[Senate Report 106-55]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 126
106th Congress Report
SENATE
1st Session 106-55
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2000
_______
May 27, 1999.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Shelby, from the Committee on Appropriations,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany S. 1143]
The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1143)
making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and
related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000,
and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and
recommends that the bill do pass.
Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2000
Amount of bill as reported to Senate.................... $14,224,022,000
Amount of budget estimates, 2000........................ 14,745,147,000
Fiscal year 1999 enacted................................ 14,353,303,000
C O N T E N T S
----------
SUMMARY OF MAJOR RECOMMENDATIONS
Page
Total obligational authority..................................... 4
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Immediate Office of the Secretary................................ 10
Office of the General Counsel.................................... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy..................... 11
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs........................................................ 11
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......................................... 13
Executive Secretariat............................................ 14
Contract Appeals Board........................................... 14
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization........... 14
Office of Intelligence and Security.............................. 14
Office of the Chief Information Officer.......................... 14
Office of Intermodalism.......................................... 15
Office of Civil Rights........................................... 15
Transportation planning, research, and development............... 15
Transportation Administrative Service Center..................... 16
Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund......... 17
Minority Business Resource Center Program........................ 22
Minority business outreach....................................... 22
U.S. Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................... 29
Acquisition, construction, and improvements...................... 33
Environmental compliance and restoration......................... 37
Alteration of bridges............................................ 38
Retired pay...................................................... 38
Reserve training................................................. 39
Research, development, test, and evaluation...................... 39
Boat safety...................................................... 41
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations....................................................... 44
Facilities and equipment......................................... 52
Research, engineering, and development........................... 75
Grants-in-aid for airports....................................... 80
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administration expenses............................ 86
Federal-aid highways............................................. 87
Magnetic levitation transportation............................... 100
Appalachian development highway system........................... 101
Bureau of Transportation Statistics
National motor carrier safety program............................ 103
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research.......................................... 107
Highway traffic safety grants.................................... 111
Federal Railroad Administration
Safety and operations............................................ 113
Office of the Administrator...................................... 115
Railroad safety.................................................. 115
Railroad research and development................................ 115
Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Program...................... 117
Next generation high-speed rail.................................. 117
Alaska railroad rehabilitation................................... 119
Rhode Island rail development.................................... 119
Capital Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)....................................................... 120
Amtrak Reform Council............................................ 123
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses.......................................... 125
Formula grants................................................... 126
University transportation research............................... 131
Transit planning and research.................................... 132
Trust fund share of expenses..................................... 135
Capital investment grants........................................ 135
Job access and reverse commute grants............................ 150
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]........... 150
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance....................................... 151
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs.................................... 153
Pipeline safety.................................................. 156
Emergency preparedness grants.................................... 158
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses............................................ 160
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses............................................ 161
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board:
Salaries and expenses.......................................... 163
National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses...... 163
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS
General provisions............................................... 165
Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 167
Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules
of the
Senate......................................................... 167
Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of
the Senate..................................................... 168
Budgetary impact statement....................................... 171
Total Obligational Authority Provided--General Funds and Trust Funds
In addition to the appropriation of $13,985,072,000 in new
budget authority for fiscal year 2000, 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 2000, estimated obligation
limitations total $33,733,150,000.
program, project, and activity
During fiscal year 2000, 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 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 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. In the performance plan for
fiscal year 2000 that was delivered to Congress on February 1,
1999, performance measures have been identified for all of the
Department's major programs. A total of 61 performance goals
have been established. These goals are stated in terms of
effects on the American public, and many reflect ambitious
target levels of performance.
The Department provided the performance plan coincident
with the budget justifications. This year's performance plan
links the agencies' strategies and initiatives to individual
goals and identifies interagency coordination of goals, as the
Committee recommended last year. The performance plan also
provides the context for each goal in a short paragraph titled
``Why we act,'' along with several years of historical data in
most cases. The plan highlights special challenges that the
agency faces in achieving each of its goals, and includes an
appendix with substantially more information on the data and
limitations for each measure. The Committee is pleased to see a
continuation and expansion of the separate discussion of
management challenges the Department faces. While not required
by the act, this is a useful and appropriate addition to the
plan that underscores the importance of management in achieving
strategic goals. This section tracks with recent reports from
the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office.
The Department's activities under the Government
Performance and Results Act are clearly a work in progress. The
Department has made significant strides in assessing GPRA's
potential for strategically aligning the varied and numerous
programs under the Department's jurisdiction. However, although
the plan identifies strategies to help achieve the Department's
long-term goals, the plan does not adequately describe how
those strategies will lead to realization of the long-term
goals or the relative contributions of each strategy.
Generally, this is a shortcoming reasonably expected to be
addressed as the GPRA process evolves and becomes more
integrated in the policy, budget, and regulatory formulation
and identification processes. However, the Committee continues
to encourage the Department to focus in particular on
improvements to management to achieve outcomes as this has been
a historically weak area for the Department. For example, the
Committee encourages greater refinement of goals with specific
and quantifiable measures to provide greater definition and
focus for budgetary, regulatory, and administrative actions.
For clarity, the performance plan should resist identifying
activities of agencies or offices under strategic goals unless
there is a discussion of such an organization's primary
contributions toward those goals in the body of the plan.
Elimination of the mention of these organizations as opposed to
activities will provide greater focus on the priorities in the
strategic goal (if mention of such organization is gratuitous),
or will prompt reevaluation of the organizations' roles in the
achievement of the strategic goal. The performance plan has
expanded its discussion of the data supporting performance
measures, and acknowledges limitations in the quality of that
data. These will be critical to the credibility of the agency's
performance reporting. The Committee remains concerned about
the quality of supporting data and data systems, and urges the
Department to more fully document shortcomings in its data as
well as possible solutions.
The performance plan still has the feel of a document
designed to cover the current panoply of activities ongoing or
anticipated for the Department. As the process and the plan
mature, the Committee anticipates that the performance plan
will become a management document rather than a reporting
document.
The Committee recognizes that implementation will be an
iterative process, likely to involve several appropriations
cycles, and will support the efforts of the Department to
improve its performance plan. We will consider the Department's
progress in addressing weaknesses in its annual performance
plan in tandem with its funding requests. To this end, we urge
the Department to examine the program activities currently
supporting its budget requests in light of the Department's
strategic goals and to determine whether any changes or
realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed
presentation of budgetary information. The performance plan
included only one change to the budget structure of the
Department. The Committee again encourages the Department to
examine the program activities currently supporting its budget
requests in light of the Department's strategic goals and to
determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate
a more accurate or helpful presentation of budgetary
information. The Department is encouraged to consult with the
Committee as it considers such revisions prior to finalizing
any requests pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will
consider any requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal
year 2000 and subsequent budget submissions display amounts
requested against program activity structures that bear clear
relationships to performance goals.
Year 2000 conversion.--For some time, the Committee has
been concerned that the Department would have difficulty
overcoming its late start in Y2K remediation of over 600
mission-critical systems. However, the Committee notes the
significant progress that has been made over the last year. As
of the first week in May, over 90 percent of the Department's
mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant, including 100
percent of the systems operated by the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the
Federal Transit Administration, the Maritime Administration,
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Office
of the Inspector General, the Office of the Secretary, the
Research and Special Programs Administration, the St. Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation, the Surface Transportation
Board, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
In particular, the Committee has closely followed the
progress of the Federal Aviation Administration's Y2K efforts.
With over 400 mission-critical systems in the FAA inventory,
the problem is monumental. As of the first week in May, over 92
percent of FAA's mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant.
All of the FAA mission-critical systems being repaired had
completed renovation and validation phase activities, and were
either fully implemented or well into required implementation
phase activities. While earlier completion would have been
desirable, the complexity of this challenge must be underscored
and completion of the task requires extensive and careful
testing. To date, the FAA has been on target to complete Y2K
remediation by its projected date of June 30, 1999. The
Committee must also note, however, that remediation and testing
is not the completion of the task. In addition, the FAA must
undertake the additional step of contingency planning in the
event that not everything works as expected on January 1, 2000.
The Committee expects status reports on contingency planning to
be included in the regular reports that the FAA provides to the
Committee.
The Committee is pleased that the Coast Guard's legacy
Vessel Traffic System at Valdez, Alaska, was certified Y2K
compliant in April 1999, rather than waiting until October 1999
as initially scheduled. The Vessel Traffic System is
responsible for tracking vessel movements in Prince William
Sound.
As of the first week in May, the Coast Guard had completed
work on 88 percent of its 74 mission-critical systems, and all
but five systems are projected to be completed by June 1999.
The five systems yet to be completed are: The Short Range Aids
to Navigation-Aid Control Monitoring System (SRAN ACMS); the
SRAN Master Unit; the SRAN Remote Transfer Unit; the Command
and Control Personal Computer (C\2\PC); and the Communications
System 2000 (COMSYS 2000).
The Committee has been advised that because the remediation
schedules must be coordinated around operational activities,
the Coast Guard projects that the three SRAN units and the
C\2\PC will be compliant by September 1999. Also, the Committee
understands that the COMSYS 2000 remediation will be completed
prior to the Year 2000, but there is no specific date because
the remediation depends on AT&T's upgrade of their own
telecommunications equipment.
Despite the Department's Y2K progress, the Committee urges
the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to continue to closely
monitor agency progress until all mission-critical systems are
compliant. In addition, as noted above for the FAA, the agency
must prepare comprehensive continuity of operations plans in
order to prepare for system failures that could potentially
disrupt vital services.
Year 2000 Compliance.--The Department of Transportation
shall report in detail on the specific use of year 2000
conversion emergency funds provided by the Omnibus Consolidated
and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 and any
other act. This report shall demonstrate how all of the funds
obligated as of January 1, 2000 were directly applied to the
year 2000 conversion of federal information technology systems.
For any funds which were used for purposes other than the year
2000 conversion, the report
shall explain the use of such funds and specify the provision
which gave the Department the authority to spend the funds for
other purposes. The report shall also estimate what portion of
the emergency funds were used for technology which would have
occurred in 1999 or 2000 even without year 2000 crisis. The
report shall be delivered to the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000
Technology Problem, the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs, and the Senate Committee on the Budget by May 15,
2000.
budgetary firewalls
The Committee notes that there has been some talk this year
about creating special budgetary treatment for the programs and
activities of the FAA. Mention is made of taking the aviation
trust fund off-budget or creating budgetary ``firewalls''
around some or all of the aviation accounts. The Committee
believes that such budget treatment is unnecessary and unwise.
While passenger enplanements have increased steadily in the
past several years, the growth has not kept pace with the
increase in the federal budget for aviation programs, and the
growth in the federal investments in equipment modernization
and airport improvements and air traffic operations have
substantially outstripped the growth in aircraft operations.
When the investment in the airport capital plant represented by
Passenger Facility Charges is considered, the increase in total
investment is even more compelling compared to workload growth.
The Coopers and Lybrand financial study conducted only two
years ago severely criticized the FAA as an organization, was
appalled at their inability to account for costs, and labeled
the organization the equivalent of a dysfunctional family. In
addition, the Government Performance and Results Act
evaluations consistently place the FAA at or near the bottom in
terms of well run government agencies. The Committee believes
that an organization with as many financial and management
difficulties as the FAA should not even be considered by
Congress for insulation from budget, appropriations, or any
other oversight. Clearly this is an agency in need of reform,
not special dispensation.
Firewalling aviation spending would impede oversight and
contribute to FAA's already poor record in controlling costs.
Virtually every outside observer of the FAA believes that the
FAA has a difficult time setting realistic budget requirements
and has a terrible history of controlling costs. The budget
problems at the Federal Aviation Administration are problems of
management and cost control, not budget treatment.
Last year, Congress firewalled the Highway and Transit
accounts and in the 9 months since the President signed that
legislation, the Administration has proposed four non-technical
legislative changes or packages of changes to that law, the OMB
and CBO have had to revise their budget and scoring conventions
to make the firewalls reconcile (they still don't reconcile),
and the House authorizing Committee is already discussing
revisiting that authorization legislation in the coming fiscal
year. The creation of firewalls is not a mechanism to be
employed lightly--the application of firewalls to an intensely
complex and operational organization like the FAA presupposes
Congressional consideration that midcourse corrections will be
unnecessary, budget execution issues are minor, and the
organization is capable of making difficult decisions and
holding itself accountable for such decisions and other
shortcomings in financial management and procurement execution.
The FAA cannot meet such a test.
The argument is also made that a firewall is necessary to
make sure that the Airport and Airways trust fund is spent.
That contention is without basis. Since its creation, fewer
dollars have been generated by the taxes and fees that
capitalize the Airport and Airways trust fund than the Congress
has appropriated for the aviation accounts--and that doesn't
even account for non-transportation expenditures that benefit
aviation constituencies. For example, the Department of Defense
has spent almost $9,000,000,000 to date on the GPS
constellation that is the backbone of satellite navigation for
aviation in the future.
The challenges facing the aviation industry and the FAA
cannot be solved by changing budgetary treatment of the
aviation accounts--that solution defies the facts, reason, and
the treatment that the FAA has enjoyed in the current budget
process.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
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 Committee recommends a total of $59,362,000 for the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $45,000 for
reception and representation expenses.
The Committee is concerned about the continued level of
vacancies in the Office of the Secretary and notes that many of
the positions have been open for over a year. Accordingly, the
appropriation for salaries and expenses has been adjusted
downward to reflect current staffing levels generally across
the Office of the Secretary. This adjustment is made without
prejudice and will be reassessed before final enactment of this
bill.
In addition, the Committee is increasingly concerned about
the apparent reticence on the part of the Office of
Congressional Affairs to brief all impacted Committees of the
Congress in a timely fashion of administration proposals
directly relating to issues and accounts under those
committees' jurisdiction. This concern comes directly on the
heels of a constant stream of concerns by Members of Congress
that matters of constituent interest are not relayed to all
members of a State delegation in an even-handed and timely
fashion. Unless these deficiencies are remedied immediately,
the Committee will reconsider the need for a departmentwide
Office of Congressional Affairs, and may resolve to transfer
some of the functions to other offices in the Office of the
Secretary and devolve the congressional liaison functions to
the individual modal administrations.
Immediate Office of the Secretary
The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary
responsibility for overall policy development, central
supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the
overall planning and direction of the Department.
The Committee recommends $1,900,000, which is consistent
with the fiscal year 1999 appropriation with controls placed on
travel and PC&B growth. The Committee expects that the funding
will be sufficient for the Immediate Office of the Secretary
and expects that any shortfall can be accommodated by slight
reductions in benefits and travel. The funding provided will
allow for 17 positions.
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
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 $600,000 for the Immediate Office of
the Deputy Secretary. The Committee's recommendation provides
for a staffing level of seven positions.
Office of the General Counsel
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 General Counsel's Office
provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary,
coordinates and reviews the legal work of the Chief Counsels'
Offices of the operating administrations, and generally
performs the full range of legal services involved in
administering an executive department with national and
international responsibilities.
The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Office of the
General Counsel. At this funding level, the Committee expects
that the Office will be able to fund 82 staff positions.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
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.
The Committee recommends $2,900,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Policy. This funding level is
sufficient to fund the current onboard staff.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs
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 regulations, 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].
The Committee has provided $7,700,000, which will provide
sufficient resources to fund 86 positions.
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 2 years and one of the clear messages
which has emerged from these hearings is that it is critically
important to have a truly free market so that everyone, big and
small, can compete. Where there is strong competition in the
airline industry, the consumers are the primary beneficiaries.
What should also be clear is that there is no prospect of
support from the Committee to reregulate the airline industry.
As a possible way of providing greater certainty to the
airlines as to what constitutes anticompetitive activity, the
Committee encourages the Department to consider a process in
which the Department, upon receiving a complaint, would
consider within a specified time period whether such alleged
activity should be referred to the Department of Justice or
whether it was a permissible competitive activity. Such an
approach would provide greater certainty for air carriers and
could provide an efficient mechanism for focusing the
Department of Justice's attention on the most suspect of
activities. The Committee believes that such a process can be
accommodated within current staffing resources given the staff
resources available due to the completion of authorization last
year of the surface transportation program. Accordingly, the
Committee would reject a request for additional resources for
the creation of an analytical or legal capability within the
Department of Transportation that would also, by necessity,
have to be constituted at the Department of Justice.
The Committee urges the Department of Transportation to
work with interested Committees of the Congress, the Department
of Justice, and the airlines to implement existing laws and
enforcement practices to protect the economy from
anticompetitive conduct.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the
principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development,
review, and presentation 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 encourages the Secretary and the Assistant
Secretary for Budget and Programs to increase the budget and
programs staff participation in department, industry, and
budget execution oversight activities. The greater the
integration of the budget formulation and execution processes
with the activities of the department and the fulfillment of
the agencies' missions, the better the quality of the
department's financial, management, and resource allocation
decisions. The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to
report monthly on the status of all outstanding reports and
reporting requirements, including how delinquent
Congressionally mandated 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. In addition, the Committee
directs the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and
programs to work with the affected modal administrations and
the Office of Inspector General to facilitate the timely
transfer of funds between the relevant offices.
The Committee recommends a total of $6,870,000 for the
Office of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. At this
level, the Committee has provided funding for 49 positions and
included $45,000 for reception and representation expenses for
the Secretary.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises
the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental
activities and on all Department 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 decisionmaking
process.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. This level holds
travel below fiscal year 1998 levels and provides funding for
23 positions.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
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,
grants management, internal departmental financial systems, and
ADP facilities and services.
The Committee recommends $18,600,000 for the Office of the
Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the OST
portion of rent. The Committee has provided a level that will
support the current staffing levels with a slight reduction in
travel and training activities.
Office of Public Affairs
The Director of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to
the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news
media on public affairs questions. 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 $1,800,000 for the Office of
Public Affairs, which will support current staffing levels.
Executive Secretariat
The Executive Secretariat provides and organizes staff
service for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist them
in carrying out their management functions and facilitate their
responsibilities for formulating, coordinating, and
communicating major policy decisions. It controls and
coordinates internal and external material directed to the
Secretary and Deputy Secretary and ensures that their decisions
and instructions are implemented.
The Committee recommends a funding level of $1,110,000 for
the Executive Secretariat.
Contract Appeals Board
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 $560,000 for the Contract
Appeals Board. This level is sufficient to maintain the current
staffing level.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
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 $1,222,000, which is sufficient
funding to maintain current staffing levels.
Office of Intelligence and Security
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
The Committee recommends $5,100,000 for the Office of the
Chief Information Officer. This level is sufficient to maintain
the current staffing level of 15 positions.
Office of Intermodalism
The Committee recommends the Office of Intermodalism be
funded from within the administrative expenses provided for the
Federal Highway Administration.
Office of Civil Rights
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 $7,200,000
for the Office of Civil Rights.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $9,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 6,275,000
Committee recommendation................................ 3,300,000
\1\ Does not include reduction of $21,000 for TASC pursuant to section
320 of Public Law 105-277.
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.
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 directs the Secretary to report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
March 31, 2000, on the identified initiatives in this area and
the actions taken to implement those efforts.
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, 1999 \1\.................................... ($124,124,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... (229,953,000)
Committee recommendation................................ 159,953,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $15,000,000 pursuant to section 320 of
Public Law 105-277.
\2\ Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT and non-DOT entities.
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.
The budget proposes that the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting
and Cartography be transferred to TASC in 2000.
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 $159,953,000. 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, 1999 \1\................................ ($50,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory authority) \2\......... (50,000,000)
Committee recommendation (mandatory authority).......... (50,000,000)
\1\ Transfer from FAA facilities and equipment.
\2\ From overflight fees.
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 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. The administration proposes to change this program to
permit financing of fee shortfalls through any appropriated
funding of the Department.
Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: 55 of 74
communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are
more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or
large hub airport. Twenty-seven 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 Committee has retained the general provision which
limits the number of communities that receive EAS funding by
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are
located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or
medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200
per passenger unless such a point is more than 210 miles from
the nearest large or medium hub airport.
The following table reflects the points currently receiving
service and the annual rates as of the end of February 1999.
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.
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 two of the 27 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--indeed is fully dependent
on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may actually travel
on the flights.
EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
Estimated enplanements at Current annual
mileage to EAS point (year subsidy rates Subsidy per
States/communities nearest hub ending (February 1, passenger
(small, medium, September 30, 1999)
or large) \1\ 1998)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARIZONA:
Kingman................................. 101 6.8 $432,564 $101.97
Page.................................... 280 13.0 595,469 73.34
Prescott................................ 102 28.9 432,564 23.90
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden........................ 108 6.5 943,347 231.50
Harrison................................ 142 4.3 1,049,612 392.67
Hot Springs............................. 53 12.6 1,049,612 133.17
Jonesboro............................... 79 9.7 943,347 155.77
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City........................... 234 18.3 189,043 16.52
Merced.................................. 114 12.4 750,890 96.60
COLORADO:
Alamosa................................. 162 14.1 950,262 107.63
Cortez.................................. 258 40.2 408,227 16.21
Lamar................................... 163 4.2 1,009,635 380.85
HAWAII: Kamuela............................. 39 2.4 335,454 225.89
ILLINOIS:
Mattoon................................. 126 2.4 218,783 142.72
Mt. Vernon.............................. 92 1.3 479,699 594.42
IOWA: Ottumwa............................... 85 3.5 529,274 241.68
KANSAS:
Dodge City.............................. 149 17.1 611,661 57.10
Garden City............................. 201 32.3 246,666 12.19
Goodland................................ 189 3.4 833,383 393.66
Great Bend.............................. 120 8.5 639,096 119.86
Hays.................................... 180 18.2 1,108,781 97.33
Liberal/Guymon.......................... 145 13.0 191,077 23.42
Topeka.................................. 71 16.4 367,662 35.74
MAINE:
Augusta/Waterville...................... 71 12.4 596,806 77.01
Bar Harbor.............................. 157 27.4 596,806 34.83
Rockland................................ 80 20.6 596,806 46.38
MICHIGAN:
Ironwood/Ashland........................ 59 6.8 357,588 84.26
Manistee................................ 115 4.0 408,638 164.31
MINNESOTA:
Fairmont................................ 121 3.8 793,272 331.22
Fergus Falls............................ 186 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Mankato................................. 75 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau.......................... 138 31.4 278,560 14.18
Fort Leonard Wood....................... 130 14.8 337,124 36.32
Kirksville.............................. 137 4.2 450,736 171.38
MONTANA:
Glasgow................................. 280 5.3 671,032 203.04
Glendive................................ 223 2.8 671,032 384.55
Havre................................... 248 4.3 671,032 251.70
Lewistown............................... 125 3.0 671,032 360.00
Miles City.............................. 146 3.5 671,032 306.97
Sidney.................................. 273 7.6 671,032 140.35
Wolf Point.............................. 293 4.5 671,032 240.34
NEBRASKA:
Alliance................................ 256 5.7 797,133 223.35
Chadron................................. 311 6.4 797,133 199.38
Hastings................................ 162 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Kearney................................. 181 14.8 833,383 ( \2\ )
McCook.................................. 271 8.4 1,308,444 249.61
Norfolk................................. 109 5.3 793,272 239.51
NEVADA: Ely................................. 237 2.0 634,137 504.08
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB................. 91 12.7 777,127 97.76
Clovis.................................. 103 14.4 926,594 102.51
Silver City/Hurley/Deming............... 133 8.8 872,204 158.52
NEW YORK:
Massena................................. 118 9.7 266,371 43.90
Ogdensburg.............................. 123 5.0 266,371 84.37
Watertown............................... 65 7.9 266,371 54.12
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake............................. 396 10.4 793,272 122.34
Dickinson............................... 319 12.9 247,255 30.53
Jamestown............................... 302 11.3 793,272 112.54
OKLAHOMA:
Enid.................................... 84 8.3 767,398 147.46
Ponca City.............................. 81 10.2 767,398 120.23
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin............. 86 35.9 243,923 10.86
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings............................... 57 8.3 793,272 152.17
Mitchell................................ 69 ( \2\ ) ( \2\ ) ( \2\ )
Yankton................................. 81 6.4 793,272 199.41
TEXAS: Brownwood............................ 138 5.3 807,717 243.00
UTAH:
Cedar City.............................. 178 23.4 577,538 39.44
Moab.................................... 236 8.1 769,572 152.69
Vernal.................................. 174 11.7 280,854 38.29
VERMONT: Rutland............................ 69 13.0 596,806 73.27
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake............. 108 32.3 219,483 10.84
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley................................. 173 6.3 627,512 159.79
Princeton/Bluefield..................... 137 6.3 627,512 159.07
WYOMING:
Laramie................................. 144 31.3 494,617 25.22
Rock Springs............................ 184 29.4 363,993 19.76
Worland................................. 164 7.8 494,617 101.75
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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 1997 passenger data.
\2\ Hiatus in service.
GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS
[Dollars and square feet in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1998 actual Fiscal year 1999 estimate Fiscal year 2000
-------------------------------------------------------- President's budget
Administration ---------------------------
Funding Square feet Funding Square feet Funding Square feet
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Highway $17,480 1,077 $17,922 1,076 $20,275 909
Administration.............
National Highway Traffic 4,234 217 4,042 206 4,657 222
Safety Administration......
Federal Railroad 2,930 123 3,084 112 3,302 127
Administration.............
Federal Transit 3,307 155 3,500 157 3,824 157
Administration.............
Federal Aviation 68,549 4,098 74,830 4,221 87,415 4,467
Administration.............
U.S. Coast Guard............ 35,730 2,367 35,285 1,870 35,610 1,870
St. Lawrence Seaway 198 7 192 7 ............ ............
Development Corporation....
Maritime Administration..... 4,351 286 4,333 258 4,200 258
Research and Special 2,075 106 1,965 98 2,389 110
Programs Administration....
Office of Inspector General. 2,350 110 2,436 100 2,436 100
Office of the Secretary of 6,237 239 6,713 229 6,713 225
Transportation (OST).......
Transportation 6,715 294 5,000 250 10,278 415
Administrative Service
Center.....................
Bureau of Transportation 660 24 750 25 855 27
Statistics.................
Surface Transportation Board 1,468 57 1,569 57 1,613 58
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Department of 156,284 9,160 161,621 8,666 183,567 8,945
Transportation.......
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 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 2000, 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. The limitation on direct loans under the
Minority Business Resource Center is at the administration's
requested level of $13,775,000.
Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the direct
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, 1999.................................... $2,900,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,900,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,900,000
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
Political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has
included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar
to general provisions that have been included in previous
appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and
Presidential appointees within the Department of
Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling
for fiscal year 2000 be 100 personnel.
Advisory committees.--The Committee has retained a general
provision (sec. 000) 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 $1,000,000.
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. 329) that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the
rebates and miscellaneous and other funds.
Departmental Aircraft.--The Committee is 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 limited business aircraft requirements of the
FAA, the Office of the Secretary, and to a lesser extent, the
Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill
language 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 utilizes those resources for more critical priorities.
Fractional ownership provides access to an entire fleet of
aircraft, availability of a mix of aircraft types and sizes,
all on very short notice. 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
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.
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
$1,668,000,000. 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 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 which
directs that in the fiscal year 2000 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 makes the
administration fiscally accountable for its user fee proposals.
Reductions and emergency supplementals in fiscal year 1999
appropriations.--In fiscal year 1999, reductions were made to a
number of accounts due to the limitation or reduction imposed
in the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In
addition, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public
Law 105-277 included emergency supplemental appropriations and
funding for Y2K conversions. In the Senate Committee report,
each account head shows the amount appropriated in Division A
of Public Law 105-277 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 1999 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 105-277
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Public Law 105-
Division A Division B 262
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Appropriations
Account Title III transfer from Net
Appropriations DOD National appropriation
Section 101(g) GP 320 TASC Secs. 111- Title I Title II transfer from Title IV Title V Drug Defense
116 Readiness Antiterrorism Ofc of Pres. Hurricane interdiction Sealift Fund
Y2K Conversion
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Secretary:
Salaries and expenses................ 60,490 -1,367 ............ ............ ............. 7,754 ............ ............ .............. 66,877
Transportation planning, research, 9,000 -21 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 8,979
and development.....................
Office of Civil Rights............... 6,966 -113 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 6,853
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... .............. -1,501 ............ ............ ............. 7,754 ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
U.S. Coast Guard:
Operating expenses (includes $300 2,700,000 -2,794 ............ 100,000 ............. 31,773 ............ 16,300 .............. 2,845,279
million for defense related
activities).........................
Acquisition, construction, and 395,465 .............. ............ 100,000 ............. .............. 12,600 117,400 .............. 625,465
improvements........................
Reserve training..................... 69,000 .............. ............ 5,000 ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 74,000
Research, development, test, and 12,000 .............. ............ 5,000 ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 17,000
evaluation..........................
Alteration of bridges................ 14,000 .............. ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ 28,800 42,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... .............. -2,794 ............ 210,000 ............. 31,773 12,600 133,700 28,800 ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations........................... 5,562,558 -4,863 ............ ............ ............. 28,798 ............ ............ .............. 5,586,493
Facilities & Equipment............... 1,900,000 .............. ............ ............ 100,000 122,133 ............ ............ .............. 2,122,133
Research, Engineering and Development 150,000 .............. ............ ............ ............. 367 ............ ............ .............. 150,367
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... .............. -4,863 ............ ............ 100,000 151,298 ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Highway Administration:
Limitation on administrative expen- (327,413) (-2,646) ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. (324,767)
ses.................................
Federal-aid highways (obligation 25,511,000 -2,854 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 25,508,146
limitation).........................
Surface transportation projects, .............. .............. 100,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 100,000
Massachusetts.......................
Appalachian development highway .............. .............. 100,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 100,000
system, Alabama.....................
Appalachian development highway .............. .............. 32,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 32,000
system, West Va.....................
Surface transportation projects, .............. .............. 100,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 100,000
Arkansas............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... .............. -2,854 332,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
National Highway Traffic Safety 161,400 -974 ............ ............ ............. 752 ............ ............ .............. 161,178
Administration: Operations and research
and NDR (trust).........................
======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Railroad Administration:
Office of the Administrator.......... 21,215 -369 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 20,846
Alaska railroad rehabilitation....... 10,000 .............. 28,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 38,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........................... .............. -369 28,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative expenses (approps. and 54,000 -912 ............ ............ ............. 250 ............ ............ .............. 53,338
oblig. limitation)..................
Discretionary grants (rescission of .............. .............. -392,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. -392,000
contract authority).................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... .............. -912 -392,000 ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: 11,496 -20 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 11,476
Operations and Maintenance..............
======================================================================================================================================================
Research and Special Programs
Administration:
Research and special programs........ 29,280 -314 ............ ............ ............. 282 ............ ............ .............. 29,248
Pipeline safety...................... 34,648 -210 ............ ............ ............. 150 ............ ............ .............. 34,588
======================================================================================================================================================
Subtotal........................... .............. -524 ............ ............ ............. 432 ............ ............ .............. ..............
======================================================================================================================================================
Office of the Inspector General: Salaries 43,495 -179 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 43,316
and expenses............................
======================================================================================================================================================
Bureau of Transportation Statistics \1\.. (31,000) (-208) ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. (30,792)
======================================================================================================================================================
Surface Transportation Board: Salaries 13,400 -10 ............ ............ ............. .............. ............ ............ .............. 13,390
and expenses............................
======================================================================================================================================================
Total changes, Department of .............. -15,000 332,000 210,000 100,000 192,259 12,600 133,700 28,800 ..............
Transportation....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ BTS reductions in parenthesis included under Federal-aid highways.
U.S. COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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
$3,957,203,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal
year 2000. The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program ---------------------------------- Committee
1999 enacted 2000 estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses \1\ \2\................................... 2,700,000 2,941,039 2,772,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements \3\ \4\.......... 395,465 350,326 370,426
Environmental compliance and restoration..................... 21,000 19,500 12,450
Alteration of bridges \5\.................................... 14,000 ............... 14,000
Retired pay (mandatory)...................................... 684,000 730,327 730,327
Reserve training \6\......................................... 69,000 72,000 72,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation \6\.............. 12,000 21,709 17,000
Boat safety (mandatory)...................................... (64,000) (64,000) (64,000)
Denali Commission expenses................................... 4,000 ............... ...............
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 3,899,465 4,134,901 3,988,203
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes $116,300,000 in
emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Fiscal year 1999 enacted amount includes $300,000,000 in defense discretionary funding; fiscal year 2000
estimate includes $334,000,000; fiscal year 2000 Committee recommended amount includes $534,000,000, each
amount for national security activities of the Coast Guard and scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental
appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\4\ Fiscal year 2000 estimate includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance tax fees (proposed
legislation).
\5\ Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD.
\6\ Excludes $5,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations.
Operating Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\.................................. $2,675,000,000 $25,000,000 $2,700,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\................................. 2,916,039,000 25,000,000 2,941,039,000
Committee recommendation \3\.............................. 2,747,000,000 25,000,000 2,772,000,000
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.............. 60,000,000 ................ 60,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total available funds............................... 2,776,000,000 25,000,000 2,832,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; and excludes $116,300,000
supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $334,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense).
\3\ Includes $534,000,000 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 $2,772,000,000, including $25,000,000 from the
oilspill liability trust fund and $534,000,000 from function
050 for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 Budget Committee
enacted \1\ request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personnel resources:
Military pay and benefits. 1,285,598 1,359,891 1,268,022
Civilian pay and benefits. 202,972 220,631 211,091
Military health care...... 123,395 139,070 133,395
Permanent change of 63,160 66,028 63,160
station [PCS] and related
travel and transportation
Training and education.... 65,634 71,793 70,634
Recruiting................ 6,095 10,877 6,716
FECA/UCX.................. 11,091 11,091 11,091
-----------------------------------------
Total, personnel 1,757,945 1,879,381 1,764,109
resources..............
=========================================
Operating funds and unit level
maintenance:
Atlantic area command..... 109,646 109,616 104,146
Pacific area command...... 110,057 117,990 112,490
District commands:
1st district.......... 40,401 40,429 40,401
7th district.......... 44,555 45,454 44,555
8th district.......... 28,020 28,483 28,483
9th district.......... 17,580 17,418 17,418
13th district......... 13,165 13,721 13,165
14th district......... 8,435 7,332 7,332
17th district......... 20,402 20,174 20,402
Headquarters directorates. 184,674 205,871 184,674
Headquarters managed units 39,360 42,096 37,360
Other activities.......... 6,854 6,888 6,854
-----------------------------------------
Total, operating funds 623,149 655,472 617,280
and unit level
maintenance............
