commonwealth
University, Wayne State University, and the University of
Wisconsin at Milwaukee.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
2000 program 2001 budget recommendation
level estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning....... $49,632,000 $52,113,600 $52,113,600
Rural transit assistance 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
program....................
State planning and research 10,368,000 10,886,400 10,886,400
program....................
Transit cooperative research 8,250,000 8,250,000 8,250,000
program....................
National Transit Institute.. 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
National planning and 29,500,000 29,500,000 29,500,000
research program \1\.......
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 107,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 does not reflect reduction of $243,386 pursuant to
section 310 of Public Law 106-113.
NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
The Committee recommendation includes transit planning and
research grants from the national program that were authorized
in section 3012 of the Transportation Equity Act for Fiscal
Year 2001:
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced
propulsion control system........................... $3,000,000
Project ACTION.......................................... 3,000,000
Support in fiscal year 2001 is also provided for a number
of important initiatives and Federal Transit Administration
priorities, including:
Mid-America Regional Council coordinated transit
planning, Kansas City metro area.................... $750,000
Sacramento Area Council of Governments regional air
quality planning and coordination study............. 250,000
Salt Lake Olympic Committee multimodal transportation
plan-
ning................................................ 1,200,000
West Virginia University fuel cell technology institute
propulsion and ITS testing.......................... 1,000,000
University of Rhode Island, Kingston traffic congestion
study............................................... 150,000
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority regional
transit study....................................... 350,000
Trans-lake Washington land use effectiveness and
enhancement review.................................. 450,000
State of Vermont electric vehicle transit demonstration. 500,000
Center for Composites Manufacturing..................... 950,000
Acadia Island, Maine explorer transit system
experimental pilot program.......................... 150,000
Southern Nevada air quaility study...................... 800,000
Fairbanks extreme temperature clean fuels research...... 800,000
National Transit Database............................... 2,500,000
Safety and security..................................... 6,100,000
National rural transit assistance program............... 750,000
Mississippi State University bus service expansion plan. 100,000
Bus Rapid Transit administration, data collection and
analysis............................................ 1,000,000
National transit database (NTD).--The NTD is FTA's national
database for statistics for the transit industry, and provides
for the national collection and dissemination of a uniform
system of transit system financial accounts and operating data.
These data are in turn used in the national allocation of
Section 5307, 5310 and 5311 formula funding and section 5309
rail modernization funding according to TEA21 formulas. The
Committee supports FTA's request of $2,500,000 for ongoing NTD
activities from the national planning and research program. In
response to direction from the conferees in the Fiscal Year
2000 Transportation Appropriations Act and in compliance with
the Government Performance and Results Act, FTA is revising and
redesigning the NTD to provide more meaningful and timely data
for State and local governments, transit industry personnel,
and academic institutions. The FTA has submitted a phase I
report on the NTD redesign effort to the Committees on
Appropriations, and is requesting $1,515,000 from project
management oversight funds for phase II (prototype development,
systems testing, and software integration) for fiscal year
2001. The Committee concurs with this request.
Fuel cell bus research and development.--The Committee has
not provided direct transit planning and research funding for
development of either phosphoric acid fuel cell or proton
exchange membrane fuel cell bus development. Through fiscal
year 2000, over $50,000,000 has been provided in Federal
research and deployment funding for the development of this
technology. Fuel cell vendors and automotive and transit
vehicle manufacturers are currently working together to
integrate fuel cell technology with bus platforms. The
Committee understands that several transit agencies have
expressed interest in procuring service vehicles which employ
fuel cell technology. The Committee notes that both section
5307 formula funds and section 5309 bus and bus facilities
funds can be used for such procurements.
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $4,929,270,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... 5,066,600,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,016,600,000
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
For fiscal year 2001, the Committee has provided
$5,016,600,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of
transit expenses associated with the following programs:
administrative expenses, formula grants, university
transportation research, transit planning and research, job
access and reverse commute grants, and capital investment
grants. This level of funds is equal to the total budget
authority from the highway trust fund inside the transit
firewall as outlined in the transportation discretionary
spending guarantee subtitle of the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century.
Capital Investment Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General funds Trust funds Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\ \2\................................. $540,200,000 $1,966,800,000 $2,507,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................................ 529,200,000 2,116,800,000 2,646,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 529,200,000 2,116,800,000 2,646,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 106-69; also includes $6,000,000
Trust Fund direct appropriation pursuant to section 225 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Does not reflect reduction of $17,403,414 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
Section 5309 of 49 U.S.C. authorizes discretionary grants
or loans to States and local public bodies and agencies thereof
to be used in financing mass transportation investments.
Investments may include construction of new fixed guideway
systems and extensions to existing guideway systems; major bus
fleet expansions and bus facility construction; and fixed
guideway expenditures for existing systems.
The Committee action provides a level of $2,646,000,000.
Within this total, $2,116,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit''
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than
$529,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2000 program 2001 budget Committee
level estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities.......................................... $546,200,000 $529,200,000 $529,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization.................................... 980,400,000 1,058,400,000 1,058,400,000
New systems and new extensions.................................. 980,400,000 1,058,400,000 1,058,400,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 2,507,000,000 2,646,000,000 2,646,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
Unobligated discretionary bus and new starts funds from
projects funded in the fiscal year 1998 Transportation
appropriations bill (Public Law 105-66) and previous acts are
available for reallocation in fiscal year 2001. As in previous
years, a general provision (sec. 316) is included which limits
funding availability for fiscal year 2001 capital investment
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years
from enactment.
Under the 3-year availability rule, FTA has indicated that
fiscal year 1998 funds provided for the following bus and bus
facilities projects are in danger of lapsing before the end of
fiscal year 2000.
Remaining unobligated funds
Burlington, VT multimodal center........................ $1,465,794
Wilkes Barre, PA intermodal facility.................... 1,465,794
Columbia, SC buses and facilities....................... 1,954,393
Florence, SC Pee Dee RTA intermodal facilities.......... 1,143,908
San Joaquin, CA buses and bus facilities................ 1,954,393
FTA has also indicated that fiscal year 1998 funds provided
for the following new fixed guideway systems projects are in
danger of lapsing before the end of fiscal year 2000.
Remaining unobligated funds
Burlington to Gloucester Line, New Jersey............... $1,488,750
Jackson, Mississippi intermodal corridor................ 2,990,300
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor project (fiscal years
1998 and 1997 funds)................................ 13,924,777
Extensions of discretionary funds for projects beyond 3-
year availability.--It has come to the Committee's attention
that the FTA interprets Congressional extensions of funding
availability beyond the statutory 3-year term as a renewal for
another full 3-year period of availability. The Committee
strongly objects to this interpretation, and stresses that the
intent in matters of extending funding availability is to give
project sponsors a limited amount of time to complete the
process of obligating funds. The grant application process,
legal certifications and assurances, and environmental
clearances are assumed to be complete or well underway. The
Committee directs the FTA to submit a legal opinion to the
Transportation Subcommittee chairmen and ranking members of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on the
implementation of Congressional funding extensions of
discretionary grants beyond 3 years, immediately upon Senate
passage of the fiscal year 2001 Transportation Appropriations
bill.
The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds
provided in the fiscal year 1996 and the fiscal year 1997
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for the Buffalo, New York crossroads
intermodal center. Additionally, the Committee directs the FTA
not to reallocate funds provided in the Fiscal Year 1998
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation
Act for the New Rochelle, New York intermodal facility.
The Committee directs the FTA not to reallocate funds
provided in the Fiscal Year 1998 Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the following new
starts projects:
--Burlington-Essex commuter rail, Vermont
--Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania Airport Busway
--Cleveland, Ohio Berea Red Line extension to Hopkins
International Airport
--Galveston, Texas rail trolley system project
--Colorado Roaring Fork Valley Rail project (Aspen to
Glenwood Springs)
Additionally, the bill contains a provision reprogramming
funds provided in previous fiscal years from the following two
projects for the purposes specified:
--North Front Range corridor feasibility study (fiscal year
1999)--to be made available for the Eagle Airport to
Avon, Colorado light rail system feasibility study and
preliminary engineering.
--Gees Bend Ferry facilities, Wilcox County and Jefferson
State Community College/University of Montevallo
pedestrian walkway (fiscal year 2000)--to be made
available for State of Alabama buses and bus
facilities.
bus and bus facilities
The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities
funding is $529,200,000, which is 20 percent of the total made
available for capital investment grants. These funds may be
used to replace, rehabilitate, and purchase buses and related
equipment and to construct bus-related facilities. Within the
allocation of funds for discretionary bus and bus facilities,
the budget proposes the following specific funding: $3,000,000
for the Altoona, PA, bus testing facility; $50,000,000 for
grants that meet the 49 U.S.C. section 5308 Clean Fuels Formula
Grant Program standards; $4,850,000 for the Georgetown
University fuel cell bus program; $50,000,000 for the Los
Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority (LACMTA) bus program;
$15,000,000 for projects benefiting the Mississippi Delta
Region; and, $35,000,000 for transit projects related to the
2002 Winter Olympic Games. TEA21 requires that the Altoona bus
testing facility and Georgetown University fuel cell bus
program be allocated funds in the above-specified amounts.
However, the Committee does not approve the non-authorized set-
asides from the bus and bus facilities program requested by the
administration.
The Committee has included bill language that delineates a
number of eligible bus and bus facilities projects. These
projects have been brought to the Appropriations Committee's
attention as being meritorious and in need of Federal
assistance. The bill includes language that directs the Federal
Transit Administrator to submit to the congressional
appropriations and authorizing committees, on or before
February 1, 2001, a grant recommendation list choosing from
among the projects listed in the appropriations bill.