=========================================
Depot level maintenance:
Aircraft maintenance...... 150,337 156,862 150,337
Electronic maintenance.... 35,783 38,079 35,783
Ocean engineering and 101,478 102,792 101,478
shore facility
maintenance..............
Vessel maintenance........ 103,013 108,453 103,013
-----------------------------------------
Total, depot level 390,611 406,186 390,611
maintenance............
=========================================
Readiness and overseas 28,295 ........... ..............
operations supplemental......
Counter-drug and interdiction 16,300 ........... ..............
supplemental.................
TASC reduction................ -2,794 ...........
=========================================
Total appropriation..... 2,813,506 2,941,039 2,772,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $2,794,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 105-
277. Includes supplemental appropriations of $116,300,000 for
emergency expenses. Does not include supplemental funding for Y2K.
Note.--Fiscal year 1999 enacted and fiscal year 2000 request include
$300,000,000 and $334,000,000, respectively, for national security
activities, budget function 050 (defense).
personnel resources
Military pay and benefits.--The bill includes
$1,268,022,000 for military pay and allowances. This is
$60,424,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. This
amount fully funds the 4.8 percent pay raise that the Senate
passed earlier this year; it also provides all funds requested
for special pay, including retention incentives and DoD parity
compensation, to slow the exodus of highly trained, qualified
personnel from the Coast Guard.
The Coast Guard is to be commended for the progress that
has been made over the past several years to streamline and
increase the efficiency of the uniformed services. Staffing
continues to lag behind recruiting and retention goals, as
qualified individuals find other employment in a thriving
economy and as personnel leave the Coast Guard due to the
extraordinary pace of operations. However, the 5-year FTE
utilization experience of the Coast Guard indicates that they
continue to run behind requested levels and accordingly, the
Committee recommends a reduction in the FTE levels and a
commensurate reduction in the military pay and benefits
request.
Military health care.--The Committee has provided
$133,395,000 for military health care, an increase of
$10,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. With other
additional resources, military health care funding for fiscal
year 2000 is $151,395,000, an increase of $12,325,000 above the
budget request. Of the amount made available for health care,
$3,000,000 is to be used to continue dependent and Coast Guard
retiree enrollment in the Uniformed Services Family Health
Plan.
Training and education.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee recommends limiting training and education funding.
The Coast Guard has excessive infrastructure and should
consider consolidating its training to optimize utilization for
a smaller force. As part of its streamlining effort, the Coast
Guard conducted a study in 1995 that recommended closing the
west coast training center. The Committee recommends that the
Coast Guard close this facility and relocate all basic,
advanced, and specialty training conducted there to the other
four training centers. This consolidation results in a fiscal
year 2000 savings of $10,000,000 not including non-recurring
closure costs.
Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport.--The Committee has been
informed that the Coast Guard has been cooperating with state
and local officials to transfer Coast Guard property to Sitka
Airport as part of the airport's expansion plan. The Committee
encourages the Coast Guard to continue to negotiate with state
and local officials and make every effort to find a solution
that is acceptable to all parties.
operating funds and unit level maintenance
National security.--The Committee's recommendation includes
$534,000,000 from the defense function for Coast Guard support
of national security activities. The Coast Guard plays a key
role in support of military missions under the U.S. Atlantic
and Southern Commands in support of drug interdiction missions,
refugee and immigration support, and enforcement and joint
military training.
The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is
multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people
have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law
enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national
defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the
Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security
community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their
mission experience was clearly evident by their active
participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in the Persian
Gulf, and more recently, in Operation Desert Thunder in the
Persian Gulf and Operations Restore/Uphold Democracy in Haiti.
The Coast Guard has deployed forces to support the current NATO
operations in Yugoslovia. The Coast Guard is one of the five
Armed Forces, and is a full partner on the joint national
security team. To be a credible partner, the Coast Guard must
maintain a high state of operational readiness. Many parts of
the Coast Guard's budget contain funding requests that, if cut,
would severely impair the Coast Guard's operational readiness
and, therefore, its ability to meet national security
commitments.
Headquarters Directorates.--The Committee recommends
$184,674,000, the same level of funding that was provided in
fiscal year 1999. The recommendation is below the budget
request due to budget constraints and are made without
prejudice.
Mackinaw.--The bill includes funding for continued
operation and maintenance of the icebreaking cutter Mackinaw
during fiscal year 2000.
Drug interdiction activities.--The Committee has provided
the requested $521,000,000 for the war on drugs. It should be
left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug interdiction
activities funding is to be distributed. The Committee believes
that this area is perfectly suited for application of
performance measures and evaluation of program impacts.
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 $183,000 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.
Ballast water management program.--The Committee
recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 to implement the
nationwide ballast water management program.
Vessel Maintenance.--The Committee requests the Coast Guard
to provide a list of the locations where Coast Guard performs
non-depot level maintenance or alters and modifies its vessels.
The report should list all locations by Coast Guard district
and by region and is to be received by July 30, 1999.
DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE
The Committee recommends $390,611,000 for depot level
maintenance for vessels, aircraft, electronic equipment, and
shore facilities. This is the same amount as the enacted level
for fiscal year 1999 and is $15,757,000 below the budget
estimate. The reduction is due to fiscal constraints.
bill language
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority.--The bill
includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to
$60,000,000 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.
User fees.--The bill includes language 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.
Notwithstanding this provision in the fiscal year 1999
conference report (Public Law 106-277), the budget request
proposed to collect $41,000,000 from a new user fee on
navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. The
Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to raise
taxes on transportation users year after year. Nevertheless,
the administration continues to employ this tired budget
gimmick because it presents a budget in which funding for the
Coast Guard is artificially high.
The bill includes a general provision to make the
administration fiscally accountable for proposing unauthorized
user fees. The bill directs the Department to identify a
specific spending offset for each dollar collected by a new
user fee in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission.
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.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\........................................ $375,465,000 $20,000,000 $395,465,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\....................................... 330,326,000 20,000,000 350,326,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 350,426,000 20,000,000 370,426,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes
supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $41,000,000 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:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1999 Fiscal year 2000 Committee
enacted \1\ estimate \2\ recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels.................................................... 219,923 165,760 123,560
Aircraft................................................... 35,700 22,110 33,210
Other equipment............................................ 36,569 53,726 52,726
Shore facilities and aids to navigation.................... 54,823 55,800 63,800
Personnel and related support.............................. 48,450 52,930 52,930
Deepwater replacement project \3\.......................... \3\ (20,000) (44,200) 44,200
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 395,465 350,326 370,426
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 in supplemental appropriations. Excludes
supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees.
\3\ The budget estimate proposes to fund the Deepwater project in vessels.
vessels
The Committee recommends $123,560,000 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
2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acquire vessels and equipment:
Seagoing buoy tender [WLB] 77,000 77,000
replacement........................
47-foot motor lifeboat [MLB] 24,360 24,360
replacement project................
Coastal patrol boat [CPB]............... 1,000 ..............
Follow-on for polar icebreaker 1,900 1,900
replacement........................
Stern loading buoy boat replacement..... 5,000 5,000
Survey and design--cutters and boats 500 500
Mackinaw replacement.................... .............. 3,000
Surface search radar replacement project 4,000 4,000
Deepwater capability replacement........ 44,200 ..............
Repair, renovate, or improve existing
vessels and small boats:
Configuration management............ 3,700 3,700
Polar class icebreaker reliability 4,100 4,100
improvement project [RIP]..........
-------------------------------
Total (new program level)......... 165,760 123,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mackinaw replacement.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000
to complete concept design on replacement vessel, including a
multi-purpose alternative, for icebreaking operations on the
Great Lakes. The Committee remains concerned about the
projected long lead time for delivery of a replacement vessel
and urges the Coast Guard to expeditiously complete the
alternative of analysis and cost benefit analysis and proceed
to next acquisition key decision point.
aircraft
For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends
$33,210,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as
follows:
AIRCRAFT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HC-130 engine modification.............. .............. 1,100
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring....... 3,360 3,360
HH-65A engine re-power program.......... .............. 10,000
Long range search aircraft capability 5,900 5,900
preservation...........................
HH-65A helicopter mission unit computer 3,650 3,650
unit replacement.......................
HU-25 aircraft avionics improvements.... 2,900 2,900
HH-60J navigation upgrade............... 3,800 3,800
HC-130 side looking airborne radar 2,500 2,500
[SLAR].................................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 22,110 33,210
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HH-65 Helicopter.--At the request of the Committee, the
Coast Guard has documented the need to improve the engine
performance of the HH-65 helicopter as its operational weight
has increased and to increase horsepower by 23 percent. The
bill includes $10,000,000 to initiate the engine re-power
program.
HC-130 engine modification.--In the interest of crew safety
and reduced maintenance cost savings, other military services
have applied oil debris detection systems with a residue burn
off capability to their aircraft. This system provides on-board
detection which alerts air crews of the debris which can cause
catastrophic engine failure. The Committee has included
$1,100,000 to install this system on the entire Coast Guard HC-
130 fleet. The Committee expects that this will be a one-time
cost and all HC-130 can be retrofit with the modification in
fiscal year 2000.
other equipment
The Committee recommends $52,726,000. The following table
displays the project allocations:
OTHER EQUIPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fleet logistics system [FLS]............ 6,000 6,000
Ports and waterways safety system 4,500 4,500
[PAWSS]................................
Marine information for safety and law 10,500 10,500
enforcement [MISLE]....................
Defense message system [DMS] 3,477 3,477
impementation..........................
Loran-C continuation.................... 1,000 ..............
Human resources information system...... 1,100 1,100
Personnel management information system/ 4,400 4,400
joint uniform military pay system II...
Aviation logistics management 2,700 2,700
information system [ALMIS].............
National distress system modernization.. 16,000 16,000
Commercial satellite communication 4,049 4,049
upgrade................................
-------------------------------
Total............................. 53,726 52,726
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loran-C.--Loran-C is a reliable and cost-effective
navigation system that virtually every mode of transportation
uses, and the Committee supports assigning the Coast Guard the
responsibility to continue to operate and maintain the Loran
system. The Committee is pleased that the department views the
need to upgrade aging Loran equipment and infrastructure as a
department-wide, requiring funding from several agencies.
Accordingly, the Committee has deleted funding in this account
for the modernization of Loran-C and has funded system upgrades
elsewhere in the bill.
National Distress System.--The Committee has provided
$16,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System
(NDRS) modernization project. The Committee urges the Coast
Guard to expeditiously develop an upgraded system and determine
which components of the modernized national distress system
should be leased or purchased.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
The program level recommended is $63,800,000.
SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shore--General:
Survey and design shore projects.. 6,000 6,000
Minor AC&I shore construction 6,000 6,000
projects.........................
Coast Guard housing............... 7,800 7,800
Shore--Air stations:
Renovate air station hangar, 8,300 8,300
Kodiak...........................
Air station Miami--renovate fixed 3,500 3,500
wing hangar......................
Air station ramp structural 3,800 3,800
improvements--Elizabeth City, NC.
Shore--Centers/groups/stations:
Construction patrol boat 3,100 3,100
maintenance facility.............
Relocate CG marine safety office 1,000 1,000
and station--Cleveland, OH.......
Modernize CG Station Shinnecook-- 3,500 3,500
Hampton Bays, NY.................
Homeporting of drug interdiction 2,800 2,800
assets...........................
Upgrade educational facilities, CG 5,000 5,000
Academy..........................
Unalaska pier..................... ............... 8,000
Aids to navigation facilities: 5,000 5,000
Waterways aids-to-navigation projects
---------------------------------
Total........................... 55,800 63,800
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DEEPWATER PROJECT
In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard initiated 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 will be the most expensive acquisition program in the
Coast Guard's history. It promises to be the most complex
acquisition and perhaps the most controversial. 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.
The Committee remains concerned that this project is not
affordable within the current budget constraints. The cost of
the Deepwater project is projected to grow substantially and is
projected to reach as much as $500,000,000 annually after the
contract is awarded in fiscal year 2002. The Inspector General
and General Accounting Office testified to the Committee that
the current projected cost of the Deepwater project will
outstrip the Office of Management and Budget target for Coast
Guard capital spending. Furthermore, there would not be
sufficient funds available for any other AC&I program under
current projections.
The Committee recommendation establishes a new account for
the Deepwater Project and has included up to $60,000,000 to
continue concept exploration in fiscal year 2000. The bill
includes $44,200,000 as requested and permits the Coast Guard
to use an additional $15,800,000 at the discretion of the
Commandant. The bill directs proceeds from the sale of
identified excess property into this account to provide a
dedicated revenue stream to supplement funding for the
acquisition of the deepwater system. The Committee is concerned
that the only way to realize the potential of the deepwater
concept is to identify a funding mechanism source to create
necessary resources for this program.
PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT
The program level recommended is $52,930,000. Within the
amount provided, $52,930,000 shall be for core acquisition
costs.
The Committee has provided the full amount requested for
AC&I personnel and related support.
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Committee
Personnel and related support 2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct personnel costs.................. 51,180 51,180
Core acquisition costs.................. 1,750 1,750
-------------------------------
Total............................. 52,930 52,930
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $21,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 19,500,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,450,000
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 Committee commends the Coast Guard for its progress in
cleaning its contaminated facilities. The remaining backlog of
restoration projects has decreased from $132,000,000 at the end
of fiscal year 1993 to the current estimate of $60,000,000. The
Committee is aware that for the past several fiscal years, the
Coast Guard has used only approximately 59 percent of the funds
in this account for environmental compliance and restoration.
The Committee recommends that $12,450,000 be available only to
continue the environmental restoration and compliance-related
activities of the Coast Guard.
Alteration of Bridges
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $14,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\...............................................
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000
\1\ Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD, Public Law 105-262.
\2\ The budget estimate proposes $11,000,000 for altering bridges 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 Committee directs that, of the funds provided,
$7,000,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway
bridge in Brunswick, GA; $2,000,000 to the EJ&E railroad bridge
in Morris, IL; $2,000,000 to the John F. Limehouse bridge in
Charlestown, SC; and, $3,000,000 to the Florida Ave. bridge in
New Orleans, LA.
Retired Pay
Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory)........................ $684,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory)....................... 730,327,000
Committee recommendation (mandatory).................... 730,327,000
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
33,462 in fiscal year 2000, as compared with an estimated
32,199 in fiscal year 1999 and 31,088 in fiscal year 1998.
The budget estimate proposed indefinite budget authority
instead of a fixed amount for this mandatory entitlement
program. The Committee, however, believes that Coast Guard
retired pay should remain subject to appropriations and does
not recommend amending current law to provide indefinite budget
authority.
Reserve Training
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $69,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 72,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 72,000,000
\1\ Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations.
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 Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year President's Committee
Functional program element 1999 levels request (7,600 recommendation
\1\ SELRES) (8,000 SELRES)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Initial training................................................ 2,466 2,581 2,581
Continuing training............................................. 45,565 43,844 43,844
Operation and maintenance support............................... 15,374 15,672 15,672
Program management and administration........................... 10,595 9,903 9,903
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 74,000 72,000 72,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General Trust Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\........................................ $8,500,000 $3,500,000 $12,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................... 18,209,000 3,500,000 21,709,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 13,500,000 3,500,000 17,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations.
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 recommendation includes $17,000,000 for
research, development, test, and evaluation distributed as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2000 Committee
1999 \1\ estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program areas:
Search and rescue 875 1,162 1,162
capability.............
Waterways safety and 2,116 1,444 1,444
management and aids to
navigation.............
Marine safety........... 3,198 3,108 3,108
Support interagency ship 289 159 159
structure committee....
Marine environmental 1,694 2,263 2,263
protection.............
Comprehensive law 1,129 3,213 3,213
enforcement............
Technology investment... 4,350 6,235 2,302
Personnel, program 3,349 4,125 3,349
support, and operations
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 17,000 21,709 17,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations.
The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2000
research, development, test and evaluation programs.
Marine Environmental Protection.--Within the amount
provided for Marine environmental protection, the Committee has
included not less than $1,500,000 to continue the development
and testing of methods to verify the occurrence of ship ballast
exchange to ensure that alien aquatic species are not
introduced into American waterways.
Comprehensive Law Enforcement.--The Committee has funded
the requested amount and recommends that the Coast Guard focus
its research efforts in this area on the development and
exploitation of technologies that will improve current gaps in
detecting, identifying, and classifying targets. Within the
funds provided for Comprehensive Law Enforcement, the Committee
has included $1,500,000 to apply previously developed submarine
acoustic monitoring technology to counter-drug operations.
Funds should be allocated to an academic research laboratory
that can develop a fully automated monitoring system that
utilizes acoustic sensors with satellite transmitters, shore-
based receivers, and electronic target processors to improve
the identification and interdiction of vessels trafficking
illegal drugs and other contraband.
Technology Investment.--Although supportive of the Coast
Guard strategy to leverage technology whenever practicable, the
Committee is concerned that many of the projects within this
account already are being explored in major acquisition
programs, including the Integrated Deepwater Systems
procurement. The Committee, therefore, reduces the funding for
technology investment to $2,302,000 and encourages the Coast
Guard to better focus its work in this area.
Personnel, Program Support, and Operations.--The Committee
provides $3,349,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted
level. The Committee is concerned about the growth in RDT&E
management overhead and asserts that the amount provided is
manageable if the Coast Guard initiates necessary management
directives to reduce administrative and support expenses.
Boat Safety
(aquatic resources trust fund)
Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory)........................ $64,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 (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 for a guaranteed funding level of $64,000,000 annually
for this program. No additional appropriations are necessary
for fiscal year 2000.
General Provisions
Land conveyance, Coast Guard Station New Castle.--The bill
includes a provision permitting the transfer of Coast Guard
Station New Castle to the University of New Hampshire.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 2000 amounts to $11,235,652,000. The following table
summarizes the Committee's recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
----------------------------------- Committee
Program 2000 budget recommendation
1999 enacted estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations................................................. \1\ 5,562,558 \2\ 6,039,000 5,857,450
Direct appropriation................................... ............... (4,539,000) (5,857,450)
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority........... ............... ................ 60,000
User fees: Budget authority (mandatory)................ ............... 40,000 40,000
Facilities and equipment................................... \3\ 1,900,000 2,319,000 2,045,652
Research, engineering, and development..................... \4\ 150,000 173,000 150,000
Airport improvement program................................ \5\ 1,660,000 1,600,000 2,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 9,278,558 10,171,000 10,093,102
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; excludes supplemental funding for
Y2K.
\2\ Includes $1,500,000,000 new user fees proposed in President's budget request.
\3\ Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental funding for explosive detection systems; excludes supplemental
funding for Y2K.
\4\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\5\ Original obligation limitation for AIP in fiscal year 1999 was $1,995,000,000.
The FAA is a complex and multilayered organization that
consistently defies 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.
There has been a great deal of discussion recently about
the ``looming crisis'' at the FAA and with the pending
``gridlock'' in the skies due to insufficient FAA funding. This
klaxon cry is not new--it has been a common refrain over the
past 15 years which seems to increase in volume every time the
Administration proposes a new capital plan or reauthorization
bill, or every time Congress undertakes the reauthorization of
the Federal Aviation Administration's programs. But the crisis
always seems to recede the closer we look at it, or the closer
we get to the projected ``gridlock'' deadline. Does that mean
that the vast number of studies, conferences and think-tanks
that have weighed in on this topic are off base--clearly not.
Without question, air traffic has increased, and capacity
management challenges have also increased, but the airlines',
the airports', and the FAA's ability to grow capacity and more
efficiently manage traffic loads has also increased. The system
works and will continue to evolve as the nature of air traffic
demands grow and change. Congress, once again, needs to make
sure that we don't respond to projections of dynamic growth in
the industry with static capacity growth models. For the past
several years, the Committee has focused our 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,
the FAA is making progress with the possible exception of
controller productivity and the FAA Administrator has testified
that the new controller agreement is expected to generate new
productivity improvements on that front.
While the claim is often made that the FAA's difficulties
are because the agency lacks a reliable revenue stream, the
facts simply don't bear that out--99.8 percent of the FAA's
budget over the past five years has been appropriated and
approved by Congress. Over the past three years, FAA's
appropriation has grown by 17.6 percent. By comparison, over
the same time frame, FDA's funding grew 12.1 percent, NASA's
budget went down 1.6 percent, and the budget for Defense
declined by 1.7 percent. Clearly, FAA has fared better than
most in the budget process.
It's also important to note that FAA's budget growth has
come in an environment where their workload has only been
growing between 1 and 3 percent per year. The FAA's recently
released Aerospace Forecasts fiscal years 1999-2010 reported
that domestic enplanements (not operations) increased by 2.1
percent in 1998. The FAA moves airplanes, not passengers and
operations are only projected to grow at an average 2.1 percent
over the next ten years. 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 is
projected to continue to outpace the growth in the FAA's
workload. Unfortunately, the missing piece of the equation is
the corresponding productivity gains and cost saving measures
on the part of the FAA. The FAA must do better.
The President's budget request for the FAA proposed almost
a 6 percent growth over last year's appropriation including new
user fees. On top of the last three years' growth, FAA's budget
will have grown by over 25 percent over four years. 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--or compared to the agency's
workload growth or the virtual absence of any meaningful cost
savings. In short, the budget request is generous and
aggressive. The question shouldn't be whether we are spending
enough on the FAA, the question should be whether it will be
spent wisely and whether increased spending will translate into
increased productivity and aviation safety.
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 priorities are
becoming more aligned with the Committee's focus. However, some
of the continuing problems with the Agency's two largest
procurements, STARS and WAAS, fuel concern that the agency
hasn't turned the corner yet 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.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that recent
Congressional pressures to ``firewall'' parts of the
Transportation budget in order to insulate certain portions of
the budget from having to compete with other Federal spending
are counterproductive. These efforts seem more designed to
increase resources to one part of the Department of
Transportation for the sake of increased investment without
assessing whether such ``investment'' will actually increase
efficiency, safety, or improve productivity. Clearly, the
experience with the Advance Automation Suite, the STARS, WAAS,
MLS, OASIS, and several other procurements demonstrate that
money alone is not the answer to squeezing increased efficiency
and productivity from the air traffic system.
The case is unquestionably the same with the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP). The fiscal year 1999 obligation
limitation level set by the Congress last year was the highest
ever--before considering the additional investment in airport
infrastructure made possible by the Passenger Facility Charge
(PFCs) revenues. Interestingly, a cursory analysis of the last
20 years of AIP spending indicates that an increased percentage
of the program is committed to landside rather than airside
projects. The Committee questions whether a dramatic increase
in funding would somehow change the trend in this program.
In short, the FAA has thrived in the regular budget and
appropriations process and the leadership of the FAA utilizing
the increased procurement and personnel authority granted by
Congress several years ago is beginning to improve the FAA's
performance. Expenditures on FAA programs continue to exceed
the taxes paid into the aviation trust fund demonstrating the
import 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 from having to
compete with other budget priorities.
Operations
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $5,562,558,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 4,539,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 5,857,450,000
\1\ Excludes reduction of $4,863,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law
105-277; excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Excludes $1,500,000,000 user fees to be appropriated.
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, airports, commercial space, medical and
engineering, and development programs.
User fees.--The administration proposed to collect almost
$1,500,000,000 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 also estimates collecting $40,000,000 in
overflight fees in fiscal year 2000. 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.
Operations.--The activities of the operations accounts
comprise seven main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization
to bring together functions and activities that support the
provision of a single, major service and to establish a single
executive responsible for that service.
Air traffic services.--Provides for the operations and
maintenance of the national air traffic control and navigation
system and the installation of air traffic and navigation
equipment. Air traffic services consists of five subactivities:
air traffic, NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased
telecommunications, and flight inspections.
Aviation regulation and certification.--Promotes aviation
safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification
standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies,
airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration;
develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of
aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation,
aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected
unapproved parts office.
Aviation security.--Provides for the overall planning,
direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil
aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation
and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign
airports.
Research and acquisition.--Responsible for all research,
prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities.
Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center.
Administration of airports.--Provides for the
administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and
certification of the Nation's airports.
Commercial space transportation.--Facilitates and promotes
commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and
licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site
operations, and certain payloads.
Staff offices.--Funds the Office of the Administrator and
the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to
the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations
and communications control; civil rights; government and
industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation;
legal counsel; financial services; human resources; repair and
center operations; and public affairs. Also includes the
administrative functions that establish policy and direct and
develop programs in the areas of FAA aircraft use and
management, building space management, budget and accounting,
business information and consultation, human resource
management, and technical and management training; includes the
regional administrators and the Aeronautical Center Director.
The bill includes $5,857,450,000 for the operations
activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the
airport and airway trust 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]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Committee
1999 program 2000 budget recommendations
level \1\ \2\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services................................... 4,343,042 \3\ 4,696,487 4,681,246
Aviation regulation and certification.................. 629,509 667,631 629,509
Aviation security...................................... 123,301 144,642 133,301
Research and acquisition............................... 73,994 183,740 156,533
Administration of airports............................. 48,449 50,608 .................
Commercial space transportation........................ 6,146 6,838 6,146
Administration......................................... 259,283 ................. .................
Staff offices.......................................... 73,971 289,054 250,715
Accountwide adjustments................................ ................. ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 5,562,558 6,039,000 5,857,450
========================================================
User fees.............................................. 43,000 1,540,000
Appropriated funds..................................... 5,519,558 4,543,000 5,857,450
Secretary's discretionary transfer authority........... ................. ................. 60,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total available funds............................ 5,562,558 6,133,000 5,917,450
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,863,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.
\2\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\3\ Includes $1,500,000,000 in proposed user fee taxes.
air traffic services
The Committee recommends a total of $4,681,246,000 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 fiscal year 1998 appropriated level.
Initially, the appropriation could be adjusted downward for the
estimated $50,000,000 in overflight fees that were not
forthcoming in fiscal years 1998 or 1999 but are anticipated at
a level of $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. 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. In addition, substantial controller
staff years in this appropriation are directly attributable
solely to union activities and over $37,000,000 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 $20,000,000 growth in
backfill overtime staffing and the seemingly suboptimal timing
of the generous allotment of staff-years for union activities,
or interim incentive pay which should no longer be necessary,
or the increased cost of moving away from the current
supervisor structure and ratio, removing the cost of
administrative services aircraft or even adjusting the base to
reflect the actual fiscal year 1999 baseline, the FAA should
pursue efficiencies that would result from a greater
coordination of activities in this area and reductions have
been assumed for the minimum of $18,000,000 in NAS plan handoff
costs that will not occur and for the oceanic and contract
tower 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 in last year's 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 should
provide some guidance for the FAA as resource constraints are
accommodated.
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 operations per hour at en route
centers are less than 3 per controller hour, and current
average operations per hour at air traffic control towers are
less than 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 decision to impose
agency-wide spending restrictions on activities funded by the
operations appropriation. 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 certification and maintenance.--The Committee is
concerned about the cost and manpower required to maintain and
certify older, more remotely located radar systems. It is the
Committee's understanding that technology allows for remote
maintenance and certification of these radar systems by
continuously measuring a radar's critical performance
parameters and automatically transmits the test results over a
standard phone line to a designated Maintenance Control Center.
In essence, this technology gives older generation radars
advanced RMM capability.
Contract tower program.--The Committee recommendation
includes $52,100,000 for the contract tower program as well as
$5,000,000 for a contract tower cost-sharing program. These
funds are in addition to those 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. The Committee believes that this
new program will enable 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 Committee notes that the FAA contract tower program
continues to receive overwhelming support from aviation users
and airports as a cost-effective way to enhance aviation
safety. As a result, the Committee continues to fully support
this program and innovative initiatives such as the contract
tower cost-sharing program for certain airports. Therefore, the
Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the contract
tower cost-sharing program and resources funding the original
contract tower program at $52,100,000 to continue the base
contract tower program and that allow the program to be
extended to other visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control
towers operated by the FAA (former Level II and III air traffic
control towers as previously classified by FAA). Within 60 days
of enactment of this Act, the FAA Administrator is directed to
provide to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee a plan
proposing the extension of the contract tower program to those
VFR towers. 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 the
former level II and III VFR towers, the Committee believes that
savings from expanding the program to these towers offer
potential savings of as much as $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2000
with even greater savings in subsequent fiscal years.
In addition, the FAA is directed to continue operation of
the contract towers at Olympia, WA; Greenville Municipal
Airport, MS; Huntsville, AL; and Lea County Airport, NM under
this program. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to work
with the local Mississippi officials to establish contract
towers at Olive Branch Airport and the Tupelo Airport, to work
with local and state officials to provide contract tower and
operational assistance for the transferred air facility at
Adak, with local and military officials to explore contract
tower operations at Ft. Sill Army Radar Operation Control, to
work with local officials for contract tower service for Felts
Field, Washington, and with local Indiana officials for
contract tower service for Muncie/Delaware County Airport.
The Committee urges the FAA to work with the communities to
explore alternatives, such as sharing tower operating costs, to
maintain tower operations.
Contract tower oversight.--In May 1998, the Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) provided an
audit report on the contract tower program. While the report
found the quality of service between contract and FAA-operated
towers to be comparable, it did note that some contract towers
had not been staffed at contract specified levels, and that
some contractors had been compensated for services that had not
been provided. The OIG recommended that the FAA take steps to
recoup the overpayments, ensure that contract terms are adhered
to, and institute a formal review process. The Committee
directs the FAA to report on the progress of implementing the
OIG recommendations and requests that the OIG report on the
staffing levels at Outagamie County Regional Airport in
Appleton, Wisconsin to include an assessment of whether
staffing levels are adequate for aircraft operations at the
airport.
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, the Committee recommendation includes
funding for a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport in Butte,
MT.
National airspace redesign.--The Committee directs not less
than $11,000,000 to support the administration's initiative to
comprehensively review and design the domestic and oceanic
airspace within the United States. The Committee directs the
FAA to concentrate the administration's initial efforts on the
eastern region, particularly on the redesign of the New York/
New Jersey metropolitan airspace, consistent with the
administration's plans. These initial efforts will support the
planning and design challenges in the New York/New Jersey
region's airspace, the most complex and densely traveled
airspace in the world. The airspace in this region is some of
the most congested in the nation and the current airspace
design is quite sensitive to delays if weather or other delay
contributing factors occur. The FAA is encouraged to take
advantage of new technologies such as satellite navigation and
aircraft capabilities, and new flight paths in the redesign
effort and to explore best practices from other congested
airspace to identify tools to better manage traffic and
capacity in this critical air transportation metropolitan
airspace.
The national and regional redesign will take advantage of
new technologies, such as satellite navigation and aircraft
capabilities, and new flight paths. The Committee encourages
the administration to ensure that the final result of the
redesign will deliver the greatest safety, efficiency and
environmental benefits to system operators, users and citizens
near airports, particularly those who are affected by air
noise.
The Committee requires the FAA to submit quarterly reports
on the status of the Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives
continuing from last year's conference report.
Oceanic Traffic Services.--The FAA has had difficulty in
modernizing the Oceanic services function and 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.
Consistent with the spirit of the Administration's request to
move to a PBO for air traffic services, the Committee allows
the contracting out of the oceanic function. This function is
discreet and operationally discernible from other FAA air
traffic services and facilities and could be an ideal candidate
for incrementally moving toward a PBO, privatized, or more
competitive air traffic services model for the FAA. A 1997 GRA
study commissioned by the FAA Oceanic Integrated Product Team
estimated the cost of the Oceanic operation at almost
$200,000,000 (1995 data). The Committee requests quarterly
reports providing updates on this initiative and the
anticipated timeframe for increased efficiency due to
modernization and operations under an oceanic services
contract.
Leased telecommunication services/RCL.--In prior-years'
reports the Committee has expressed concern about
underutilization of the radio communications link [RCL], which
is owned by FAA and is one of the largest microwave networks in
the country. The alternative to increased use of the RCL is
reliance on leased telecommunications. The Committee directed
FAA to transfer to the radio communications link as much of the
existing workload as possible to better utilize that resource.
The Committee understands that FAA plans to use RCL circuits
rather than increasing reliance on leased circuits from a
private vendor.
Notwithstanding this intention on the part of the FAA, the
Committee has concluded that FAA is likely to continue to
underutilize its radio communications link [RCL] network in
favor of leased telecommunications by virtue of the fact that
the FAA has failed to follow through on this plan in the past.
The Committee suggests that FAA accommodate constrained air
traffic services appropriations by disposing of a part of its
underutilized RCL network and taking staffing savings. The
Committee requests semiannual reports commencing in July 1999
from the FAA on the status of plans to more fully utilize RCL
or to decommission it.
Training.--The Committee notes the difficulty that the FAA
has had in balancing training management and administration
between culture changing activities, proficiency training, and
general human resource development training activities, among
others. The Committee encourages the agency to redouble its
efforts to address the training issues identified by the Office
of Inspector General and to continue to report to the
Committees on Appropriations on a semiannual basis. Due to
resource constraints, the FAA will clearly have to make choices
between various training priorities. The Committee continues to
note the importance of air traffic controller proficiency and
developmental training and concurs in the agency decision not
to divert this funding for other activities.
Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center.--The
Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Rocky
Mountain Emergency Services Training Center (RMESTC) in Helena,
Montana.
Precision runway monitor at Newark International Airport.--
The Committee directs the Administrator to continue to work
with the appropriate local authorities toward the installation
of Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) at Newark International
Airport.
FAA data bases.--Over time, FAA has invested substantial
resources in the development and maintenance of a large number
of data bases. The growth and proliferation of data bases is a
consequence of a number of factors including the wide scope of
FAA's responsibilities, its organizational structure, and the
widely differing dynamics of various components of the aviation
industry. However, responsibility and/or control over the data
bases is not currently centralized; instead it is spread among
the various lines of business and other organizational elements
who are the prime users of the data collected. There is little
agencywide data integration. As such, FAA is becoming
increasingly data rich and information poor.
Accordingly, the Committee continues to encourage the FAA
to develop a data management plan that leads to optimized data
sharing among FAA organizational elements; better control over
the costs of data base management; the capability to review and
analyze data on a subject as well as a functional basis; and
enhanced capability of senior management to resolve time
critical questions and issues that may cut across agency
organizational elements.
In the fiscal year 1999 report, the FAA was directed to
report to the Committees on Appropriations on progress toward a
data management plan. The Committee is encouraged by the FAA
response to that direction and looks forward to the anticipated
report in October 1999 on the development of an integrated,
agencywide data management plan. Such a plan is a major
undertaking, but it is vital for strategic and policy planning.
The FAA has taken an important first step in focusing on the
importance of data management with the appointment of the Chief
Information Officer (CIO) and with the creation of a framework
and methodology for moving forward on the plan.
Aviation regulation and certification
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $629,509,000.
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles.--The United States currently
maintains approximately 60 percent of the worldwide
manufacturing capacity of UAVs. However, there are no
standardized regulatory criteria under which manufacturers can
develop and build UAVs, or operational procedures that allow
them to test and operate UAVs outside restricted airspace on
military test ranges. It appears to be timely for the FAA to
begin addressing the integration of UAVs into the National
Airspace System. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the
highly qualified team of experts at the Physical Sciences
Laboratory at New Mexico State University to study the issue of
wider use of UAVs and what work needs to be done to incorporate
UAVs into the National Airspace System.
Aviation Security
The Committee recommends $133,301,000, an increase of
$10,000,000 over fiscal year 1999.
Research and Acquisition
The Committee recommends $156,533,000.
Administration of Airports
The Committee recommends $48,449,000 provided elsewhere in
the bill.
Commercial Space Transportation
The Committee recommends $6,146,000.
Staff Offices
The Committee recommends $250,715,000, consistent with the
presentation in the President's budget request adjusted to
reflect budgetary constraints.
BILL LANGUAGE
Reprogrammings.--The Committee continues to have concerns
with the inspector general's findings of major variances in
amounts proposed for reduction by budget line item to actual
amounts reprogrammed. The FAA should not make changes to
congressionally approved reprogramming notices, without
congressional concurrence. To increase oversight in this area,
the Administrator is directed to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with line by line accounts of all
future reprogramming actions taken subsequent to approval by
Congress.
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 1995-99. It was requested by the administration for
fiscal year 2000.
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 2000.
Contract tower program.--The Committee has included
language for a contract tower cost-sharing program.
Secretary's discretionary transfer funds.--The Committee
has included language that provides authority for the Secretary
to transfer up to $60,000,000 from Coast Guard operating
expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and
maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security.
Oceanic Services Function.--The Committee has included
language permitting the FAA to contract out the Oceanic
services function.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $1,900,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 2,319,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 2,045,652,000
\1\ Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental for explosives
detection systems. Also excludes supplemental funding of Y2K.
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 $41,000,000,000 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.
Earlier this 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.''
``FAA has taken a number of steps to overcome
problems with past modernization efforts. Most notably,
the agency has moved away from its prior practice of
taking on large, complex projects all at once and is
now acquiring new systems by using a more incremental
approach. In addition, the agency is no longer making
unilateral decisions about air traffic control
modernization. Instead, it has been working actively
with the aviation community to make decisions more
collaboratively. Furthermore, FAA has begun to address
some of the root causes of its modernization problems
by implementing processes to help (1) improve its
ability to estimate and account for project costs, (2)
develop a complete architecture (blueprint) for
modernizing the National Airspace System, (3) reduce
the risks associated with software development, and (4)
reform the organization's culture, including providing
incentives to make managers more accountable. While FAA
has delivered some of its major systems, it must be
recognized that many of these projects encountered
difficulties in meeting their original cost and
schedule goals, and the baselines were subsequently
revised.''
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, most of those core issues are
arguable 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
early signs are that those efforts are having marginal success.
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 implementation Year of last-site implementation
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System name 1983 NAS 1983 NAS
plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1998 CIP 1999 CIP plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1998 CIP 1999 CIP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Automation System (AAS) 1990 1991 1991 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ ) 1994 2001 2004 ( \1\ ) ( \1\ )
Display System Replacement .......... .......... .......... 1998 1998 .......... .......... .......... 2000 2000
(DSR)......................
Standard Terminal Automation .......... .......... .......... 1998 ( \2\ ) .......... .......... .......... 2005 ( \2\ )
Replacement System (STARS).
Tower Automation Program (TAP).. .......... .......... .......... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ ) .......... .......... .......... ( \3\ ) ( \3\ )
Air Route Surveillance Radar 1988 1993 1994 1996 1996 1991 1996 1996 1999 1999
(ARSR-4).......................
Airport Surface Detection 1987 1992 1993 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999 1999
Equipment (ASDE-3)............
Automated Weather Observing 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 2002 2002
System (AWOS)/Automated Surface
Observing System (ASOS)........
Central Weather Processor (CWP). 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \4\ 1992 \4\ 1993 \4\ 1993
Flight Service Automation System 1984 1991 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995 1995
(FSAS).........................
Mode-S.......................... 1988 1993 1994 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 \5\ 1999 \5\ 1999
Radio Microwave Link (RML) 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993 1993
Replacement and Expansion......
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar ( \6\ ) 1993 1994 1994 1994 ( \6\ ) 1996 1996 2001 2000
(TDWR).........................
Voice Switching and Control 1989 1995 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997
System (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\ The Tower Automation Program (TAP) has been terminated.
\4\ 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.
\5\ Dates denoted are for Interim Beacon Interrogator (IBI) Last-Site Implementation.
\6\ The 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. Recent delays are due to
environmental issues at Ajo, Arizona
and typhoon damage at Mount Santa Rosa,
Guam which are the last sites.
Airport surface detection Original delays occurred because FAA and
equipment [ASDE-3]. the contractor underestimated 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 have
delayed the program.
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 years 1997-98
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 has moved due to en route
interface requirements and site
preparation delays.
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.
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 contractors 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 $2,045,652,000 for
the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of
the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Title 1999 2000 budget Committee
enacted estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST
AND EVALUATION
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY 52,566.0 33,166.1 33,166.1
DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING....
=========================================
AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES 26,300.0 23,862.0 21,062.0
IMPROVEMENTS.................
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION........... ........... 10,055.0 10,055.0
OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM..... ........... 10,000.0 10,000.0
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) 39,000.0 27,855.0 27,855.0
APPLICATIONS.................
NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G ........... 9,640.0 2,625.0
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM.........
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM).. 51,200.0 ........... ..............
CONFLICT PROBE................ 41,000.0 ........... ..............
HOST REPLACEMENT.............. 20,000.0 ........... ..............
NAS INFORMATION SYSTEMS....... ........... 500.0 ..............
FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE......... ........... 184,800.0 202,800.0
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE 177,500.0 266,712.0 274,397.0
PROGRAMS...............
=========================================
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)... 99,200.0 58,900.0 58,900.0
=========================================
AFSS VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT. ........... 3,000.0 1,000.0
LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM ........... 4,000.0 ..............
FOR GPS (LAAS)...............
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM ........... 65,200.0 ..............
(WAAS).......................
NEXT GENERATION NAVIGATION 92,000.0 ........... 118,100.0
SYSTEMS......................
NEXT GENERATION LANDING 34,175.0 ........... 18,000.0
SYSTEMS......................
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING/ 126,175.0 72,200.0 137,100.0
NAVAIDS................
=========================================
FAA TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITY-- 5,290.0 1,322.5 1,322.5
BUILDING LEASE...............
NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM 2,000.0 2,000.0 ..............
SUPPORT LABORATORY...........
TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES... 7,000.0 7,000.0 11,477.5
INDEPENDENT OPERATIONAL TEST 3,500.0 3,500.0 ..............
SUPPORT......................
UTILITY PLANT MODIFICATIONS... ........... 2,477.5 ..............
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL, RDT&E 17,790.0 16,300.0 12,800.0
EQUIPMENT AND
FACILITIES.............
=========================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 1........ 473,231.0 447,278.1 516,363.1
=========================================
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES
AND EQUIPMENT
LONG RANGE RADAR (LRR) 5,700.0 ........... ..............
PROGRAM--REPLACE/ESTABLISH...
EN ROUTE AUTOMATION........... 194,692.4 198,055.0 153,200.0
NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR 4,900.0 6,900.0 4,900.0
(NEXRAD).....................
AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS 1,000.0 1,000.0 ..............
MANAGEMENT...................
WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR 20,000.0 12,872.0 5,800.0
(WARP).......................
AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) 600.0 1,000.0 ..............
APPLICATIONS.................
ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/ 54,000.0 54,000.0 36,900.0
PLANT IMPROVEMENTS...........
VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL 10,000.0 17,500.0 18,500.0
SYSTEM (VSCS)................
AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT........ 35,000.0 42,000.0 15,000.0
CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS 1,850.0 2,000.0 850.0
SUPPORT......................
DOD BASE CLOSURE--FACILITY 1,000.0 3,900.0 3,300.0
TRANSFER.....................
BACK-UP EMERGENCY 8,500.0 4,500.0 1,580.0
COMMUNICATIONS (BUEC)........
AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION RFI 1,600.0 1,700.0 1,700.0
ELIMINATION..................
VOLCANO MONITOR............... 2,000.0 ........... 2,000.0
ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR 14,800.0 45,400.0 23,000.0
(ATCBI) REPLACEMENT..........
ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES. 4,100.0 3,700.0 2,700.0
EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL 2,000.0 3,230.4 1,430.0
FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT.......
RCF FACILITIES--EXPAND/ ........... 6,700.0 6,700.0
RELOCATE.....................
FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS ........... 6,100.0 6,100.0
INFRASTRUCTURE...............
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE 361,742.4 410,557.4 283,660.0
PROGRAMS...............
=========================================
TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR 4,300.0 9,300.0 8,300.0
(TDWR)--PROVIDE..............
TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS)... 100,000.0 136,340.0 136,340.0
TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL 63,625.0 76,000.0 75,500.0
FACILITIES--REPLACE..........
CONTROL TOWER/TRACON 17,722.2 21,982.7 21,982.7
FACILITIES--IMPROVE..........
TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH 10,300.0 9,900.0 10,900.0
REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS......
EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND 22,000.0 29,700.0 22,000.0
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS
CHICAGO METROPLEX............. ........... 1,500.0 700.0
NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT 2,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0
BERGSTROM....................
POTOMAC METROPLEX............. ........... 17,100.0 5,800.0
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX. 17,900.0 31,000.0 17,500.0
ATLANTA METROPLEX............. 15,000.0 13,000.0 7,700.0
NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT 20,000.0 8,900.0 5,500.0
SYSTEM (NIMS)................
AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR 5,000.0 ........... 5,000.0
(ASR-9)......................
AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION 5,600.0 2,400.0 500.0
EQUIPMENT (ASDE-3)...........
AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY 9,800.0 11,700.0 11,700.0
SYSTEM (AMASS)...............
VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT 3,000.0 3,000.0 1,200.0
PROGRAM......................
TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR- 62,200.0 136,070.0 105,000.0
11)..........................
WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR..... 11,900.0 24,000.0 24,000.0
DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,600.0
TRANSFER.....................
PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS..... 3,300.0 3,300.0 3,300.0
TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE. 2,773.4 3,838.8 3,838.8
TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS 1,119.8 1,124.0 1,124.0
IMPROVEMENTS.................
RCE EQUIPMENT................. ........... 3,400.0 3,400.0
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL 379,040.4 546,055.5 474,385.5
PROGRAMS...............
=========================================
AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING 9,900.0 8,080.0 9,900.0
SYSTEM (ASOS)................
OASIS......................... 19,250.0 21,486.0 10,000.0
FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES 1,364.4 1,577.3 1,364.4
IMPROVEMENT..................
FLIGHT SERVICE STATION 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0
MODERNIZATION................
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE 32,514.4 33,143.3 23,264.4
PROGRAMS...............
=========================================
VOR/DME/TACAN NETWORK PLAN.... 4,700.0 2,000.0 2,000.0
INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM ........... 8,200.0 ..............
(ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE.....
ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 2,100.0 1,000.0 ..............
1C...........................
LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT 3,000.0 2,200.0 2,200.0
SYSTEM (LLWAS)...............
RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR)..... 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0
GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE 2,400.0 ........... ..............
PROGRAM......................
WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM ........... 42,900.0 ..............
(WAAS).......................
NDB SUSTAIN................... 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0
NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS-- 2,761.8 3,146.8 6,400.0
IMPROVE......................
APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM 5,000.0 2,700.0 5,700.0
IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP)..........
PRECISION APPROACH PATH 2,500.0 1,000.0 ..............
INDICATORS (PAPI)............
DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT.. 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0
VISUAL NAVAIDS................ 400.0 1,000.0 3,500.0
TACTICAL LANDING SYSTEMS...... 3,000.0 ........... ..............
INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES ........... 900.0 900.0
AUTOMATION (IAPA)............
GPS AERONAUTICAL BAND......... ........... 17,000.0 ..............
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND 30,061.8 86,246.8 24,900.0
NAVIGATIONAL AIDS......
=========================================
ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM 3,500.0 3,600.0 3,600.0
SYSTEM (ANICS)...............
FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT 10,600.0 10,500.0 10,500.0
AND MONITORING...............
FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT-- 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0
IMPROVE/MODERNIZE............
ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS-- 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0
SUSTAIN/SUPPORT..............
AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0
(LOCAL PROJECTS).............
AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT 2,000.0 5,000.0 1,840.0
PROGRAM......................
COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS 1,000.0 4,300.0 3,000.0
(CAEG) REPLACEMENT...........
AIRPORT CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS-- ........... 1,000.0 ..............
SUSTAIN......................
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC 40,600.0 47,900.0 42,440.0
FACILITIES.............
=========================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 2........ 843,959.0 1,123,903.0 848,649.9
=========================================
NON-ATC FACILITIES AND
EQUIPMENT
NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION 800.0 1,100.0 800.0
PROGRAM (NASMAP).............
HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 17,000.0 22,500.0 22,500.0
AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS 11,600.0 16,400.0 11,600.0
SYSTEM (ASAS)................
OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT 1,000.0 600.0 600.0
SYSTEM (ODMS)................
FAA EMPLOYEE HOUSING--PROVIDE. 8,000.0 8,000.0 8,000.0
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND 2,300.0 3,000.0 2,300.0
FACILITIES...................
TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE 500.0 1,000.0 1,000.0
SUPPORT......................
INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY 3,000.0 5,000.0 4,000.0
ASSURANCE....................
SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS 3,500.0 5,200.0 3,500.0
SUBSYSTEM (SPAS).............
NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA 1,800.0 1,500.0 1,500.0
CENTER.......................
PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM 9,700.0 5,000.0 2,000.0
EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS... 100,000.0 97,500.0 100,000.0
FACILITY SECURITY RISK 1,000.0 11,500.0 11,500.0
MANAGEMENT...................
INFORMATION SECURITY.......... 4,000.0 10,325.0 4,000.0
NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS ........... 1,000.0 1,000.0
(RCOM).......................
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT 164,200.0 189,625.0 174,300.0
EQUIPMENT..............
=========================================
AERONAUTICAL CENTER TRAINING 12,000.0 3,200.0 ..............
AND SUPPORT FACILITIES.......
NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) 400.0 1,500.0 ..............
TRAINING FACILITIES..........
DSR TRAINING SIMULATOR (MARC). 4,000.0 ........... ..............
-----------------------------------------
SUBTOTAL--TRAINING 16,400.0 4,700.0 ..............
EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES.
=========================================
TOTAL ACTIVITY 3........ 180,600.0 194,325.0 174,300.0
=========================================
MISSION SUPPORT
SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND 28,960.0 27,300.0 22,200.0
DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT..........
PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES........ 27,500.0 31,100.0 31,100.0
LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES.... 5,600.0 5,600.0 5,600.0
MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL 14,800.0 14,600.0 14,600.0
CENTER--LEASE................
IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT 2,000.0 2,800.0 2,800.0
SERVICES.....................
TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT 41,800.0 40,900.0 38,700.0
FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM 1,500.0 3,000.0 3,000.0
ENGINEERING--PROVIDE.........
PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION 2,500.0 3,200.0 3,200.0
MOVES........................
FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE....... 1,000.0 2,500.0 2,330.0
TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT 47,550.0 48,800.0 47,143.0
CONTRACT (TSSC)..............
RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM..... 500.0 1,500.0 1,000.0
CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION 57,000.0 63,400.0 60,100.0
SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE)..........
Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES........... 25,000.0 ........... ..............
Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES 122,133.0 ........... ..............
(EMERGENCY)..................
-----------------------------------------
TOTAL ACTIVITY 4........ 376,343.0 244,700.0 231,773.0
=========================================
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES
PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES 248,000.0 308,793.9 274,566.0
=========================================
TOTAL................... 2,122,133.0 2,319,000.0 2,045,652.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
engineering, development, test, and evaluation
The Committee recommends $516,361,100 for various
engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities.
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. In
particular, the Committee encourages the FAA to focus on the
problem posed by runway incursions funded at $3,978,200 within
this subactivity. The development of a low cost surface
detection system could greatly contribute to confidence on the
part of industry and controllers that runway incursions can be
identified immediately and managed accordingly. Such confidence
would facilitate overall system efficiency in a cascading
fashion by maximizing throughput at congested and critical
facilities during times of inclement weather.
En route programs
Aviation Weather Services Improvements.--The Committee
recommends $21,062,000. This funding is to continue the full
scale software development and testing activities, begin
algorithm testing, and other developmental and testing
activities. Weather is the major contributor to delays and is a
major contributor to accidents. The ITWS program supported by
this funding holds the promise for improving weather
information integration both to controllers and airline
industry users for planning activities. However, the program is
running behind schedule due to software development delays and
does not require $3,800,000 of the budget request for Nims
Interface and Telecommunication funds in fiscal year 2000.
En Route Automation.--The Committee expectation provides
the full budget request for Activity 1, but encourages the FAA
to proceed slowly with development of additional functional
builds to this system.
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee
recommends $27,855,000 for Aeronautical Data Link applications.
This activity is a critical component of the ``Free Flight
Phase I'' initiative which is anticipated to provide
significant efficiencies and benefits to the user community.
The Committee directs the FAA to provide a cost benefit
analysis of FAA deployment of the national HID/NAS LAN as
compared to contracting out for that capability from the
private sector.
Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communication System.--The
Committee recommendation provides $2,625,000 for this digital
communications upgrade initiative and directs the FAA to
provide the Committee with an analysis of TDMA as opposed to
CDMA technology for this functional capability for the agency.
NAS Information Systems.--The Committee recommends no
funding for this activity. The justification describes
activities better performed in the Operations budget.
Free Flight Phase One Integration.--The Committee provides
$2,000,000 more than the full request for the Free Flight Phase
One initiative and commends the Administrator for her
leadership and involvement of the industry in this initiative.
The Free Flight Phase One concept is incremental in nature and
should provide the industry and controllers with critically
needed efficiency tools. The Committee recommendation includes
resources for the expansion of the Departure Spacing Program
(DSP) through the installation of equipment at Teterboro, White
Plains, Islip Tower, and the Air Traffic Control System Command
Center. In addition, the Committee recommendation provides
$16,000,000 in Free Flight Phase One for the Safe Flight 2000
program of which $6,000,000 is for the Capstone Initiative and
$11,000,000 is for the Ohio River Valley ADS-B Initiative.
Terminal programs
Terminal Automation Program.--The Committee recommendation
includes the full request for the Terminal Automation Program
(STARS) for both activity 1 and activity 2. It appears that the
Committee concerns expressed in last year's report were
prescient:
``. . . the Committee is increasingly concerned about
program slippages, cost growth, and the severity of the
computer-human interface problems. The Committee
reiterates its concern that procurements like STARS,
WAAS, and the deepwater capability replacement program
are beyond the capability of the Department to manage
given the complexity of the systems and the critical
nature of the external factors that influence program
development.''
The STARS program is a candidate for a case study in how
not to manage a major procurement. The initial contract was
awarded in September 1996 as a commercial-off-the-shelf/non-
developmental item [COTS/NDI]-based automated radar terminal
system for use in terminal radar approach control facilities.
The concept behind the STARS procurement was to maximize the
use of a commercially available system, and augment that
commercial system with a minimum of software development. This
strategy was pursued because the FAA experience with software
intensive development acquisitions have resulted in large cost
increases, multiple rebaselinings and major schedule slippages.
The initial contractor proposal estimated that 916,000 lines of
software code could be used from its existing system and that
119,000 lines of new software code would be developed. The
Department of Transportation Inspector General reported in
February 1999, that 370,000 lines of new software code would
need to be developed and that FAA now considers STARS to be a
software development system. Clearly, either the initial STARS
procurement strategy was flawed, the program execution was
flawed, the FAA failed to establish adequate safeguards to
requirements creep, the contract mechanism was inappropriate to
the complexity of the acquisition, and/or the FAA still has not
discovered how to manage software dependent programs.
The magnitude of the schedule slippages, cost escalations,
and (most recently) procurement strategy shifts are entirely
the consequence of the FAA's seeming inability to set
requirements and manage the contractor to acquisition
completion. The experience with computer-human interface
``CHI'' required modifications should lead the FAA to the
realization that procurements to replace entire systems should
be abandoned and that the most ambitious FAA acquisition for
terminal or tracon automation should focus on replacing
components of a system rather than the entire system.
Conversely, the Committee believes that the poor performance in
the procurement arena should compel the FAA to evaluate the
relative merits of contracting out any aspect of the air
traffic management function possible including both technology
refreshment and operation as a way to mitigate procurement
risk.
The recent FAA decision to install ``stop-gap'' ARTS Color
Displays (ACD's) at five major centers without a clear and full
identification of the associated costs a few months after
committing to an Early Display Configuration (EDC) of the STARS
display does not instill confidence on the Committee's part
that the FAA is managing this program to set requirements,
modified requirements, or has any sensitivity to managing the
ultimate costs of this modernization program. Further, the
Committee is concerned that proceeding with this new ``stop-
gap'' strategy without a clear and full identification of the
associated costs is imprudent. In addition, the Committee is
concerned that the ACD's do not contain many, if not most, of
the CHI modifications deemed essential by the controllers and
the FAA for the STARS EDC displays as safety critical. Either
the CHI changes are safety critical or they are not--but
clearly the CHI standards for ACD's at the five priority
facilities should be no less than that required for STARS EDC.
The Committee directs the FAA to report to Congress not later
than September 1, 1999 on the total cost of the five ACD
installations compared to what the cost would be for the
equivalent installation of STARS color displays. The report
should also identify those CHI changes required for STARS which
do not exist as features in the ACD, and the cost of bringing
the ACD to the same level of compliance.
The FAA has announced that the Syracuse, NY and El Paso, TX
Terminal Radar Approach Control Centers (TRACONS) will receive
the Early Display Configuration (EDC) of STARS in late 1999 and
early 2000, respectively, while parallel development continues
on the full STARS. As an interim measure, the FAA plans to
install stop-gap ARTS Color Displays (ACD) for the New York and
Reagan Washington National TRACONS in the summer and fall of
2000. The FAA also intends to purchase on an unspecified
timeline ACD's for the Dallas-Fort Worth and the new Northern
California and North Georgia TRACONS.
The Committee understands that the final STARS schedules
and program costs will be known by the FAA in late-summer 1999,
and shares the FAA's strong commitment to expeditious full
STARS implementation, including at those TRACONS where ACD
installation is planned on an interim basis. While the STARS
EDC will be on-line in Syracuse and El Paso by early 2000, the
stop-gap ACD's for two TRACONS will not be operational until
later in 2000. The Committee expects the FAA to continue
development of EDC displays for all configurations including
the ARTS IIIE, and to give consideration to installing them in
TRACONS scheduled to receive ACD's should the FAA learn that
the announced schedule at the New York and Reagan Washington
National TRACONS will slip beyond summer and fall of 2000.
Landing and navigational aids programs
AFSS Voice Switch Replacement.--The Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for this activity to initiate the award of a
contract and related program support activity.
Next Generation Navigation Systems.--The Committee
recommends $118,100,000 for next generation navigation systems,
to be distributed as follows:
Wide Area Augmentation System........................... $108,100,000
Loran-C navigation system............................... 10,000,000
Although the Committee continues to be concerned by the
risk associated with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS)
as expressed in previous Committee reports, the Committee is
somewhat heartened by the FAA decision to retain Loran-C for a
minimum of at least eight more years. The Committee continues
to be concerned about the confusion that surrounds the WAAS
program. Rather than providing a clear path for the WAAS
program, the Johns Hopkins study described a system
architecture that envisioned 30 satellites, increased signal
strength, the addition of the second civil frequency, the
removal of selective availability, and the possibility of
additional ground stations. While the navigation system of the
future is clearly primarily satellite based, it may be equally
clear that it is not exclusively satellite based--or that that
should be the goal. Fortunately, the slavish preoccupation that
the FAA and some in the industry had with ``sole means''
appears to have been replaced with the recognition that a more
probable option includes some form of ground-based navigation
aids, notably Loran-C or inertial navigation systems. Further,
what is increasingly clear is that the navigational system of
the future in developing required navigation performance should
address the concerns expressed about jamming, intentional or
unintentional interference with satellite based signals, radio
propagation, satellite or ground-based system failure, the to-
date undefined risks associated with the ionosphere, and the
cost effectiveness of the system. A recent paper presented to
the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil
Aviation Organization (ICAO) concluded that: ``more stringent
required navigation performance criteria are required for sole-
service and these should be developed before any reduction in
the provision of the ground-based infrastructure for navigation
creates a de facto GNSS sole-service.'' For the third
consecutive year, the Committee recommendation reiterates the
Committee's commitment to pursuing satellite based navigation
capability by providing the full amount of the Administration
request for WAAS.
The Committee continues to support steps to ensure that
loran will be available to meet ongoing user navigation safety
and efficiency requirements. Loran provides important
multimodal navigation capabilities, well-proved, cost-
effective, and significant safety and efficiency benefits. The
Committee continues to be convinced that support of the loran
infrastructure is prudent to meet continuing requirements for
the technology, particularly in light of the difficultly the
FAA is experiencing with WAAS. Clearly, a GPS/loran alternative
to WAAS is to use Loran-C to provide a level of redundant
radionavigation capability. Various levels of dependence on
Loran could be established such as exclusive reliance on Loran-
C or relying on the basic backup network of VOR/DME's for IRU/
FMC-equipped aircraft and Loran-C for all other aircraft. Such
an alternative may have significant cost and operational
advantages in both the short and longer term and failure to
maintain the investment in loran infrastructure at this time
would be irresponsible.
Next Generation Landing Systems.--The Committee recommends
$18,000,000 for next generation navigation systems, to be
distributed as follows:
Tactical Landing Systems (TLS).......................... $2,000,000
Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS)................... 2,000,000
Instrument Landing Systems.............................. 14,000,000
TLS.--Demonstrations of the tactical landing system
indicate that the technology may have applications in specific
situations. Using existing aircraft avionics, the TLS is
designed to provide both guidance commands and safety alerts to
pilots. The Committee recommendation for next generation
landing systems includes $2,000,000 to continue evaluation and
demonstration of this technology as directed in prior
appropriations bills.
ILS.--The Committee, consistent with continued concern
about the WAAS program cost effectiveness and schedule,
recommends an increase in the ILS procurement and installation
program. Priority consideration should be given to Harry Brown
Airport, Saginaw, MI; Newark Airport (for LDA with glideslope),
NJ; Baton Rouge Regional Airport, LA; Evanston, WY; Cedar
Rapids, IA; St. George, AK; North Las Vegas Airport, NV; St.
Louis Lambert International Airport, MO; McComb Airport, MS;
and Atlantic City, NJ.
LAAS/Cedar Rapids.--The Committee recommends that, if
certified, the FAA accept the LAAS at Cedar Rapids, IA and
operate it at that location.
En route programs
Technical Center Facilities.--The Committee recommendation
includes funding for both laboratory improvements and for
ongoing capital reinvestment in the technical center
facilities.
Independent Operational Test Support.--The Committee
recommendation includes the relevant funding for testing and
test support within the lines of the programs to be tested.
Funding is more appropriately included within the program to
properly reflect total system costs.
air traffic control facilities and equipment
En Route Automation.--The Committee recommendation includes
all components of the request for En Route Automation in full
except the Oceanic modernization request. The Committee
recommendation is for the FAA to contract out the modernization
and operation of the Oceanic facilities. The FAA has already
canceled phase two of the Oceanic modernization project and FAA
actions to reprogram fiscal year 1998 funds and to reduce the
fiscal year 1999 budget raise questions as to the viability of
this initiative as currently configured. Moreover, many FAA
officials involved with the project have argued for a revision
of the project's scope already. The Committee is encouraged by
the quality of the current program management and is confident
in the FAA's ability to manage the contracting out of all or
part of this function. The justification for Oceanic for fiscal
year 1999 indicates that a long term acquisition strategy is
timely for this program and the Committee believes that the
difficulties in this program in the past, and the discreet
nature of the oceanic missions make the entire program (or a
subset of the facilities) an ideal candidate for contracting
out. The Committee believes that industry is supportive of this
approach, is aware of at least three potential competitors for
such a service, and believes that this concept can be
implemented to Oceanic facilities incrementally or in their
entirety. The Committee is further interested in the
contracting out of the modernization and operation of this
function as a potential new model for specialized air traffic
services.
Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD).--The Committee
recommends $4,900,000 for Next Generation Weather Radar
upgrades, $2,000,000 below the budget request. The FAA has the
Committee's approval to seek contributions from the National
Weather Service and the U.S. Air Force who share the FAA's
interest in seeking a system modification that addresses the
anomalous propagation problem existent in the present system.
Air Traffic Operations Management.--The Committee
recommendation does not include the budget request for air
traffic operations management as the fiscal year 1999
justification indicated that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation
completed the initiative.
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP).--The Committee
recommends $5,800,000 to complete Stage 1/2 deployments under
the WARP contract. Consideration of the balance of the request
is deferred pending development of a timetable for integration
of the proposed enhanced WARP capabilities with new NAS systems
and Free Flight Phase 1.
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications.--The Committee
recommends the entire request for activity 1 funding for ADL
but the Committee does not recommend any activity 2 funding for
ADL as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for activity 2 was
for the same purpose.
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements.--The
Committee recommends $36,900,000, the budget request level less
the $17,100,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the
Honolulu CERAP. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year
2000 includes $9,600,000 for the Honolulu CERAP consistent with
the request.
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).--The Committee
recommends $19,500,000 for the VSCS software and switch
upgrades, $1,000,000 above the request.
Air Traffic Management.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for this initiative as most of the activities
funding under this heading in fiscal year 1999 have been
reconstituted into other headings in the Facilities and
Equipment account. The budget justification for air traffic
management does not justify the same level of funding given
that development.
Critical Communications Support.--The Committee recommends
$850,000 for critical communications support, the same level as
fiscal year 1999. If additional requirements emerge during
fiscal year 2000, the Committee is open to a reprogramming from
other communication modernization accounts.
DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer.--The Committee
recommends $3,300,000 for DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer,
$2,300,000 more than fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs
the FAA to include a future requirement estimate in subsequent
budget justifications. Although future estimates might increase
or decrease with outyear closures or decisions obviating the
need for FAA assumption of certain facilities, it would be
helpful to the Committee to have the FAA's best assessment of
future requirements in this area.
Back-up Emergency Communications (BUEC).--The Committee
recommends $1,580,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal
year 1999.
Air/ground Communication RFI Elimination.--The Committee
recommends $1,700,000 for this activity, the same level as the
budget request. The Committee is concerned, however, with the
substantial increase in the projected outyear costs in this
area and encourages the FAA to assess whether other
technologies provide more cost effective solutions to this
requirement.
Volcano Monitor.--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for
the monitoring of volcanoes in international flight routes. The
Committee is concerned by the lack of a budget request for this
activity and has found suitable budget savings to make room for
this critical safety investment.
ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI) Replacement.--The Committee
recommendation is for $23,000,000, an increase of $8,200,00
over fiscal year 1999 levels. This level is sufficient to
procure ATCBI-6 replacement interrogators for 25 facilities.
Due to the slippages in the STARS program, this number of
interrogators should allow the FAA to replace ATCBI at the most
critical facilities and also move forward on those facilities
where STARS equipment will be deployed first. The Committee is
aware that an additional 100 facilities will require ATCBI-6
equipment to complete the replacement program.
ATC En Route Radar Facilities.--The Committee
recommendation of $2,700,000 is a $1,000,000 increase over
fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels if adjusted for proposed
reprogramming action. The Committee directs the FAA to provide
a future requirement estimate for this program with the fiscal
year 2001 budget justification.
En Route Comms and Control Facilities Improvement.--The
Committee recommends $1,430,000 for this activity and notes
that sustaining activities are more properly budgeted in the
Operations account.
Terminal programs
Terminal Doppler Weather Radar.--The Committee has provided
$8,300,000, $1,000,000 less than the budget request. This
reduction is possible because land acquisition problems
continue to plague the program making deployment of a system
impossible during fiscal year 2000.
Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace.--The
Committee has provided $75,500,000 for this activity,
$11,875,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Of the
funds available for this activity, $700,000 is for Phase I;
$1,800,000 is for Phase II; $35,200,000 is available for Phase
III; and $35,100,000 is available for Phase III. The Committee
directs $1,000,000 for the Martin State Airport control tower;
$500,000 for the Pangborn Memorial air traffic control tower;
$1,000,000 for the construction of an air traffic control tower
at Paine Field; $1,250,000 for Birmingham International
Airport; $2,354,000 for North Las Vegas air traffic control
tower; and $1,000,000 for a replacement tower at Billings Logan
International Airport. Further, the Committee directs
$1,000,000 for initial construction of a replacement tower at
Corpus Christi and directs the FAA to explore with the city of
Corpus Christi the financing and construction of a replacement
FAA-designed tower and terminal radar approach control facility
including an arrangement to acquire the facility from the city
by 2002.