--1000 Oaks Community transportation project, California
--AC Transit zero-emissions fuel cell bus deployment
demonstration project, California
--Alabama A&M University buses and bus facilities
--Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight
facility
--Alameda-Contra Costa County bus project, California
--Alaska State Fair park and ride and passenger shuttle
system
--Albany bus purchase, Linn-Benton transit system, Oregon
--Albany-Rensselaer train station redevelopment, New York
--Albuquerque automatic vehicle monitoring system (SOLAR),
New Mexico
--Albuquerque bus replacement, New Mexico
--Albuquerque West Side Transit Facility, New Mexico
--Alexandria and Arlington bus facilities, Virginia
--Altoona bus testing facility, Pennsylvania
--Ames maintenance facility, Iowa
--Anaheim Resort Transportation project, alternative and
electric transit, California
--Angel Fire Bus and Bus Facilities, New Mexico
--Area Transportation of North Central Pennsylvania buses and
bus facilities
--Atlanta MARTA CNG buses, Georgia
--Attleboro Intermodal Mixed-Use Garage Facility,
Massachusetts
--Auburn, AL parking/intermodal facility
--Auburn Transit hub park and ride, Washington
--Austin Capital Metro buses, Texas
--Bangor intermodal transportation center, Maine
--Basin Transit System buses, Oregon
--Beaver County Transit Facility, Pennsylvania
--Bellows Falls Multimodal, Vermont
--Ben Franklin Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
--Berks Area Reading intermodal facility, Pennsylvania
--Bethlehem intermodal facility, Pennsylvania
--Billings buses and intermodal facility, Montana
--Binghamton Intermodal Transit Terminal, New York
--Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities, Alabama
--Blackfoot Indian Reservation bus facility, Montana
--Brattleboro multimodal center, Vermont
--Brazos Transit District buses and bus facilities, Texas
--Brea shuttle buses, California
--Bridgeport intermodal facility, Connecticut
--Brockton Intermodal transportation Center, Massachusetts
--Brookhaven multimodal transportation center, Mississippi
--Buffalo intermodal transportation center, New York
--Burbank/Glendale--San Fernando Road bus facilities,
California
--Burlington Multimodal Center, Vermont
--Burlington Special Services Transportation Agency buses and
vans, Vermont
--Camden subway and bus intermodal center renovation, New
Jersey
--Campbell County intermodal facility, Kentucky
--Carlsbad bus facility, New Mexico
--Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa
--Central Arkansas Transit Authority bus replacement,
Arkansas
--Central Contra Costa Transit Authority buses, California
--Central New York Regional Transit Authority CNG buses
--Central Vermont Transit Authority buses and bus facilities
--Charlotte bus and bus facilities, North Carolina
--Chatham Area Transit ADA compliant buses and facility,
Georgia
--Chester intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
--Cheyenne transit and operation facility, Wyoming
--Chittenden County Transit Authority, Vermont
--Cincinnati Riverfront Transit Center, Ohio
--Cincinnati, Ohio intermodal improvements
--Clark County bus passenger intermodal facility, Henderson,
Nevada
--Clark County regional transportation commission clean fuel
fleet expansion, Nevada
--Clark County RTC Las Vegas Bus Rapid Transit, Nevada
--Clinton facility expansion, Iowa
--Clovis Bus and Bus Related Facilities, New Mexico
--Coast Transit Authority multimodal facility and shuttle
service, Mississippi
--Columbia bus and bus facilities, Missouri
--Columbia County ADA buses, Oregon
--Columbus Near East transit center, Ohio
--Community Transit buses and bus facilities--Snohomish
County, Washington
--Compton Renaissance transit system project, California
--Coos County buses, Oregon
--Corpus Christi Adart ITS project, Texas
--Corpus Christi Regional Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities, Texas
--Corvallis Transit System operations facility, Oregon
--C-TRAN bus facility, transit ITS and I-5 park and ride
facility, Washington
--Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses and bus facilities, Texas
--Davis/Sacramento clean air buses and bus fueling faciity,
California
--Dayton, Ohio Second and Main Multimodal Transportation
Center
--Denali Depot intermodal facility, Alaska
--Des Moines park and ride, Iowa
--Dothan--Wiregrass Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities, Alabama
--Durham Area Transit Authority buses and bus facilities,
North Carolina
--East Palo Alto intermodal transit center, California
--El Dorado County bus fleet expansion, California
--El Paso buses and bus facilities, Texas
--El Segundo Douglas Street gap closure project, California
--Elizabeth Ferry Project, New Jersey
--Essex Junction multimodal station, Vermont
--Everett Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
--Excelsior Springs bus replacement, Missouri
--Fairbanks clean fuel buses and fueling facilities
--Fairbanks Bus/Rail Intermodal Facility, Alaska
--Fairbanks parking garage and intermodal center, Alaska
--Fairfax County Metrorail intermodal expansion program,
Virginia
--Fairfield/Siusun Transit buses, California
--Fishers Island ferry terminal expansion, New York
--Folsom Railroad Block multimodal transportation hub,
California
--Foothill Transit clean air bus and bus fueling facility,
California
--Fresno Community Medical Centers' intermodal transportation
facility, California
--Fort Worth Transit Authority Buses and Bus Facilities,
Texas
--Fort Worth Independent Transportation Network for elderly
and mobility impaired needs, Texas
--Gainesville Joint Communications Technology Project,
Florida
--Gary, Adam Benjamin intermodal center, Indiana
--Galveston buses and bus facilities, Texas
--Galveston Intermodal Terminal, Texas
--Georgetown University fuel cell bus program
--Georgia DOT bus and bus facilities
--Georgia Regional Transportation Authority CNG buses
--Glacier Park Red Bus fleet, Montana
--Great Falls Transit district buses and bus facilities,
Montana
--Greater Lafayette Public Corporation--Wabash Landing buses
and bus facilities, Indiana
--Greater New Haven electric trolleys, Connecticut
--Greater Minnesota Transit Authorities buses and bus
facilities
--Hampton Roads transit bus and bus facilities, Virginia
--Harrison County multimodal project, Mississippi
--Hartford/New Britain busway, Connecticut
--Hershey intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
--Highbridge pedestrian walkway, New York
--Hillsborough Transit Authority bus tracking system, Florida
--Homer, Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge intermodal and
welcome center
--Honolulu bus and bus facility improvements, Hawaii
--Hood River County bus and bus facility, Oregon
--Hot Springs, Arkansas national park intermodal parking
facility
--Houston Main Street Liveable Communities Initiative, Texas
--Huntsville Intermodal Transit Facility, Alabama
--Huntsville Space & Rocket Center intermodal center, Alabama
--I-5 Joint Powers Authority transit centers project,
California
--Indianapolis communications system and passenger amenities
upgrades, Indiana
--Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation bus and bus
facilities, Indiana
--Inglewood Market Street transit center and buses,
California
--Iowa City intermodal facility, Iowa
--Jackson JATRAN buses, Mississippi
--Jefferson City van and equipment purchase, Missouri
--Johnstown intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
--Kansas City Area Transit Authority radio system
replacement, Missouri
--Kennedy Center public access project, Washington, DC
--King County Eastgate Park and Ride, Washington
--King County Metro buses and bus facilities, Washington
--King County Metro transit security enhancements, Washington
--King County transit corridor improvements, Washington
--King County transit oriented development projects/transit
amenities, Washington
--Lafayette multi-modal facility, Louisiana
--Lake Tahoe CNG buses and fleet conversion, Nevada
--Lakeview buses, Oregon
--Lamar County vans, Alabama
--Lane Transit District buses and bus facility, Oregon
--Larkspur transit park and ride, Marin County, California
--Las Cruces/New Mexico State University bus purchase
--Lawrence bus and bus facilities, Kansas
--Little Rock Rivermarket/College Station livable
communities, Arkansas
--Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority bus and
maintenance facilities, California
--Livermore intermodal transfer facility, California
--Long Beach Central Bus Garage, New York
--Los Angeles buses, California
--Los Angeles Municipal Transit Operators' Coalition buses,
California
--Los Lunas Buses and Bus Facilities, New Mexico
--Lowell Regional Transit Authority bus service hub
relocation, Massachusetts
--Macon intermodal facility at Union Station, Georgia
--MARC midday storage facility in Washington Terminal,
Maryland
--Maryland Statewide buses and bus facilities
--Mason City maintenance facility, Iowa
--Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities, Massachusetts
--Mesa bus maintenance facility, Regional Public
Transportation Authority, Arizona
--Metropolitan Tulsa Transit Authority pedestrian and
streetscape improvements, Oklahoma
--Miami Beach electrowave facility/intermodal transit system,
Florida
--Minneapolis Metro Transit Uptown Transit Hub, Gateway
Garage Annex, and bus shelters, Minnesota
--Mississippi County bus replacement, Missouri
--Mississippi River ferry reconstruction, Bellches, Louisiana
--Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association
buses, Montana
--Missouri River pedestrian crossing, Omaha, Nebraska
--Mobile waterfront terminal complex, Alabama
--Modesto bus maintenance facility, California
--Monroe Center bus facility, New Jersey
--Monrovia trolley system, California
--Montana statewide bus service coordination computer-aided
dispatch equipment
--Monterey-Salinas Transit Buses and bus facility, California
--Monterey-Salinas Transit marina transit station, California
--Montgomery County farebox technology, Maryland
--Montgomery, Moulton Street Intermodal Facility, Alabama
--Mukilteo multimodal terminal project preliminary
engineering, Washington
--Napa multimodal train station, California
--New Haven trolley cars and related equipment, Connecticut
--New Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses
--New Jersey Transit bus terminal renovation
--New London park and ride pedestrian access and high-speed
rail/ferry facility, Connecticut
--New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal renovation, Louisiana
--Newark Arena bus improvements, New Jersey
--Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New York
--Norfolk buses, Virginia
--North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities
--Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access, Connecticut
--OATS buses and vans, Missouri
--Occupational Center for Central Kansas bus maintenance
facility
--Oceanside parking transit facility, California
--Oklahoma City bus transfer center, Oklahoma
--Oklahoma Transit Association bus and bus facilities
--Olympia Intercity Transit radio system equipment,
Washington
--Orlando Lynx bus maintenance facility, Florida
--Paducah area transit system bus and bus facilities,
Kentucky
--Palmdale multimodal facility, California
--Park City, Salt Lake City, Ogden City, West Valley City,
Provo City, and Orem City intermodal facilities, Utah
--Pasadena Blue Line intermodal centers, California
--Philadelphia SEPTA Paoli Bus Transportation Center,
Pennsylvania
--Philadelphia, Frankford Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
--Philadelphia, SEPTA Callowhill Bus Garage, Pennsylvania
--Philomath buses, Oregon
--Phoenix area Regional Public Transportation Authority bus
fleet advanced ITS, Arizona
--Phoenix Regional Public Transportation Authority bus
replacement, Arizona
--Phoenix South Central Avenue transit facility, Arizona
--Picayune multimodal center, Mississippi
--Pierce Transit base expansion, Washington
--Pittsfield intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
--Placer County CNG bus program, California
--Port Authority of Allegheny County Bus and Bus Facilities,
Pennsylvania
--Port Ayers Transit Station improvements, Texas
--Port McKenzie intermodal facilities, Alaska
--Prince William County and Potomac Rappahannock bus
replacement, Virginia
--Ray County bus and bus facilities, Missouri
--Redmond buses, Oregon
--Reno County Bus and Bus facilities, Kansas
--Reno/Sparks bus transfer facilities, Nevada
--Renton/Port Quendall transit project, Washington
--Reston East Park and Ride project, Virginia
--Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities
--Richmond Downtown Transit Plaza, Virginia
--Ripley County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
--Rogue Valley buses, Oregon
--Rushline Corridor Transit improvements, Minnesota
--Sacramento buses and bus facilities, California
--Salem Area Transit District buses, Oregon
--Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics transit bus loan
program, Utah
--Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Paralympics Games equipment and
operating assistance, Utah
--Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics park and ride lots,
Utah
--Salt Lake City 2002 Winter Olympics spectator bus
facilities, Utah
--Salt Lake City hybrid electric vehicle acquisition, Utah
--San Bernardino OmniTrans transit center planning and
construction, California
--San Bernardino-Santa Fe depot restoration, California
--San Diego East Village Intermodal Transit improvements,
California
--San Fernando Valley east-west bus rapid transit project,
California
--San Francisco Larkspur park and ride, California
--San Francisco Midday Bus storage facility, California
--San Fransisco MUNI buses, equipment and facilities,
California
--San Joaquin Regional Transit District buses and bus
facilites, California
--San Joaquin Regional Transit District expansion of Wilson
Way/Lindsay Street facility, California
--San Joaquin Regional Transit District ITS, California
--Sandy buses, Oregon
--Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority bus
procurement, California
--Santa Clarita transit maintenance facility, California
--Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District MetroBase project
bus consolidation facility, California
--Santa Fe buses and bus facilities, New Mexico
--Scott County bus and bus facilities, Missouri
--Sequim, Challam Transit systems facilities, Washington
--Shelby County vans for elderly, Alabama
--Ship Creek pedestrian and bus facilities and intermodal
center/parking garage, Alaska
--Silver Spring Intermodal Center (MARC), Maryland
--Sioux City multimodal ground transportation center, Iowa
--Sioux City Trolley system, Iowa
--Sonoma County Transit bus facility expansion, California
--Sound Transit buses, Washington
--South Amboy Regional Intermodal Transportation Initiative,
New Jersey
--South Bend Public Transit (TRANSPO) bus fleet replacement,
Indiana
--South Clackamas Transportation District bus, Oregon
--South Corridor Transit Center and park and ride facilities
in Clackamas County, Oregon
--South Metro Area Rapid Transit maintenance/operations
facility, Oregon
--Southeast Missouri Transportation Service bus and bus
facilities
--Southern Coalition for Advanced Transportation clean fuels
bus purchase and technical assistance, Georgia and
Alabama
--Springfield Intermodal Center, Massachusetts
--St. Bernard Parish intermodal facilities, Louisiana
--St. Cloud Metropolitan Transit Commission replacement of
buses, Minnesota
--St. George Ferry Terminal, New York
--St. Joseph bus replacement, Missouri
--St. Louis Bi-State Development Authority bus and bus
facilities, Missouri
--St. Louis Care Cab elderly and disabled vehicles, Missouri
--State of Alabama buses and bus facilities
--State of Arkansas rural and small transit bus and van
replacements
--State of Colorado buses and bus facilities
--State of Delaware buses and bus facilities
--State of Florida buses and bus facilities
--State of Idaho buses and bus facilities
--State of Illinois buses and bus facilities
--State of Iowa buses and bus facilities and rural special
needs buses
--State of Louisiana buses and bus facilities
--State of Maine bus and bus facilities
--State of Michigan buses and bus facilities
--State of Mississippi rural transit vehicles and regional
transit centers
--State of Missouri bus and bus facilities
--State of New Mexico buses and bus facilities
--State of North Carolina buses and bus facilities
--State of North Dakota buses and bus facilities
--State of Ohio buses and bus facilities
--State of Oklahoma buses and bus facilities
--State of South Carolina buses and bus facilities
--State of Tennessee buses and bus facilities
--State of Utah regional park and ride lots
--State of Washington combined small transit system request,
bus and bus facilities
--State of West Virginia buses and bus facilities
--State of Wisconsin buses and bus facilities
--Staten Island Ferry Whitehall intermodal ferry terminal,
New York
--SunLine Transit fuel cell buses, California
--Sunset Empire Transit District improvements to Clatsop
County Intermodal Facility, Oregon
--Sunset Interchange HOV ramp construction, Washington
--Tahoe Regional Planning Authority CNG buses, California
--Temecula bus shelters, California
--Texas Rural Transit Vehicle Fleet Replacement Program
--Tillamook County District transit facilities, Oregon
--Topeka Transit Off-street transfer center, Kansas
--Towamencin Township Multimodal Transportation Center,
Pennsylvania
--Transit Authority of River City buses, Kentucky
--Triskett Bus Garage rehabilitation, Cleveland, Ohio
--Tucson intermodal transportation center at Union Pacific
Depot, Arizona
--Tucson Sun Tran buses and bus facilities, Arizona
--Tuscaloosa interdisciplinary science building parking and
intermodal facility, Alabama
--Twin Cities Metro Bus Program, Minnesota
--Union County bus, Oregon
--University of Alabama Birmingham fuel cell buses
--University of North Alabama buses and bus facilities
--University of South Alabama buses and bus facilities
--Upland commuter rail station, California
--Utah Transit Authority and Park City Transit bus fleet
replacement
--Vacaville bus transfer center, California
--Vacaville-Bella Vista park and ride, California
--Vermont Statewide paratransit
--Waco Transit Administration and Maintenance Facility, Texas
--Wasco County buses, Oregon
--Washoe County buses and bus Facilities, Nevada
--Waterloo multimodal project, Iowa
--West Lafayette bus and bus related projects, Indiana
--West Side Manhattan Ferry Terminal, New York
--Wichita Transit replacement buses, Kansas
--Wilkes-Barre intermodal transportation center, Pennsylvania
--Williamsburg natural gas buses, Virginia
--Ybor City streetcar intermodal station, Florida
--Yuba-Sutter Transit Authority replacement buses, California
State of Michigan buses and bus facilities.--Despite
unanimously supported agreements among the Michigan Public
Transit Association (MPTA), its members, and the Michigan
Department of Transportation (MDOT) that Section 5309 bus funds
to Michigan transit agencies be distributed through MDOT,
designations of funds to individual transit agencies continue
to be sought and proposed apart from that agreement. The
Committee directs that any fiscal year 2001 discretionary bus
funds for projects in Michigan be distributed through MDOT in
accordance with the MPTA-MDOT agreement.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends a total of $1,058,400,000 for the
modernization of existing rail transit systems. Under TEA21 all
of the funds are distributed by formula. The following table
itemizes the fiscal year 2001 rail modernization allocations by
State:
Fiscal year 2001 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization
Fiscal year 2001
State budget
Arizona................................................. $1,647,509
California.............................................. 103,024,219
Colorado................................................ 1,316,293
Connecticut............................................. 39,832,898
Delaware................................................ 815,489
District of Columbia.................................... 50,073,588
Florida................................................. 14,923,383
Georgia................................................. 18,915,713
Hawaii.................................................. 675,797
Illinois................................................ 123,609,547
Indiana................................................. 8,270,772
Louisiana............................................... 2,924,550
Maryland................................................ 24,432,619
Massachusetts........................................... 68,265,209
Michigan................................................ 475,146
Minnesota............................................... 3,102,796
Missouri................................................ 2,032,627
New Jersey.............................................. 92,448,909
New York................................................ 341,976,036
Ohio.................................................... 16,779,438
Oregon.................................................. 3,096,250
Pennsylvania............................................ 104,311,846
Puerto Rico............................................. 2,125,512
Rhode Island............................................ 1,562,007
Tennessee............................................... 76,738
Texas................................................... 5,547,080
Virginia................................................ 1,065,723
Washington.............................................. 16,444,335
Wisconsin............................................... 689,971
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 1,050,462,000
Three-quarter percent oversight......................... 7,938,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 1,058,400,000
NEW STARTS
The bill provides $1,058,400,000 for new starts. These
funds are available for major investment studies, preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management,
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions.