Airport traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilities.--
The Committee recommends $21,982,726 to upgrade and improve
various terminal facilities and equipment on a continuing basis
to provide an acceptable level of safe service and to meet
current and future operational requirements. The Committee
recommendation includes $200,000 for control tower
communications equipment upgrades at Manchester Airport, NH.
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR/ETVS).--The
Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget
request to expedite the purchase and installation of Rapid
Deployment Voice Switches (RDVS).
Employee Safety/OSHA and Environmental Compliance
Standards.--The Committee recommendation includes $22,000,000,
the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee
directs the FAA to provide greater detail in the fiscal year
2001 budget justification for this program as well as an
explanation of why the outyear costs estimates are escalating
so rapidly. Further, if the agency believes additional funding
is necessary or warranted in fiscal year 2000 and can be
justified, the agency should submit a reprogramming request.
Chicago Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $700,000 for
completion of resectorization and for equipment upgrades. The
Committee is aware of the FAA's efforts to improve radar system
redundancies for the Chicago TRACON and Chicago O'Hare
International Airport Traffic Control Tower during a time of
serious budget constraints. The Committee recognizes the need
for a reliable back up system that will help ensure controller
efficiency and effectiveness. The Committee recommends that the
FAA continue to work to provide a reliable back up radar
system, acceptable for terminal separation standards, for use
by Chicago O'Hare International Airport facilities.
Potomac Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $5,800,000 in
fiscal year 2000 funding for this project for Engineering, EIS/
Airspace study, program management expenses, and other costs.
Northern California Metroplex.--The Committee recommends
$17,500,000 for all items except budget justification activity
task 6. Given the status of the STARS procurement, activity
task 6 can be deferred for at least one fiscal year, and the
Committee is skeptical whether it is necessary at all. In
addition, the Committee is concerned by the escalation in the
completion cost of this project which has increased by almost
100 percent since the submission of the fiscal year 1999
budget. The Committee is extremely concerned that the agency
does not have a better handle on the cost to complete this
close to the end of the project.
Atlanta Metroplex.--The Committee recommends $7,700,000 for
all items except budget justification activity task 3 for
reasons similar to those mentioned for the Northern California
Metroplex.
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS).--The Committee
recommends $5,500,000 for the NAS Infrastructure Management
System rebaselining and restructuring effort for fiscal year
2000. This program was proposed as a substantial source for
reprogramming in fiscal year 1999 and is currently under an
investment analysis and rebaselining review. The Committee
recommendation should be sufficient to complete those
initiatives and the Committee will consider the rebaselined
program for fiscal year 2001.
Airport surveillance radar [ASR-9].--The Committee provides
$5,000,000 and urges the FAA to evaluate the benefits of siting
ASR-9 systems to serve the Eagle County Regional Airport, CO;
the Mid-Delta Regional Airport, Greenville, MS; and Bethel, AK.
Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE-3).--The
Committee recommends $500,000 for completion of this program as
justified in the fiscal year 1999 budget justification. The
Committee is open to a reprogramming if additional funding is
required to bring the program to final completion.
Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS).--The Committee
recommendation provides the entire budget request for this
program although there are significant inconsistencies between
the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 justifications. The
Committee believes that addressing the potential safety and
efficiency consequences of not remedying runway incursions
justifies a preliminary recommendation of $11,700,000. However,
the FAA is directed to provide a report by July 1, 1999
reconciling the cost estimates in the two justifications and
explaining how this program complements the runway incursion
initiatives elsewhere in this account.
Voice Recorder Replacement Program.--The Committee
recommends $1,200,000 for the voice recorder replacement
program, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999 after
adjustment for proposed reprogramming by the FAA.
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$105,000,000 for the ASR-11 terminal radar program which is
approximately the fiscal year 2000 budget request adjusted for
the proposed reprogramming amount for the ASR-11 program in
fiscal year 1999 and a reduction for site surveys that are
unnecessary in fiscal year 2000 due to related program
slippages. Clearly, the difficulties that the FAA has had with
the STARS procurement translate into program flexibility for
the ASR-11 procurement, but the Committee is concerned that the
program not become a source for slippages in other accounts.
The need to modernize terminal radars is too important to
compress the required funding stream any more than the current
program architecture envisions. The Committee acknowledges the
report from the FAA regarding surveys and cost effectiveness of
several proposed radar sites and encourages the FAA to redeploy
replaced radars at some of the facilities that cannot justify
an ASR-11 deployment on a cost effectiveness basis. In
addition, the Committee requests that the FAA provide a
recommendation for the most cost effective permanent radar
solution for central Oregon (Deschutes and Jefferson Counties);
the mountainous region between Butte, Helena, and Bozeman, MT;
and Provo and Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake
City, UT. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to explore
the acquisition of an ATCBI-5 radar at Keahole-Kona
International Airport pending the ASR-11 survey and design work
for that airport. Further, the FAA report on the cost
effectiveness of a site noted in last year's report assessed
the cost effectiveness of siting an ASR-11 at Provo. The
Committee directs the analysis to be reevaluated with the
awareness that such a siting of an ASR-11 would be of primary
benefit to air traffic to Salt Lake City International Airport
with complementary secondary benefits to Provo.
DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer.--The Committee recommends
$1,600,000 for this activity, a $600,000 increase over fiscal
year 1999. This funding is sufficient to assure the
continuation of operations for Ft. Sill Army Radar operations
and for the assumption of air traffic services currently being
provided by the military at Minot AFB, ND and to complete the
transfer of approach control services from Patrick AFB, FL.
Flight service programs
Automated surface observing system [ASOS].--The
administration requested $8,080,000 for ASOS. The Committee has
provided $9,900,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year
1999. The Committee encourages the FAA to continue
commissioning systems procured through fiscal year 1998 and for
related program management costs. The Committee continues to be
concerned that the FAA has not adequately funded the program
for several years. Adequate funding was not provided for
connectivity lines, controller equipment, or operation and
maintenance funds. That oversight has left the FAA short of
assets to fund ASOS systems for nontowered airports. The FAA,
the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], and user
aviation associations have identified over 200 sites which
should be equipped with ASOS. In particular, the Committee
urges consideration of expediting the installation and
commissioning of the ASOS system for Caledonia County State
Airport, VT and Henderson Executive Airport, NV.
Oasis.--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Oasis
program which the Committee understands may again be facing
delays. The Committee is aware of the difficulty the FAA has
had with the prototype systems and directs the agency not to
obligate any additional appropriated funds until such time as
the Department of Transportation and the program office have
conducted a review of the procurement and program requirements
to assess the viability of the current program structure.
Further, the Committee expects the FAA to use appropriated
funds to conduct necessary stopgap work on the existing systems
and expects adequate staffing levels to be maintained until
such time as Oasis is a viable replacement program.
Flight Service Facilities Improvement.--The Committee
recommends $1,364,400, the same level appropriated in fiscal
year 1999.
Landing and navigational aids programs
Wide area augmentation system [WAAS].--The Committee
recommends a reduction in this account consistent with the
treatment of this program elsewhere in this account.
Navigational and landing aids.--The Committee recommends
$6,400,000 for this activity. The additional increase in the
funding level over the fiscal year 1999 level is for continued
development work on a low cost next generation precision
gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. In this
development effort, the Committee directs the FAA to continue
to work with the involved institutions to facilitate the
expedited development of a lower cost gyroscope for application
in navigation systems. The reduction from the budget request
can be accommodated in task 13. The Committee directs the FAA
to give priority consideration to the St. Louis-Lambert
International Airport for navigational aids related to the
expansion project for which the FAA has issued an LOI. This may
be handled by the signing of a reimbursable agreement between
the FAA and St. Louis Lambert International Airport.
Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP).--The
Committee recommends $5,700,000 for this navigational and
landings aids, $3,000,000 over the budget request and $700,000
over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee recommendation
includes funding for the installation of ALSF-2 systems at Salt
Lake City International Airport and LaCrosse Municipal Airport,
to make lighting improvements at McCarran International
Airport, and to initiate a survey of lighting improvements
necessary at Harrisburg International Airport, and for an
assessment of airfield lighting requirements in rural Alaska.
Distance Measuring Equipment.--The Committee recommends
$1,200,000 for the procurement and installation of DME systems.
The recommendation includes funding for the relocation and
upgrade of the DME at Las Vegas.
Visual Navaids.--The Committee recommends $3,500,000 and
has aggregated the Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI)
line and the visual navaid line. The Committee recommendation
includes funding for the procurement and installation of
Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI's) as well as Runway
End Identification Lights (REIL's), and specifically for the
installation of PAPI on runways 4L and 4R at Newark Airport.
GPS Aeronautical Band.--The Committee recommendation
provides no funding for this line consistent with the treatment
of WAAS and Next Generation Navigational Systems elsewhere in
this account. Until the WAAS program has been restructured and
rebaselined, it is premature for an effort of this magnitude.
Other ATC facilities programs
Air Navaids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects).--The
Committee recommendation provides the full budget request level
for this program, but directs the FAA to budget for this as an
operations and maintenance item in the future.
Aircraft Related Equipment Program.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,840,000 for activity tasks 1, 4, and
6.
Computer Aided Engineering Graphics (CAEG) Replacement.--
The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000, an increase
of $2,000,000 over fiscal year 1999 for the replacement and
modernization of the computer aided engineering and graphics
modules.
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustain.--The Committee
recommendation does not provide the requested $1,000,000
without prejudice. The Committee would favorably consider a
reprogramming request for this project from an appropriate
facilities or communications program.
Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment
NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP).--The Committee
recommends $800,000, the same level as appropriated in fiscal
year 1999.
Hazardous Materials Management.--The Committee
recommendation includes the full budget request for the cleanup
and management of FAA facilities with hazardous materials
issues. The Committee directs the FAA to present a listing of
anticipated projects for both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year
2001 with the fiscal year 2001 budget justification.
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS).--The Committee
recommendation provides $11,600,000, the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommendation
includes funding for Phase 1 of the Airport/Air Carrier
Information Reporting System (AAIRS) and the Operations
Specifications Subsystem (OPSS) at a minimum. The Committee
directs the FAA to provide a greater breakout of individual
initiative cost and benefits with the fiscal year 2001 budget
justification and to provide a report by November 1, 1999 of
the positions that can be eliminated due to the efficiencies
generated by ASAS modernization of data tracking.
Logistics Support System and Facilities.--The Committee
provides $2,300,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year
1999.
Integrated Flight Quality Assurance.--The Committee
provides $4,000,000 for completion of a virtual data pool
development and initiate the development of data sharing
protocols, $1,000,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year
1999.
Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS).--The
Committee recommendation provides $3,500,000, the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
National Aviation Safety Data Center.--The Committee
recommendation provides the entire $1,500,000 requested for the
new data management equipment, but requests a report from the
FAA describing the system to be procured before obligation of
the funding.
Performance Enhancement System.--The Committee
recommendation provides $2,000,000 for this program that is to
integrate data into the OASIS system. The Committee is open to
an appeal on this item if the FAA can justify the resources
given the current status of the OASIS program.
Explosive Detection Systems.--The Committee recommendation
includes $100,000,000 for this program, the same level
appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Facility Security Risk Management.--The Committee
recommendation provides the entire budget request for this
program. The Committee directs the FAA to provide more detail
on activity tasks 8, 9, and 10 to the Subcommittee by July 1,
1999.
Information Security.--The Committee recommendation
provides $4,000,000 for this program, the same level as fiscal
year 1999.
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM).--The Committee
recommendation includes the entire budget request and directs
the FAA to evaluate the potential for ultra wide bandwidth
technology as part of the replacement of outdated radio
equipment. The FAA is directed to report to the Committee on
the relative merits of the technologies under consideration by
August 1, 1999.
Training, equipment, and facilities
The Committee recommendation includes no funding for the
budget request items in this area without prejudice. The
projects requested in this area can be deferred without
compromising efficiency, safety, or operational proficiency.
Mission support
System Engineering and Development Support.--The Committee
recommendation provides a 6 percent cost escalation in system
engineering technical assistance prime contractor services cost
over fiscal year 1999 rates, which translates to a program
level of $22,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 based on the
utilization rates in the justification.
In-plant NAS Contract Support Service.--The Committee
recommendation provides the full budget request for NAS
Contract Support Services. The Committee directs the FAA to
provide a program by program breakout of the contract costs
associated with the application of this program.
Transition Engineering Support.--The Committee
recommendation provides $38,700,000 for this contract service
program, a slightly greater than 6 percent escalation in staff
year costs over fiscal year 1999 levels.
FAA Corporate System Architecture.--The Committee
recommendation provides the full budget request with the
exception of activity task 5.
Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC).--The Committee
recommendation provides $47,143,000.
Resource Tracking Program.--The Committee recommendation
provides $1,000,000, a doubling of the fiscal year 1999
appropriated level.
Center for Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE).--The
Committee recommendation provides $60,100,000, half the
requested increase in MITRE services and roughly a 6 percent
growth over fiscal year 1999 levels.
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.................................... December 1994....................... April 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.................................. March 1997.......................... March 1997.
Milwaukee................................ March 1997.......................... November 1997.
Chicago Midway........................... January 2000........................ July 2000.
Cleveland................................ July 1996........................... October 1996.
Columbus................................. December 1996....................... May 1997.
San Juan................................. May 1998............................ June 1999.
West Palm Beach.......................... February 1996....................... May 1997.
Nashville................................ April 1997.......................... February 1998.
Louisville............................... June 1997........................... March 1999.
Washington Dulles........................ November 1996....................... March 1998.
Charlotte................................ September 1995...................... December 1995.
Salt Lake City........................... March 1997.......................... March 1999.
Fort Lauderdale.......................... February 1998....................... May 1999.
Baltimore................................ November 1996....................... May 1997.
Raleigh-Durham........................... April 1997.......................... January 1998.
Minneapolis.............................. March 1997.......................... May 1997.
Oklahoma City............................ March 1997.......................... April 1997.
Tulsa.................................... May 1997............................ April 1998.
New York City (JFK and LGA).............. February 2000....................... September 2000.
Las Vegas................................ November 1998....................... May 1999.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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............. 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..................... September 1999....... December 1999.
Louisville.................... August 1998.......... May 1999.
Reagan Washington National.... February 1996........ November 1999.
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........... May 1999.
Las Vegas \4\................. March 1999........... December 1999.
New York-LaGuardia............ June 1999............ December 1999.
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\ Assets redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange
County.
Terminal air traffic control facilities
Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in
previous years:
St. Louis (TRACON), MO
Portland, OR
Houston (Hobby), TX
Chicago (O'Hare), IL
Chicago (Midway), IL
Pontiac, MI
Albany, NY
Birmingham, AL
Little Rock, AR
North Las Vegas, NV
St. Louis (ATCT), MO
Louisville (Standiford Field), KY
Worchester, MA
Covington, KY
Newark, NJ
Grand Canyon, AZ
Seattle (ATCT), WA
LaGuardia, NY
Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in
fiscal year 1998 and before:
Boston, MA
Roanoke, VA
Port Columbus, OH
Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities
started in fiscal year 1999 and before:
Atlanta, GA
Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be
replaced in fiscal year 2000:
Swanton, OH
Personnel and related expenses
Personnel and Related Expenses.--The Committee
recommendation provides $274,566,000, disallowing the requested
increases in the base for travel, other objects, and selected
portions of the requested PC&B increase. Other reductions were
taken based on inconsistencies between the President's request
and Committee recommended levels resulting in a recommended
level 9 percent above fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels.
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, 1999 \1\................................ $150,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 173,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 150,000,000
\1\ Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
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 encourages the FAA to provide slightly
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 provide cost breakouts for
the individual initiatives within each budget item.
The bill includes $150,000,000 for research, engineering,
and development. The Committee suggests the following
allocation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Committee
Program Name 1999 Enacted 2000 Estimate Recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
System Development and Infrastructure:
System planning & resource management.................... $1,164,000 $1,294,000 $1,164,000
Technical laboratory facility............................ 9,730,000 11,075,000 11,075,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.......... 4,890,000 4,900,000 4,900,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................. 15,784,000 17,269,000 17,139,000
==================================================
Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology:
Safe Flight 21........................................... ............... 16,000,000 ...............
Winglet efficiency/wake vortex........................... ............... ............... 4,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... ............... 16,000,000 4,000,000
==================================================
Weather:
Hazardous weather program................................ 15,084,000 12,665,000 13,665,000
Juneau, AK............................................... 3,600,000 3,100,000 3,100,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 18,684,000 15,765,000 16,765,000
==================================================
Aircraft Safety Technology:
Aircraft systems fire safety............................. 4,750,000 5,528,000 4,750,000
Advanced materials/structural safety..................... 1,734,000 2,338,000 2,338,000
Propulsion and fuel systems.............................. 2,831,000 3,126,000 3,126,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards research............... 2,619,000 3,844,000 3,844,000
Aging aircraft........................................... 14,694,000 15,998,000 18,094,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention research........ 1,787,000 1,981,000 1,981,000
Aviation safety risk analysis............................ 6,471,000 6,824,000 6,824,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 34,886,000 39,639,000 40,957,000
==================================================
System Security Technology:
Explosives and weapons detection......................... 41,700,000 40,676,000 37,500,000
Airport security technology integration.................. 2,708,000 2,285,000 2,285,000
Aviation security human factors.......................... 5,282,000 5,256,000 5,256,000
Aircraft hardening....................................... 2,000,000 5,001,000 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 51,690,000 53,218,000 47,041,000
==================================================
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine:
Flight deck/maintenance/system integration human factors. 11,000,000 10,142,000 9,142,000
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors...... 10,000,000 11,236,000 8,000,000
Aeromedical research..................................... 4,065,000 4,829,000 3,065,000
--------------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................... 25,065,000 26,207,000 20,207,000
==================================================
Environment and Energy....................................... 2,891,000 3,481,000 2,891,000
Innovative/Cooperative Research.............................. 1,000,000 1,421,000 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation.................................... 150,000,000 173,000,000 150,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 8
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 1999.
FAA technical laboratory facility.--The administration's
request was $11,075,000 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 Advance
Aviation System Development within the Facilities and Equipment
appropriation.
capacity and air traffic management technology
Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management
operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase
system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and
airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility
and efficiency.
Safe Flight 21.--The Committee recommendation includes the
appropriation for this activity within the appropriation for
Free Flight Phase 1.
Winglet efficiency/wake vortex.--The Committee recommends
$4,000,000 for research, prototyping, and flight testing into
this technology that reduces fuel consumption and reduces the
severity of wake vortex creation potentially allowing more
efficient spacing of aircraft.
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.
Hazardous weather program/Socrates.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,300,000 for continued research and
testing into possible applications of the Socrates technology.
The funding will permit progress to be made toward testing and
evaluating a Socrates eight-beam system. In addition, the
recommended level includes $500,000 toward the initial proof of
concept, and design and development work of an Ice Monitoring
and Detection (IMADS) system based on passive polarization
technology.
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. To
support the continuation of that partnership, the Committee
recommendation includes more than $3,000,000 for support of
AANC, $2,800,000 for CASR, $4,200,000 for the Engine Titanium
Consortium, and substantial other funds to support the efforts
of the Air Assurance Center of Excellence.
Aircraft systems fire safety.--The Committee recommends
$4,750,000 for this budget item, the same level appropriated in
fiscal year 1999.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation provides
$18,094,000, for aging aircraft research. The Committee
recommendation includes direct support of more than $3,000,000
for the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Validation Center which
is substantially below the activity level in fiscal year 1998
and slightly less than $3,000,000 for activities at the Center
for Aviation System Reliability.
Aviation Safety Risk Analysis.--The Committee
recommendation provides $6,824,000, the same level as requested
by the administration.
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 weapons detection.--The Committee
recommendation provides $37,500,000. This level recognizes the
need to continue to pursue emerging technologies as well as the
availability of a second certified explosive detection system.
The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000
for the Safe Skies initiative to accelerate research and
development of explosives and biological agents being conducted
by the Institute of Biological Detection Systems and $5,000,000
into Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis technologies.
Aircraft hardening.--The Committee recommendation provides
$2,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Airport Security Human Factors.--The Committee provides the
full request for airport security human factors and underscores
the importance of this work to the integrity of the entire
security effort. Screeners, who operate the equipment in
airports, are absolutely critical in providing effective
airport security. Technology, while critical, is only optimally
effective if operated properly. Work on the selection and
training of screeners as well as systemic data analysis of
performance is critical to fielding systems that can address
the threat.
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.
Human Factors & Aviation Medicine.--During hearings for
fiscal year 2000 FAA appropriations, the Committee submitted a
question related to whether there was any scientific or medical
reason why the United States should not ``cautiously increase
the retirement age to age 63'' like other countries have for
commercial aviation. The text of the question follows:
The Age 60 Rule was instituted in 1959 without the
benefit of medical or scientific studies and without
public comment. The EEOC has essentially eliminated age
discrimination rules in all facets of commercial
aviation with the exception of FAR Part 121 and Part
135 carriers. Other countries--Great Britain, Germany,
France, Austrailia, etc.--have modified their age 60
restrictions. Japan began a study on the age sixty
issue and discontinued it after finding no safety or
operational reasons to maintain age 60 as a mandatory
retirement age. The most recent pilot aging study was
the Hilton Systems Technical Report 8025 (known
generally as the Hilton Study) undertaken by Lehigh
University and Hilton Systems, Inc to ``conduct
statistical analysis on historical data to investigate
the relationship between pilot age and accident
rates.'' The report concluded: ``we saw no hint of an
increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air
carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.'' In spite
of this study, the Age 60 Rule not only remains in
effect, it was expanded in 1995 to include Part 135
pilots in spite of no record of any age-related
accidents or incidents in the affected pilot group.
Clearly, the United States seems to be moving against
the international aviation community and contrary to
our own national trends on age discrimination rules.
Can you provide any medical or scientific reason why
the United States should not follow the findings of the
Hilton Study and ``cautiously increase the retirement
age to age 63?''
The answer from the FAA indicated that, ``While science
does not dictate the age of 60, that age is within the age
range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and
morbidity occur.'' and `` * * * In late 1990, FAA initiated its
most recent study of the issue, aimed at consolidating
available accident data and correlating it with the amount of
flying by pilots as a function of age. This resulted in the
March 1993 Hilton study report, `Age 60 Project, Consolidated
Database Experiments, Final Report', which found `no hint of an
increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers
as they neared their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were
no data available on scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age
60.'' The Committee directs the FAA to conduct a survey of all
available non-scheduled commercial (and non-commercial, if
available) data concerning the relative accident data
correlated with the amount of flying by pilots as a function of
their age for pilots of age 60-63 and comparing it with all
four year groupings of scheduled commercial pilots (and non-
commercial pilots, if available) declining from age 60, i.e.,
56-59, 55-58, 54-57, * * * to 21-24. etc. In addition, compare
the discernable groups in their entirety and track accident
frequency as a function of age. The Committee directs the FAA
to deliver this report no later than January 1, 2000. No more
than half the funds appropriated in the Human Factors and
Aviation Medicine program may be obligated for other than this
initiative until delivery of the report.
Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors.--The
Committee recommends $8,000,000.
Aeromedical research.--The Committee recommends $3,065,000.
Environment and Energy.--The Committee recommends
$2,891,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Innovative/Cooperative Research.--The Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for innovative and cooperative research, the same
level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
environment and energy
Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy,
and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and
competitive. The Committee recommends $2,891,000.
strategic partnerships
Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of
research, engineering, and development by incorporating the
efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and
universities. The Committee recommends $1,000,000, the same
level appropriated in fiscal year 1999.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $1,600,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,750,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,750,000,000
The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended,
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 $1,750,000,000 in liquidating cash
for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the
Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for
fiscal year 2000 for the reported Senate reauthorization
proposal, and for the payment of previous years' obligations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Obligation limitation, 1999.............................($1,950,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (1,600,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (2,000,000,000)
The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2000
for grants-in-aid to airports is $2,000,000,000 and is intended
to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing
airport safety, ensuring that airport standards can be met,
maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing
additional capacity.
The Airport Improvement program for fiscal year 2000 is not
yet authorized. For fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated an
obligation limitation of $1,950,000,000. This represents the
highest appropriated level in history, and when combined with
Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) receipts at applicable airport
in excess of $1,600,000,000, total resources available for
airport improvement and investment should have topped
$2,550,000,000. Unfortunately, the Airport Improvement Program
has been the subject of three legislative extensions and will
terminate on August 6, 1999 unless the program is reauthorized
or extended a fourth time for the remaining 55 days of the
year. Clearly, small airports have had a difficult time bidding
airport improvement projects in fiscal year 1999 due to the
uncertain status of the federal program.
The Committee recommendation establishes a new program
level for fiscal year 2000 of $2,000,000,000 and rescinds the
inapplicable obligation limitation for the unauthorized
program. The Committee is committed to restructuring the
program consistent with a reauthorization program, if
reauthorization is completed prior to enactment of the fiscal
year 2000 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations
bill.
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, 1999, 302 airports have been approved for
collection of PFC's in the amount of $23,100,000,000. During
calendar year 1998 it is estimated that airports collected
$1,444,000,000 in PFC charges and $1,469,000,000 is estimated
to be collected in calendar year 1999. 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. DOT estimates 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. The administration
has proposed to raise the statutory cap on the maximum PFC that
may be charged.
It is interesting to note the trends in where airport
investment dollars are flowing. Of the PFC revenue streams
approved from 1992-98, 26 percent of the total resources have
been committed to specifically airside projects, while 40
percent have been committed specifically to landside projects.
When AIP program funds are included, the mix moves to 36
percent for landside projects and 41 percent for airside
projects. Accordingly, the limited experience with PFC projects
when balanced with AIP program funds tend to strike a rough
balance between the two broad categories of projects. As our
airport infrastructure matures, the Committee expects that both
airside and landside capacity enhancements will become
increasingly expensive and the marginal cost benefit of
purchasing increased capacity will in all likelihood decline.
Clearly, we must be more and more focused on which airport
infrastructure investments to make to maximize system capacity
and to ensure air connectivity for the entire project. In the
absence of a reauthorized airport program, the Committee has
attempted to address those two priorities in the recommendation
and would anticipate airport investment overall to continue to
grow with PFC airports gradually increasing their investment in
airside projects.
airport programs
The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of
discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal
year 2000. 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:
Brookhaven-Lincoln County Airport, MS
Aberdeen Regional Airport, SD
Abilene Regional Airport, TX
Anaconda Airport, MT
Anchorage International Airport, AK
Bangor International Airport, ME
Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport/Ryan Field, LA
Birmingham International Airport, AL
Bishop Airport, MI
Boeing Field/King County International Airport, WA
Brewton Airport, AL
Burlington International Airport, VT
Butler County Airport, PA
Caledonia Airport, VT
Cherry Capital Airport, MI
Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK
Chippewa County International Airport, MI
City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, CO
Clarks Point Airport, AK
Dane County Regional Airport, WI
DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA
Delta County Airport, MI
Dickinson Municpal Airport, ND
Dothan Airport, AL
Erie International Airport, PA
Eufuala Airport, AL
Fairbanks, International Airport, AK
Felts Field Airport, WA
Ford Airport, MI
Forks Airport, WA
Glacier Park International Airport, MT
Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS
Governor's Regional Airport, GA
Great Falls International Airport, MT
Grosse Ile Municipal Airport, MI
Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport, MS
Gwinnett County Airport, GA
Halifax Regional Airport, NC
Hamilton/Marion County Airport, AL
Harnett County Airport, NC
Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport, MS
Hawkins Field Airport, MS
Helena Regional Airport, MT
Herber City Municiple Airport, UT
Holy Cross Airport, AK
Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI
Huntsville International Airport/Jones Field, AL
Indiana County/Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA
Jackson International Airport, MS
James M Cox Dayton International Airport, OH
Johnston International Airport, NC
Juneau International Airport, AK
Kotzebue Airport, AK
Kent County International Airport, MI
Key Field Airport, MS
Lancaster Airport, PA
Las Cruces Municipal Airport, NM
Lea County Airport, NM
Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA
Lenawee County Airport, MI
Logan-Cache Airport, UT
Louisiana Regional Airport, LA
Madison County Airport, AL
Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA
Manistee County Blacker Airport, MI
March AFB Airport, CA
McGrath Airport, AK
Miami International Airport, FL
Mingo County Airport, WV
Mobile Regional Airport, AL
Monroe Municipal Airport, LA
Montgomery Regional Airport/Dannelly Field, AL
Moorehead City Airport, MN
New Orleans International Airport, LA
Nome Airport, AK
Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, AL
Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI
Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT
Olive Branch Airport, MS
Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS
Atka Airport, AK
Pittsburgh International Airport, PA
Provo Municipal Airport, UT
Pryor Field Airport, AL
Reading Municipal, General Carl A Spaatz Field, PA
Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV
Richard B. Russell Field, GA
Rickenbacker International Airport, OH
Russellville Municipal Airport, AL
Russian Mission Airport, AK
Salt Lake City International Airport, UT
Sawyer Airport, MI
Shelby County Airport, AL
Sheldon Point Airport, AK
Spokane International Airport, WA
Springfield/Branson Regional Airport, MO
Statesboro County Airport, GA
Stennis International Airport, MS
Tishomingo County Airport, MS
Tooele Valley Airport, UT
Tulip City Airport, MI
Tunica Municipal Airport, MS
Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS
Wendover Airport, UT
Westmoreland County Airport, PA
Whitefield Airport, NH
Wilkes County Airport, NC
Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA
Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA
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.
The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a
project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA
should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP
funds under a LOI.
The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not
exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's.
Accordingly, to maintain program integrity and ensure LOI
commitments are met, the Committee repeats its recommendation,
as Congress reauthorizes this program, that FAA be granted the
authority to award new LOI's only after scheduled and
recommended LOI payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP
discretionary funds.
Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year
2000 grant allocations:
Alaska: Anchorage Internationl.......................... $4,950,000
Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas)............. 7,000,000
California: Sacramento Metro............................ 1,600,000
Florida:
Fort Myers Southwest Florida international.......... 2,000,000
Orlando International............................... 6,343,000
Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International............... 8,363,000
Illinois:
Mid-America, Belleville reliever.................... 14,000,000
Chicago Midway...................................... 8,000,000
Kentucky:
Greater Cincinnati.................................. 5,000,000
Louisville.......................................... 3,525,000
Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan.......................... 16,640,000
Mississippi: Golden Triangle............................ 34,000
Missouri: St. Louis Lambert International............... 13,813,000
Nevada:
Reno/Tahoe International............................ 7,600,000
Las Vegas-Henderson Sky Harbor...................... 2,540,000
Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State................... 6,528,000
South Carolina: Hilton Head............................. 383,000
Tennessee: Memphis International........................ 6,800,000
Texas:
New Austin at Bergstrom............................. 6,430,000
Midland............................................. 1,327,000
Utah: Salt Lake City International...................... 9,000,000
Virginia: Reagan Washington National.................... 12,643,000
Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International................ 11,600,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 156,119,000
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.
Orlando International Airport, FL.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority's application for a
letter of intent for construction of a north crossfield taxiway
connecting the two west runways (18L/36R and 18R/36L) with the
existing east runway. The Committee is informed that
substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the
completion of this project.
Unauthorized use of airport lands.--The Committee is
concerned about the recent findings of the General Accounting
Office that lands acquired for airport purposes through Federal
grants or the Federal Surplus Property Act have been used for
other purposes in violation of grant and transfer because of
FAA's nominal on-site monitoring efforts and over reliance on
self certifications of compliance by airports. Some of the
latter were found to be fallacious and there was inconsistent
application of FAA's own enforcement guidelines across FAA
field offices, according to the GAO. As a result, the actual
scope of the problem remains unknown.
Accordingly, within 6 months from the passage of this Act,
the Committee directs the FAA to conduct an on-site survey of
all airports with lands acquired through grants or surplus
property transfers and report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committee on the survey results including, the
scope of unauthorized land use changes, the proposed
enforcement and corrective actions, and changes made to FAA's
guidelines for use by FAA field offices to assure more
consistent and complete monitoring and enforcement. After the
initial report, the FAA shall include with its annual budget
submissions a status report on both enforcement and corrective
actions taken, and the number and types of airports to be
surveyed in the ensuing fiscal year, including the number of on
site surveys, for each field or regional office responsible.
Max Westheimer Airport.--The Committee is aware of the
Norman, Oklahoma community's interest in putting the property
located at the Max Westheimer Airport into productive aviation-
related, academic and other uses. The Committee urges the FAA
to work with the local community to achieve a solution that is
mutually beneficial to all involved interests.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 Program
The principal missions of the Federal Highway
Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the
States, of the Federal-aid highway program; regulation and
enforcement of Federal requirements relating to the safety of
operation and equipment of commercial motor carriers engaged in
interstate or foreign commerce; and governance of the safety in
movement over the Nation's highways of dangerous cargoes such
as explosives, flammables, and other hazardous materials.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $28,883,455,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2000. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program levels,
the fiscal year 2000 program request and the Committee's
recommendations:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------- Committee
Program 1999 program 2000 budget recommendation
level estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appalachian development highway system \1\...................... 132,000 .............. ..............
Federal-aid highways limitation \2\............................. 25,511,000 27,312,230 27,701,350
Limitation on administrative expenses \3\................... (327,413) (344,616) (370,000)
Office of Motor Carrier Administrative expenses \4\..... (53,375) (55,418) (55,418)
Exempt Federal-aid obligations.................................. 1,424,047 1,132,000 1,132,000
Emergency relief supplemental obligations....................... 115,965 .............. ..............
Miscellaneous appropriations \5\................................ 200,000 .............. ..............
Motor carrier safety............................................ 100,000 105,000 105,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 27,483,012 28,549,230 28,883,455
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides $450,000,000 contract authority for ADHS within Federal-aid highways.
\2\ Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program.
\3\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.
\4\ Included within limitation on administrative expenses. Does not reflect administrations May 1999 budget
amendment proposing $50,000,000 increase for Office of Motor Carriers.
\5\ Includes $100,000,000 each for Massachusetts and Arkansas.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ ($327,413,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (344,616,000)
Committee recommendation \2\............................ (370,000,000)
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law
105-277.