Under section 3009(g) of TEA21, there is an 8-percent statutory
cap on the amount made available for activities other than
final design and construction--that is, alternatives analysis,
environmental impact statements, preliminary engineering, major
investment studies, and other predesign and preconstruction
activities. Within the total of $1,058,400,000 for new systems,
no more than $84,672,000 may be allocated for these activities.
The Committee has included bill language that delineates a
number of eligible new fixed guideway system projects under
both of these funding categories, and directs the Federal
Transit Administrator to submit to the congressional
appropriations and authorizing committees, on or before
February 1, 2001, a grant recommendation list choosing from
among the projects listed in the appropriations bill. The
Committee is aware that the administration's budget request
includes a list of requested projects, but believes that the
Department should reassess its recommendations in light of the
number of authorized projects which have been deemed eligible
for funding, both in TEA21 and this appropriations legislation.
The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for final
design and construction:
2002 Winter Olympics spectator transportation systems and
facilities
Alaska or Hawaii ferry projects
Atlanta--MARTA North Line extension completion
Austin Capital Metro Light Rail
Baltimore Central Light Rail Double Tracking
Boston North-South Rail Link
Boston--South Boston Piers Transitway
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail line
Charlotte North-South Transitway project
Chicago METRA commuter rail consolidated request
Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood Brown Line capacity
expansion
Chicago Transit Authority Douglas Blue Line
Clark County, Nevada RTC fixed guideway project
Cleveland Euclid Corridor improvement project
Dallas Area Rapid Transit North Central light rail
Denver Southeast corridor project
Denver Southwest corridor project
Fort Lauderdale Tri-County commuter rail project
Fort Worth Railtran corridor commuter rail project
Galveston Rail Trolley extension
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska commuter rail project
Houston Metro Regional Bus Plan
Kansas City Southtown corridor
Little Rock, Arkansas river rail project
Long Island Rail Road East Side access project
Los Angeles Mid-city and Eastside corridors
Los Angeles North Hollywood extension
MARC expansion projects--Penn-Camden lines connector and
midday storage facility
MARC-Brunswick line in West Virginia, signal and crossover
improvements
Memphis Medical Center extension project
Minneapolis--Twin Cities Transitways corridor projects
Nashua, New Hampshire to Lowell, Massachusetts commuter
rail
Nashville regional commuter rail
New Jersey Hudson-Bergen Light Rail
New Orleans Canal Street Streetcar corridor project
New Orleans Desire Street corridor project
Newark-Elizabeth rail link
Oceanside-Escondido, California light rail
Orange County, California transitway project
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley metro project
Phoenix metropolitan area transit project
Pittsburgh North Shore-central business district corridor
project
Pittsburgh Stage II Light Rail transit
Portland Interstate MAX light rail transit
Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill regional rail service
Rhode Island--Pawtucket and T.F. Green commuter rail/
maintenance facility
Sacramento south corridor light rail extension
Salt Lake City--University light rail line
Salt Lake City North/South light rail project
Salt Lake-Ogden-Provo regional commuter rail
San Bernardino MetroLink
San Diego Mission Valley East light rail
San Francisco BART extension to the airport project
San Jose Tasman West light rail project
San Juan-Tren Urbano
Seattle-Sound Transit Central Link light rail project
Seattle-Puget Sound RTA Sounder commuter rail project
Spokane-South Valley Corridor light rail project
St. Louis Metrolink Cross County connector
St. Louis/St. Clair County Metrolink light rail extension
Stamford Urban Transitway, Connecticut
Tampa Bay regional rail project
Washington Metro Blue Line--Largo extension
West Trenton, New Jersey rail project
The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering:
Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project
Atlanta--MARTA West Line extension study
Ballston, Virginia Metro access improvements
Baltimore regional rail transit system
Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor
Boston Urban Ring
Burlington-Bennington, Vermont commuter rail project
Calais, Maine Branch Line regional transit program
Colorado/Eagle Airport to Avon light rail system
Colorado/Roaring Fork Valley rail project
Columbus-Central Ohio Transit Authority north corridor
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Southeast Corridor Light Rail
Des Moines commuter rail
Detroit Metropolitan Airport light rail project
Draper, West Jordan, West Valley City & Sandy City, Utah
light rail extensions
Dulles Corridor, Virginia innovative intermodal system
El Paso/Juarez People mover system
Fort Worth trolley system
Harrisburg-Lancaster capital area transit corridor 1
regional light rail
Hollister/Gilroy Branch Line extension
Honolulu bus rapid transit
Houston advanced transit program
Indianapolis Northeast-Downtown corridor project
Johnson County, Kansas I-35 Commuter Rail Project
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail extension
Los Angeles San Fernando Valley Corridor
Los Angeles San Diego LOSSAN corridor project
Massachusetts North Shore Corridor project
Miami south busway extension
New Orleans commuter rail from Airport to downtown
New York City 2nd Avenue Subway study
Northern Indiana south shore commuter rail
Northwest New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania passenger rail
project
Potomac Yards, Virginia transit study
Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro
Portland, Maine marine highway program
San Francisco BART to Livermore extension
San Francisco MUNI 3rd Street light rail extension
Santa Fe-Eldorado rail project
Stockton, California Altamont commuter rail project
Vasona light rail corridor
Virginia Railway Express commuter rail
Whitehall ferry terminal project
Wilmington, Delaware downtown transit connector
Wilsonville to Beaverton commuter rail
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
There is a total of $1,058,400,000 available for transit
new starts funding in fiscal year 2001. The administration's
request includes $744,293,000 for projects with current or
pending FTA full funding grant agreements with FTA, 70 percent
of the total available funds. Additionally, the
administration's request proposes allocating $211,174,990 for
12 new starts projects that are currently in preliminary
engineering or final design. The administration expects these
projects to complete the engineering and environmental review
process by the start of fiscal year 2001. FTA anticipates
signing full funding grant agreements with these projects some
time during fiscal year 2001. The estimated federal share over
the life of these new projects is $2,955,230,000. If Congress
follows the administration's fiscal year 2001 budget request,
the entire commitment authority amount provided in TEA21 for
the new starts program will be committed. There will be no
further room under the TEA21 guaranteed program level for any
new full funding grant agreements beyond those outlined in the
budget request. The Committee objects to closing off the new
starts pipeline two full years before the expiration of the
authorizing period; to do so is unresponsive to changing
project conditions and to the expressed needs of the transit
community and their elected representatives.
Full funding grant agreements.--The Committee has a strong
inclination to honor the FTA's full funding grant agreements
with new starts grantees, provided that there are not dramatic
cost, scope, or schedule changes that would have a negative
impact on the grantee's ability to meet its responsibilities
under the FFGA schedule. The Committee takes an active interest
in the progress and status of all new starts projects, most
particularly in the FFGA projects, since they represent such a
large proportion of the total discretionary funding stream. The
annual oversight responsibility of the Appropriations Committee
is to protect present and anticipated federal investments.
Central Florida commuter rail.--The Committee directs that
the balance of previously appropriated funds for the Orlando
light rail project shall be made available for the Central
Florida commuter rail project, which is part of the Central
Florida Light Rail system as authorized in Public Law 105-178,
section 3030(a)(60). This recently-proposed project for
commuter rail in the I-4 corridor would use diesel multiple
unit technology, which is an eligible fixed guideway
technology.
Discretionary Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $1,500,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 350,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 350,000,000
The bill includes $350,000,000 to liquidate obligations
incurred under contract authority previously provided in
section 5338(b) of 49 U.S.C.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000............................................ $15,000,000 $60,000,000 $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\....................................... 20,000,000 130,000,000 150,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 20,000,000 80,000,000 100,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
The Committee recommends $100,000,000 for the Job Access
and Reverse Commute Grants program, the level guaranteed under
the TEA21 transit category firewall. This program is meant to
help welfare reform efforts succeed by providing enhanced
transportation services for low-income individuals, including
former welfare recipients, traveling to jobs or training
centers.
The program makes competitive grants to qualifying
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental
authorities, agencies, and nonprofit organizations in urbanized
areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants may not be
used for planning or coordination activities.
The Committee does not approve the request for $50,000,000
additional job access and reverse commute grant program funds,
to be provided by a transfer from the revenue aligned budget
authority funds. The Committee does not approve bill language
proposed by the department that would have set aside $5,000,000
each for tribal governments and the Mississippi Delta region
within this program. Indian tribes and transit providers in the
Mississippi Delta region are currently eligible for this
program.
The Committee recommends the following allocations of job
access and reverse commute grant program funds in fiscal year
2001:
Alameda and Contra-Costa Counties, California........... $500,000
Archuleta County, Colorado.............................. 75,000
Broome County Transit, New York......................... 250,000
Capital District Transit Authority, New York............ 250,000
Central Kenai Peninsula public transportation........... 500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority.......................... 1,000,000
Corpus Christi RTA, Texas............................... 550,000
Des Moines, Dubuque, Sioux City, and rural areas 3, 4,
9, and 12, Iowa..................................... 1,600,000
Dona Ana County, New Mexico............................. 250,000
Easter Seals West Alabama work transition programs...... 850,000
Greater Erie Community Action Committee, Pennsylvania... 400,000
Indianapolis Public Transportation Corporation, Indiana. 1,000,000
Las Cruces, New Mexico.................................. 260,000
Matanuska-Susitna borough, M.A.S.C.O.T.................. 60,000
Meramec Community transit programs, Missouri............ 150,000
Mobile, Alabama......................................... 250,000
Monterey, California.................................... 150,000
North Oakland County, Michigan.......................... 250,000
OATS job access programs, Missouri...................... 750,000
Paterson-New Jersey Community Development Corporation... 762,000
Philadelphia SEPTA, Pennsylvania........................ 3,000,000
Pittsburgh Port Authority of Allegheny County,
Pennsylvania........................................ 2,000,000
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority................... 1,000,000
Rhode Island Community Food Bank transportation......... 100,000
Santa Clara County, California.......................... 500,000
Sitka, Alaska transit expansion program................. 400,000
Southern Illinois RIDES................................. 150,000
State of New Mexico..................................... 1,000,000
State of Illinois....................................... 1,000,000
State of Alabama........................................ 1,500,000
State of Maryland....................................... 2,400,000
State of Oklahoma....................................... 3,000,000
State of Washington WorkFirst transportation initiative. 2,000,000
State of West Virginia.................................. 1,500,000
State of Wisconsin...................................... 3,000,000
State of Vermont........................................ 1,500,000
Portland Tri-Met, Oregon................................ 1,840,000
Troy State University, Alabama--Rosa Parks Center....... 2,000,000
Tysons/Dulles Corridor, Virginia........................ 500,000
Washoe County, Nevada................................... 1,000,000
Ways to Work family loan program, Southeastern United
States.............................................. 2,000,000
York County, Maine...................................... 900,000
other general provisions
The Committee has included the following general provisions
affecting transit programs:
Sec. 311. This general provision has been carried in the
appropriations bill for many years. It allows FTA to update
account names and transfer the associated funds to the new
account structure. This bookkeeping authority is necessary,
given that the Transportation Equity Act has restructured the
mass transit program.