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 following table reflects the fiscal year 1999 level,
the level requested by the administration, and the Committee's
recommendation:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
Program 2000 budget recommendation
1999 level estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses
(except OMC):
Salaries and benefits... 192,091 200,979 224,363
Travel.................. 9,473 9,473 9,473
Transportation.......... 656 663 663
GSA rent................ 17,922 20,275 20,275
Communications, rent, 9,369 9,465 9,465
and utilities..........
Printing................ 1,609 1,609 1,609
TASC.................... 18,880 19,054 19,054
Supplies................ 2,079 2,079 2,079
Equipment............... 3,862 4,362 4,362
Other................... 18,097 21,239 21,239
TASC reduction.......... -2,646 ............ ..............
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. 271,392 289,198 312,582
===========================================
Motor carrier safety
administrative expenses:
Salaries and benefits... 41,610 43,052 45,052
Travel.................. 3,480 3,480 3,480
Transportation.......... 110 111 111
Communications, rent, 395 399 399
and utilities..........
Printing................ 558 564 564
Other services.......... 5,140 5,730 5,730
Supplies................ 275 275 275
Equipment............... 1,807 1,807 1,807
-------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............. 53,375 55,418 57,418
===========================================
Total................. 324,767 344,616 370,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends
$370,000,000 for this appropriation. The Committee has also
included language to require the FHWA to provide $29,000,000
for critical highway safety initiatives and audits and
investigation of highway programs. Accordingly, because of this
provision, the Committee provides the FHWA the flexibility to
allocate the committee recommendation among such expenses as
ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation, and
nonmandatory bonuses and incentives.
This spending is manageable within the LAE due to the
recommended increase in the account and the elimination of
$10,000,000 in one time costs in fiscal year 1999 that do not
carry to fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Administration
budget request presents administrative expenses in excess of
$26,000,000 below the Committee recommended level. The
Committee expects the FHWA to focus on program delivery,
initiate development effort on the new community/federal
information partnership program in the last quarter of fiscal
year 2000 from funding within the base, restrain travel,
printing, training, and resist an increase in rent for the
NASSIF facility unless substantial improvements are made to the
facility by the landlord. Such actions will allow the FHWA more
than adequate resources to fund all ingrade increases, all
mandatory and requested non-mandatory pay increases,
establishment of an office of intermodalism within Federal
Highways, and remaining non-salary administrative costs if
those initiatives remain priorities.
Motor carrier operations.--The Committee recommends
$57,418,000 for motor carrier operations. This recommendation
includes a $2,000,0000 transfer from LAE for investigations and
audits and does not include any funding for a truck and bus
safety summit outside the Washington, DC area.
Federal-Aid Highways
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999
$24,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000
26,000,000,000
Committee recommendation
26,300,000,000
This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided
programs through which the States are financially and
technically aided to continue a national highway system that
meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of
capacity and safety.
All programs included within the Federal-aid account are
financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the
form of contract authority are enacted in substantive
legislation. These authorizations are apportioned and/or
allocated to the States and generally remain available for
obligation over a 4-year period. Liquidating cash
appropriations are subsequently requested to fund outlays
resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $26,300,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program.
Federal-Aid Highways
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999 \1\
($25,511,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000
(27,312,230,000)
Committee recommendation
(27,701,350,000)
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law
105-277.
The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of
$27,701,350,000 for the Federal-aid highway program for fiscal
year 2000.
The following table shows the estimated amount each State
will receive in total Federal-aid highway funds for fiscal year
2000:
Federal-aid highway funds
[In thousands of dollars]
STATES AMOUNT
Alabama................................................. 514,148
Alaska.................................................. 308,181
Arizona................................................. 415,724
Arkansas................................................ 337,191
California.............................................. 2,318,987
Colorado................................................ 294,973
Connecticut............................................. 386,713
Delaware................................................ 111,905
Dist. of Columbia....................................... 98,768
Florida................................................. 1,187,961
Georgia................................................. 916,932
Hawaii.................................................. 130,803
Idaho................................................... 196,204
Illinois................................................ 849,160
Indiana................................................. 639,812
Iowa.................................................... 301,714
Kansas.................................................. 293,256
Kentucky................................................ 438,683
Louisiana............................................... 428,329
Maine................................................... 134,457
Maryland................................................ 399,519
Massachusetts........................................... 472,512
Michigan................................................ 816,991
Minnesota............................................... 376,788
Mississippi............................................. 306,799
Missouri................................................ 619,870
Montana................................................. 253,611
Nebraska................................................ 195,078
Nevada.................................................. 184,033
New Hampshire........................................... 131,019
New Jersey.............................................. 649,202
New Mexico.............................................. 250,273
New York................................................ 1,301,042
North Carolina.......................................... 717,748
North Dakota............................................ 165,608
Ohio.................................................... 939,002
Oklahoma................................................ 390,514
Oregon.................................................. 311,359
Pennsylvania............................................ 1,269,827
Rhode Island............................................ 152,168
South Carolina.......................................... 407,639
South Dakota............................................ 184,310
Tennessee............................................... 581,687
Texas................................................... 1,918,601
Utah.................................................... 197,066
Vermont................................................. 115,318
Virginia................................................ 648,737
Washington.............................................. 457,851
West Virginia........................................... 283,603
Wisconsin............................................... 505,118
Wyoming................................................. 176,411
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 25,683,211
Territories............................................. 5,748
Allocation Reserve...................................... 2,651,391
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 28,340,350
Transportation Research and Development
(Limitation on Obligations)
Within the $27,312,230,000 obligation limitation that the
Administration proposed that not more than $641,450,000 be made
available for transportation research programs, including the
surface transportation program, technology deployment program,
training and education, intelligent transportation systems,
university transportation research, and MAGLEV; $31,000,000 for
the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and $20,000,000 for
the advanced vehicles technologies program. The Committee
recommends a total limitation of $391,450,000 on research and
development activities. These funds shall be distributed as
follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate, 2000 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Surface transportation research......... 185,000 97,000
Technology deployment program........... 100,000 40,000
Training and education.................. 28,000 16,000
University transportation research...... 27,250 27,250
Intelligent transportation systems...... 271,200 211,200
National advance driver simulator....... \1\ 10,000 ..............
-------------------------------
Total............................. 641,450 391,450
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Funded from revenue aligned budget authority.
intelligent transportation systems
(limitation on obligations)
The Committee recommends a total limitation of $211,200,000
to be distributed as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee
estimate, 2000 recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent transportation systems:
Research and development............ 94,150 35,550
Operational tests................... 19,150 6,650
Evaluation.......................... 7,500 7,000
Architecture and standards.......... 14,000 14,000
Mainstreaming....................... 14,400 6,000
Program support..................... 9,000 9,000
ITS Deployment Incentives Program... 113,000 113,000
-------------------------------
Total, ITS........................ 271,200 211,200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and Development.--Within the funds provided for
R&D, the Committee's allowance includes $7,300,000 for
commercial vehicle operations research, which is $800,000 more
than requested. Those additional funds will advance critical
safety data systems, such as SAFER/CVIEW and ASPEN, and further
test the Safer Data mailbox project that allows for the
electronic retrieval of information on prior inspections of
commercial motor vehicles and drivers. The mailbox technology
provides a valuable tool used by enforcement officers to reduce
highway crashes and fatalities involving trucks and buses.
Using the information provided, state safety personnel
concentrate inspections on previously identified high-risk
carriers and drivers, especially those who do not correct out-
of-service defects identified in previous inspections.
The Safer Data mailbox project allows state enforcement
officials working at the roadside to gain access to near real-
time inspection information. One of the greatest needs for that
information is to assist officers working in the border states
who are ensuring that safety requirements are met as specified
in NAFTA. Historical safety information is lacking on carriers
from adjoining countries, making quick retrieval of safety
information most critical. Past inspection records in the
mailbox system may be the only information available for making
critical safety and inspection decisions at the border. The
Committee expects FHWA to continue to advance this project and
ensure that it is made available to all states, especially
border states. FHWA shall work with a border state to serve as
a lead technology distribution agent. The lead state would
provide technical assistance to all states interested in
advancing and deploying the Safer Data mailbox system.
The Committee recognizes the unique positioning of Drexel
University because it is ideally located within 15 miles of
interstate highways, major bridges, parkways, intercity and
light commuter rail, rapid transit systems, bus systems, an
international port, and an international airport. The Committee
urges the Administrator to work with Drexel University to focus
on the link between intelligent transportation systems and
transportation infrastructure.
Intelligent vehicle initiative [IVI].--The Committee urges
the Director of the Joint Program Office to ensure that the
primary Federal role in the IVI is focused on expediting the
innovation of integrated crash avoidance technologies for
passenger vehicles. In view of the substantial human factors
research, performance specification work, crash avoidance and
information systems integration, and cost/benefit assessment
work that remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on
those critical safety issues is of foremost importance. Such
activities as automation of transit vehicles, snow removal
systems, and other highway maintenance vehicles and research on
nonsafety components of the IVI shall receive a much lower
priority than critical safety objectives.
Evaluation.--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for
program evaluation studies and recognizes the importance of
continuing to evaluate the benefits and costs of various ITS
projects and tracking progress on those projects. Of the funds
provided, up to $1,000,000 is available for the testing and
development of a smart Commercial Drivers License utilizing
smart card and biometric elements to enhance safety and
efficiency.
Architecture and standards.--The Committee recommends
$14,000,000, for architecture and standards work. The Committee
understands that the Department has proposed a national
standard under a mandate in the TEA21 legislation based on the
use of an active radio frequency identification (RFID)
technology for Commercial Vehicle Operations utilizing
Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC). This is of concern
because it minimizes, if not ignores, the significant presence
of passive RFID technology equipment in transportation
operations nationwide. As many states utilize an alternative
passive system for transportation-related DSRC functions,
particularly electronic toll collection, concerns have been
shared with the Committee over not creating an architecture
that precludes the application of passive RFID technologies in
the search for a standard under the TEA21 mandate. The
Committee directs the department to establish a program to test
passive technology and incorporate the results into the
department's development and implementation of a national
architecture and standards regime. The Committee believes that
the congressional mandate to establish a national standard was
not meant to preclude different types of technology, but rather
to create an architecture that would permit different
technologies to mature and to create an architecture that
permits regional, interregional, and national interoperability.
The Committee urges the department to pursue a set of national
standards in that spirit and requests a report on the results
of efforts in this area with the fiscal year 2001 budget
submission.
Mainstreaming.--The Committee believes that the Department
was spending too much of scarce ITS resources trying to
convince planners, the engineering community, and others of the
benefits of ITS. There is substantial literature documenting
the benefits of using ITS; numerous training courses and
programs are well underway; and the ITS concept is beginning to
be mainstreamed in the transportation community. Consequently,
the Committee's allowance provides $6,000,000, the same level
provided in fiscal year 1999. Remaining mainstreaming funds
shall be used to provide technical assistance on the planning,
procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS technologies,
offer guidance on the use of the national architecture, and
supplement critical training not available from the private
sector or universities.
The Committee is pleased that the Department has changed
the scope and nature of the ``mainstreaming'' activity and
supports initiatives to provide direct technical and
procurement assistance to states and other governmental
entities planning, evaluating, or deploying ITS.
National ITS Program Plan.--The Committee looks forward to
receiving as soon as possible an update of the National ITS
Program Plan, which will be prepared in a manner consistent
with the requirements of Section 5205 of the TEA21.
ITS deployment projects.--The Committee action provides a
limitation of $113,000,000 for ITS deployment projects. The
funds provided are for deployment projects in the areas listed
below. The amounts associated with each area represent the
minimum amount such area shall receive.
Committee
ITS deployment projects recommendation
Southeast Michigan...................................... $4,000,000
Salt Lake City, UT...................................... 6,500,000
Branson, MO............................................. 1,500,000
St.Louis, MO............................................ 2,000,000
Shreveport, LA.......................................... 2,000,000
State of Montana........................................ 3,500,000
State of Colorado....................................... 4,000,000
Arapahoe County, CO..................................... 2,000,000
Grand Forks, ND......................................... 500,000
State of Idaho.......................................... 2,000,000
Columbus, OH............................................ 2,000,000
Inglewood, CA........................................... 2,000,000
Fargo, ND............................................... 2,000,000
Albuquerque/State of New Mexico interstate projects..... 2,000,000
Dothan/Port Saint Joe................................... 2,000,000
Santa Teresa, NM........................................ 1,500,000
State of Illinois....................................... 4,800,000
Charlotte, NC........................................... 2,500,000
Nashville, TN........................................... 2,000,000
Tacoma Puyallup, WA..................................... 500,000
Spokane, WA............................................. 1,000,000
Puget Sound, WA......................................... 2,200,000
State of Washington..................................... 4,000,000
State of Texas.......................................... 6,000,000
Corpus Christi, TX...................................... 2,000,000
State of Nebraska....................................... 1,500,000
State of Wisconsin rural systems........................ 1,000,000
State of Wisconsin...................................... 2,400,000
State of Alaska......................................... 3,700,000
Cargo Mate, Northern NJ................................. 2,000,000
Statewide Transcom/Transmit upgrades, NJ................ 6,000,000
State of Vermont rural systems.......................... 2,000,000
State of Maryland....................................... 4,500,000
Washoe County, NV....................................... 2,000,000
State of Delaware....................................... 2,000,000
Reno/Tahoe, CA/NV....................................... 1,000,000
Towamencin, PA.......................................... 1,100,000
State of Alabama........................................ 1,300,000
Huntsville, AL.......................................... 3,000,000
Silicon Valley, CA...................................... 2,000,000
Greater Yellowstone, MT................................. 2,000,000
Pennslyvania Turnpike, PA............................... 7,000,000
Portland, OR............................................ 1,500,000
Delaware River, PA...................................... 1,500,000
Kansas City, MO......................................... 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 113,000,000
Highway Research and Development
The Committee recommends the following allocation of
highway research and development contract program funds:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000
2000 estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.................................. 12,000 13,000
Pavements............................... 12,500 13,700
Structures.............................. 16,100 15,500
Environment............................. 6,000 6,000
Policy.................................. 5,200 4,000
Planning and real estate................ 4,000 4,000
Motor carrier........................... 6,400 6,000
Highway operations...................... 700 700
Freight................................. 500 500
-------------------------------
Total............................. 63,400 63,400
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the appropriate research areas, FHWA is directed to
fund each of the research activities or programs specified in
various sections of TEA21.
Safety.--The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for safety
research and development activities. The Committee supports
research and demonstration activities to advance technology and
best practices understanding of lighting and signing to improve
the driving performance of older drivers as well as research
into the use of UV lights and flourescent materials to improve
night time visibility, to help identify lane markings and
pedestrians at night. The Committee expects that the additional
funds recommended will be used to expedite work on projects
delayed to pay for construction of the NADS. Within the
recommendation, the Committee has included $100,000 for FHWA,
working with industry suppliers and the FRA, to conduct the
necessary research and to incorporate guidance in the National
Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for highway/rail
grade crossing pre-signal operations, and to advance a new
traffic signal warrant for preemption requirements. The
research and guidance materials will assist engineers by
ensuring appropriate design, timing and interface between
highway and railroad signal equipment. Of the funds provided,
up to $750,000 shall be available to evaluate and deploy a
nationwide Highway Watch Program to improve roadway safety.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $13,700,000 for
pavements research. The Committee is encouraged by the
potential benefits for highway construction--including lower
construction and maintenance costs, higher riding quality, and
a longer life-cycle of new and reconstructed highways--
resulting from the use of geosynthetic materials. Therefore,
the Committee has included $400,000 for geosynthetic material
research at the Western Transportation Institute at Montana
State University.
The Committee also directs FHWA to conduct further research
into polymer additives for pavements. The Committee is aware
that recent performance measurements have shown in various
limited applications to increase the expected life of asphalt
pavement. Therefore, the Committee has included $1,500,000 to
conduct extensive research into this area. Of this amount,
$1,250,000 shall be for the pavement research related to
developing low cost pavement with flexibility to tolerate frost
heaves in extreme climates. Further, the Committee encourages
the FHWA to work with an academic and industry-led national
consortium and fund with available balances, an additional
polymer additive project to demonstrate the use of polymer
additives in pavement for civil infrastructure purposes.
The Committee is aware of the Federal Highway
Administration's pavement design analysis work that utilizes
the fundamental properties of the various pavement materials,
analytical packing algorithms and granular mechanics, coupled
with state-of-the-art imaging techniques and computational
modeling and builds on the work performed at the University of
Mississippi. The Committee directs the FHWA to continue to
cooperate and work with the researchers there to develop
concepts and technologies that will lead to better constructed
and longer lasting high quality pavements.
The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of
silica fume to decrease the national waste material stream and
increase the durability and quality of concrete structures and
pavement. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that
$1,000,000 be used to evaluate and promote the benefits of
using silica fume high performance concrete, and that the
Administrator of the FHWA report on its findings to the
Committee no later than September 30, 2001. The Committee
directs the Administrator to work with a representative
national organization of the silica fume industry to carry out
this project.
For the purpose of constructing a segment of highway for
research purposes, utilizing a binder composed of polymer
additives currently being tested by the FHWA, the State of
South Carolina may utilize funds allocated to it under the
congestion mitigation and air quality program, consistent with
current law. The Committee is aware and applauds such a
cooperative arrangement between FHWA and the State of South
Carolina--effectively leveraging the use of Federal research
dollars by creating practical ``laboratories'' for selected
research initiatives on our nation's roadways. The Committee is
aware that research into this binder has not been completed,
but that recent performance measurements conducted by FHWA have
shown significant increases in the expected life of pavement
utilizing this binder. The Committee also makes available
$1,250,000 for research costs associated with this project and
directs the FHWA to work with the South Carolina State
University and Clemson University, where there exists
significant transportation engineering capabilities, to further
the goals of this research.
Structures.--The Committee recommends $15,500,000 for
structures research. The Committee believes that a unique
opportunity to conduct research exists during the Interstate 15
reconstruction project and other transportation projects in the
Salt Lake Valley, UT. The research performed during the
reconstruction of I-15 and other projects will provide the
country with a detailed analysis of the load capacities of
deteriorated bridge structures, seismic retrofitting, new
nondestructive evaluation techniques, and many other valuable
areas of research. The Committee has included $1,500,000 for
this research and because of the urgency of this research,
directs the FHWA to make these funds available to the Utah
Department of Transportation and the Utah Transportation Center
in a timely manner to ensure the execution of this research.
The Committee is interested in research to develop advanced
engineering and wood composites for bridge construction and has
provided $1,200,000 for that purpose within this program. In
addition, the FHWA is encouraged to work with Cal State
University at San Diego on advanced composite material for
bridges and up to $1,000,000 is available for that purpose. As
the Department pursues research in the testing of structures
and composites, the Committee recommends the seismic expertise
of the Structural Engineering Technology Laboratories and the
National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and urge the
department to consider the applicability and benefits of
establishing a earthquake simulation facility at the Nevada
Test Site for full-scale earthquake testing applications. The
Committee is aware of the composite, structures, and highway
engineering work ongoing at the West Virginia University and
has provided $2,000,000 for structures and pavement funds for
the establishment of a Center of Excellence at the WVU
Constructed Facility Center. The Committee recommendation also
includes $1,000,000 for the deployment of technology to prevent
and mitigate alkali silica reactivity utilizing lithium salts
as previously authorized through 23 USC Sections 5001(a)(2)
relating to technology deployment and 5001(c)(2) relating to
bridge research and construction.
The Committee recognizes the specialized expertise of the
Lehigh University's Center for Advanced Technology for Large
Structural Systems (ATLASS) in the field of large scale
structure, such as bridges and encourages the Administrator to
continue to working with Lehigh University on this research.
Environment Research.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000
for research on environmental issues affecting highway
operations and construction, the requested amount. The unique
goal of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to
research the health effects of combined pollutants or
contaminants is relevant to the Department's focus on
environmental and health consequences of pollutants generated
by transportation emissions. To understand the aggregate health
effects of real-world, highly complex mixtures of air
contaminants, NERC will develop identical health data across
several complex, man-made mixtures, including those from
transportation sources. The Committee urges the Department of
Transportation to collaborate with the National Environmental
Research Center on its research strategy so that national
transportation system design and policy has the benefit of this
important data.
The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the UNI
Native Vegetation Center. The Native Vegetation Center operates
as a clearinghouse and information center for the use of native
vegetation in the upper Midwest, it produces seed stocks for
commercial sellers and in some cases provides seed to state and
local highway authorities. Using native prairie seed not only
provides scenic advantages, it lowers maintenance because it
does not require mowing, weed spraying or other erosion
prevention measures.
Policy.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for policy
research. Of the funds provided, the FHWA shall develop a
comprehensive program of intermodal logistics training and
operational testing to enhance the safe and efficient movement
of freight through the state intermodal corridors and
facilities.
Cross State Line Planning.--The Committee is aware of the
difficulty of conducting and coordinating preliminary planning
for highway improvements and regional connectors for facilities
that cross state lines. Accordingly, the Committee directs the
FHWA to study this issue and propose tools or processes that
will facilitate the preliminary planning process in the absence
of a Memorandum of Understanding between the affected states.
Planning and real estate.--The Committee's allowance
includes $4,000,000 for planning and real estate research. The
Committee understands that $2,500,000 is programed in the
research account to begin work on an initiative to model data
in a large scale simulation that moves individual carriers and
freight loads over the nation's multimodal transportation
system. The Committee is very interested in this work and
requests that the department keep the Committee abreast of
progress in this area. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is
currently developing the National Transportation Network
Analysis Capability (NTNAC), under the sponsorship of the
Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Defense. The
objective of this research is to study and understand the
national transportation system as a single, integrated,
multimodal system. Efforts under the NTNAC have resulted in the
completion of the proof-of-principle phase, demonstrating the
potential of creating on a national scale a network analysis
capability for rail and highway transportation. This phase has
confirmed the ability for the NTNAC to provide guidance for
policy and investment decisions, reduce delays and congestion,
and analyze the nation's demand for petroleum-based fuels. With
the successful conclusion of the proof-of-principle phase, the
Committee requests that the Department of Transportation serve
as the lead agency in the next phase of the NTNAC--the
development of a full scale simulation capability. The
Committee requests that DOT provide support for this important
next step of the NTNAC, including the introduction of maritime
and aviation interests into the NTNAC. DOT's active role and
support will provide the NTNAC with the resources and
capability to complete these efforts, resulting in the first
analytical system that represents the U.S. transportation
system as a single, integrated, intermodal system.
Economic Development Highways.--The Committee is interested
in some recent studies that demonstrate the degree of new and
sustainable economic development generated by new or
substantially improved highway facilities through economically
disadvantaged regions. The Committee directs the Department to
identify the multistate regions that have persistent
unemployment levels lower than the national average and the
highway facilities that currently serve the population base in
such a region.
Motor Carrier.--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the
motor carrier research program. The Executive Director of FHWA
shall ensure that the budget justification for this research
area is improved substantially. Future budget requests will
delineate the specific projects that will be funded and the
exact amounts that are requested for each project. In addition,
terminating projects and their associated baseline amounts and
all continuing projects and associated funding amounts will be
specified. Of the funds provided in this account, $500,000 are
for the truck driving center safety initiative at Crowder
College, MO. Total expenses from any DOT funding source for the
international conference on motor carrier research shall be
limited to less than $60,000. Up to $1,000,000 available to
study the effects of shift changes on truck driver alertness.
Because of a variety of concerns, the Committee last year
directed FHWA to request the Transportation Research Board
(TRB) to review the motor carrier research program. A committee
of experts assembled by TRB found that the program is neither
needs based nor objectively prioritized. TRB concluded that
OMCHS was placing insufficient attention on research pertaining
to crash prevention and countermeasures. The Committee directs
that the fiscal year 2000 budget program be redesigned to
implement each of the recommendations offered by the TRB.
Before obligating any of the fiscal year 2000 funds, the
Committee directs that a revised motor carrier safety research
plan be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations that demonstrates that crash causation analysis
will become a priority; that OMCHS will expedite its efforts to
develop a motor carrier crash causation database that will
provide the information required to better plan future research
projects; and that OMCHS has realigned its R&D program to
achieve cost-effective safety benefits, paying particular
attention to opportunities to reduce the largest number of
commercial motor vehicle-involved crashes through R&D. The
Committee expects that the fiscal year 2001 budget submittal to
continue implementing this revised strategy.
Interstate rest areas.--There is increasing concern that
due to increasing rehabilitation, liability, and maintenance
costs, many states are experiencing difficulty operating
Interstate rest areas and many are considering closing them.
Some states are pursuing commercialization as a solution and
others are considering privatization. This is an area where the
Federal government could contribute through informing states
about best practices in solving these types of issues and in
providing leadership in developing standards or guidelines. The
Committee directs the FHWA to study the issue and provide
recommendations as to methods for states to ensure competitive
alternatives for interstate travelers and to provide
uniformity, rest area signage standards, oasis identification
conformity. In addition, the Committee directs the FHWA to
study and report to the Committee the effects of shift changes
on truck driver alertness.
Electronic Control Module Technology.--The Committee is
aware of the potential benefits of electronic control module
technology in trucks. Electronic control modules store data,
such as vehicle speed and brake pedal and throttle position,
that could prove useful to law enforcement investigations of
crashes on our nation's highways and roads and prevent future
loss of life in much the same way that flight data recorders
contribute to airplane crash investigations. The Committee
requests that the FHWA work with interested parties to explore
a standard of protocol for access to and the relevant data to
be recorded in this area and report back to the Committee by
June 2000. It is the Committee's expectation that in the
development of any such safety enhancement tool, any standards
or protocols would follow high standards of privacy and would
only apply to instances in which law enforcement had secured a
warrant with the intention of investigating a serious crash.
Freight.--The Committee recommends $500,000 for freight
research. Within the recommended amount, the Committee urges
the agency to continue research to improve multimodal
connections for freight and high value shipments in a manner
consistent with passenger services.
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM
Center for Advanced System Technology.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Simulation
Technology, Long Island, NY, of which not less than $1,000,000
shall be made available to Auburn University for a
transportation management program. These funds will be used to
develop outreach initiatives involving technology transfer,
technical assistance and training related to transportation
management, traffic control, and simulation and human factors.
CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES
(limitation on obligations)
The Committee has provided a limitation on obligations of
$38,000,000 for the new construction of ferry boat and ferry
terminal facility program. The Committee notes that the
authorization of this program reserves $20,000,000 of the total
amount for projects within the marine highway system. Within
the $18,000,000 not reserved for this purpose, the Committee
urges priority consideration for Penn's Landing ferry, PA
$2,000,000 is provided for a ferry upgrade at McCelland and
wood landing sites which is part of the Lewis and Clark Trail.
In addition, $3,000,000 shall be provided to the State of
Hawaii to initiate an intra-island ferry service from Barbers
Point to Honolulu Harbor. In addition, $1,000,000 is provided
for the New Bedford, MA, ferry terminal.
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 2000, the RABA adjustment is $1,456,350,000.
The budget request proposes to reallocate a portion of the RABA
to Administration priorities in environmental programs,
transit, highway safety, research and rail. Of the
$1,456,350,000 adjustment, $452,120,000 would be transferred to
other modes, and $1,004,230,000 would remain within the
federal-aid for highways program.
The Committee recommendation rejects that approach in favor
of an approach that passes the automatically increased funding
generated by the greater than anticipated gas tax receipts and
estimates of gas tax receipts directly to the states consistent
with each state's individual guaranteed share under Section
1105 of TEA21. Such an approach maximizes the resources flowing
to each state and avoids the diversion of funds that would
otherwise occur as the following table illustrates.
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Full RABA
State Admin. Distr. TEA21 Distr. committee
recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................ 8,853 26,776 28,994
Alaska......................................................... 7,435 15,619 17,485
Arizona........................................................ 12,811 21,404 24,341
Arkansas....................................................... 6,429 17,563 18,808
California..................................................... 101,652 121,069 131,672
Colorado....................................................... 8,956 15,346 17,174
Connecticut.................................................... 14,339 19,941 21,872
Delaware....................................................... 3,214 5,786 6,664
Dist. of Columbia.............................................. 2,838 5,192 5,721
Florida........................................................ 26,467 61,049 68,189
Georgia........................................................ 20,049 47,344 52,155
Hawaii......................................................... 3,548 6,804 7,382
Idaho.......................................................... 4,604 10,222 10,632
Illinois....................................................... 28,471 44,480 47,824
Indiana........................................................ 12,747 33,088 36,312
Iowa........................................................... 5,771 15,790 17,230
Kansas......................................................... 5,610 15,396 16,748
Kentucky....................................................... 8,799 22,807 24,945
Louisiana...................................................... 7,682 22,291 24,069
Maine.......................................................... 3,542 7,001 7,656
Maryland....................................................... 15,650 20,821 22,866
Massachusetts.................................................. 19,259 24,746 26,446
Michigan....................................................... 19,479 42,421 46,131
Minnesota...................................................... 9,608 19,730 21,061
Mississippi.................................................... 5,901 16,012 17,423
Missouri....................................................... 13,308 32,348 34,931
Montana........................................................ 5,460 12,984 14,956
Nebraska....................................................... 4,238 10,167 11,587
Nevada......................................................... 5,085 9,500 10,656
New Hampshire.................................................. 3,538 6,844 7,238
New Jersey..................................................... 27,746 33,960 36,439
New Mexico..................................................... 5,235 12,976 14,273
New York....................................................... 48,541 67,928 72,713
North Carolina................................................. 13,671 37,146 40,912
North Dakota................................................... 3,947 8,576 9,794
Ohio........................................................... 25,601 48,838 53,317
Oklahoma....................................................... 7,057 20,342 22,438
Oregon......................................................... 6,663 16,378 17,199
Pennsylvania................................................... 31,880 66,704 68,972
Rhode Island................................................... 4,232 7,849 8,853
South Carolina................................................. 7,482 21,044 23,404
South Dakota................................................... 4,260 9,615 10,306
Tennessee...................................................... 11,199 30,282 32,984
Texas.......................................................... 48,403 99,070 110,258
Utah........................................................... 4,937 10,296 11,129
Vermont........................................................ 3,224 5,990 6,764
Virginia....................................................... 14,912 33,682 37,111
Washington..................................................... 11,394 23,984 25,806
West Virginia.................................................. 5,548 14,936 15,406
Wisconsin...................................................... 11,684 26,148 28,733
Wyoming........................................................ 4,096 9,146 10,367
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 697,054 1,335,430 1,456,350
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Magnetic Levitation Transportation
TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM
(Limitation on obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ (20,000,000)
Section 1218 of TEA21 provides $20,000,000 in highway trust
funds contract authority for Maglev preconstruction activities
in fiscal year 2000. The administration budget proposes to
reallocate these funds to Advanced Vehicles Techology Research,
and to provide $20,000,000 of revenue aligned budget authority
for Maglev within the transportation research and development
program.
The Committee recommendation provides $20,000,000 for the
magnetic levitation technology deployment program, of which not
more than $500,000 shall be available to the Federal Railroad
Administration for administrative expenses and technical
assistance. Within the funds made available under this heading,
the Committee provides $6,000,000 for the high-speed intercity
magnetic levitation project between Philadelphia and
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000 for the Segmented Rail
Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM) project,
$2,000,000 for the Las Vegas-Southern California maglev system,
and $1,000,000 for the Southern California Association of
Governments Los Angeles International Airport to March Air
Force Base magnetic levitation program.
NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $7,500,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 10,400,000
Committee recommendation................................ (5,000,000)
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 funds were provided within the Coast Guard's
acquisition, construction, and improvement account, for both the
completion of the coastal DGPS system and for the ground-based NDGPS.
\2\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.
In 2000, the administration has requested $10,400,000 in
transferred revenue aligned budget authority funds to enable
installation of nationwide differential global positioning
system [NDGPS] transmitters by enhancing the existing Coast
Guard network throughout the United States. In fiscal year
1999, NDGPS funding was included in the Coast Guard's
``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account, for
continued installation of DGPS transmitters throughout the
United States, toward the enhancement of the existing Coast
Guard DGPS network, which is now operating only in areas along
the coasts and navigable inland waterways.
In general, the Committee is concerned that investment in
the near-term would accrue to many other Federal agencies and
commercial interests. The Committee maintains that DGPS-related
expenses should not be derived solely from the Federal highway
trust fund or other DOT accounts. Recognizing the importance of
DGPS to a wide array of strategic national purposes, the
Secretary will need to obtain funding from other Federal
agencies and sources as well as other modal administrations.
The Committee notes that the Department of Transportation was
directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget
justification identifying the long-term costs, benefits, and
cost sharing that might be reasonably expected for DGPS. To
date, this report has not been received by the Committees on
Appropriations. No fiscal year 2000 funds provided in this Act
shall be obligated by the Department of Transportation on the
nationwide differential global positioning system program until
this report has been submitted to the Committees on
Appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the
NDGPS program, for both capital and operating expenses. These
funds will provide for the installation of 4 new GWEN site
installations in fiscal year 2000, for a total of 22 sites to
be operating at the end of the fiscal year. Other capital costs
include equipment, weather forecasting systems, and an upgrade
to the control station. The operations component of the funds
will provide for property management of all 63 national GWEN
sites, and operations and maintenance of the initial 22 online
stations. The bill includes language which transfers the funds
provided to the Federal Railroad Administration, the DOT lead
agency for this program.
Appalachian Development Highway System
The Committee recommendation includes $450,000,000 for
construction of unfinished segments of the Appalachian
development highway system [ADHS]. The ADHS connects largely
rural, underdeveloped areas in 13 States. Its completion is
critical to the economic development of these often-ignored
areas. In many cases, the unfinished segments of the ADHS are
high-accident locations in the Appalachian States, so the
Committee believes continued construction will have a high
payoff in highway safety benefits.
Given the current funding schedule and without inflationary
increases, it would take at least another 13 years to complete
the system, putting the completion date at 46 years from its
inception in 1965. Given the hazardous conditions of many of
the roads on and around the unfinished segments of the ADHS,
and the commitment of the Congress to the people of Appalachia,
this delay is unacceptable. Additional funds should be found to
expedite the completion of overdue system in a reasonable and
accellerated timeframe.