Sec. 321. This general provision expands the eligible uses
of funds made available for Alaska or Hawaii ferry boats or
ferry terminals pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 5309(m)(2)(B). Section
3009(k)(3) of TEA21 makes $10,400,000 available for Alaska or
Hawaii ferry boat systems for each of fiscal years 1999 through
2003. The last two years' appropriations acts have honored this
set-aside. However, none of these funds have been obligated to
date and this general provision, which is similar to a
provision included in last year's appropriations act, will
increase the flexibility of these funds so they can be utilized
for their intended purpose.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation
established by the Saint Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954.
The Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance,
and development of the United States portion of the Saint
Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. The
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability,
trade development, and management accountability.
Operations and Maintenance
(Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $12,042,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\ (mandatory)................... 13,004,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,400,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $25,000 for TASC pursuant to section
319 of Public Law 106-69; also excludes reduction of $46,000 pursuant to
section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
\2\ Assumes enactment of authorizing legislation.
The administration has proposed to restructure the Saint
Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation as a performance-based
organization (PBO). In 1996, the National Performance Review
first identified the Corporation as one of nine PBO candidates.
As a PBO, the Corporation's funding mechanism would change from
annual appropriations to a mandatory formula-based payment that
primarily is determined by a five-year average of international
tonnage moved through the Seaway. Consequently, the
administration did not seek appropriated funds for the Seaway
and instead is requesting a mandatory payment of $13,004,000
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes an appropriation of $12,400,000 instead
of the mandatory payment that was requested. Although the
Administration submitted a legislative proposal and financial
plan that would establish the Corporation as a performance-
based organization (PBO) during the 106th Congress, the
Congress has not taken action on this legislation. Until
enactment of legislation authorizing the Seaway as a PBO, the
Committee will continue to fund the Corporation according to
current law.
The Committee recommendation includes $12,004,000 to fully
fund the operations and maintenance of the Corporation. The
Administration also requested $1,000,000, as well as $900,000
in offsetting collections, for capital improvements. The
Committee defers $604,000 due to budgetary constraints. The
Committee recommendation provides sufficient funding for the
Corporation's highest capital priorities and the projects
recommended by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers after its
survey and evaluation of the Corporation's lock and maintenance
practices. The Committee notes, however, that the capital plan
for fiscal year 2001 is significantly greater than previous
years' appropriations and the projected costs for the remaining
four years of the five-year capital plan.
Although the Committee finds merit in the PBO proposal, the
committee remains concerned about certain provisions of the
legislation to establish the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation as a PBO. As an organization funded through a
mandatory funding mechanism, Congress would no longer have a
direct role in determining the level of funding for the
Corporation or directing the use of its funds. This would
severely undermine Congress' ability to exercise its
responsibility to conduct oversight over the agency and
allocate funding within broader policy and fiscal goals, such
as balancing the Federal budget. Therefore, the Committee
directs the administration to submit future Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation budget requests consistent with
current law until Congress takes action on PBO authorization
legislation.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The Research and Special Programs Administration [RSPA] was
established by the Secretary of Transportation's organizational
changes dated July 20, 1977, and serves as a research,
analytical, and technical development arm of the Department for
multimodal research and development, as well as special
programs. Particular emphasis is given to pipeline
transportation and the transportation of hazardous cargo by all
modes. In 2001, resources are requested for the management and
execution of the Offices of Hazardous Materials Safety,
Emergency Transportation, Pipeline Safety, program and
administrative support. Funds are also requested for the
emergency preparedness grants program. RSPA's two reimbursable
programs--Transportation Safety Institute [TSI] and the Volpe
National Transportation Systems Center [VNTSC]--support
research safety and security programs for all modes of
transportation.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $32,061,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \2\............................... 42,531,000
Committee recommendation................................ 34,370,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $296,000 for TASC pursuant to section
319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Does not includes reduction of $4,722,000 in proposed user fees.
The Committee has provided a total of $34,370,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account, $8,161,000 less than
the administration's request.
Consistent with the Committee's views on the
administration's new user fee proposals contained in the fiscal
year 2001 budget submission expressed in the Office of the
Secretary portion of this report, the Committee does not
approve the proposed new user fees and associated funding
offsets for the hazardous materials safety program.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
2000 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2001 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................................... $17,710,000 $18,773,000 $18,620,000
(FTE)....................................................... (125.5) (129) (129)
Emergency transportation........................................ $1,378,000 $2,375,000 $1,801,000
(FTE)....................................................... (7) (9.5) (8)
Research and technology......................................... $3,397,000 $9,416,000 $3,740,000
(FTE)....................................................... (11) (10) (9)
Program and administrative support.............................. $9,576,000 $11,967,000 $10,209,000
(FTE)....................................................... (45) (47) (47)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...................... $32,061,000 $42,531,000 $34,370,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect $296,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
hazardous materials safety
The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [OHMS] administers
a nationwide program of safety regulations to fulfill the
Secretary's duty to protect the Nation from the risks to life,
health, and property that are inherent in the transportation of
hazardous materials by water, air, highway, and railroad. OHMS
plans, implements, and manages the hazardous materials
transportation program consisting of information systems,
research and analysis, inspection and enforcement, rulemaking
support, training and information dissemination, and emergency
procedures.
The Committee recommends $18,620,000 for hazardous
materials safety, which is $153,000 less than the
administration's request. The Committee recommendation for the
OHMS includes funding to annualize costs associated with 7 new
hazardous materials safety positions approved in fiscal year
2000 (+3.5 full time equivalents). Administrative expenses and
PC&B total $12,670,000; adequate funds are provided for cost of
living and locality pay adjustments and merit increases. The
Committee has decreased the funding for the international
standards program $23,000 below the request, which is a slight
increase above the program's current services funding level.
The following shows the Committee's recommended funding levels
for each of the hazardous materials office activities:
Personnel compensation and benefits..................... $11,400,000
Administrative expenses................................. 1,270,000
Contract programs....................................... 3,680,000
Registration program.................................... 1,070,000
Research and development................................ 1,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety....... 18,620,000
Emergency transportation
Emergency transportation [ET] programs provide support to
the Secretary of Transportation for his statutory and
administrative responsibilities in the area of transportation
civil emergency preparedness and response. This program
develops and coordinates the Department's policies, plans, and
programs, in headquarters and the field to provide for
emergency preparedness.
ET is responsible for implementing the Transportation
Department's National Security Program initiatives, including
an assessment of the transportation implications of the
changing global threat. The Office also coordinates civil
emergency preparedness and response for transportation services
during national and regional emergencies, across the entire
continuum of crises, including natural catastrophes such as
earthquakes, hurricanes and tornados, and international and
domestic terrorism. The Office of Emergency Transportation
develops crisis management plans to mitigate disasters and
implements these plans nationally and regionally in an
emergency.
The Committee recommends $1,801,000 for emergency
transportation, which is $574,000 less than the
administration's request. The administration has requested 5
new positions for the Emergency Transportation office (+2.5
FTE, one-half year funding for each requested position). The
Committee recommendation includes funding for one FTE, or 2 new
positions, a regional emergency transportation manager and an
operations chief. The office's crisis management response
program has been increased $270,000 above the current services
level, to support emergency response training and exercises
based at headquarters and the 13 regional coordinators'
offices. The following shows the Committee's recommended
funding distribution for the Office of Emergency
Transportation.
Personnel compensation and benefits........................... $936,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 100,000
Contract programs............................................. 530,000
Research and development...................................... 235,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, Office of Emergency Transportation............... 1,801,000
Research and technology
The Committee recommends $3,740,000 for the Office of
Research and Technology, $5,676,000 less than requested by the
administration. The funds provided will help the Department
coordinate and strengthen its responsibilities under TEA21, and
will help support the R&T corporate management strategy
specified in the Department's strategic plan, allow RSPA to
support the intergovernmental transportation research
coordination responsibilities of the National Science and
Technology Council, and support a limited intermodal research
program. The following shows the Committee's recommended
funding distribution for the Office of Research and Technology:
Personnel, compensation, and benefits................... $1,100,000
Administrative expenses................................. 105,000
Research and development................................ 2,535,000
Advanced vehicle technologies program (reimbursable from
FHWA)...............................................................
University Transportation Center grants (from FHWA and
FTA)................................................ (33,250,000)
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 3,740,000
Personnel, compensation and benefits.--The Committee does
not approve the two new requested positions to support the
university marine transportation research grants program, but
approves the new FHWA reimbursable position to support human-
centered systems research in the fatigue area, and confirms
that an agency-wide reorganization moved two Transportation
Safety Institute positions formerly in the Office of Research
and Technology to the Office of Program Support. Therefore, the
FTE level within the R&T office has gone down from 11 to 9, and
PC&B funding is $107,000 less than the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level.
Research and development program initiatives.--The National
Transportation Safety Board has recommended to the Department
of Transportation that research be conducted on the role of
fatigue in the transportation industry. Consistent with that
recommendation, the Committee has provided $300,000 more than
the level requested for R&D planning and management to support
long-term, cross-cutting research on transportation operator
fatigue management. The Committee denies the Office of Research
and Technology's request to initiate two new programs for
transportation infrastructure assurance research and a
university marine transportation research grant program.
Advanced vehicle technologies program.--The administration
has proposed funding the advanced vehicle technologies program
(AVTP), a Department of Defense offshoot, from FHWA research
and technology program funds at a level of $20,000,000. The
Committee does not approve this proposed funding, on the
grounds that the program is not within the TEA21 funding
firewall, which would necessitate taking the funds from some
other guaranteed program or out of scarce general funds in
order to provide Department of Transportation support for the
program.
Program and administrative support
The program support function provides legal, financial,
management, and administrative support to the operating offices
within RSPA. These support activities include executive
direction (Office of the Administrator), program and policy
support, civil rights and special programs, legal services and
support, and management and administration.
The Committee has provided $10,209,000 for program and
administrative support, $1,758,000 less than the
adminstration's request. The following shows the Committee's
recommended funding distribution for RSPA program support:
Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$5,219,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 3,560,000
Contract programs............................................. 1,430,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, program and administrative support...............10,209,000
Contract program adjustments.--The Committee does not
approve the requested increases for employee development or for
the Garrett Morgan Technology and Transportation Futures
program. However, the Committee recommendation provides
$1,200,000 for information resource management and business
modernization, a $393,000 increase above current service
levels.
Pipeline Safety
(Pipeline Safety Fund)
(Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline
safety fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\ \2\.................................... $31,400,000 $5,479,000 $36,879,000
Budget estimate, 2001........................................... 42,874,000 4,263,000 47,137,000
Committee recommendation \3\.................................... 34,394,000 8,750,000 43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $198,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $1,400,000 from reserve fund balances.
\3\ Pipeline safety funding includes $2,500,000 from reserve fund balances.
The Research and Special Programs Administration is
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program.
Funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety is made available
from two primary sources: the pipeline safety fund, comprised
of user fees assessed on interstate pipeline operators; and the
oil spill liability trust fund, a revolving fund comprised of
an environmental tax on petroleum and oil spill damage recovery
payments. The Pipeline Safety Program promotes the safe,
reliable, and environmentally sound transportation of natural
gas and hazardous liquids by pipeline. This national program
regulates the design, construction, operation, maintenance, and
emergency response procedures pertaining to gas and hazardous
liquids pipeline systems and liquefied natural gas facilities.