FEDERAL LANDS highways program
The Committee is very concerned with the degree to which
funding awards have been made in the past on a partisan basis
in the Public Lands Program. The General Accounting Office has
noted that the administration has awarded more projects and
total funding to projects in Democratic districts, even though
States requested more funds for projects in Republican
districts. The Committee directs FHWA to move toward a merit-
based approach in funding public lands projects, and to refine
criteria for the funding of projects under this program. The
Secretary shall report to both the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees semiannually concerning the execution
of the program.
The Committee directs the Secretary to make available the
following amounts for the following projects:
Bear River Migratory bird refuge access road and Soldier
Hollow Road improvements in Wasatch County, UT...... $3,000,000
Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, NJ....... 4,000,000
Glacier National Park North Fork Road from Columbia
Falls to Camas Creek, MT............................ 2,400,000
Kenai Peninsula road improvements....................... 500,000
New River Gorge National River, pave and realign Cunard
Road, WV............................................ 960,000
Donlin Creek access road, AK............................ 500,000
New Mexico Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM.............. 500,000
Lemhi Pass Road upgrade from Highway 324 to Sacajewea
Campground, MT...................................... 2,000,000
Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Skilak Loop Road......... 4,000,000
Chugach National Forest, Bird Creek road widening and
public safety project............................... 1,000,000
Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Shoreline Drive
improvements, WV.................................... 2,400,000
John Day Highway safety improvements at Blue Mountain
Summit, OR.......................................... 2,700,000
Highway 323 upgrade between Alzada and Ekalaka, MT...... 2,200,000
SR 248 reconstruction from US 40 to Park City, UT....... 3,700,000
Historic Columbia River Highway, rebuild Starvation
Creek to Viento State Parks......................... 500,000
Sitka Road Harbor mountain bypass....................... 1,000,000
Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site.................. 2,200,000
Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge,................... 1,700,000
Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge................. 400,000
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
(limitation on obligations)
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ ($31,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (31,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (31,000,000)
\1\ Excludes reduction of $208,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of
Public Law 105-277.
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
2000, 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 Aviation
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 Aviation 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.
Railroad rationalization and diversion analysis.--The
Committee directs that of the funds provided, not more than 90
percent may be obligated prior to the delivery of the report
requested under this section in the fiscal year 1999 Senate
report.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $100,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 105,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 105,000,000
This program was first authorized by the Surface
Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to
States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor
carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement
of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and
fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce
the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor
vehicles.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $105,000,000.
(limitation on obligations)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... ($100,000,000)
Budget estimate, 2000................................... (105,000,000)
Committee recommendation................................ (105,000,000)
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$105,000,000 for the national motor carrier program and a
program level of $155,000,000 consistent with the President's
revised budget request.
The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor
carrier safety funds:
Basic motor carrier safety grants....................... $95,881,250
Performance-based incentive grant program............... 8,431,250
Border and high priority initiatives.................... 9,500,000
State training and administration....................... 2,187,500
Information systems and strategic planning.............. 39,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 155,000,000
Covered Bridges.--The Committee recommendation includes
$10,000,000 for the Covered Bridge program authorized under
TEA21.
2002 Winter Olympic Games.--The Committee recognizes the
critical nature of the following transportation projects for
the success of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The Committee
recommends that the Secretary give priority consideration to
these projects: I-80: Kimball Junction--Modification/
Reconstruction; I-80: Silver Creek Junction--Modification/
Reconstruction; SR 248 Reconstruction: US 40 to Park City;
Soldier Hollow Improvements: Wasatch County; I-15
Reconstruction: 10800 South to 600 North; and I-215: 3500
South--Interchange Reconfiguration.
Commercial Drivers License Program.--The Commercial Motor
Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 established the federal Commercial
Driver's License (CDL) program. Despite self-congratulatory
statements from the FHWA regarding the success of the CDL
program, it is clear from several recent fatal accidents, as
well as from testimony before the Committee, that great efforts
need to be made by the OMCHS to satisfy the intent of the 1986
Act.
An ``effectiveness study'' performed for the OMCHS
indicates several stark vulnerabilities that undermine the
goals of the CDL program. They include the fact that a majority
of states do not use the Commercial Driver License Information
System (CDLIS) to screen the personal information of applicants
for non-CDL licenses to determine if the applicant has been
issued a CDL by another state. ``In such states,'' according to
the effectiveness study, ``it is possible a CDL holder could
obtain a non-CDL, in addition to his or her CDL. Also, some
states do not use the CDLIS to screen reinstated CDLs.'' The
study also pointed up the fact that a frighteningly high
percentage of drivers who have had their CDLs withdrawn due to
safety violations appear willing to risk further sanctions and
continue to operate commercial vehicles without a license. All
of these vulnerabilities constitute clear violations of the
core principles underlying the CDL program.
The uneven performance by the states in implementing these
principles was highlighted by recent testimony by the DOT
Inspector General (IG). According to the IG:
``New York State does not pull a person's past
licensing history when he or she applies for a
commercial driver's license. If a driver is convicted
of DUI while operating a commercial motor vehicle, that
driver's license is revoked. If the driver is DUI in a
personal vehicle, he or she loses personal driving
privileges and maintains commercial driving privileges.
In contrast, in Pennsylvania if convicted of DWI while
driving a personal vehicle, the entire driver's license
is suspended. If convicted of DWI while driving a
commercial vehicle, the commercial license is revoked
for one year. For more than one DWI offense, the
license is permanently revoked.''
Recent fatal accidents involving motor coach operators in
New Jersey and Louisiana, as well as the recent Amtrak
collision with a truck at Bourbonnais, Illinois, further point
up severe deficiencies in the CDL program. A total of thirty
bus passengers were killed between the December, 1998 bus crash
in Sayreville, New Jersey and the May, 1999 bus crash in New
Orleans, Louisiana. That compares to a total of 21 fatalities
for the four-year period that preceded the New Jersey crash.
While the NTSB has yet to report on the final cause of each of
these crashes, it is noteworthy that, in the case of the New
Jersey crash, the bus operator had his license suspended
multiple times, both for speeding and for the unsafe operation
of his bus. He was allowed to have his license reinstated only
after attending driving school. In the case of the New Orleans
crash, it has been reported that the driver had a record of
persistent drug abuse for several years. He had failed five
random drug tests and had been fired from three separate jobs,
including jobs with two transit companies. According to these
reports, the night before the fatal crash the driver had
arrived by ambulance at a local hospital barely conscious and
suffering from severe dehydration and low blood pressure. In
the case of the Bourbonnais truck accident, the IG testified
before the Committee that ``the truck driver was using a permit
issued to him when his commercial license was suspended because
he received three speeding tickets within an unacceptable time
period. Under these circumstances, the suspension had not had
meaningful effect.''
Importantly, the current deficiencies of the CDL program
have been identified by the motor carrier industry itself. In
recent testimony before Congress, the President of the American
Trucking Associations stated that:
``OMCHS must ensure that all states are accurately
reporting out-of-state driver convictions to the
driver's state of licensure, and doing so in a timely
fashion. OMCHS must also ensure that driver convictions
are not hidden from an employer's view in the system,
as is the case in at least 15 states. It is essential
that a CDL record reflect a driver's complete history
while driving a commercial vehicle. There is no better
predictor of future driving behavior than past driving
behavior. OMCHS must use all of the tools at its
disposal, including the withholding of a state's
highway funds, to ensure states' compliance with the
established elements of the CDL program.''
The Committee believes that the OMCHS must take immediate
and aggressive steps to strengthen the CDL program and address
the deficiencies identified by its own internal studies, by the
IG, and by other groups including the motor carrier industry.
Rather than serving as apologists for the states, the OMCHS
should be using all tools at its disposal, including the ones
cited by the industry, to demand improved performance by the
states. Toward that end, the Committee directs the Federal
Highway Administrator to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations on an annual basis that
specifically outlines each vulnerability he identifies within
the CDL program, the remedies he intends to promulgate to
address each vulnerability, specific deadlines for
implementation of each remedy, the specific manner in which he
will measure the effectiveness of each remedy, and the specific
steps he will take if the remedy is found to be ineffective.
The first such report shall be due at the end of the second
quarter of fiscal year 2000.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 405(b), 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
Program 1999 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2000 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research...................................... $161,400,000 \2\ $199,450,00 \3\ $161,400,00
0 0
National driver register (HTF)............................... (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000)
Highway traffic safety grants (firewall)..................... 200,000,000 206,800,000 214,300,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 361,400,000 406,250,000 375,700,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions of $974,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Also excludes
supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $124,450,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
\3\ From firewall and discretionary highway trust fund sources.
Operations and Research
(Highway Trust Fund)
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides
$72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund
to finance NHTSA's fiscal year 2000 operations and research
activities under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included
within the firewall guarantee for highway spending, and is not
subject to appropriations. The bill includes an authorization
subject to appropriations of $89,400,000 for operations and
research activities under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49
U.S.C. and chapter 303 of title 49 U.S.C. for fiscal year 2000.
Thus, the total authorized level for fiscal year 2000 for NHTSA
operations and research activities is $161,400,000.
The administration, however, has requested to transfer
$125,450,000 of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) from
the Highway Trust Fund firewall to support NHTSA's operations
and research account. This proposal disregards the spirit and
letter of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to
increase federal investment in our nation's highway and transit
systems. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is
the product of a delicate compromise, and the Committee is
dismayed that the administration would propose to disregard its
core provisions only a year after the President signed it into
law. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is
opposed to the diversion of RABA funds away from its intended
purposes.
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 provides an appropriation of
$161,400,000 to be distributed as follows:
Committee
Program recommendation
Safety performance...................................... $14,249,000
Safety assurance........................................ 20,972,000
Highway safety.......................................... 57,617,000
Research and analysis................................... 61,625,000
National driver register................................ 2,000,000
Office of the Administrator............................. 4,493,000
General administration.................................. 10,417,000
Grant administration reimbursement...................... -9,973,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 161,400,000
Agencywide adjustments.--Due to budgetary constraints and
the Committee's view that additional funds should be allocated
to safety programs, the Committee does not include the $890,000
requested for new permanent staff positions and denies the
request to increase the number of FTE's from 621 to 635. The
Committee also has reduced $1,376,000 for operating expenses.
The Committee is confident that NHTSA can reduce cost growth in
its headquarter operating expenses by limiting travel to the
fiscal year 1999 level and implementing a variety of management
initiatives, such as restraining rent, computer support, and
administrative support.
safety performance standards
New Car Assessment Program.--The bill includes $2,830,000
to evaluate vehicle performance in crash tests and provide
vehicle safety and crash test information to the public. The
Committee recommends providing the same level of funding as the
fiscal year 1999 level and is $362,000 more than the
administration's revised budget request. The Committee expects
NHTSA to conduct enough crash tests to provide consumer
information on the majority of vehicles. The Committee denies
the request to expand NCAP beyond the fiscal year 1999 test
procedures.
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.
highway safety programs
Impaired Driving.--The Committee commends NHTSA for
focusing research on the costs, benefits, and impacts of 0.08
Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) laws and its efforts to
reduce impaired driving by young adults between 21 and 34 years
old. Sufficient funds are included in the fiscal year 2000
Committee recommendation to continue research on the
effectiveness of 0.08 BAC laws. There is a similar need for
research that would assist state legislators as they decide
whether to adopt repeat offender and open container statutes.
Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century,
states that have not enacted such laws by October 1, 2000 lose
federal construction funds. NHTSA should be prepared to report
next year on the progress made in each area.
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, more
worthy agency programs and safety grants.
Emergency Medical Services.--In 1998, NHTSA began a
collaborative effort to develop a national standards curriculum
for emergency medical services personnel on the pre-hospital
treatment of severe head injury. There are approximately 1.6
million severe head injuries annually, the majority of which
are caused by motor vehicle accidents. Within the emergency
medical services program, the Committee has included $1,000,000
to initiate the third phase of the head injury pre-hospital
protocols. Pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury
through a comprehensive education and training program for the
first 14 states will be serviced by training centers in
Northern Virginia (Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, Kentucky and the District of Columbia) and
Birmingham, Alabama (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi,
South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee). This
educational effort will be directed toward the EMS trainers at
the local level, the EMS Medical Directors of each ambulance
company, the State EMS Directors, State EMS Advisory Committee,
and each state's Commissioner of Health. The Committee
encourages NHTSA to continue to work with the Aitken
Neuroscience Center during this phase of the program.
Highway Safety Research.--The Committee is concerned with
the increased occurrence of aggressive driving by motorist,
especially in the Washington capital region. To address this
persistent problem, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for
the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, on behalf of
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, to
development and implement a regional education and driver
modification program. The Committee also is concerned about the
overall lack of attention given to rural motor vehicle
accidents and the unique aspects of assessing and treating
trauma patients in rural areas. Some factors that are unique to
rural crash victims are greater travel distances, delayed
notification of emergency medical services, inadequate
physician training, and proximity to appropriate trauma
centers. The Committee has included $1,750,000 to initiate a
project at the University of South Alabama that utilizes a
multi-disciplinary team to manage rural vehicular trauma
victims. As part of the project, other factors relevant to care
of rural vehicular trauma patients should be considered,
including the role of aeromedical evacuation, facilitation of
consultation with trauma surgeons through telemedicine,
facilitation of interstate transport, and outreach to local
community hospitals.
Driver's License Identification.--The Committee has
included bill language similar to the fiscal year 1999
conference report which delays implementation of a provision
requiring states to display social security numbers on driver's
licenses and conform with federal uniform features for driver's
licenses. The Committee has deleted $264,000 that was
associated with this program out of concern for individual
privacy and the preemption of state authority.
Emerging Issues.--The Committee continues to be concerned
about children who gain access to the trunk of a vehicle and
are not able to escape, even if they entered through the back
seat inside the passenger compartment. Many of these children
die from suffocation, heat stroke, or hypothermia. Within the
funds provided for emerging issues, the Committee directs NHTSA
to thoroughly study this issue. The report should provide data
on the number of trunk entrapments that resulted in death,
analyze historical trends, and if possible, to compile, and
recommend strategies, including truck latch release buttons, to
reduce such incidents. The report is requested by March 31,
2000.
research and analysis
Biomechanics.--The Committee has included full funding for
the Crash Injury Reduction and Engineering Network (CIREN). The
Committee continues to support the effort to link eight trauma
centers to vehicle engineers in order to study the cause,
effects and results of crashes. The network consists of centers
located at: R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore,
Maryland; the University of Medicine & Dentistry, Newark, New
Jersey; the Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC;
the Lehman Injury Research Center at the University of Miami
School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; the University of Michigan
Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; the Harborview Injury
Prevention Center, Seattle, Washington; the San Diego County
Trauma System, San Diego, California; and the Mercedes-Benz
CIREN Center.
The Committee also has provided $2,200,000 to fund the
development of a comprehensive, integrated research program in
injury sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham
(UAB). The injury sciences program will develop new and
improving methods of preventing, treating, and mitigating the
effects of injuries associated with motor vehicle accidents.
The program will focus on three aspects of crash impact
research: modify driver behavior to reduce the likelihood of a
vehicle accident, minimize the risk of crash injuries in the
event of a crash, and reduce the risk or mortality and
morbidity, including diffuse axonal injury.
State Data Program.--The Committee has included $1,000,000
for the Yellowstone County Traffic Safety Commission which is
developing with the assistance of Montana State University a
network linking emergency medical service (EMS) data with the
Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) to evaluate
traffic safety protocols and highway management. Data in the
system will be used to further assess the effect of occupant
protection systems, impact of speed limits on highway safety,
and the validity of various EMS protocols in crash survival.
national driver register
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.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 206,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 214,300,000
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. 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 $206,800,000 for the payment of
obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant
programs.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also
established the child passenger protection education grant
program which is subject to appropriations. All of the evidence
indicates that between 70 and 90 percent of child safety seats
are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused. The Committee
supports providing grants that train safety professionals on
all aspects of proper child restraint use and educate the
public on the installation, selection, and placement of child
safety seats. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes
$7,500,000 to fully implement the section 405(b) grant program.
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 Fiscal year 2000 Committee
1999 enacted estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway safety programs.................................... $150,000,000 $152,800,000 $152,800,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants........... 35,000,000 36,000,000 36,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants....................... 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Child passenger protection education grants \1\............ ............... (7,500,000) (7,500,000)
State highway safety data grants........................... 5,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Total................................................ 200,000,000 206,800,000 206,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request proposes to fund child passenger occupant protection education grants with funds from
revenue aligned budget authority transferred to NHTSA operations and research.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 $729,653,000 for the activities of the
Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2000. This is
$17,049,000 less than the budget request. In addition to these
appropriated Federal funds, $1,091,810,000 will be paid to
Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 by the Secretary of the Treasury
pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------ Committee
Program 2000 budget recommendation
1999 enacted \1\ estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations \2\................................. ................ $95,462,000 $91,789,000
Office of the Administrator............................... $21,215,000 ................ ................
Railroad safety........................................... 61,488,000 ................ ................
Railroad research and development \3\..................... 22,364,000 21,800,000 22,364,000
Next generation high-speed rail........................... 20,494,000 12,000,000 20,500,000
Alaska railroad rehabilitation............................ 38,000,000 ................ 14,000,000
Rhode Island rail development............................. 5,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 609,230,000 570,976,000 571,000,000
Amtrak Reform Council \4\............................. (450,000) (750,000) (950,000)
RABA rail initiatives \5\............................. ................ 35,400,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........................... 777,791,000 745,638,000 729,653,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; also excludes funds paid to
Amtrak pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997.
\2\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\3\ Fiscal year 2000 includes $21,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
\4\ The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general
provision, and is not part of the FRA budget.
\5\ 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.
Safety and Operations
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ ($85,574,000)
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 95,462,000
Committee recommendation................................ 91,789,000
\1\ Reflects comparable funding appropriated in the following 4
accounts: Office of the Administrator; Railroad Safety; a portion of the
Research and Development account; and a portion of the Next Generation
High Speed Rail account.
\2\ Includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees.
The Administration is proposing restructuring the Federal
Railroad Administration salary and expense accounts by
consolidating all of FRA's corporate resources from four
separate appropriations into a single appropriation titled
Safety and Operations. 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 presentation of all FRA staffing and operations
in a single account is consistent with account structures in
other DOT agencies, and would allow FRA to track its program
and support costs separately. The Committee supports this
restructuring, but maintains its authority to set and control
staffing levels associated with the four primary personnel
functions at FRA.
The following table reflects the comparable fiscal year
1999 funding and the fiscal year 2000 Committee recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2000 projected 2000 Committee
1999 enacted request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator (includes contract support, ARR $20,846,000 $28,379,000 $26,405,000
liabilities, TASC reduction)................................
(FTE).................................................... (152) (156) (153)
Railroad safety.............................................. $61,488,000 $63,860,000 $62,254,000
(FTE).................................................... (558) (573) (559.5)
Administration of research and development................... $2,646,000 $2,601,000 $2,550,000
(FTE).................................................... (18.5) (19) (18.5)
Administration of high speed rail............................ $594,000 $622,000 $580,000
(FTE).................................................... (5) (5.5) (5)
--------------------------------------------------
Total Safety and Operations............................ $85,574,000 $95,462,000 $91,789,000
(FTE).............................................. (733.5) (753.5) (736)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Within the total program level of $91,789,000, the FRA
Administrator is provided the flexibility to shift
administrative and personnel funds within the four offices
(Office of the Administrator, railroad safety, administration
of research and development, and administration of high-speed
rail), within a ten percent limitation of the amounts specified
above. Shifts of administrative funds in excess of that
limitation shall require the approval of both the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations.
The bill includes a provision which transfers $1,000,000 in
safety and operations funds to the Department of Transportation
Office of Inspector General, for audits and investigations of
rail-related issues and systems.
Budget presentation.--To ensure that the Committee is given
adequate information to exercise appropriate oversight of FRA's
resources and staff allocations, the Committee directs that FRA
include in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification staffing
and dollar breakouts of the safety and operations offices, as
displayed above. In addition, the supporting documentation in
the fiscal year 2001 budget justification shall be of the same
level of detail as that specified in the fiscal year 1999
budget.
Staffing increases.--The FRA has requested 15 new positions
in fiscal year 2000, for a total of $2,788,000 in associated
personnel costs. The Committee recommendation provides funding
for 4 of these requested positions: 3 new positions in the area
of railroad safety (+$288,000). One of the new railroad safety
positions shall be for a highway engineer to increase the
capabilities of the agency in grade crossing safety.
Information technology initiative.--FRA requested
$1,542,000 for hardware, software and personnel (2 new
positions) for new information technology systems. The
Committee has provided funding for 1 new position and half of
the requested funding for associated hardware, software, and
contractor consulting costs for the upgraded telecommunications
infrastructure (+$771,000).
The Committee directs the FRA to submit a detailed spending
plan indicating the total costs and improvements necessary to
upgrade the agency's information technology systems. This plan
shall include a timetable and project benchmarks, with all
fiscal year 2001 and out year costs specified by activity. This
plan shall be submitted as a supplemental justification in the
FRA fiscal year 2001 budget justification.
Travel.--A total increase of $770,000 above the enacted
level is requested for staff travel. Some of this increase is
associated with new safety inspection and enforcement staff
brought on board in fiscal year 1999 and some is associated
with the requested new staffing positions, as well as an
overall increase in travel. The Committee supports flexibility
for FRA safety-related staff travel throughout and among the
regions but has decreased this request by $415,000, based on
fewer new staff than were requested by the administration.
Operation Lifesaver.--The Committee recommends $950,000 for
Operation Lifesaver, which is $650,000 above the
administration's requested level. The Federal Highway
Administration provides $500,000 annually from the Surface
Transportation Program safety set-aside to cover Operation
Lifesaver salaries, benefits and overhead costs. Of the
appropriated funds provided herein, $600,000 is provided to
support Operation Lifesaver's 49 active State programs and
national safety initiatives. The Committee has also included
$350,000 to support initial work on a new, national, multi-year
public service campaign to increase awareness of highway-rail
grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. The Committee
stresses the importance of implementing a unified campaign that
has the financial and technical support of the railroad
industry, FRA, and the law enforcement community.
Grade crossing safety.--In addition to the grant to
Operation Lifesaver, FRA plans to utilize approximately
$2,500,000 from the safety and operations account for grade
crossing safety activities, supporting such activities as a
police officer detail, outreach to law enforcement and judicial
organizations, and supporting the national highway-rail
crossing inventory. The Committee fully endorses these
activities. In addition, within available safety and operations
funds other than those already identified to support grade
crossing safety, the Committee directs that $350,000 be made
available to initiate an evaluation assessing the costs,
benefits, and impacts of state grade crossing safety laws.
These evaluations should be coordinated with and help establish
the basis for FRA's initiative to develop model state laws to
promote grade crossing safety. The National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration (NHTSA) has extensive experience in
evaluating state traffic laws, and should manage this effort,
with assistance provided by FRA and the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). In this evaluation, ``best practices''
and innovative strategies used by states or local communities
to improve grade crossing safety should be identified, and
successful enforcement, education, and engineering activities
should be highlighted. The Committee also requests that in the
course of this analysis, FRA, FHWA and NHTSA encourage states
to use a portion of their Section 402 highway safety grant
funds to improve grade crossing safety.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $21,215,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... ( \2\ )
Committee recommendation................................ ( \2\ )
\1\ Excludes reduction of $369,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of
Public Law 105-277
\2\ Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account.
Railroad Safety
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $61,488,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... ( \1\ )
Committee recommendation................................ ( \1\ )
\1\ Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $22,364,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\ \2\........................... 21,800,000
Committee recommendation................................ 22,364,000
\1\ Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety
and operations account.
\2\ Includes $21,300,000 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
$22,364,000 for railroad research and development, $564,000
more than the administration's requested level.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Railroad research and development programs:
Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials........... $10,114,000
Track and vehicle track interaction..................... 6,950,000
Safety of high speed ground transportation.............. 4,800,000
R&D facilities.......................................... 500,000
Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials.--The
Committee recommends a program funding level of $10,114,000,
which is $1,064,000 more than the administration's request.
Within this amount, $1,500,000 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. This is an ongoing test program that is jointly
administered by the FRA and the Association of American
Railroads (AAR).
Additionally, within this amount, three safety research
programs will be funded: $500,000 for the Center for Advanced
Vehicle Technologies at the University of Alabama, to develop
vehicle proximity alert systems and other sensor and
electromagnetic devices that address crossing safety train/
vehicle combination issues; and $500,000 for research to be
performed jointly by Marshall University and the University of
Nebraska. This research shall focus on real time monitoring of
track subsurface stability; detection of track ``weak spots''
and the development of metallurgical manufacturing techniques
to minimize such ``weak spots''. Additionally, within this
amount, $500,000 shall be provided for a Montana State
University at Bozeman pilot program to provide real-time
diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock using differential
global positioning system technology.
Track and vehicle-track interaction.--The Committee
recommends a program funding level of $6,950,000, $500,000 less
than the administration's request. Within this amount, $500,000
shall be used to work with the University of Missouri-Rolla on
advanced composite materials use in repairing and
rehabilitating rail bridges. Aging rail bridges are
increasingly being required to handle heavier axial loads and
higher train speeds. The University of Missouri-Rolla has
played a leading role in exploring new technologies in advanced
composite materials that will help prolong the functional
lifespan of bridges and reduce maintenance costs in the long
term.
The FRA requested $500,000 in new/expanded program funding
for testing of an on-board locomotive communications bus to
foster interoperability of positive train control (PTC)
systems. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 under a
cooperative agreement with Conrail on behalf of themselves,
Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads, and is now in the third
phase, which involves intensive testing of on-board wiring
harness and communications software protocols which interface
with four different automatic train control systems on Norfolk
Southern rail line between Harrisburg, PA and Manassas, VA. The
Committee strongly supports this ongoing project, but has moved
the program funding from the ``Railroad research and
development'' account to the ``Next generation high-speed
rail'' account, in order to consolidate all the PTC program
elements within the same office.
Safety of high-speed ground transportation.--The Committee
recommends a program funding level of $4,800,000, the same
level as the administration's request.
Research and development facilities.--The Committee
recommends a funding level of $500,000 for R&D facilities, the
same level as the administration's request. The Committee has
not yet received a response from FRA to the directive in Senate
Report 105-249 that FRA include in the fiscal year 2000 budget
justification a description of FRA's track research vehicle
needs, and an analysis of whether the FRA could utilize the AAR
track research vehicle that is current onsite at TTC. The
Committee directs that FRA not obligate any of the fiscal year
2000 research and development facilities funds provided herein
for T-6 track research vehicle-related expenses until this
analysis has been submitted to the Committee in letter form.
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 2000.
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, 1999.................................... $20,494,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 12,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 20,500,000
\1\ Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety
and operations account.
The Committee has provided $20,500,000 in general fund
appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT]
Program. The amount provided is $8,500,000 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.
High-speed rail crossing improvement program.--In section
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year from
surface transportation program safety funds 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 Committee directs that $1,000,000 be used
to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the gulf coast corridor
between Mobile, AL and New Orleans, LA, $1,000,000 be used to
mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Stampede Pass rail
corridor near Yakima, Washington, and $1,000,000 be used to
mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Midwest Regional
Corridor within the State of Wisconsin. In addition to the
automatic set-aside funding, $15,000,000 in general funds is
authorized to be appropriated for these purposes. The
administration has proposed that $15,000,000 from transferred
revenue aligned budget authority funds be used for high-speed
rail grade crossing mitigation. Section 7201 of TEA21 provides
a more general authorization of the high-speed rail program at
a total level of $35,000,000 in general funds each year through
fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends the following funding levels for
the Next generation high-speed rail programs:
Train control systems................................... $7,300,000
High-speed non-electric locomotives..................... 8,000,000
Grade crossing hazard mitigation........................ 4,000,000
Track/structures technology............................. 1,200,000
Train control systems.--The administration has proposed
that $10,000,000 from transferred revenue aligned budget
authority funds be used for two positive train control
demonstration projects: a flexible block high-speed train
control system on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor ($7,000,000);
and an incremental train control system on a segment of the
Detroit-Chicago corridor ($3,000,000).
The Committee has provided a total of $7,300,000 for
positive train control demonstration projects. Of these funds,
no less than $5,000,000 shall be for the Alaska Railroad
positive train control project (discussed below) and no less
than $1,000,000 shall be for the Transportation Safety Research
Alliance (TSRA) advanced integrated technology system, which
will provide continuous direction, movement, and highway
crossing controls for the rail freight industry.
Alaska Railroad positive train control research and
implementation.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the
third and final phase of the Alaska Railroad's ongoing efforts
to implement a collision avoidance positive train control
system over the entire Alaska Railroad system. These funds will
help fund a satellite-based communications and tracking system
that will provide positive train separation for all locomotives
and track vehicles, and precision train control with movement-
pass planning capabilities. This project, once completed, will
be more than a demonstration project--it will be a fully
operational PTC system, providing the FRA and rail industry
with an invaluable baseline reference for other positive train
control system development projects.
High-speed nonelectric locomotives.--The Committee has
provided a total of $8,000,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric
locomotive program. This is $1,200,000 more than 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 $5,000,000 for the ALPS program.
Grade crossing hazard mitigation.--The Committee recommends
$4,000,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation initiatives,
the level requested by the administration.
Track/structures technology.--The Committee has provided
$1,200,000 for the track/structures technology program, the
same level as the administration's request.
Alaska Railroad Rehabilitation
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $38,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................ 14,000,000
The Committee has included a total of $14,000,000 for rail
safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger
operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470
miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in
Alaska, to the interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both
passengers and freight, and provides a critical transportation
link for passengers and cargo traveling through difficult
terrain and harsh climatic conditions. Of the $14,000,000
provided in the bill, $10,000,000 will be used to continue the
railroad's multiyear effort to reduce the backlog of deferred
track maintenance and related capital rehabilitation. The
remaining $4,000,000 will be applied to projects in and around
Anchorage to double track the railroad's system in the
metropolitan area. Double tracking is an important step towards
rail-based transit in Anchorage. In addition, the rail system
has become congested in the Anchorage area, particularly with
shipments of high-value freight such as low-sulphur coal and
jet fuel. The railroad has always provided a substantial non-
Federal match for past Federal appropriations, and will
continue to do so.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 10,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 10,000,000
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for construction of a
third track paralleling the Northeast corridor for the 22-mile
stretch between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI.
This project is an initiative supported by the administration
and Amtrak, to avoid mixing freight traffic and high-speed
passenger rail service and to provide sufficient clearance to
accommodate double-stack freight cars.
To date, this project has received $28,000,000 in Federal
funds. Construction on the rehabilitation of track between
Boston Switch and Atwells should be completed by the summer of
2000. Construction to add a third track along selected
stretches of 13 miles of the NEC mainline between Cranston and
Davisville is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2000.
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $609,230,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 570,976,000
Committee recommendation................................ 571,000,000
For fiscal year 2000, the administration has requested an
appropriation of $570,976,000 for capital funding with the same
flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided to
transit grantees. These funds would be in addition to the
$1,091,810,000 in fiscal year 2000 TRA funds, adding to a total
of $1,622,810,000 in federal funds for fiscal year 2000.
Amtrak appropriations history--1971-99
[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
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total................................................... 22,638.1
Source.--Amtrak Strategic Business Plan, fiscal year 1998-2000
(September 23, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $571,000,000 for Amtrak capital
grants in fiscal year 2000. This is the same funding level
requested by Amtrak, and is $24,000 more than the funding level
requested by the administration. The reason for this
discrepancy between requests has not been explained by either
FRA or Amtrak. The amount provided is $38,230,000 less than the
fiscal year 1999 appropriated level.
Amtrak's financial situation remains precarious. According
to the Corporation's financial management office, the railroad
will end fiscal year 1999 with a cash loss requiring short-term
borrowing of $512,000,000. The Committee acknowledges that the
Corporation is taking some of the necessary steps to improve
its financial condition, including the formation of cost-
sharing partnerships with states, the expansion of high-value
mail and express services, and the contracting out food
services operations. Even so, Amtrak's financial condition will
continue to suffer due to the low ridership and high operating
costs associated with its long distance trains. A significant
portion of Amtrak's operating expenses are associated with
labor costs--costs that have continued to rise over and above
the levels assumed in Amtrak's business plans from prior years.
Amtrak has continued to sign labor agreements with its unions
based on the ``pattern'' embodied in the agreement reached with
the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE). These
``pattern'' agreements have kept the increase in labor costs
below the levels experienced in the freight rail industry.
While these increased labor costs are now accounted for in
Amtrak's latest strategic business plan, they will continue to
rise. These costs, along with other cost areas where savings
have yet to materialize, such as electric power, will
exacerbate Amtrak's challenge in improving their bottom line
over the long term.
Market Based Network Analysis.--Amtrak is performing a
Market Based Network Analysis (MBNA) of existing passenger rail
ridership, revenue, operating characteristics, cost and
financial performance of the existing routes on Amtrak's
system. This analysis will include market research of the
intercity travel market, the physical constraints to changes in
train frequency or speeds, and mail/express service potential.
Using this information, Amtrak will analyze different service
alternatives, including route restructuring and modification,
frequency changes, route expansions, and route eliminations.
The MBNA will be competed in late summer 1999, so that
Amtrak can incorporate the resulting network redesign, capital
investment requirements, implementation process and time frame,
and financial impact into the fiscal year 2000 Strategic
Business Plan, which is scheduled for publication in October
1999. The Committee believes that this analysis can be an
important tool for Amtrak's Board, the Amtrak Reform Council,
and Congress in making decisions that will affect the
railroad's future. The Committee directs that Amtrak make the
MBNA available to House and Senate Appropriations Committees,
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and
the Senate Commerce Committee before publication of the fiscal
year 2000 Strategic Business Plan.
Northeast Corridor high-speed service.--In late calendar
year 1999, Amtrak plans to phase in its ``Acela Express'' high-
speed electrified service between Boston, New York and
Washington, DC. Amtrak has stated that travel time between New
York and Washington will decrease from the current three hours
to as little as 2 hours 30 minutes; travel time between New
York and Boston will drop from the current 4 hours 45 minutes
to as little as three hours. When fully operational (December
2000), Amtrak has projected that this new Northeast corridor
service will generate $180,000,000 annually in net revenues,
which the railroad expects to turn back to the Corporation to
offset losses on other non-profitable lines.