Also included is research and development to support the
Pipeline Safety Program and grants-in-aid to State agencies
that conduct a qualified pipeline safety program and to others
who operate one-call programs. The Committee recommendation for
distribution of OPS funds by funding source is displayed below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline Oil spill
Budget activity safety liability Reserve Total
fund trust fund fund
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses:
Personnel compensation and benefits..................... $8,950,000 $800,000 ........... $9,750,000
Administrative expenses................................. 3,941,000 545,000 ........... 4,486,000
Contract Programs:
Information and analysis................................ 800,000 400,000 ........... 1,200,000
Risk assessment and technical studies................... 650,000 600,000 ........... 1,250,000
Compliance.............................................. 200,000 100,000 ........... 300,000
Training and information dissemination.................. 571,000 400,000 ........... 971,000
Emergency notification.................................. 100,000 ........... ........... 100,000
Damage prevention/public education campaign............. 300,000 200,000 ........... 500,000
Implementing the Oil Pollution Act...................... ........... 2,443,000 ........... 2,443,000
Research and Development................................ 2,494,000 650,000 ........... 3,144,000
Grants:
State safety grants..................................... 12,888,000 1,112,000 ........... 14,000,000
One call grants......................................... 1,000,000 ........... ........... 1,000,000
Damage prevention grants................................ ........... 1,500,000 $2,500,000 4,000,000
---------------------------------------------------
Totals................................................ 31,894,000 8,750,000 2,500,000 43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends
$2,500,000 to be derived from amounts previously collected in
pipeline user fees from interstate liquid and natural gas
transmission companies, which are maintained in a reserve fund
by RSPA. The current balance of the pipeline safety reserve
fund (as of March 5) is $15,461,000. The fund takes in user fee
collections, pays program costs, and also makes adjustments to
collections due to over or underpayments, so the balance varies
over the course of each fiscal year. RSPA maintains that a
reserve fund balance that is sufficient to sustain Office of
Pipeline Safety (OPS) operations through the second quarter,
when the agency collects user fees to replenish the fund, is
necessary to prevent disruption of OPS programs and services.
RSPA estimates that level to be approximately 34 percent of the
office's total program funding. However, the Committee is
confident that RSPA can manage its programs to allow for a
larger drawdown of the reserve fund, and directs the
Administrator to perform a detailed analysis of the pipeline
safety fund billing and collections cycle and OPS program
disbursements, in order to allow the maximum use of reserve
funds without triggering the Anti-Deficiency Act. This analysis
shall be submitted to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations before August 4, 2000 and a copy of the report
shall be forwarded to the U.S. General Accounting Office. The
Committee further directs the Comptroller General to review
RSPA's pipeline safety user fee reserve fund analysis, and to
prepare a response to the report that verifies the accuracy of
the financial analysis and makes recommendations to the
Department of Transportation and to the Appropriations
Committee on improvements to the billing, collections, and
disbursement cycle that would support a more efficient use of
these previously collected funds. This review, with
departmental comments, shall be submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations by October 31, 2000, at which time the Committee
expects DOT to expeditiously initiate a rulemaking for the
fiscal year 2002 user fee collections cycle.
Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends
$8,750,000 to be derived from the oil spill liability trust
fund for implementation of OPS responsibilities under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA], $4,487,000 more than the
administration's request.
According to RSPA, the total amount within the budget
request that could legally be associated with OPA program
requirements in $11,473,000. The Committee is dismayed that the
administration has chosen in its budget presentation to
increase user fees by $12,874,000--43 percent--over the current
year, while utilizing so little of the allowable OPA
environmental program funds.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Committee
Program 2000 enacted recommendation \3\
\1\ \2\ 2001 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses......................................... $12,821,000 $14,059,000 $14,236,000
Contract Programs.......................................... 4,221,000 4,922,000 4,321,000
Implementing the Oil Pollution Act......................... 2,443,000 2,443,000 2,443,000
Research and Development................................... 1,894,000 2,144,000 3,144,000
Grants..................................................... 15,500,000 23,569,000 19,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................... 36,879,000 47,137,000 43,144,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $198,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes $1,400,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.
\3\ Includes $2,500,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.
Operating expenses.--The Committee recommendation approves
two of the four new requested pipeline inspector positions at
one-half work year per position. This will bring the total
number of field inspectors to 54. The Committee recommendation
also provides adequate funding for the requested fiscal year
2000 and 2001 cost of living and locality pay adjustments and
merit increases. Within these funds, $800,000 shall be provided
to Washington State to match the State legislature's
supplemental appropriation for pipeline safety activities.
These Federal funds shall be used to supplement State funding
for pipeline safety activities and may not be used to supplant
State funding.
Contract programs.--The Committee recommendation holds OPS
contract programs at the current services level, due to budget
constraints and increases in other areas of the program.
However, the requested increase for the damage prevention
public education campaign is approved, from $400,000 to
$500,000. The Committee commends OPS on the Dig Safely campaign
and on the report pertaining to damage prevention best
practices, entitled ``Common Ground.'' Dig Safely is a national
campaign to educate excavators, facility operators, public
works employees and the general public about the importance of
damage prevention for underground facilities. The Committee
supports the OPS budget request to provide seed money to help
establish a non-profit organization that will foster a shared
responsibility for the protection of underground facilities,
develop and conduct public awareness and education programs,
and pursue the study and publication of damage prevention best
practices.
Research and development.--The Committee recommendation
supports a continued current services OPS research program, and
approves the proposed $250,000 increase to adapt ``smart pig''
technology to detect axially oriented mechanical damage. The
Committee has also provided an additional $1,000,000 for
airborne environmental laser mapping technology research and
engineering to support improved leak detection, analysis and
response by Federal, State and industry pipeline safety
officials.
Grants.--The OPS manages four different grants programs:
State pipeline safety grants, risk management grants, one call
grants, and damage prevention grants. The administration
requested a significant increase for the State pipeline safety
grants, from an enacted level of $13,000,000 to a requested
level of $17,519,000. RSPA and the States have agreed to
attempt to provide 50 percent of the States' pipeline safety
program funding from the Federal Government, but in the fiscal
year 1999 distribution of State grants, the average Federal
grant represented 44 percent of total State hazardous liquids
and natural gas program costs. The Committee has increased the
State pipeline safety grant program level to $14,000,000 in an
effort to close the gap between the current Federal grant share
of States' costs and the 50 percent goal. The risk management
grants program was established to fund a pipeline industry risk
management pilot program. In fiscal year 2001, OPS will be in a
monitoring stage of the risk management demonstration and has
requested only $50,000 for this effort. The Committee
recommends that the agency perform these monitoring activities
within available operating expenses. One call grants are funded
at the requested level of $1,000,000; and funding for the
broad-based damage prevention grants, which address third-party
damage to not only pipelines, but all underground utilities, is
provided at a level of $4,000,000, $1,000,000 less than the
level requested by the administration.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(Emergency Preparedness Fund)
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $200,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 200,000
Committee recommendation................................ 200,000
The hazardous materials transportation law (title 49 U.S.C.
5101 et seq.) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grants program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to States, territories, and Indian
tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a national
training curriculum for emergency responders. These activities
are financed by receipts received from the hazardous materials
shipper and carrier registration fees, which are placed in the
emergency preparedness fund. The hazardous materials
transportation law provides permanent authorization for the
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants,
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative
expenses. An appropriation of $200,000 in budget authority,
also from the emergency preparedness fund, provides for the
training curriculum for emergency responders.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
Bill language is included that limits the obligation of
emergency preparedness training grants to $13,227,000 in fiscal
year 2001. The Committee's recommendation reflects the State
grants total funding that would be represented if the
administration's fiscal year 2000 requested level was met. This
recommended level provides the following:
State grants (a 48 percent increase above fiscal year
1999 allocations)................................... $12,127,000
Public sector training grants........................... 250,000
Monitoring/technical assistance......................... 150,000
Administrative support.................................. 200,000
North American Emergency Response Guidebook............. 500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 13,227,000
GAO evaluation of Hazardous Materials Emergency
Preparedness (HMEP) grants program.--In November 1999, the
chairmen of the House and Senate Transportation Appropriations
Subcommittees requested a GAO report on the extent to which the
Department of Transportation's HMEP grants duplicate private
sector initiatives which provide training for responding to
hazardous materials emergencies. This report will be issued by
July 31, 2000. However, while the GAO study was ongoing, RSPA
promulgated a final rulemaking which substantially increases
hazardous materials registration fees and greatly expands the
number of new hazardous materials registrants who have never
before had to pay such a registration fee (from a current
26,000 registrants to an expanded program of 44,000
registrants). The Committee is dismayed that the Department
expedited its rulemaking process in order to release a final
rule increasing these fees, while the underlying issues of how
much of an increase is required and whether duplicative private
sector services exist were still being studied by the GAO. The
effective date of the final rule was May 1, 2000. The general
registration requirements provide that all registrants, both
current and new, must submit a registration statement and
accompanying fee not later than June 30. The bill includes a
provision which delays this deadline until September 30, to
allow Congress and the Department of Transportation to review
the results of the pending GAO report.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $44,840,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 48,050,000
Committee recommendation................................ \2\ 49,000,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $224,000 for TASC pursuant to section
319 of Public Law 106-69; also does not reflect reduction of $170,000
pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113. Does not include
reimbursements of $3,500,000 from the FHWA and FTA pursuant to Public
Law 106-69.
\2\ Includes transfers.
The Inspector General Act of 1978 established the Office of
Inspector General [OIG] as an independent and objective
organization, with a mission to: (1) conduct and supervise
audits and investigations relating to the programs and
operations of the Department; (2) provide leadership and
recommend policies designed to promote economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness in the administration of programs and operations;
(3) prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse; and (4) keep
the Secretary and Congress currently informed regarding
problems and deficiencies.
OIG is divided into two major functional units: the Office
of Assistant Inspector General for Auditing and the Office of
Assistant Inspector General for Investigations. The assistant
inspectors general for auditing and investigations are
supported by headquarters and regional staff.
The Committee recommends $49,000,000. The recommended level
includes funding for the inspector general to conduct their
oversight mission mandated under the Inspector General Act,
support the Department's priorities in the areas of safety,
strategic investment in transportation infrastructure, and
commonsense government, to provide an objective and credible
voice on other issues of modal and Departmentwide concern and
to respond to emerging issues of congressional concern.
The Inspector General is to be commended for the timeliness
and quality of the Office of Inspector General work product.
Unlike most of the agencies in the Department, the OIG delivers
reports and communications by the requested time, addresses the
questions or issues concerned, and generally illuminate issues
for congressional, public, or executive branch consideration.
The Committee recommendation reflects the value the Committee
places on the OIG contribution.
FAA personnel reform.--In fiscal year 1996, Congress
exempted the FAA from most provisions of Title 5 of the United
States Code and other Federal personnel rules and regulations.
This ``personnel reform'' gave the FAA the unprecedented
opportunity to develop and implement a new personnel management
system unique to the demands of the FAA. In providing this
reform, Congress mandated that the new system, at a minimum,
provide greater flexibility in the hiring, training,
compensation, and location of personnel. Now, four years later,
the FAA's success in meeting those requirements and the
effectiveness of those changes is unknown. However, the costs
of the FAA's operations continues to rise and shows no signs of
subsiding. Accordingly, the Committee requests that the
Department of Transportation Inspector General review and
report to the Committee on the agency's success in meeting the
mandated requirements of personnel reform and determine if
those efforts should be continued.
Defense Contract Audit Agency Audits.--In 1996, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) required 397 audits of
contractors doing work for the DOT. The work was performed
primarily by the Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA) under a
reimbursable agreement. This was the last year that the audits
were funded by the DOT Office of the Inspector General. Because
of the increasing demand for such audits and the resulting
burden this placed on the budget of the Inspector General's
office, the responsibility for funding and requesting such
audits was shifted to the DOT operating administrations by the
Congress. Since that time reliance on DCAA audits has dropped
as evidenced by the diminishing number of audits performed. In
1999, DCAA issued only 68 audit reports related to DOT
contractors. To properly protect the government's interest,
audits of contractors performing work for the DOT must be
performed at a level representing a reasonable subset of the
Department's contracted activity. These audits aid in
determining the reasonableness of proposed prices prior to
award and the appropriateness of charges on cost-type
contracts. The Committee expects that the operating
administrations will get the need contract audit support to
maintain the Committee's confidence in the operating
administrations' oversight of contractor activities. The
Committee directs the OIG to assist in the monitoring of this
situation during fiscal year 2001.
Audit of Flight Delays.--Last year, the Committee requested
the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General
(OIG) to review the causes of flight delays to help the
Department, the air carriers, and the Congress better
understand, address, and communicate the nature, causes, and,
ultimately, potential mitigating actions to improve utilization
of system capacity, the consumer's understanding of delays, and
to better focus the FAA's, air carriers', and the Congress'
investments in all aspects of the aviation system. The audit,
released in June 2000, sheds a great deal of light on some of
the troubling aspects of the current delay reporting systems,
the lack of commonality between reporting parameters, the
shortcomings of current information on the causes of delays.
Although the Bureau of Transportation Statistics reporting
focus (beginning and end points of a flight) and the FAA
Operations Network (OPSNET) reporting focus (aircraft delayed
for more than 15 minutes after coming under FAA's control)
differ, both reporting regimes record increasing flight delays
and increasing duration of those delays.
The OIG audit found that most delays took place on the
ground in the form of longer taxi-out and taxi-in times and
that the incidence of taxi-out time of 2 hours or more
increased substantially. The OIG found that much of that
increase in delays is masked within the increase in the air
carriers' flight schedule times--and estimated that these
masked delays added almost 130 million minutes of travel time
for passengers. In addition, the OIG found that the rate of
flight cancellations was increasing. Significantly, the OIG
found that causal data for delays varied between the BTS and
OPSNET systems, with neither system or the carriers' data
providing a comprehensive picture of the cause of delays and
cancellations. The OIG identified six key factors influencing
the number of delays and cancellations. The Committee
anticipates engaging in a dialogue with the FAA, the OIG, and
the carriers to foster increased attention to the causes of
delays and envisions a follow-on effort to address the
recommendations made in the OIG audit.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Allowed
Appropriation offsetting offsetting Total potential
collections collections funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 2000 \1\.................. $15,400,000 ................ $1,600,000 $17,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001..................... ............... ($17,954,000) ............... (17,954,000)
Committee recommendation.................. 17,000,000 (954,000) ............... 17,954,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $12,000,000 for TASC pursuant to section 319 of Public Law 106-69; also does
not reflect reduction of $58,000 pursuant to section 301 of Public Law 106-113.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Committee
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry,
the act abolished the ICC, eliminated certain functions that
had previously been implemented by the ICC, transferred core
rail and certain other functions to the Board, and transferred
motor licensing and certain other motor functions to the FHWA.
The Board is specifically responsible for the regulation of the
rail and pipeline industries and certain nonlicensing
regulation of motor carriers and water carriers. Moreover, the
Board, through its exemption authority, is able to promote
deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis. Rail
reforms made by the Staggers Rail Act of 1980 also have been
continued.
The administration's fiscal year 2001 program request is
$17,954,000 to perform key functions under the ICCTA, including
rail rate reasonableness oversight; the processing of rail
consolidations, abandonments, and other restructuring
proposals; and the resolution of motor carrier undercharge
matters. Under the administration's proposal this amount would
be derived solely from user fees collected pursuant to 31
U.S.C. 9701 from the beneficiaries of the Board's activities.
However, such a proposal would require enactment of legislation
and promulgation of new rules that are unlikely to be in place
in time to ensure undisrupted funding for the Board. A possible
legislative vehicle for such a user fee-based structure would
be the reauthorization legislation which the authorizing
committees may consider later this year or next year.
The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for activities of
the Board. This amount will be augmented by the collection of
$954,000 in user fees. The Board anticipates collecting up to
$900,000 from these fees.
The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 143
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board
collects the full $954,000 in user fees. This increase in FTE
above the current level of 140 will provide the Board with the
discretion to hire staff in specific offices to replace
tenured, retirement-eligible staff prior to their anticipated
retirement date. Between now and September 30, 2002, 34 percent
of the Board's employees will be eligible for voluntary
retirement. The Committee believes that it is important to
allow this FTE ceiling increase to give the Board flexibility
to fill positions before the anticipated retirement dates of
these more senior staff.
March 2000 hearings.--On March 7-10, 2000, the Surface
Transportation Board (STB) held a series of public hearings
about major rail consolidations and the future of the rail
network. The hearings focused on the STB's merger policy and
the downstream service effects which Class I railroad mergers
have had on rail service. The Committee directs the STB to
prepare a report which: (1) identifies the concerns that were
raised in the March 2000 hearings, (2) details the actions that
the STB will undertake to address these concerns, and (3)
indicates where the STB lacks statutory authority to
effectively address these concerns. This report shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
the Senate Commerce Committee, and the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee before April 1, 2001.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2000 \1\................................ $4,633,000
Budget estimate, 2001................................... 4,795,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,795,000
\1\ Does not include reduction of $18,000 pursuant to section 301 of
Public Law 106-113.
The Committee recommends $4,795,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
the funding level requested by the administration.
The Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board (the Access Board) is the lead Federal Agency promoting
accessibility for all handicapped persons. The Access Board was
reauthorized in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1992,
Public Law 102-569. Under this authorization, the Access
Board's functions are to ensure compliance with the
Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, and to develop guidelines
for and technical assistance to individuals and entities with
rights or duties under titles II and III of the Americans with
Disabilities Act. The Access Board establishes minimum
accessibility guidelines and requirements for public
accommodations and commercial facilities, transit facilities
and vehicles, State and local government facilities, children's
environments, and recreational facilities. The Access Board
also provides technical assistance to Government agencies,
public and private organizations, individuals, and businesses
on the removal of accessibility barriers.
The Committee's recommendation provides adequate funding to
support 32.8 FTE, 2 FTE more than the fiscal year 2000 staffing
level, consistent with the Board's budget request.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 2000.................................... $57,000,000
Budget estimate, 2001 \1\............................... 62,942,000
Committee recommendation................................ 59,000,000
\1\ Excludes the President's budget request for $10,000,000 in new user
fees.
The Independent Safety Board Act of 1974 established the
National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB] as an independent
Federal agency to promote transportation safety by conducting
independent accident investigations. In addition, the act
authorizes the Board to make safety recommendations, conduct
safety studies, and oversee safety activities of other
Government agencies involved in transportation. The Board also
reviews appeals of adverse actions by the Department of
Transportation with respect to airmen and seamen certificates
and licenses.
The Board has no regulatory authority over the
transportation industry. Thus, its effectiveness depends on its
reputation for impartial and accurate accident reports,
realistic and feasible safety recommendations, and on public
confidence in its commitment to improving transportation
safety.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $59,000,000 for the National
Transportation Safety Board. The Committee recommendation is
$2,000,000 above the amount provided in fiscal year 2000 and
$3,942,000 below the budget request. The Committee does not
approve the $2,708,000 that was requested for partial year
funding for 25 new positions. The remaining $1,234,000 is
reduced from the budget estimate without prejudice due to
budgetary constraints. The Committee is confident the Safety
Board can manage to the level of funding recommended herein by
adjusting non-pay inflation, restraining travel that is not
incidental to accident investigations, and implementing a
variety of management initiatives. Also, the Committee has
included in other appropriations bills $24,739,000 in
supplemental appropriations for fiscal year 2000 to provide
immediate financial relief for the Safety Board.
User Fees.--The Committee denies the request to collect
$10,000,000 in user fees. It is the Committee's understanding
that the Safety Board does not have the authority or the
resources to collect user fees. Furthermore, the Committee is
concerned that requiring the NTSB to levy fees on the
industries it investigates will undermine industry confidence
in the independence of the Safety Board. The Committee,
however, would entertain proposals to seek reimbursement from
foreign governments for the costs incurred during
investigations conducted at the request of that government, if
consistent with U.S. foreign policy goals.
NIOSH study.--Within available funds, NTSB should continue
its participation in the interagency initiative on aviation
safety in Alaska with the Federal Aviation Administration, the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH),
and other Federal, State, and private parties at existing
levels.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies
as proposed in the budget, with some changes, deletions, and
additions. These are noted below:
Sec. 305. Modifies a requested provision to prohibit the
use of funds for the salaries and expenses of more than 104
political and Presidential appointees to the Department of
Transportation.
Sec. 309. Retains a provision prohibiting the release of
personal information, including a social security number,
medical, or disability information, and photographs from a
driver's license or motor vehicle record without express
consent. The administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 310. This provision regarding the allocation of
Federal-aid Highway Program funds is continued with
modifications to reflect the passage of the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21].
Sec. 315. Retains provision prohibiting the use of funds to
award multiyear contracts for production end items that include
certain specified provisions. The administration proposed
deleting this provision.
Sec. 318. Retains provision prohibiting funds to compensate
in excess of 320 technical staff years under the federally
funded research and development center contract between the
Federal Aviation Administration and the Center for Advanced
Aviation Systems Development. The administration proposed
deleting this provision.
Sec. 319. Includes provision which the administration had
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the
Transportation Administrative Service Center and provides
additional funds for programs authorized under section 1069(y)
of Public Law 102-240.
Sec. 321. Includes with modification a provision from
fiscal year 2000 Act which expands the eligible uses of funds
made available for Alaska and Hawaii ferry boats or ferry
terminals. The administration proposed deleting this provision.
Sec. 322. Includes with modification provision allowing the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics to credit the Federal-aid
highway account with proceeds from the sale of data products.
The administration had requested that this provision be made
permanent law.
Sec. 323. Includes provision that prohibits the use of
funds in this act for activities designed to influence Congress
on legislation or appropriations except through proper,
official channels. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 324. Includes a provision requiring compliance with
the Buy American Act. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 325. Includes provision which the administration had
requested be deleted that limits the amount available for
advisory committees to $1,500,000.
Sec. 326. Modifies a requested provision regarding rebates,
refunds, incentive payments, and minor fees received by the
Department from travel management centers, charge card
programs, and other sources, making such funds available until
December 31, 2001.
Sec. 328. Modifies provision requested by the
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform
Council.
Sec. 329. Includes provision which the administration had
requested be deleted, which was carried in previous
appropriations acts, providing a limitation on transfers of
funds among the offices of the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation.
Sec. 331. Retains a provision to increase the Federal share
for Americans with Disabilities Act-related equipment for over-
the-road buses. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 332. Includes a provision which allows the Department
of Transportation to enter into a fractional aircraft ownership
demonstration.
Sec. 333. Includes a provision from the fiscal year 2000
appropriations act which prohibits the use of funds in this Act
unless the Secretary of Transportation notifies the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than 3 full
business days before any discretionary grant agreement totaling
$1,000,000 or more is announced by the Department or its modal
administrations. The administration proposed deleting this
provision.
Sec. 334. Includes a provision which amends section 3030(b)
of Public Law 105-178 to authorize the Wilmington Downtown
transit corridor and Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit projects.
Sec. 335. Includes a provision which prohibits the use of
funds in this act to finalize the rulemaking proposed in Docket
No. FMCSA-97-2350-953.
Sec. 336. Includes a provision which expands the exemption
from Federal axle weight restrictions presently applicable only
to public transit buses to all over-the-road buses and directs
that a study and report concerning applicability of maximum
axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses and public
transit vehicles be submitted to the Congress.
Sec. 337. Includes a provision which prohibits the use of
funds in this act from being used to implement the Kyoto
Protocol prior to its ratification.
Sec. 338. Includes a provision which prohibits the
submission of a budget request that assumes revenues or
reflects a reduction from the previous year due to user fees
proposals that have not been enacted into law prior to the
submission of the President's Budget unless additional spending
reductions are identified in the event the user fees proposals
are not enacted prior to the date of a committee of conference
for fiscal year 2001 appropriations act.
Sec. 340. Prohibits funds to be used to adopt guidelines or
regulations requiring airport sponsors to provide Federal
Aviation Administration ``without cost'' buildings,
maintenance, or space for FAA services. However, the
prohibition does not apply to negotiations concerning ``below-
market'' rates for those items.
Sec. 341. Includes a provision which requires the Coast
Guard to submit a quarterly report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on major Coast Guard acquisition
projects.
Sec. 342. Includes a provision which requires States to
adopt a .08 blood alcohol content law, and which outlines
highway funding sanctions beginning in fiscal year 2004 for
States that are not in compliance.
Sec. 343. Includes a provision that allows FAA to waive
restrictive terms in a deed of conveyance so that an Oklahoma
university may make use of revenues derived from certain
airport land only for weather-related and educations purposes
that include benefits for aviation.
Sec. 344. Includes a provision which clarifies the
alignment of the Ports-to-Plains corridor facility in the
States of Texas and Oklahoma.
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7, RULE XVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 7 of rule XVI requires that Committee reports on
general appropriations bills identify each Committee amendment
to the House bill ``which proposes an item of appropriation
which is not made to carry out the provisions of an existing
law, a treaty stipulation, or an act or resolution previously
passed by the Senate during that session.''
United States Coast Guard:
Operating expenses.................................. $3,039,460,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......... 407,748,000
Environmental compliance and restoration............ 16,700,000
Retired pay......................................... 778,000,000
Reserve training.................................... 80,371,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation......... 21,320,000
Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety........ 99,390,000
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation............. 13,004,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Research
and Special Programs................................ 75,214,000
Surface Transportation Board............................ 17,000,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 59,000,000
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 7(C), RULE XXVI, OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Pursuant to paragraph 7(c) of rule XXVI, the Committee
ordered, an original fiscal year 2001 Transportation
Appropriations bill, subject to amendment and subject to the
section 302 budget allocation, by a recorded vote of 28-0, a
quorum being present. The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens
Mr. Cochran
Mr. Specter
Mr. Domenici
Mr. Bond
Mr. Gorton
Mr. McConnell
Mr. Burns
Mr. Shelby
Mr. Gregg
Mr. Bennett
Mr. Campbell
Mr. Craig
Mrs. Hutchison
Mr. Kyl
Mr. Byrd
Mr. Inouye
Mr. Hollings
Mr. Leahy
Mr. Lautenberg
Mr. Harkin
Ms. Mikulski
Mr. Reid
Mr. Kohl
Mrs. Murray
Mr. Dorgan
Mrs. Feinstein
Mr. Durbin
COMPLIANCE WITH PARAGRAPH 12, RULE XXVI OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE
SENATE
Paragraph 12 of rule XXVI requires that Committee reports
on a bill or joint resolution repealing or amending any statute
or part of any statute include ``(a) the text of the statute or
part thereof which is proposed to be repealed; and (b) a
comparative print of that part of the bill or joint resolution
making the amendment and of the statute or part thereof
proposed to be amended, showing by stricken-through type and
italics, parallel columns, or other appropriate typographical
devices the omissions and insertions which would be made by the
bill or joint resolution if enacted in the form recommended by
the committee.''