In preparation for this new service, especially north of
New Haven, where train service has heretofore been non-
electric, Amtrak has initiated a comprehensive program to brief
all fire, police, and rescue personnel in communities along the
railroad and to give presentations in area schools regarding
the danger of playing near the tracks. Amtrak plans to contact
every school and all fire, police and rescue personnel prior to
start-up of new electrified service. The Committee recognizes
these efforts, and asks that Amtrak work with the affected
Northeast corridor communities, as well as state transit
officials and owners of the track, to identify danger spots and
install perimeter fencing along the corridor where needed. In
particular, Amtrak should continue to focus on increased
community coordination in urbanized areas where there have been
problems or where community concerns have been expressed, such
as Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and Sharon, Massachusetts.
Where possible, Amtrak should seek to install the necessary
fencing for these areas prior to the initiation of high-speed
electrified service.
On the south end of the Northeast corridor, between
Washington, D.C. and New York, the track, signals, electric
catenary and overhead wire are much older, and are in need of
replacement or upgrade. The Committee directs that Amtrak
provide a letter report to the Committees on Appropriations
before August 27, 1999, describing in detail the planned
infrastructure improvements along the south end of the corridor
in the States of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New
Jersey. The report should provide descriptions of work needed,
cost estimates, and a timetable with benchmarks. The report
should include any current or expected cost-sharing
arrangements with the states, other railroads, or any other
sources.
Los Angeles to Las Vegas service.--There is currently no
passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. A
preliminary agreement has been reached with the Union Pacific
Railroad over the magnitude and scope of the infrastructure
improvements along the UP's line that will allow implementation
of passenger service. A second track would be installed on the
UP mainline between Cima and Kelso, a distance of just over 20
miles, at an estimated cost of $28,000,000. Amtrak's fiscal
years 1998 and 1999 capital budgets included $14,000,000 to
initiate this service; UP will be responsible for the remainder
of the costs associated with making the necessary track and
infrastructure upgrades. A unique partnership arrangement with
local businesses, who will buy a large number of seats per
year, guarantees a passenger-related revenue stream. This
service may be initiated as early as mid-2000, and will have a
travel time of five hours thirty minutes to cover the 270 mile
distance between the two cities.
Southern Pines, NC railroad station.--The Committee notes
with satisfaction the commitment that the railroad has made to
full participation in the restoration of the historic Southern
Pines railroad station. Amtrak is negotiating with CSX Railroad
for ownership of the property, and if all goes as planned, will
begin performing work on the station this summer.
Amtrak service in Vermont.--The Committee understands that
there are communities interested in future Amtrak service
between Hoosick Falls, New York and Burlington, Vermont. The
Committee directs that Amtrak provide a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by September 30, 1999, on
the capital costs necessary to upgrade the line to passenger
rail standards for Amtrak service.
Rail Initiatives--Trust Fund
Appropriations, 1999....................................................
Budget estimate, 2000................................... $35,400,000
Committee recommendation................................................
\1\ Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority.
The Administration is proposing a rail initiatives account
to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The budget
proposal includes $15,000,000 for high speed rail grade
crossing; $10,000,000 for positive train control (2
demonstration projects); and $10,400,000 for the Nationwide
Differential Global Position System (NDGPS). The Committee has
not endorsed the administration's requested treatment of
revenue aligned budget authority funds. However, the Committee
has provided $7,300,000 in appropriated general funds for
position train control activities within the ``Next generation
high-speed rail'' account. The only funding available for high-
speed rail grade crossings is that drawn down from the highway
safety set-aside, an amount of $5,250,000 a year. The Committee
has also provided funding for the NDGPS within the Federal-aid
Highway program, which is fully discussed in the Federal
Highway Administration section of the report.
Amtrak Reform Council
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $450,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 750,000
Committee recommendation................................ 950,000
\1\ The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented
within the FRA for display purposes only.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000 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 year 1999 transportation appropriations act, $450,000
was appropriated for the Council. For fiscal year 2000, the
administration has requested an appropriation of $750,000, but
the Council has sent up an independent budget request for
$1,300,000. Because the Council is an independent commission,
the Committee's appropriation of $950,000 is not provided
within the FRA's budget, but is provided in a general provision
(section 331) of the bill.
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.
After October 2000, the Commission must make a determination on
whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in
the ARAA. If the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they
must then submit a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit a
liquidation plan.
The Committee's recommended funding level, $950,000, will
allow the ARC to decisively move forward in performing its
tasks and responsibilities. These funds are available for 2
years, through September 30, 2001.
During fiscal year 1999, the Council has hired a small
permanent and part-time staff consisting of an executive
director and assistant to the executive director, a senior
attorney, administrative specialist, and administrative
assistant. The Council also plans to bring on a senior-level
transportation economist/financial analyst and a transportation
industry analyst. Both the administration and the Council have
requested that Congress lift its current restriction on the
hiring of outside consultants. This provision was put in place
to prevent potential conflicts of interest and keep ARC costs
to a minimum. The Committee directs that not more than $200,000
of the funds herein appropriated be used for outside consultant
services. These contractual services shall not exceed the
annual cost of an SES level IV direct compensation on a per FTE
basis.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2000 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 $291,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level
of $5,797,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the
Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2000, which is
the same obligation limitation authorized under the mass
transit category in TEA-21.
The following table summarizes the Committee's
recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the
administration's request:
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Program 1999 enacted \1\ 2000 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses................................ 54,000 60,000 60,000
Formula grants \2\..................................... 2,850,000 3,310,270 3,098,000
University transportation research..................... 6,000 6,000 6,000
Transit planning and research \3\...................... 98,000 111,000 107,000
Capital investment grants.............................. 2,257,000 2,451,000 2,451,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \4\.............. 75,000 150,000 75,000
Washington Metro....................................... 50,000 ................. .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 5,390,000 6,088,270 5,797,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277; excludes rescission of
discretionary grant contract authority; also excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ The Fiscal Year 1999 enacted level excludes transfers of $50,800,000 to the capital investment grants
program and the Office of Inspector General; the budget proposal includes $212,270,000 from revenue aligned
budget authority.
\3\ The budget proposal includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
\4\ The budget proposal includes $75,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
Administrative Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund
Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $10,800,000 $43,200,000 $54,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 12,000,000 48,000,000 60,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 12,000,000 48,000,000 60,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $912,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental
funding of $250,000 for Y2K.
\2\ Excludes proposed transfer of $1,700,000 to Inspector General for audit reimbursements.
The Committee recommends a total of $60,000,000 in budget
resources funds for administrative expenses.
Last year the Committee directed the 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 2000, the administration proposes reimbursing the
OIG $1,700,000 from FTA's administrative expenses account. The
Committee endorses this proposed transfer, and has provided a
total of $9,000,000 in transferred FTA administrative funds,
for audits and investigations of all transit-related issues and
systems. This level reflects the percentage of total Office of
Inspector General work performed in the transit area.
Formula Grants
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\.................................. $570,000,000 $2,280,000,000 $2,850,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\................................. 619,600,000 2,690,000,000 3,310,270,000
Committee recommendation.................................. 619,600,000 2,478,400,000 3,098,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $800,000 in oversight funds transferred to OIG. Also excludes $50,000,000 transferred to capital
investment grants.
\2\ Includes $212,300,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
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 other than urbanized areas
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds
are directed to: a new grant program for intercity bus
operators to finance Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA]
accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements
to its passenger operations. The administration has proposed
that $212,270,000 in revenue aligned budget authority funds be
transferred to the transit formula grants account. Of these
funds, FTA proposes that $25,000,000 be used to meet the
transportation needs of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake
City, $20,000,000 be used for the Long Island Railroad East
Side Access new starts project, and that an additional
$1,300,000 be made available for intercity bus ADA compliance
costs. The remainder of the transferred RABA funds would go to
the three formula programs. The Committee has not approved any
transfer of RABA funds, and thereby does not approve this
request. However, the Committee recognizes the Administration's
interest in supporting the transportation needs associated with
the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Accordingly, the Committee has provided for these
transportation functions within the framework of the bus and
bus facilities and new systems categories.
Transit Equity Provision.--The bill includes a general
provision (section 321) which prevents any state from receiving
more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate formula and capital
investment grants programs' funds. The following illustrative
table shows the enacted fiscal year 1999 funding levels for the
transit formula and capital investment grants programs, and the
percentage share each state received. The bill's transit equity
provision would decrease the state's formula grants allocations
by the amount needed to bring the aggregate total down to 12.5
percent of the national total. These recovered funds would be
redistributed to the remaining states in equal measure, to the
states' section 5307 formula grants programs, for use on any
eligible capital transit project.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- State total State
State 5310 Elderly & 5309 Fixed selected FTA percentage
5307 Urbanized 5311 Non- persons with 5309 New guideway 5309 Bus programs of total
area urbanized area disability starts modernization allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................................... $11,402,391 $4,250,030 $1,160,647 $1,000,000 .............. $23,840,000 $41,653,068 0.82
Alaska............................................................ \1\ 7,005,198 633,771 185,871 5,200,000 .............. 7,500,000 20,524,840 .40
American Samoa.................................................... ................ 90,332 52,397 .............. .............. .............. 142,729 ..........
Arizona........................................................... 28,888,298 1,860,551 1,023,763 5,000,000 $1,286,274 7,000,000 45,058,886 .88
Arkansas.......................................................... 4,440,818 3,397,723 812,084 1,000,000 .............. 3,060,000 12,710,625 .25
California........................................................ 407,141,247 8,292,733 6,271,268 146,980,000 86,945,465 40,555,004 696,185,717 13.64
Colorado.......................................................... 31,721,677 1,770,167 794,916 41,000,000 1,080,875 8,675,001 85,042,636 1.67
Connecticut....................................................... 40,094,714 1,605,709 910,339 3,500,000 34,799,686 7,550,000 88,460,448 1.73
Delaware.......................................................... 5,374,860 400,586 278,659 .............. 666,931 1,000,000 7,721,036 .15
District of Columbia.............................................. 22,289,751 .............. 276,620 .............. 32,038,246 7,350,000 61,954,617 1.21
Florida........................................................... 125,722,610 5,330,935 4,233,062 28,500,000 11,094,890 19,500,000 194,381,497 3.81
Georgia........................................................... 47,626,007 6,213,996 1,503,895 53,610,000 14,967,672 15,500,000 139,421,570 2.73
Guam.............................................................. ................ 257,155 132,972 .............. .............. .............. 390,127 .01
Hawaii............................................................ 20,138,902 697,426 353,457 8,200,000 532,305 3,250,000 33,172,090 .65
Idaho............................................................. 2,624,831 1,407,037 361,628 .............. .............. .............. 4,393,496 .09
Illinois.......................................................... 177,939,272 5,700,995 2,737,694 44,000,000 106,700,651 9,300,000 346,378,612 6.79
Indiana........................................................... 28,246,378 5,507,032 1,438,171 3,000,000 7,161,958 7,700,000 53,053,539 1.04
Iowa.............................................................. 8,358,254 3,542,177 872,739 250,000 .............. 6,685,001 19,708,171 .39
Kansas............................................................ 6,741,540 2,817,690 732,264 1,000,000 .............. 2,000,000 13,291,494 .26
Kentucky.......................................................... 14,624,420 4,651,390 1,112,476 .............. .............. 5,300,000 25,688,286 .50
Louisiana......................................................... 23,302,797 3,847,036 1,116,063 24,000,000 2,323,293 11,000,000 65,589,189 1.28
Maine............................................................. 1,882,950 1,856,345 451,211 .............. .............. .............. 4,190,506 .08
Maryland.......................................................... 64,030,500 2,317,558 1,121,323 20,541,000 19,950,711 10,000,000 117,961,092 2.31
Massachusetts..................................................... 97,891,042 2,483,718 1,613,444 56,233,000 60,214,839 13,728,000 232,164,043 4.55
Michigan.......................................................... 52,081,684 6,726,332 2,342,839 200,000 321,028 10,600,000 72,271,883 1.42
Minnesota......................................................... 25,669,254 3,870,615 1,137,080 17,000,000 2,452,324 17,500,000 67,629,273 1.32
Mississippi....................................................... 3,996,738 3,777,218 789,061 .............. .............. 5,500,000 14,063,017 .28
Missouri.......................................................... 28,734,839 4,508,270 1,458,410 1,000,000 1,527,879 11,750,000 48,979,398 .96
Montana........................................................... 1,986,212 1,139,811 332,096 .............. .............. 1,500,000 4,958,119 .10
Nebraska.......................................................... 7,027,667 1,719,830 517,396 1,000,000 .............. .............. 10,264,893 .20
Nevada............................................................ 15,156,521 561,498 385,885 4,000,000 .............. 6,115,001 26,218,905 .51
New Hampshire..................................................... 2,782,848 1,486,701 364,757 .............. .............. 2,770,000 7,404,306 .15
New Jersey........................................................ 149,068,196 2,125,667 1,936,285 77,000,000 82,332,792 11,750,000 324,212,940 6.35
New Mexico........................................................ 5,913,740 1,671,096 455,491 5,000,000 .............. 5,750,000 18,790,327 .37
New York.......................................................... 445,307,544 7,482,603 4,481,782 24,000,000 303,962,647 27,950,000 813,184,576 15.93
North Carolina.................................................... 22,314,616 7,948,734 1,709,831 13,000,000 .............. 10,161,001 55,134,182 1.08
North Dakota...................................................... 1,936,178 842,941 283,256 .............. .............. 2,000,000 5,062,375 .10
Northern Marianas................................................. ................ 83,712 52,189 .............. .............. .............. 135,901 ..........
Ohio.............................................................. 72,640,731 8,092,364 2,856,940 8,500,000 14,917,615 13,450,000 120,457,650 2.36
Oklahoma.......................................................... 9,356,223 3,459,402 960,541 .............. .............. 5,000,000 18,776,166 .37
Oregon............................................................ 22,341,456 2,746,796 893,273 25,718,000 2,284,605 8,550,000 62,534,130 1.22
Pennsylvania...................................................... 123,375,552 9,027,117 3,424,587 10,000,000 94,236,678 32,966,003 273,029,937 5.35
Puerto Rico....................................................... 39,747,536 2,697,587 847,585 20,000,000 1,336,512 950,000 65,579,220 1.28
Rhode Island...................................................... 7,828,479 345,565 402,028 .............. 1,813,989 5,450,000 15,840,061 .31
South Carolina.................................................... 9,623,540 3,978,381 928,595 2,200,000 .............. 4,570,000 21,300,516 .42
South Dakota...................................................... 1,396,700 1,027,479 305,582 .............. .............. 5,300,000 8,029,761 .16
Tennessee......................................................... 18,715,967 5,135,635 1,369,761 4,700,000 59,037 2,000,000 31,980,400 .63
Texas............................................................. 136,324,426 10,842,756 3,536,745 90,670,000 4,488,746 17,000,000 262,862,673 5.15
Utah.............................................................. 17,314,841 778,886 424,725 75,000,000 .............. 10,300,000 103,818,452 2.03
Vermont........................................................... 701,941 918,655 253,268 2,000,000 .............. 4,000,000 7,873,864 .15
Virgin Islands.................................................... ................ 196,622 135,122 .............. .............. .............. 331,744 .01
Virginia.......................................................... 48,405,321 4,553,238 1,424,809 27,000,000 467,604 13,950,000 95,800,972 1.88
Washington........................................................ 71,241,720 3,190,397 1,278,234 47,250,000 12,320,187 22,700,000 157,980,538 3.09
West Virginia..................................................... 3,384,125 2,712,757 679,558 4,000,000 .............. 14,500,000 25,276,440 .50
Wisconsin......................................................... 30,207,820 4,687,326 1,304,931 500,000 514,561 16,875,001 54,089,639 1.06
Wyoming........................................................... 969,869 655,575 215,996 .............. .............. .............. 1,841,440 .04
Unallocated....................................................... ................ .............. .............. 48,000 .............. .............. 48,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 2,553,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,105,000,000 100.00
=============================================================================================================================
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility................................... 2,000,000 .............. .............. .............. .............. .............. 2,000,000 ..........
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total................................................. 2,555,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,107,000,000 ..........
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 appropriated for the Alaska Railroad.
Within the total funding level of $3,098,000,000, the
statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated
among these categories as follows:
Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)............................. $2,772,890,281
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)................................. 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................ 72,946,801
Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311).......................... 193,612,968
Over-the-Road Bus Program............................... 3,700,000
Alaska railroad......................................... 4,849,950
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 2000 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..................................... $12,345,815 $4,601,674 $1,262,364 $18,209,853
Alaska \1\.................................. 7,159,272 686,209 191,850 8,037,331
American Samoa.............................. ............... 97,806 52,632 150,438
Arizona..................................... 31,278,488 2,014,492 1,112,036 34,405,016
Arkansas.................................... 4,808,246 3,678,847 879,566 9,366,659
Califomia................................... 440,827,753 8,978,871 6,874,937 456,681,561
Colorado.................................... 34,346,300 1,916,629 860,712 37,123,641
Connecticut................................. 43,412,116 1,738,563 987,472 46,138,151
Delaware.................................... 5,819,571 433,730 293,751 6,547,052
District of Columbia........................ 24,133,985 ............... 291,511 24,425,496
Florida..................................... 136,124,791 5,772,011 4,636,540 146,533,342
Georgia..................................... 51,566,541 6,728,137 1,639,325 59,934,003
Guam........................................ ............... 278,431 133,754 412,185
Hawaii...................................... 21,805,177 755,131 375,895 22,936,203
Idaho....................................... 2,842,008 1,523,454 384,869 4,750,331
Illinois.................................... 192,661,811 6,172,689 2,994,303 201,828,803
Indiana..................................... 30,583,459 5,962,678 1,567,146 38,113,283
Iowa........................................ 9,049,807 3,835,253 946,179 13,831,239
Kansas...................................... 7,299,329 3,050,822 791,908 11,142,059
Kentucky.................................... 15,834,432 5,036,242 1,209,462 22,080,136
Louisiana................................... 25,230,847 4,165,337 1,213,401 30,609,585
Maine....................................... 2,038,744 2,009,937 483,251 4,531,932
Maryland.................................... 69,328,328 2,509,310 1,219,178 73,056,816
Massachusetts............................... 105,990,461 2,689,218 1,759,633 110,439,312
Michigan.................................... 56,390,876 7,282,862 2,560,666 66,234,404
Minnesota................................... 27,793,106 4,190,867 1,236,483 33,220,456
Mississippi................................. 4,327,424 4,089,742 854,282 9,271,448
Missouri.................................... 31,112,334 4,881,280 1,589,372 37,582,986
Montana..................................... 2,150,550 1,234,118 352,436 3,737,104
Nebraska.................................... 7,609,130 1,862,127 555,935 10,027,192
Nevada...................................... 16,410,558 607,956 411,508 17,430,022
New Hampshire............................... 3,013,098 1,609,709 388,305 5,011,112
New Jersey.................................. 161,401,967 2,301,543 2,114,182 165,817,692
New Mexico.................................. 6,403,038 1,809,361 487,951 8,700,350
New York.................................... 482,151,901 8,101,711 4,909,688 495,163,300
North Carolina.............................. 24,160,905 8,606,405 1,865,487 34,632,797
North Dakota................................ 2,096,375 912,685 298,799 3,307,859
Northern Marianas........................... ............... 90,638 52,404 143,042
Ohio........................................ 78,650,959 8,761,919 3,125,261 90,538,139
Oklahoma.................................... 10,130,348 3,745,630 1,042,604 14,918,582
Oregon...................................... 24,189,968 2,974,063 968,730 28,132,761
Pennsylvania................................ 133,583,533 9,774,012 3,748,659 147,106,204
Puerto Rico................................. 43,036,204 2,920,782 918,554 46,875,540
Rhode Island................................ 8,476,199 374,157 429,237 9,279,593
South Carolina.............................. 10,419,785 4,307,549 1,007,521 15,734,855
South Dakota................................ 1,512,262 1,112,492 323,318 2,948,072
Tennessee................................... 20,264,508 5,560,553 1,492,017 27,317,078
Texas....................................... 147,603,791 11,739,874 3,871,834 163,215,499
Utah........................................ 18,747,454 843,330 454,162 20,044,946
Vermont..................................... 760,019 994,664 265,866 2,020,549
Virgin Islands.............................. ............... 212,891 136,116 349,007
Virginia.................................... 52,410,334 4,929,969 1,552,472 58,892,775
Washington.................................. 77,136,196 3,454,367 1,391,500 81,982,063
West Virginia............................... 3,664,123 2,937,208 734,024 7,335,355
Wisconsin................................... 32,707,189 5,075,151 1,420,820 39,203,160
Wyoming..................................... 1,050,115 709,817 224,933 1,984,865
Unallocated................................. ............... ............... ............... ...............
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 2,763,851,530 192,644,903 72,946,801 3,029,443,234
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Oversight................................... 13,888,701 968,065 ............... 14,856,766
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 2,777,740,231 193,612,968 72,946,801 3,044,300,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Fuels................................. ............... ............... ............... 50,000,000
Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility............. ............... ............... ............... 3,700,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total............................. ............... ............... ............... 3,098,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,849,950 for the Alaska Railroad improvements to passenger operations.
University Transportation Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................ $1,200,000 $4,800,000 $6,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................... 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 1999.
Transit Planning and Research
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
General fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999............................................ $19,800,000 $78,200,000 $98,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\....................................... 21,000,000 90,000,000 111,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 21,000,000 86,000,000 107,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
The Committee action provides $107,000,000 for transit
planning and research. The bill contains language specifying
that $49,632,000 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; $10,368,000 for the State planning and research
program; $8,250,000 for transit cooperative research; and
$4,000,000 for the National Transit Institute. Under the
national component of the program, the Federal Transit
Administration is a catalyst in the research, development, and
deployment of transportation methods and technologies
addressing such issues as accessibility for the disabled, air
quality, and traffic congestion service and operational
improvements. Funds for the State and local component of the
program will ensure that all localities have sufficient funds
to improve the State and local planning process and to
participate in research efforts with regional applications.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------- Committee
1999 program 2000 budget recommendation
level estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan planning....... $43,841,600 $49,632,000 $49,632,000
Rural transit assistance 5,250,000 5,250,000 5,250,000
program....................
State planning and research 9,158,400 10,368,000 10,368,000
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 27,500,000 33,500,000 29,500,000
research program \1\.......
-------------------------------------------
Total................. 98,000,000 111,000,000 107,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal Year 2000 includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget
authority.
TRANSIT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM
Transit Data Base.--The Committee is concerned that the
Transit Data Base contains data that is unreliable and/or
unusable. Transit Data Base information collected from federal
grantees, which is used for the purposes of allocating federal
formula grants and sharing operational data throughout the
industry, is chronically late (published up to three years
after receipt) and noticeably error-ridden. It is also apparent
to the Committee that the scope of the information collected is
insufficient to provide government, industry and academic
institutions with useful operating characteristics and
performance statistics of transit systems nationwide.
The Committee directs the FTA to initiate a contract with
the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to design a new Transit
Data Base, comprised of operational statistics, performance
measurements and other financial data necessary to fulfill
FTA's responsibilities for distributing formula grants, while
providing government, industry, academic institutions, and
others with meaningful data for data sharing and benchmark
purposes. In designing the new Transit Data Base, special
attention should be paid to developing clear instructions for
those agencies that must submit data and employing computer-
based electronic data storage and access techniques. FTA is
directed to execute such an agreement with NAS within 30 days
of enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations bill, using
available research funds from the Transit cooperative research
program.
FTA shall submit the recommended Transit Data Base design
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and to the
General Services Administration for review within 180 days of
enactment, and subsequent to that review, shall publish the new
Transit Data Base design in the Federal Register, and
incorporate the new design in the fiscal year 2001 cycle of
federal grantee reports.
Over-the-road bus accessibility compliance issues.--The
Committee is concerned that the TEA21 formula program which
makes grants to intercity bus operators to assist with the
costs of Americans with Disabilities Act and Clean Air Act
compliance may be insufficient to meet the national needs of
these operators, who provide essential, affordable intercity
transportation, particularly in rural areas. The guaranteed
funding level for this program is $3,700,000 in fiscal year
2000; and under TEA21, a 50 percent match by the operator is
required for eligible acquisition costs. The Committee directs
the transit cooperative research program to perform an analysis
of the over-the-road bus accessibility program, including data
on the total capital needs of these operators to comply with
ADA; compliance deadlines; and a discussion of the
appropriateness of the matching fund requirement. This report
shall be provided to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, and the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs Committee by March 1, 2000.
NATIONAL PLANNING AND RESEARCH PROGRAM
The FTA has requested that $11,600,000 of its national
planning and research program be spent on equipment and
infrastructure research activities. Of this program level,
TEA21 earmarks $7,000,000 for four projects. In addition to
these four projects and within the equipment and infrastructure
program, the Committee directs that the two following projects
receive the specified levels of funding:
Zinc air battery research.--The Committee directs that FTA
provide $1,500,000 to continue and expand the zinc-air bus
demonstration project in Las Vegas, NV. This ongoing program
will help FTA assess the relative merits of emerging clean-air
transportation technologies.
Calstart clean fuel alternative vehicles.--The Committee
directs that FTA provide $1,000,000 to the Calstart advanced
transit systems and electric vehicle program. The Calstart
advanced transportation technology consortium has ongoing clean
fuel technology projects at airports, and is also working on
the development of clean ferries technologies.
Electric vehicle information sharing and technology
transfer program.--The FTA has requested that $3,600,000 of its
national planning and research program be spent on information
management and technology activities. Of the requested funds,
the Committee believes that the proposed international
technical assistance and small business innovation research
programs are not timely initiatives, and directs that the
$500,000 associated with these requests, in combination with
$500,000 from the human resources program, be utilized to
establish a new electric vehicle information sharing and
technology transfer program. This $1,000,000 grant shall be
made available to the Electric Power Research Institute and the
Electric Vehicle Association of the Americas, for the purpose
of conducting a technology transfer and information and data
collection program for battery electric and hybrid electric
buses. These funds shall be leveraged through cost sharing. Of
those electric and hybrid electric bus projects funded in
fiscal year 1999 and prior years' appropriations, and those
electric bus projects which receive funds through the fiscal
year 2000 appropriations, the Secretary shall encourage the
project sponsors to participate in this technology transfer
program so that information gathered and technology assessments
while conducting the project can be gathered and disseminated
to other agencies and authorities interested in using these new
technologies. These grant funds shall be used for data and
information collection, distribution of such information
through public workshops, Internet distribution, and other
means of widespread public dissemination.
Portland, ME independent transportation network.--The FTA
has requested that $2,500,000 of its national planning and
research program be spent on planning and project development
activities. Within this program level, the Committee directs
that $500,000 be provided for the Portland, ME independent
transportation network, a regional program which seeks to
address the mobility needs of an aging population, who are
increasingly unable to drive safely and are often stranded in
rural and suburban locations that lack the density for
traditional mass transit.
Wheeling, WV mobility study.--The Committee directs that
FTA provide $250,000 to the appropriate officials in Wheeling,
WV for the preparation of a mobility study to determine the
transportation improvements that will be necessary as part of
the continued development of the Wheeling National Heritage
area and the central business district of the city of Wheeling.
Utah advanced traffic management system.--Within the
overall national planning and research program, FTA is directed
to provide $3,000,000 for the transit component of Utah's
advanced traffic management system. This integrated ITS project
will greatly assist local traffic authorities in managing both
local and out-of-state spectator traffic at the 2002 Winter
Olympics, and the ITS infrastructure will remain in place to
assist the Salt Lake City region with future traffic management
needs.
Trans-Hudson tunnel feasibility study.--Section 3030 of
TEA21 authorizes a study of the feasibility of building a
Trans-Hudson tunnel for increased rail access between New
Jersey and New York City. FTA has requested new funding in
fiscal year 2000 for research and analysis on different subway
tunnel design and construction methods. The Committee
recommendation includes $5,000,000 for a feasibility study of a
Hudson River tunnel, which shall incorporate an analysis of the
different tunnel technology options available and appropriate
to the Hudson River's specific geological and hydrostatic
characteristics.
In addition to the initiatives listed above, the Committee
reaffirms the transit planning and research grants from the
national program that were contained in sec. 3012 of the
Transportation Equity Act for fiscal year 2000:
Washoe County, NV, transit technology................... $1,250,000
Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority advanced electric
transit buses and related infrastructure............ 1,500,000
Palm Springs, CA, fuel cell buses....................... 1,500,000
Gloucester, MA, intermodal technology center............ 1,500,000
Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority advanced
propulsion control system........................... 3,000,000
Project ACTION.......................................... 3,000,000
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $4,251,800,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\............................... 4,929,270,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,638,000,000
\1\ Includes $291,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
For fiscal year 2000, the Committee has provided
$4,638,000,000 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, 1999 \1\..................................... $501,400,000 $1,805,600,000 $2,307,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................ 490,200,000 1,960,800,000 2,451,000,000
Committee recommendation..................................... 490,200,000 1,960,800,000 2,451,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
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 $2,451,000,000.
Within this total, $1,960,800,000 is from the ``Mass transit''
account of the highway trust fund, and no more than
$490,200,000 shall be appropriated from general funds. The
following table summarizes the Committee recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 program 2000 budget Committee
level estimate recommendations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bus and bus facilities \1\..................................... $501,400,000 $490,200,000 $490,200,000
Fixed guideway modernization................................... 902,800,000 980,400,000 980,400,000
New systems and new extensions................................. 902,800,000 980,400,000 980,400,000
------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................... 2,307,000,000 2,451,000,000 2,451,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Fiscal year 1999 includes $50,000,000 transferred from formula grants.
Three-year availability of section 3 discretionary funds.--
The Committee has redistributed unallocated discretionary bus
and new starts funds from projects which were funded in the
fiscal year 1997 Transportation appropriations bill (Public Law
104-205) and previous acts making these funds available for
reallocation in fiscal year 2000. As in previous years, a
general provision (sec. 317) is included which limits funding
availability for these fiscal year 2000 capital investment
funds, except fixed-guideway modernization funds, to 3 years
from enactment.
Under the 3-year availability rule, funding provided in
fiscal year 1997 for the following bus and bus-related projects
will lapse if the grant recipients do not obligate the
remaining unobligated funds by September 30, 1999:
Remaining
unobligated funds
Little Rock, AR......................................... $992,500
Fairfield City, CA...................................... 1,389,500
Foothill, CA............................................ 4,053,837
North Orange County, CA................................. 198,500
Norwalk, CA............................................. 192,500
Riverside County, CA.................................... 992,500
Santa Cruz MTD, CA...................................... 1,985,000
Sonoma County, CA....................................... 992,500
Thousand Oaks, CA....................................... 595,500
Statewide, DE........................................... 5,195,478
Miami Beach, FL......................................... 992,500
Chatham, GA............................................. 1,052,050
Statewide, LA........................................... 9,794,315
Boston, MA.............................................. 672,500
Statewide, MI........................................... 4,122,500
Jackson, MS buses and facilities........................ 992,500
Jackson, MS downtown multimodal center.................. 3,473,750
St. Louis, MO........................................... 1,736,875
Buffalo, NY............................................. 992,500
New Rochelle, NY........................................ 1,235,000
Syracuse, NY............................................ 1,985,000
Hood River, OR.......................................... 173,688
Salem, OR............................................... 1,836,125
Erie, PA................................................ 1,985,000
Spartanburg, SC......................................... 1,488,750
El Paso, TX............................................. 139,988
Galveston, TX........................................... 496,250
Liberty, Montgomery, Polk Counties, TX.................. 1,013,170
Burlington, VT.......................................... 1,488,750
Reston, VA.............................................. 496,250
Virginia Beach, VA...................................... 992,500
Everett, WA............................................. 2,977,500
In addition, under the 3-year availability rule, funding
provided in fiscal year 1997 for the following new fixed
guideway systems projects will lapse if the grant recipients do
not obligate the remaining unobligated funds by September 30,
1999:
Remaining unobligated funds
Dallas--RAILTRAN........................................ $15,140,000
Houston--Regional Bus................................... 40,310,000
St. Louis--Metrolink.................................... 3,400,000
New Orleans--Canal Street LRT........................... 7,940,000
Little Rock--River Rail Project......................... 1,810,000
North Carolina--Research Triangle Transit Plan.......... 700,000
San Diego--Mid Coast Corridor........................... 1,490,000
Hartford-Griffin LRT Project............................ 990,000
Alaska--Ketchikan Ferry Project......................... 6,340,000
Burlington to Charlotte, VT Commuter Rail............... 990,000
Jackson, MS--Intermodal Corridor........................ 5,460,000
New York--Whitehall Ferry Terminal...................... 1,670,000
Virginia Railway Express--Commuter Rail Project......... 2,980,000
The Committee urges the grant recipients noted above to
move swiftly to obligate these funds. When the transportation
appropriations conferees meet later this year, any unobligated
funds in the bus or new systems accounts that were earmarked in
fiscal year 1997 or prior will be available for reprogramming
under the 3-year availability rule.
bus and bus facilities
The Committee recommendation for bus and bus facilities
funding is $490,200,000, 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. There are
three set-asides within the allocation of funds for
discretionary bus and bus facilities $3,000,000 is made
available for the Altoona, PA, bus testing facility;
$50,000,000 is made available only for grants that meet the 49
U.S.C. section 5308 Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program
standards, and $4,850,000 is made available for qualifying fuel
cell bus projects. In addition, TEA21 includes bus and bus
facility projects with a minimum level of funding under the
``guaranteed'' funding level for the mass transit discretionary
budget category.
The Committee has included bill language that delineates a
number of eligible bus and bus facilities projects, and directs
the Federal Transit Administrator to submit to the
congressional appropriations and authorizing committees, within
60 days of enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations
legislation, a grant recommendation list choosing from among
the projects listed in the appropriations bill. This list is
inclusive of all bus and bus facilities projects that were
included in the TEA21 legislation (sec. 3031), as well as
projects that have been brought to the Appropriations
Committee's attention as being meritorious and in need of
Federal assistance.