In compliance with this rule, the following changes in
existing law proposed to be made by the bill are shown as
follows: existing law to be omitted is enclosed in black
brackets; new matter is printed in italic; and existing law in
which no change is proposed is shown in roman.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1023. GROSS VEHICLE WEIGHT RESTRICTION.
* * * * * * *
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(h) Over-the-Road Buses and Public Transit Vehicles.--
(1) Temporary exemption.--The second sentence of
section 127 of title 23, United States Code, relating
to axle weight limitations for vehicles using the
Dwight D. Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense
Highways, shall not apply, for the period beginning on
October 6, 1992, and ending on October 1, 2003, [to any
vehicle which] to--
(A) any over-the-road bus; or
(B) any vehicle that
is regularly and exclusively used as an intrastate
public agency transit passenger bus.
[(2) Study.--The Secretary shall conduct a study on
the maximum axle weight limitations on the Dwight D.
Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways
established under section 127 of title 23, United
States Code, or under State laws, as they apply to
public transit vehicles. The study shall determine
whether or not public transit vehicles should be
exempted from the requirements of section 127 or State
laws or if such laws should be modified with regard to
public transit vehicles. In making such determination,
the Secretary shall consider current transit vehicle
design standards, the implications of the Americans
with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act requirements on
such design standards, and the potential impact of
revised design standards on transit ridership capacity,
operating and replacement costs, air quality concerns,
and highway wear and tear.
[(3) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall
submit to the Congress a report on the result of the
study conducted under paragraph (2), together with
recommendations.]
(2) Study and report concerning applicability of
maximum axle weight limitations to over-the-road buses
and public transit vehicles.--
(A) Study and report.--Not later than July
31, 2002, the Secretary shall conduct a study
of, and submit to Congress a report on, the
maximum axle weight limitations applicable to
vehicles using the Dwight D. Eisenhower
National System of Interstate and Defense
Highways established under section 127 of title
23, United States Code, or under State law, as
the limitations apply to over-the-road buses
and public transit vehicles.
(B) Determination of applicability of
vehicle weight limitations.--
(i) In general.--The report shall
include--
(I) a determination
concerning how the requirements
of section 127 of that title
should be applied to over-the-
road buses and public transit
vehicles; and
(II) short-term and long-
term recommendations concerning
the applicability of those
requirements.
(ii) Considerations.--In making the
determination described in clause
(i)(I), the Secretary shall consider--
(I) vehicle design
standards;
(II) statutory and
regulatory requirements,
including--
(aa) the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et
seq.);
(bb) the Americans
with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (42 U.S.C.
12101 et seq.); and
(cc) motor vehicle
safety standards
prescribed under
chapter 301 of title
49, United States Code;
and
(III)(aa) the availability
of lightweight materials
suitable for use in the
manufacture of over-the-road
buses;
(bb) the cost of those
lightweight materials relative
to the cost of heavier
materials in use as of the date
of the determination; and
(cc) any safety or design
considerations relating to the
use of those materials.
(C) Analysis of means of encouraging
development and manufacture of lightweight
buses.--The report shall include an analysis
of, and recommendations concerning, means to be
considered to encourage the development and
manufacture of lightweight buses, including an
analysis of--
(i) potential procurement
incentives for public transit
authorities to encourage the purchase
of lightweight public transit vehicles
using grants from the Federal Transit
Administration; and
(ii) potential tax incentives for
manufacturers and private operators to
encourage the purchase of lightweight
over-the-road buses.
(D) Analysis of consideration in
rulemakings of additional vehicle weight.--The
report shall include an analysis of, and
recommendations concerning, whether Congress
should require that each rulemaking by an
agency of the Federal Government that affects
the design or manufacture of motor vehicles
consider--
(i) the weight that would be added
to the vehicle by implementation of the
proposed rule;
(ii) the effect that the added
weight would have on pavement wear; and
(iii) the resulting cost to the
Federal Government and State and local
governments.
(E) Cost-benefit analysis.--The report
shall include an analysis relating to the axle
weight of over-the-road buses that compares--
(i) the costs of the pavement wear
caused by over-the-road buses; with
(ii) the benefits of the over-the-
road bus industry to the environment,
the economy, and the transportation
system of the United States.
(3) Definitions.--In this subsection:
(A) Over-the-road bus.--The term ``over-
the-road bus'' has the meaning given the term
in section 301 of the Americans with
Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 12181).
(B) Public transit vehicle.--The term
``public transit vehicle'' means a vehicle
described in paragraph (1)(B).
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from the Mexican
Border via I-27 to Denver, Colorado.]
(38) The Ports-to-Plains Corridor from Laredo,
Texas to Denver, Colorado as follows:
(A) In the State of Texas the Ports-to-
Plains Corridor shall generally follow--
(i) I-35 from Laredo to United
States Route 83 at Exit 18;
(ii) United States Route 83 from
Exit 18 to Carrizo Springs;
(iii) United States Route 277 from
Carrizo Springs to San Angelo;
(iv) United States Route 87 from
San Angelo to Sterling City;
(v) From Sterling City to Lamesa,
the Corridor shall follow United States
Route 87 and, the corridor shall also
follow Texas Route 158 from Sterling
City to I-20, then via I-20 West to
Texas Route 349 and, Texas Route 349
from Midland to Lamesa;
(vi) United States Route 87 from
Lamesa to Lubbock;
(vii) I-27 from Lubbock to
Amarillo; and
(viii) United States Route 287 from
Amarillo to the Oklahoma border.
(B) In the State of Oklahoma, the Ports-to-
Plains Corridor shall generally follow United
States Route 287 from the Texas border to the
Colorado border. The Corridor shall then
proceed into Colorado.
* * * * * * *
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178
AN ACT To authorize funds for Federal-aid highways, highway
safety programs, and transit programs, and for other purposes.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3030. PROJECTS FOR NEW FIXED GUIDEWAY SYSTEMS AND EXTENSIONS TO
EXISTING SYSTEMS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(71) Dane County Corridor--East-West Madison
Metropolitan Area.
(72) Wilmington Downtown transit corridor.
(73) Honolulu Bus Rapid Transit project.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 3038. RURAL TRANSPORTATION ACCESSIBILITY INCENTIVE PROGRAM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(e) Federal Share of Costs.--The Federal share of costs
under this section shall be provided from funds made available
to carry out this section. The Federal share of the costs for a
project shall not exceed [50] 90 percent of the project cost.
* * * * * * *
BUDGETARY IMPACT OF BILL
PREPARED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE PURSUANT TO SEC. 308(a), PUBLIC LAW 93-344, AS
AMENDED
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
---------------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Amount of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations
to its subcommittees of amounts in the First Concurrent
Resolution 2001: Subcommittee on Transportation and Related
Agencies:
General purpose discretionary........................... 641 641 573 \1\ 573
General purpose non-defense discretion- ary............ 12,640 12,640 15,400 15,090
Highways................................................ ........... ........... 26,920 26,920
Mass transit............................................ ........... ........... 3,852 3,852
Mandatory............................................... 739 739 737 737
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 19,224
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 17,920
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,723
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,639
2004 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,852
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2001 NA 740 NA 8,437
in bill....................................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
NA: Not applicable.
COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF NEW BUDGET (OBLIGATIONAL) AUTHORITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2000 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2001
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 2000 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 2000
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses:
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... 1,867 2,031 1,800 -67 -231
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. 600 587 500 -100 -87
Office of the General Counsel............................. 9,000 11,172 9,000 ................ -2,172
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.............. 2,824 3,132 2,500 -324 -632
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 7,650 7,702 7,000 -650 -702
International Affairs....................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 6,870 7,241 6,500 -370 -741
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 2,039 2,176 2,000 -39 -176
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... 17,767 20,139 17,800 +33 -2,339
Office of Public Affairs.................................. 1,800 1,714 1,500 -300 -214
Executive Secretariat..................................... 1,102 1,181 1,181 +79 ................
Board of Contract Appeals................................. 520 496 496 -24 ................
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... 1,222 1,192 1,192 -30 ................
Office of Intelligence and Security....................... 1,454 3,494 ................ -1,454 -3,494
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... 5,075 6,929 6,000 +925 -929
Office of Intermodalism................................... 1,062 ................ ................ -1,062 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 60,852 69,186 57,469 -3,383 -11,717
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 7,200 8,726 8,000 +800 -726
Transportation planning, research, and development............ 3,300 5,258 5,300 +2,000 +42
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -10 ................ ................ +10 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 3,290 5,258 5,300 +2,010 +42
Transportation Administrative Service Center.................. (148,673) (163,811) (173,278) (+24,605) (+9,467)
Minority business resource center program..................... 1,900 1,900 1,900 ................ ................
(Limitation on guaranteed loans).......................... (13,775) (13,775) (13,775) ................ ................
Minority business outreach.................................... 2,900 3,000 3,000 +100 ................
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -18 ................ ................ +18 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 2,882 3,000 3,000 +118 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 76,152 88,070 75,669 -483 -12,401
ATB rescissions..................................... -28 ................ ................ +28 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 76,124 88,070 75,669 -455 -12,401
Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................ 2,481,000 2,858,000 2,398,460 -82,540 -459,540
Defense function.......................................... 300,000 341,000 641,000 +341,000 +300,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 2,781,000 3,199,000 3,039,460 +258,460 -159,540
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
Vessels................................................... 134,560 257,180 145,937 +11,377 -111,243
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............ -1,478 ................ ................ +1,478 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal........................................ 133,082 257,180 145,937 +12,855 -111,243
Aircraft.................................................. 44,210 43,650 41,650 -2,560 -2,000
Other equipment........................................... 51,626 60,313 54,304 +2,678 -6,009
Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........ 63,800 61,606 68,406 +4,606 +6,800
Personnel and related support............................. 50,930 55,151 55,151 +4,221 ................
Integrated Deepwater Systems.............................. 44,200 42,300 42,300 -1,900 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, A C and I (excl rescissions).................. 389,326 520,200 407,748 +18,422 -112,452
Environmental compliance and restoration...................... 17,000 16,700 16,700 -300 ................
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -65 ................ ................ +65 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 16,935 16,700 16,700 -235 ................
Alteration of bridges (highway trust fund).................... 15,000 ................ 15,500 +500 +15,500
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -57 ................ ................ +57 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 14,943 ................ 15,500 +557 +15,500
Retired pay................................................... 730,327 778,000 778,000 +47,673 ................
Reserve training.............................................. 72,000 73,371 80,371 +8,371 +7,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation................... 19,000 21,320 21,320 +2,320 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Coast Guard...................................... 4,023,653 4,608,591 4,359,099 +335,446 -249,492
ATB rescissions..................................... -1,600 ................ ................ +1,600 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 4,022,053 4,608,591 4,359,099 +337,046 -249,492
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations (Airport and Airway Trust Fund).................... 5,900,000 6,592,235 6,350,250 +450,250 -241,985
Air traffic services...................................... (4,648,907) (5,210,434) (5,039,391) (+390,484) (-171,043)
Aviation regulation and certification..................... (640,162) (691,979) (691,979) (+51,817) ................
Civil aviation security................................... (131,474) (144,328) (138,462) (+6,988) (-5,866)
Research and acquisitions................................. (174,083) (196,497) (182,401) (+8,318) (-14,096)
Commercial space transportation........................... (6,560) (12,607) (10,000) (+3,440) (-2,607)
Regional coordination..................................... (95,321) ................ (99,347) (+4,026) (+99,347)
Human resources........................................... (52,809) ................ (49,906) (-2,903) (+49,906)
Financial services........................................ (38,981) ................ (43,000) (+4,019) (+43,000)
Staff offices............................................. (73,093) (336,390) (95,764) (+22,671) (-240,626)
Essential air service..................................... (32,000) ................ ................ (-32,000) ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... 2,075,000 2,495,000 2,656,765 +581,765 +161,765
Rescission................................................ (-30,000) ................ ................ (+30,000) ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway 156,495 184,366 183,343 +26,848 -1,023
Trust Fund)..................................................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (1,750,000) (1,960,000) (3,200,000) (+1,450,000) (+1,240,000)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (1,950,000) (1,950,000) (3,200,000) (+1,250,000) (+1,250,000)
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............ (-54,362) ................ ................ (+54,362) ................
Rescission of contract authority.......................... ................ ................ -579,000 -579,000 -579,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ (1,895,638) (1,950,000) (2,621,000) (+725,362) (+671,000)
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 8,131,495 9,271,601 9,190,358 +1,058,863 -81,243
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (1,950,000) (1,950,000) (3,200,000) (+1,250,000) (+1,250,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (10,081,495) (11,221,601) (12,390,358) (+2,308,863) (+1,168,757)
ATB rescissions..................................... (-54,362) ................ ................ (+54,362) ................
Rescission.......................................... -30,000 ................ -579,000 -549,000 -579,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (9,997,133) (11,221,601) (11,811,358) (+1,814,225) (+589,757)
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses \1\..................... (376,072) (315,834) (386,658) (+10,586) (+70,824)
Limitation on transportation research......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (26,245,000) (26,603,806) (26,603,806) (+358,806) ................
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission............ (-105,260) ................ ................ (+105,260) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal........................................ (26,139,740) (26,603,806) (26,603,806) (+464,066) ................
(Revenue aligned budget authority) (RABA)................. (1,456,350) (3,058,000) (3,058,000) (+1,601,650) ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (-598,000) ................ ................ (+598,000)
(Adjustment).............................................. ................ (255,000) ................ ................ (-255,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations..................... (27,701,350) (29,318,806) (29,661,806) (+1,960,456) (+343,000)
(Exempt obligations)...................................... (1,206,702) (1,039,148) (1,039,148) (-167,554) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (26,000,000) (28,000,000) (28,000,000) (+2,000,000) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (27,701,350) (29,318,806) (29,661,806) (+1,960,456) (+343,000)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,206,702) (1,039,148) (1,039,148) (-167,554) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (28,908,052) (30,357,954) (30,700,954) (+1,792,902) (+343,000)
ATB rescissions..................................... (-105,260) ................ ................ (+105,260) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... (28,802,792) (30,357,954) (30,700,954) (+1,898,162) (+343,000)
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Motor carrier safety (limitation on administrative expenses) ................ (92,194) (92,194) (+92,194) ................
\2\..........................................................
National motor carrier safety program (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (105,000) (187,000) (177,000) (+72,000) (-10,000)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (105,000) (177,000) (177,000) (+72,000) ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (10,000) ................ ................ (-10,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations..................... (105,000) (187,000) (177,000) (+72,000) (-10,000)
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Admin............... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (105,000) (279,194) (269,194) (+164,194) (-10,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (105,000) (279,194) (269,194) (+164,194) (-10,000)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research (highway trust fund).................. 87,400 142,475 107,876 +20,476 -34,599
Operations and research (highway trust fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (70,000) ................ ................ (-70,000)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (72,000) (142,000) (72,000) ................ (-70,000)
National Driver Register (highway trust fund)................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research....................... (161,400) (286,475) (181,876) (+20,476) (-104,599)
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (206,800) (213,000) (213,000) (+6,200) ................
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402).................... (152,800) (155,000) (155,000) (+2,200) ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)....... (10,000) (13,000) (13,000) (+3,000) ................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. (36,000) (36,000) (36,000) ................ ................
410).................................................
State Highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)........... (8,000) (9,000) (9,000) (+1,000) ................
=========================================================================================
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........ 89,400 144,475 109,876 +20,476 -34,599
(Limitations on obligations).................... (278,800) (355,000) (285,000) (+6,200) (-70,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources..................... (368,200) (499,475) (394,876) (+26,676) (-104,599)
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations......................................... 94,288 103,211 99,390 +5,102 -3,821
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -77,300 ................ ................ +77,300
Railroad research and development............................. 22,464 26,800 24,725 +2,261 -2,075
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -25,500 ................ ................ +25,500
Rhode Island Rail Development................................. 10,000 17,000 ................ -10,000 -17,000
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -38 ................ ................ +38 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 9,962 17,000 ................ -9,962 -17,000
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment project (advance (60,000) ................ ................ (-60,000) ................
appropriations, fiscal years 2001, 2002, 2003)...............
Next generation high-speed rail............................... 27,200 22,000 24,900 -2,300 +2,900
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -103 ................ ................ +103 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 27,097 22,000 24,900 -2,197 +2,900
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................ 10,000 ................ 20,000 +10,000 +20,000
West Virginia Rail development................................ ................ ................ 15,000 +15,000 +15,000
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -38 ................ ................ +38 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ 9,962 ................ 35,000 +25,038 +35,000
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 571,000 521,476 521,000 -50,000 -476
Expanded intercity rail passenger service fund (RABA transfer
under Title III):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (468,000) ................ ................ (-468,000)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... ................ (468,000) ................ ................ (-468,000)
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 734,952 587,687 705,015 -29,937 +117,328
(Limitations on obligations)........................ ................ (468,000) ................ ................ (-468,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources......................... (734,952) (1,055,687) (705,015) (-29,937) (-350,672)
ATB rescissions..................................... -179 ................ ................ +179 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total......................................... 734,773 1,055,687 705,015 -29,758 -350,672
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses....................................... 12,000 12,800 12,800 +800 ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (48,000) (51,200) (51,200) (+3,200) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative expenses....................... (60,000) (64,000) (64,000) (+4,000) ................
Formula grants................................................ 619,600 669,000 669,000 +49,400 ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund): (Limitation on on (2,478,400) (2,676,000) (2,676,000) (+197,600) ................
obligations).................................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula grants................................ (3,098,000) (3,345,000) (3,345,000) (+247,000) ................
University transportation research............................ 1,200 1,200 1,200 ................ ................
University transportation research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (4,800) (4,800) (4,800) ................ ................
Transit Acct) (limitation on obligations)....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, University transportation research............ (6,000) (6,000) (6,000) ................ ................
Transit planning and research (general fund).................. 21,000 22,200 22,200 +1,200 ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass (86,000) (87,800) (87,800) (+1,800) ................
Transit Account): (Limitation on obligations)................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research................. (107,000) (110,000) (110,000) (+3,000) ................
Rural transportation assistance........................... (5,250) (5,250) (5,250) ................ ................
National Transit Institute................................ (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) ................ ................
Transit cooperative research.............................. (8,250) (8,250) (8,250) ................ ................
Metropolitan planning..................................... (49,632) (52,114) (52,114) (+2,482) ................
State planning and research............................... (10,368) (10,886) (10,886) (+518) ................
National planning and research............................ (29,500) (29,500) (29,500) ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (107,000) (110,000) (110,000) (+3,000) ................
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ (-243) ................ ................ (+243) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ (106,757) (110,000) (110,000) (+3,243) ................
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation (4,929,270) (5,016,600) (5,016,600) (+87,330) ................
of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants (general fund)...................... 490,200 529,200 529,200 +39,000 ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (1,966,800) (2,116,800) (2,116,800) (+150,000) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations) \1\.....................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Capital investment grants..................... (2,457,000) (2,646,000) (2,646,000) (+189,000) ................
Fixed guideway modernization.............................. (980,400) (1,058,400) (1,058,400) (+78,000) ................
Buses and bus-related facilities \3\...................... (496,200) (529,200) (529,200) (+33,000) ................
New starts................................................ (980,400) (1,058,400) (1,058,400) (+78,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,457,000) (2,646,000) (2,646,000) (+189,000) ................
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ (-17,404) ................ ................ (+17,404) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net subtotal............................................ (2,439,596) (2,646,000) (2,646,000) (+206,404) ................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (1,500,000) (350,000) (350,000) (-1,150,000) ................
Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............
Job access and reverse commute grants (general fund).......... 15,000 20,000 20,000 +5,000 ................
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on (60,000) (80,000) (80,000) (+20,000) ................
obligations).............................................
(RABA transfer under Title III)....................... ................ (50,000) ................ ................ (-50,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants..... (75,000) (150,000) (100,000) (+25,000) (-50,000)
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration............... 1,159,000 1,254,400 1,254,400 +95,400 ................
(Limitations on obligations).................... (4,644,000) (5,066,600) (5,016,600) (+372,600) (-50,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources..................... (5,803,000) (6,321,000) (6,271,000) (+468,000) (-50,000)
ATB rescissions................................. (-17,647) ................ ................ (+17,647) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total..................................... (5,785,353) (6,321,000) (6,271,000) (+485,647) (-50,000)
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 12,042 ................ 12,400 +358 +12,400
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -46 ................ ................ +46 ................
Mandatory proposal........................................ ................ (13,004) ................ ................ (-13,004)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 11,996 13,004 12,400 +404 -604
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs:
Hazardous materials safety................................ 17,710 18,773 18,620 +910 -153
Emergency transportation.................................. 1,378 2,375 1,801 +423 -574
Research and technology................................... 3,397 9,416 3,740 +343 -5,676
Program and administrative support........................ 9,576 11,967 10,209 +633 -1,758
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs................. 32,061 42,531 34,370 +2,309 -8,161
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -4,722 ................ ................ +4,722
Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 30,000 42,874 31,894 +1,894 -10,980
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 5,479 4,263 8,750 +3,271 +4,487
Pipeline safety reserve................................... (1,400) ................ (2,500) (+1,100) (+2,500)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety program (incl reserve)........ (36,879) (47,137) (43,144) (+6,265) (-3,993)
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund............................... 200 200 200 ................ ................
Limitation on obligations (emergency preparedness fund)... ................ ................ (13,227) (+13,227) (+13,227)
=========================================================================================
Total, Research and Special Programs Administration..... 67,740 85,146 75,214 +7,474 -9,932
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses......................................... 44,840 48,050 10,500 -34,340 -37,550
(By transfer)............................................. ................ ................ (38,500) (+38,500) (+38,500)
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -170 ................ ................ +170 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 44,670 48,050 10,500 -34,170 -37,550
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, program funding.................................. 44,670 48,050 49,000 +4,330 +950
=========================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 17,000 17,954 17,000 ................ -954
Offsetting collections.................................... -1,600 -17,954 -954 +646 +17,000
Across the board (0.38 percent) rescission................ -58 ................ ................ +58 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total............................................... 15,342 ................ 16,046 +704 +16,046
General Provisions
Transportation Administrative Service Center reduction (Sec. -15,000 ................ 1,533 +16,533 +1,533
319).........................................................
Amtrak Reform Council (Sec. 326).............................. 750 980 495 -255 -485
=========================================================================================
Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........ 14,368,343 16,089,000 15,231,605 +863,262 -857,395
Current year, fiscal year 2001...................... (14,308,343) (16,089,000) (15,231,605) (+923,262) (-857,395)
Appropriations.................................. (14,340,424) (16,089,000) (15,810,605) (+1,470,181) (-278,395)
Rescissions..................................... (-32,081) ................ (-579,000) (-546,919) (-579,000)
Advance appropriations.............................. (60,000) ................ ................ (-60,000) ................
(By transfer)....................................... ................ ................ (38,500) (+38,500) (+38,500)
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (34,679,150) (37,437,600) (38,432,600) (+3,753,450) (+995,000)
(Rescissions of limitations on obligations)......... (-177,269) ................ ................ (+177,269) ................
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,206,702) (1,039,148) (1,039,148) (-167,554) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (50,076,926) (54,565,748) (54,703,353) (+4,626,427) (+137,605)
=========================================================================================
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 4,633 4,795 4,795 +162 ................
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 57,000 62,942 59,000 +2,000 -3,942
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -10,000 ................ ................ +10,000
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies....................... 61,633 57,737 63,795 +2,162 +6,058
=========================================================================================
Grand total............................................. 14,429,976 16,146,737 15,295,400 +865,424 -851,337
Current year, fiscal year 2001...................... (14,369,976) (16,146,737) (15,295,400) (+925,424) (-851,337)
Appropriations.................................. (14,402,057) (16,146,737) (15,874,400) (+1,472,343) (-272,337)
Rescissions..................................... (-32,081) ................ (-579,000) (-546,919) (-579,000)
Advance appropriations.............................. (60,000) ................ ................ (-60,000) ................
(By transfer)....................................... ................ ................ (38,500) (+38,500) (+38,500)
(Limitation on obligations)......................... (34,679,150) (37,437,600) (38,432,600) (+3,753,450) (+995,000)
(Rescissions of limitation on obligations).......... (-177,269) ................ ................ (+177,269) ................
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,206,702) (1,039,148) (1,039,148) (-167,554) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (50,138,559) (54,623,485) (54,767,148) (+4,628,589) (+143,663)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 2000 enacted includes $76,058 for motor carrier safety, limitation on administrative expenses.
\2\ Provided under FHWA limitation on administrative expenses in fiscal year 2000.
\3\ $6,000,000 provided in Title II--Other Appropriations Matters in Public Law 106-113.
NOTE: Fiscal year 2000 rescissions included in Net total lines.