2001 Special Olympics Winter Games buses and transit
facilities, Anchorage, Alaska
Adrian buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Alabama statewide rural bus needs, Alabama
Alameda-Conta Costa Transit District project, California
Albany train station/intermodal facility, New York
Albuquerque SOLAR computerized transit management system,
New Mexico
Albuquerque Westside transit maintenance facility, New
Mexico
Albuquerque, buses, paratransit vehicles, and bus facility,
New Mexico
Alexandria Union Station transit center, Virginia
Alexandria, bus maintenance facility and Crystal City
canopy project, Virginia
Allegheny County buses, Pennsylvania
Altoona bus testing facility, Pennsylvania
Altoona, Metro Transit Authority buses and transit system
improvements, Pennsylvania
Ames transit facility expansion, Iowa
Anchorage Ship Creek intermodal facility, Alaska
Arkansas Highway and Transit Department buses, Arkansas
Arkansas state safety and preventative maintenace facility,
Arkansas
Armstrong County-Mid-County, PA bus facilities and buses,
Pennsylvania
Atlanta, MARTA buses, Georgia
Attleboro intermodal transit facility, Massachusetts
Austin buses, Texas
Babylon Intermodal Center, New York
Baldwin Rural Area Transportation System buses, Alabama
Ballston Metro access improvements, Virginia
Bay/Saginaw buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Beaumont Municipal Transit System buses and bus facilities,
Texas
Beaver County bus facility, Pennsylvania
Ben Franklin transit buses and bus facilities, Richland,
Washington
Billings buses and bus facilities, Montana
Birmingham intermodal facility, Alabama
Birmingham-Jefferson County buses, Alabama
Blue Water buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Boston Government Center transit center, Massachusetts
Boston Logan Airport intermodal transit connector,
Massachusetts
Boulder/Denver, RTD buses, Colorado
Brazos Transit Authority buses and bus facilities, Texas
Brea shuttle buses, California
Bremerton multimodal center--Sinclair's Landing, Washington
Brigham City and Payson regional park and ride lots/transit
centers, Utah
Brockton intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
Buffalo, Auditorium Intermodal Center, New York
Burlington ferry terminal improvements, Vermont
Burlington multimodal center, Vermont
Cambria County, bus facilities and buses, Pennsylvania
Cedar Rapids intermodal facility, Iowa
Central Ohio Transit Authority vehicle locator system, Ohio
Centre Area Transportation Authority buses, Pennsylvania
Chattanooga Southern Regional Alternative fuel bus program,
Georgia
Chester County, Paoli Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
Chittenden County Transportation Authority buses, Vermont
Clallam Transit multimodal center, Sequim, Washington
Clark County Regional Transportation Commission buses and
bus facilities, Nevada
Cleveland, Triskett Garage bus maintenance facility, Ohio
Clinton transit facility expansion, Iowa
Colorado buses and bus facilities, Colorado
Columbia Bus replacement, South Carolina
Columbia buses and vans, Missouri
Compton Renaissance Transit System shelters and facilities,
California
Corpus Christi Regional Transportation Authority buses and
bus facilities, Texas
Corvallis buses and automated passenger information system,
Oregon
Culver City, CityBus buses, California
Dallas Area Rapid Transit buses, Texas
Davis, Unitrans transit maintenance facility, California
Dayton, Multimodal Transportation Center, Ohio
Daytona Beach, Intermodal Center, Florida
Deerfield Valley Transit Authority buses, Vermont
Denver 16th Street Intermodal Center
Denver, Stapleton Intermodal Center, Colorado
Des Moines transit facilities, Iowa
Detroit buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Dothan Wiregrass Transit Authority vehicles and transit
facility, Alabama
Dulles Corridor park and ride, Virginia
Duluth, Transit Authority community circulation vehicles,
Minnesota
Duluth, Transit Authority intelligent transportation
systems, Minnesota
Duluth, Transit Authority Transit Hub, Minnesota
Dutchess County, Loop System buses, New York
El Paso Sun Metro buses, Texas
Elliott Bay Water Taxi ferry purchase, Washington
Erie, Metropolitan Transit Authority buses, Pennsylvania
Escambia County buses and bus facility, Alabama
Essex Junction multimodal station rehabilitation, Vermont
Everett transit bus replacement, Washington
Everett, Multimodal Transportation Center, Washington
Fairbanks intermodal rail/bus transfer facility, Alaska
Fairfield Transit, Solano County buses, California
Fayette County, intermodal facilities and buses,
Pennsylvania
Fayetteville, University of Arkansas Transit System buses,
Arkansas
Flint buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Florence, University of North Alabama pedestrian walkways,
Alabama
Folsom multimodal facility, California
Fort Dodge, Intermodal Facility (Phase II), Iowa
Fort Worth bus and paratransit vehicle project, Texas
Fort Worth Transit Authority corridor redevelopment
program, Texas
Franklin County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
Fuel cell bus and bus facilities program, Georgetown
University, District/Columbia
Gainesville buses and equipment, Florida
Galveston buses and bus facilities, Texas
Gary, Transit Consortium buses, Indiana
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority buses, Georgia
Georgia statewide buses and bus-related facilities, Georgia
Gloucester intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
Grand Rapids Area Transit Authority downtown transit
transfer center, Michigan
Greensboro multimodal center, North Carolina
Greensboro, Transit Authority buses, North Carolina
Harrison County multimodal center, Mississippi
Hawaii buses and bus facilities
Healdsburg, intermodal facility, California
Hillsborough Area Regional Transity Authority, Ybor buses
and bus facilities, Florida
Honolulu, bus facility and buses, Hawaii
Hot Springs, transportation depot and plaza, Arkansas
Houston buses and bus facilities, Texas
Huntington Beach buses and bus facilities, California
Huntington intermodal facility, West Virginia
Huntsville Airport international intermodal center, Alabama
Huntsville Space and Rocket Center intermodal center,
Alabama
Huntsville, transit facility, Alabama
Hyannis intermodal transportation center, Massachusetts
I-5 Corridor intermodal transit centers, California
Illinois statewide buses and bus-related equipment,
Illinois
Indianapolis buses, Indiana
Inglewood Market Street bus facility/LAX shuttle service,
California
Iowa City multi-use parking facility and transit hub, Iowa
Iowa statewide buses and bus facilities, Iowa
Iowa/Illinois Transit Consortium bus safety and security,
Iowa
Isabella buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Ithaca intermodal transportation center, New York
Ithaca, TCAT bus technology improvements, New York
Jackson County buses and bus facilities, Missouri
Jackson J-TRAN buses and facilities, Mississippi
Jacksonville buses and bus facilities, Florida
Juneau downtown mass transit facility, Alaska
Kalamazoo downtown bus transfer center, Michigan
Kansas City Area Transit Authority buses and Troost transit
center, Missouri
Kansas Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities,
Kansas
Killington-Sherburne satellite bus facility, Vermont
King Country Metro King Street Station, Washington
King County Metro Atlantic and Central buses, Washington
King County park and ride expansion, Washington
Lackawanna County Transit System buses, Pennsylvania
Lake Tahoe CNG buses, Nevada
Lake Tahoe/Tahoe Basin buses and bus facilities, California
Lakeland, Citrus Connection transit vehicles and related
equipment, Florida
Lane County, Bus Rapid Transit, Oregon
Lansing, CATA buses, Michigan
Las Cruces buses and bus facilities, New Mexico
Las Cruces intermodal transportation plaza, New Mexico
Las Vegas intermodal transit transfer facility, Nevada
Las Vegas South Strip intermodal facility, Nevada
Lincoln County Transit District buses, Oregon
Lincoln Star Tran bus facility, Nebraska
Little Rock River Market and College Station transfer
facility, Arkansas
Little Rock, Central Arkansas Transit buses, Arkansas
Livermore Amador Valley Transit Authority buses, California
Livermore automatic vehicle locator program, California
Long Island, CNG transit vehicles and facilities and bus
replacement, New York
Los Angeles County Metropolitan transportation authority
buses, California
Los Angeles Foothill Transit buses and bus facilities,
California
Los Angeles Municipal Transit Operators Coalition,
California
Los Angeles, Union Station Gateway Intermodal Transit
Center, California
Louisiana statewide buses and bus-related facilities,
Louisiana
Lowell performing arts center transit transfer facility,
Massachusetts
Lufkin intermodal center, Texas
Maryland statewide alternative fuel buses, Maryland
Maryland statewide bus facilities and buses, Maryland
Mason City Region 2 office and maintenance transit
facility, Iowa
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority buses,
Massachusetts
Merrimack Valley Regional Transit Authority bus facilities,
Massachusetts
Miami Beach multimodal transit center, Florida
Miami Beach, electric shuttle service, Florida
Miami-Dade Northeast transit center, Florida
Miami-Dade Transit buses, Florida
Michigan State University campus boarding centers, Michigan
Michigan statewide buses, Michigan
Mid-Columbia Council of Governments minivans, Oregon
Milwaukee County, buses, Wisconsin
Mineola/Hicksville, LIRR intermodal centers, New York
Missoula buses and bus facilities, Montana
Missouri statewide bus and bus facilities, Missouri
Mobile buses, Alabama
Mobile waterfront terminal complex, Alabama
Modesto, bus maintenance facility, California
Monterey, Monterey-Salinas buses, California
Monterey, Monterey-Salinas transit refueling facility,
California
Montgomery Moulton Street intermodal center, Alabama
Montgomery Union Station intermodal center and buses,
Alabama
Mount Vernon, buses and bus related facilities, Washington
Mukilteo multimodal terminal ferry and transit project,
Washington
New Castle County buses and bus facilities, Delaware
New Hampshire statewide transit systems, New Hampshire
New Haven bus facility, Connecticut
New Jersey Transit alternative fuel buses, New Jersey
New Jersey Transit jitney shuttle buses, New Jersey
New Mexico State University park and ride facilities, New
Mexico
New York City Midtown West 38th Street Ferry Terminal, New
York
New York, West 72nd St. Intermodal Station, New York
Newark Passaic River bridge and arena pedestrian walkway,
New Jersey
Newark, Morris & Essex Station access and buses, New Jersey
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority buses, New York
North Carolina statewide buses and bus facilities, North
Carolina
North Dakota statewide buses and bus-related facilities,
North Dakota
North San Diego County transit district buses, California
North Star Borough intermodal facility, Alaska
Northern New Mexico Transit Express/Park and Ride buses,
New Mexico
Northstar Corridor, Intermodal Facilities and buses,
Minnesota
Norwich buses, Connecticut
OATS Transit, Missouri
Ogden Intermodal Center, Utah
Ohio Public Transit Association buses and bus facilities,
Ohio
Oklahoma statewide bus facilities and buses, Oklahoma
Olympic Peninsula International Gateway Transportation
Center, Washington
Omaha Missouri River transit pedestrian facility, Nebraska
Ontonagon buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Orlando Intermodal Facility, Florida
Orlando, Lynx buses and bus facilities, Florida
Palm Beach County Palmtran buses, Florida
Palmdale multimodal center, California
Park City Intermodal Center, Utah
Pee Dee buses and facilities, South Carolina
Penn's Landing ferry vehicles, Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania Commonwealth combined bus and facilities,
Pennsylvania
Perris bus maintenance facility, California
Philadelphia, Frankford Transportation Center, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, Intermodal 30th Street Station, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, PHLASH shuttle buses, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, SEPTA Center City improvements, Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, SEPTA Paoli transportation center,
Pennsylvania
Philadelphia, SEPTA Girard Avenue intermodal transportation
centers, Pennsylvania
Phoenix bus and bus facilities, Arizona
Pierce County Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
Pittsfield intermodal center, Massachusetts
Port of Corpus Christi ferry infrastructure and ferry
purchase, Texas
Port of St. Bernard intermodal facility, Louisiana
Portland, Tri-Met bus maintenance facility, Oregon
Portland, Tri-Met buses, Oregon
Prince William County bus replacement, Virginia
Providence, buses and bus maintenance facility, Rhode
Island
Reading, BARTA Intermodal Transportation Facility,
Pennsylvania
Rensselaer intermodal bus facility, New York
Rhode Island Public Transit Authority buses, Rhode Island
Richmond, GRTC bus maintenance facility, Virginia
Riverside Transit Agency buses and facilities, California
Robinson, Towne Center Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
Sacramento CNG buses, California
Salem Area Mass Ttransit System buses, Oregon
Salt Lake City hybrid electric vehicle bus purchase, Utah
Salt Lake City International Airport transit parking and
transfer center, Utah
Salt Lake City Olympics bus facilities, Utah
Salt Lake City Olympics regional park and ride lots, Utah
Salt Lake City Olympics transit bus loan project, Utah
San Bernardino buses, California
San Bernardino County Mountain area Regional Transit
Authority fueling stations, California
San Diego MTD buses and bus facilities, California
San Francisco, Islais Creek maintenance facility,
California
San Joaquin buses and bus facilities, Stockton, California
San Juan Intermodal access, Puerto Rico
San Marcos Capital Area Rural Transportation System (CARTS)
intermodal project, Texas
Sandy buses, Oregon
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit district bus facilities,
California
Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority buses and bus
facilities, California
Santa Clarita buses, California
Santa Cruz metropolitan bus facilities, California
Santa Fe CNG buses, New Mexico
Santa Fe paratransit/computer systems, New Mexico
Santa Marie organization of transportation helpers
minibuses, California
Savannah/Chatham Area transit bus transfer centers and
buses, Georgia
Seattle Sound Transit buses and bus facilities, Washington
Seattle, intermodal transportation terminal, Washington
SMART buses and bus facilities, Michigan
Snohomish County, Community Transit buses, equipment and
facilities, Washington
Solano Links intercity transit OTR bus purchase, California
Somerset County bus facilities and buses, Pennsylvania
South Amboy, Regional Intermodal Transportation Initiative,
New Jersey
South Bend, Urban Intermodal Transportation Facility,
Indiana
South Carolina statewide bus and bus facility.
South Carolina Virtual Transit Enterprise, South Carolina
South Dakota statewide bus facilities and buses, South
Dakota
South Metro Area Rapid Transit (SMART) maintenance
facility, Oregon
Southeast Missouri transportation service rural, elderly,
disabled service, Missouri
Springfield Metro/VRE pedestrian link, Virginia
Springfield, Union Station, Massachusetts
St. Joseph buses and vans, Missouri
St. Louis, Bi-state Intermodal Center, Missouri
St. Louis Bi-State Metro Link buses
Sunset Empire Transit District intermodal transit facility,
Oregon
Syracuse CNG buses and facilities, New York
Tacoma Dome, buses and bus facilities, Washington
Tennessee statewide buses and bus facilities, Tennessee
Texas statewide small urban and rural buses, Texas
Topeka Transit offstreet transit transfer center, Kansas
Towamencin Township, Intermodal Bus Transportation Center,
Pennsylvania
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky (TANK) buses,
Kentucky
Tucson buses, Arizona
Twin Cities area metro transit buses and bus facilities,
Minnesota
Utah Transit Authority buses, Utah
Utah Transit Authority, intermodal facilities, Utah
Utah Transit Authority/Park City Transit, buses, Utah
Utica Union Station, New York
Valley bus and bus facilities, Alabama
Vancouver Clark County (SEATRAN) bus facilities, Washington
Washington County intermodal facilities, Pennsylvania
Washington State DOT combined small transit system buses
and bus facilities, Washington
Washington, D.C. Intermodal Transportation Center,
District/Columbia
Washoe County transit improvements, Nevada
Waterbury, bus facility, Connecticut
West Falls Church Metro station improvements, Virginia
West Lafayette bus transfer station/terminal (Wabash
Landing), Indiana
West Virginia Statewide Intermodal Facility and buses, West
Virginia
Westchester County DOT, articulated buses, New York
Westchester County, Bee-Line transit system fareboxes, New
York
Westchester County, Bee-Line transit system shuttle buses,
New York
Westminster senior citizen vans, California
Westmoreland County, Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
Whittier intermodal facility and pedestrian overpass,
Alaska
Wilkes-Barre, Intermodal Facility, Pennsylvania
Williamsport bus facility, Pennsylvania
Wisconsin statewide bus facilities and buses, Wisconsin
Worcester, Union Station Intermodal Transportation Center,
Massachusetts
Yuma paratransit buses, Arizona
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends a total of $980,400,000 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 2000 rail modernization allocations by
State:
Fiscal year 2000 section 5309 fixed guideway modernization
Fiscal year
State 2000 budget
Arizona................................................. $1,714,915
California.............................................. 97,447,440
Colorado................................................ 1,276,142
Connecticut............................................. 35,613,122
Delaware................................................ 900,963
District of Columbia.................................... 41,405,152
Florida................................................. 14,894,671
Georgia................................................. 20,056,733
Hawaii.................................................. 717,140
Illinois................................................ 109,835,226
Indiana................................................. 7,372,357
Louisiana............................................... 2,719,194
Maryland................................................ 21,651,851
Massachusetts........................................... 63,230,944
Michigan................................................ 449,343
Minnesota............................................... 2,844,835
Missouri................................................ 1,632,113
New Jersey.............................................. 87,109,545
New York................................................ 320,395,319
Ohio.................................................... 16,007,175
Pennsylvania............................................ 95,594,209
Puerto Rico............................................. 1,777,215
Oregon.................................................. 3,059,860
Rhode Island............................................ 2,412,069
Tennessee............................................... 79,754
Texas................................................... 5,696,889
Virginia................................................ 464,097
Washington.............................................. 15,992,245
Wisconsin............................................... 696,482
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 973,047,000
Three-quarter percent oversight......................... 7,353,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 980,400,000
NEW SYSTEMS
The bill provides $980,400,000 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 $980,400,000 for new systems,
no more than $78,432,000 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, within 60 days of
enactment of the fiscal year 2000 appropriations legislation, 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 such 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:
Alaska or Hawaii ferries;
Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque mass transit project;
Atlanta North Line Extension;
Austin Capital Metro Northwest/North Central Corridor
project;
Baltimore Central Light Rail double tracking project;
Boston North-South Rail Link;
Boston Piers Transitway phase 1;
Charlotte North-South corridor transitway project;
Chicago Metra commuter rail extensions;
Chicago Transit Authority Ravenswood and Douglas branch
line projects;
Cleveland Euclid Corridor;
Dallas Area Rapid Transit North Central LRT extension;
Dane County, WI commuter rail project;
Denver Southeast Corridor project;
Denver Southwest LRT project;
Fort Lauderdale Tri-Rail commuter rail project;
Galveston rail trolley extension project;
Houston Regional Bus Plan;
Lahaina Harbor, Maui ferries;
Las Vegas Corridor/Clark County regional fixed guideway
project;
Little Rock River Rail project;
Long Island Rail Road East Side Access project;
Los Angeles Metro Rail--MOS 3 and Eastside/Mid City
corridors;
MARC expansion programs: Silver Spring intermodal center
and Penn-Camden rail connection;
Memphis Area Transit Authority medical center extension;
Miami East-West Corridor project;
Miami North 27th Avenue corridor;
New Orleans Airport-CBD commuter rail project;
New Orleans Canal Streetcar Spine;
New Orleans Desire Streetcar;
Newark-Elizabeth rail link project;
Norfolk-Virginia Beach Corridor project;
Northern New Jersey--Hudson-Bergen LRT project;
Orange County Transitway project;
Orlando I-4 Central Florida LRT project;
Philadelphia Schuykill Valley Metro;
Phoenix--Central Phoenix/East Valley Corridor;
Pittsburgh Airborne Shuttle System;
Pittsburgh North Shore--Central Business District corridor;
Pittsburgh State II light rail project;
Port McKenzie-Ship Creek Ferry project;
Portland Westside-Hillsboro Corridor project;
Providence-Boston commuter rail;
Raleigh-Durham--Research Triangle regional rail;
Sacramento South Corridor LRT project;
Salt Lake City South LRT Olympics capacity improvements;
Salt Lake City South LRT project;
Salt Lake City/Airport to University (West-East) light rail
project;
Salt Lake City-Ogden-Provo commuter rail project;
San Bernardino MetroLink extension project;
San Diego Mid Coast Corridor;
San Diego Mission Valley East LRT extension project;
San Diego Oceanside-Escondido passenger rail project;
San Francisco BART to Airport extension;
San Jose Tasman LRT project;
San Juan--Tren Urbano;
Seattle Sound Move Link LRT project;
Spokane South Valley Corridor light rail project;
St. Louis--St. Clair County, Illinois LRT project;
Tacoma-Seattle Sounder commuter rail project;
Tampa Bay regional rail system; and the
Twin Cities Transitways Corridors projects.
The following new fixed guideway systems and extensions to
existing systems are eligible to receive funding for
alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering:
Atlanta--Lindbergh Station to MARTA West Line feasibility
study;
Atlanta MARTA South DeKalb comprehensive transit program;
Baltimore Central Downtown MIS;
Bergen County, NJ/Cross County light rail project;
Birmingham, Alabama transit corridor;
Boston North Shore Corridor and Blue Line extension to
Beverly;
Boston Urban Ring project;
Bridgeport intermodal corridor project;
Calais, ME Branch Rail Line regional transit program;
Charleston, SC Monobeam corridor project;
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail line project;
Colorado--Roaring Fork Valley Rail;
Detroit--commuter rail to Detroit metropolitan airport
feasibility study;
El Paso--Juarez international fixed guideway;
Girdwood, Alaska commuter rail project;
Harrisburg-Lancaster Capitol Area Transit Corridor 1
commuter rail;
Houston Advanced Transit Program;
Indianapolis Northeast Downtown Corridor project;
Jacksonville fixed guideway corridor;
Johnson County, Kansas I-35 commuter rail project;
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail extension project;
Knoxville to Memphis commuter rail feasibility study;
Los Angeles/City of Sepulveda Douglas Street Green Line
connection;
Miami Metrorail Palmetto extension;
Montpelier-St. Albans, VT commuter rail study;
Nashua, NH-Lowell, MA commuter rail project;
New Jersey Trans-Hudson midtown corridor study;
New London waterfront access project;
New York Second Avenue Subway feasibility study;
Northern Indiana South Shore commuter rail project;
Old Saybrook--Hartford Rail Extension;
Philadelphia SEPTA commuter rail, R-3 connection--Elwyn to
Wawa;
Philadelphia SEPTA Cross County Metro;
Salt Lake City light rail extensions;
Santa Fe/El Dorado rail link;
Stamford fixed guideway connector;
Stockton Altamont Commuter Rail;
Virginia Railway Express Woodbridge transit access
improvements project;
Washington, D.C. Dulles Corridor extension project;
Washington Metro Blue Line extension--Addison Road;
Western Montana regional transportation/commuter rail
study; and the
Wilsonville to Washington County, OR connection to
Westside.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
There is a total of $980,400,000 available for transit new
starts funding in fiscal year 2000. The administration's
request includes $668,183,400 for projects with current FTA
full funding grant agreements with FTA, 68 percent of the total
available funds. Additionally, the administration's request
proposes allocating an additional $216,109,600 for seven new
starts projects that are currently in preliminary engineering
or final design. These projects are expected to complete the
engineering and environmental review process by the start of
fiscal year 2000. FTA anticipates signing full funding grant
agreements with these seven projects some time during fiscal
year 2000. The estimated federal share over the life of these
new projects is $1,265,800,000. This represents a large
incremental increase of ``committed'' federal funds that will
substantially reduce the remaining discretionary funds in this
program. The new starts program is already over-subscribed, and
the administration's decision to signal future funding
commitments in its fiscal year 2000 budget request makes an
already tight program much more difficult to manage.
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.
Currently, 3 of the 14 FFGA projects are experiencing
significant cost overruns--that is, the most recent total
project cost estimates are higher than the baseline cost
estimates included in the full funding grant agreements by a
delta of more than $100,000,000. These cost increases can be
attributed to a variety of factors. Schedule delays, change
orders, higher than expected costs for third party contracts
and rights-of-way purchases, enhancements, differing site
conditions, and even hurricane delays have contributed to some
of these cost overruns. However, two common elements of these
troubled full funding grant agreements projects are that
original project cost estimates were much lower than actual
systems work and contract costs, and that the projects' FFGA
consideration was generally concluded before a full and
thorough evaluation of the cost and financing estimates. But
not all FFGA projects experience disconnects between original
estimates and actual costs--in fact, some projects that will
complete their full funding grant agreements in fiscal year
2000 will finish on schedule and under budget. Therefore, it is
critical that FTA not rush toward signing a full funding grant
agreement, and that the project cost estimates, in particular,
be scrutinized with care, using every available oversight tool.
The Committee is concerned by the administration's pre-emptive
announcement of ``pipeline'' full funding grant agreements in
the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and will not accord the
same weight to these recommendations as to FFGA projects.
In addition, the Committee will continue the practice of
working with projects to manage the federal funding component,
and will focus federal discretionary investment on those
projects with conservative cost and financing estimates, that
are executing their projects plans on schedule and within
budget.
Atlanta-MARTA full funding grant agreement.--The Committee
directs the Federal Transit Administration to amend the Full
Funding Grant Agreement between the FTA and the Metropolitan
Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). This amendment should
reflect section 3030(d)(2) of TEA21.
Salt Lake City South LRT project.--The Committee recognizes
the progress being made on the Salt Lake City South LRT
project. Last year, GAO indicated that this project is both
ahead of schedule and under budget. Rather than appropriate
additional federal funds for requested capacity improvements,
the Committee encourages the FTA to allow the project grantee
to utilize any surplus funding to be used for capacity
improvements on this line.
Discretionary Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $2,000,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 1,500,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 1,500,000,000
The bill includes $1,500,000,000 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, 1999............................................ $35,000,000 $40,000,000 $75,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \1\....................................... 15,000,000 135,000,000 150,000,000
Committee recommendation........................................ 15,000,000 60,000,000 75,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $75,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority.
The Committee recommends $75,000,000 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.
On May 13, FTA released the fiscal year 1999 Access to Jobs
funding to 179 different projects in agencies and organizations
in 42 states. The agency received applications representing
$108,000,000 worth of requests. The Committee believes that
this program should naturally taper down, rather than grow
larger from year to year. If in fact these grants provide
concrete assistance toward moving from welfare to work, there
should be fewer applications for funds in future years rather
than more. The administration's request for $150,000,000 in
fiscal year 2000 is twice the guaranteed authorization, and
likely represents a greater funding stream than the demand
warrants.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA]
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $50,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000...................................................
Committee recommendation................................................
Public Law 96-184 (Stark-Harris legislation) enacted
January 3, 1980, authorized a total of $1,700,000,000 for
construction on the Washington Metrorail System. In addition,
the National Capital Transportation Amendments of 1990, Public
Law 101-551, authorized another $1,300,000,000 in Federal
capital assistance. Appropriated funds from previous years have
completed the Federal commitment to the construction of the
103-mile metrorail system. No new funds are requested for 2000.
general provisions
The Committee has included the following general provisions
affecting transit programs:
Sec. 311. This general provision gives FTA the authority to
obligate previously provided funds above a particular fiscal
year's obligation limitation.
Sec. 317. This general provision provides that capital
investment grant funds, other than fixed guideway modernization
funds, must be obligated within 3 years, or the associated
funds will be available for expenditure and transfer to another
capital investment project.
Sec. 318. 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. 322. This general provision provides the States of
Oklahoma and Vermont flexibility in the use of some of their
federal transportation funds.
Sec. 327. This general provision directs that discretionary
funds previously made available for the Charleston, South
Carolina monobeam project may be used to fund any aspect of the
project.
ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (the
Corporation) is a wholly owned Government corporation
established by the St. Lawrence Seaway Act of May 13, 1954. The
Corporation is responsible for the operation, maintenance, and
development of the United States portion of the St. Lawrence
Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. The Corporation's major
priorities include: safety, reliability, trade development, and
management accountability.
Operations and Maintenance
(Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund)
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $11,496,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\ (mandatory)................... 12,042,000
Committee recommendation................................ 11,496,000
\1\ Does not include reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of
Public Law 105-277.
\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 $12,042,000
from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes an appropriation of $11,496,000 instead
of the mandatory payment as requested. Congress must adopt
legislation authorizing an agency to become a PBO. Neither the
Committee nor the Department is aware of any current or pending
congressional intent to act on PBO authorizing legislation.
Until the enactment of authorizing legislation, the Committee
will continue to fund the Corporation according to current law.
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 St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corporation budget requests consistent with current
law until Congress takes action on PBO authorization
legislation.
The Committee has reduced funding from the requested amount
by $546,000. Since the 1999 navigation season opened on March
30, vessel traffic through the Saint Lawrence Seaway has
declined by 20 percent and is projected to decline by 10
percent overall during the current navigation season. The
Corporation has revised its tonnage forecast accordingly,
thereby reducing its financial need. The Committee also is
confident that this reduction will not affect operations if the
Corporation takes advantage of its current personnel level and
implements plans to achieve management savings.
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 2000, 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, 1999 \1\................................ $29,280,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 33,340,000
Committee recommendation................................ 30,752,000
\1\ Does not reflect reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of
Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $4,575,000 proposed fees.
The Committee has provided a total of $30,752,000 for the
``Research and special programs'' account, $2,588,000 less than
the administration's request.
In general, the budget constraints on this bill--which are
due both to the highway and transit firewalls in TEA21 and the
budget caps assumed in the Budget Resolution--dictate staffing
freezes. None of the requested staffing increases have been
funded.
The following table summarizes the Committee
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
1999 enacted Fiscal year Committee
\1\ 2000 estimate recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety...................................... $16,063,000 $18,213,000 $16,960,000
(FTE)....................................................... (122) (127) (122)
Emergency transportation........................................ $997,000 $1,459,000 $1,275,000
(FTE)....................................................... (7) (8) (7)
Research and technology......................................... $3,676,000 $3,547,000 $3,297,000
(FTE)....................................................... (13) (11) (11)
Program and administrative support.............................. $8,230,000 $10,121,000 $9,220,000
(FTE)....................................................... (45) (46) (45)
-----------------------------------------------
Total, research and special programs...................... $28,966,000 $33,340,000 $30,752,000
(FTE)................................................. (187) (192) (187)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $314,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes supplemental
funding for Y2K.
hazardous materials safety
The Office of Hazardous Materials Safety [HMS] 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. HMS
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 $16,960,000 for hazardous
materials safety, which is $1,250,000 less than the
administration's request.
RSPA's office of hazardous materials safety has requested
an increase of 9 new staff members (+4.5 FTEs), who would be
distributed to headquarters, each regional inspection and
enforcement office, as well as two staff members who would
provide support for implementation of the Sanitary Food
Transportation Act. Due to budgetary constraints, the Committee
has not provided new personnel compensation and benefits funds
associated with these proposed new positions, and has decreased
the requested PC&B level by -$880,000. The Committee notes that
there are currently 12 vacancies within the office of hazardous
materials safety, three of which are in the enforcement area.
These inspection/enforcement vacancies should be filled as
quickly as possible. The Committee has also decreased the
contract programs by -$339,000, allowing an increase in the
international standards program to a level of $81,000, but
denies the requested program funding for safe food
transportation. The Committee has also made a very slight
decrease in the agency's request for the research and
development program (-$34,000). The following shows the
Committee's recommended funding levels for each of the
hazardous materials office activities:
Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$9,757,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 1,269,000
Contract programs............................................. 3,664,000
Registration program.......................................... 1,070,000
Research and development...................................... 1,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, office of hazardous materials safety.............16,960,000
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 $1,275,000 for emergency
transportation, which is $184,000 less than the
administration's request. The administration has requested a
new position for the Emergency Transportation office, which the
Committee declines to fund. Therefore, personnel compensation
and benefits are reduced $100,000 below the requested level.
The research and development program is also reduced by $85,000
below the request, although this level will still represent an
increase of $100,000 above the enacted program level. The
following shows the Committee's recommended funding
distribution for the Emergency Transportation office.
Personnel compensation and benefits........................... $745,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 100,000
Contract programs............................................. 280,000
Research and development...................................... 150,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, office of emergency transportation............... 1,275,000
Research and technology
The Committee recommends $3,297,000 for the Office of
Research and Technology, $250,000 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 reduction of $250,000 should be made from planned
``roundtable'' outreach programs, which are not necessary to
the functions of this office.
National Environmental Respiratory Center.--The unique goal
of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to research
the health effects of combined pollutants or contaminants is
relevant to the Department of Transportation's focus on
environmental, and therefore health, consequences of pollutants
generated by transportation emissions. To understand the health
effects of real-world, highly complex mixtures of air
contaminants, NERC will develop identical health data across
several complex, man-made mixtures, including those from
transportation sources. The Committee urges DOT to collaborate
with the National environmental research center on its research
strategy so that national transportation system design and
policy has the benefit of this important data.
Reimbursable funding from Federal Highway Administration.--
The budget request for the office of research and technology
proposes to fund three full-time positions through reimbursable
funding from FHWA. Historically, RSPA has provided funding for
two of these positions in support of the Department's
University Transportation Centers (UTC) program. The UTC
program has increased dramatically in size and scope under
TEA21, and RSPA's responsibility to manage the grant program
and conduct annual reviews has, in turn, grown. The Committee
has no objection to these three proposed reimbursable
positions, to be funded through the Federal Highway
Administration by way of a reimbursable agreement between the
agencies. The Committee further notes that the research and
technology program has decreased its funding request by
$129,000 to reflect two fewer positions being paid for by RSPA.
Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program.--The Advanced
Vehicle Technologies Program (AVTP) was funded at a level of
$14,000,000 in fiscal year 1999. The Department of Defense
Advanced Research Programs Agency provided $9,000,000 for AVTP;
the Federal Highway Administration provided $5,000,000 from its
limitation on general operating expenses. This year, the
administration has proposed funding the program at a level of
$20,000,000, utilizing funds that are authorized in section
1218 of TEA21 for Magnetic Levitation technology deployment,
and transferring them to programs authorized in section 5111 of
the Act (the Advanced Vehicle Technologies Program). The
Committee strongly objects to this proposed transfer. No funds
are provided for the AVTP in this Act.
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 $9,220,000 for program and
administrative support, $901,000 less than the adminstration's
request. The administration has requested two new positions for
RSPA management and administration--a new Chief Information
Officer, and a senior contracting specialist. The Committee
does not approve these requested new positions, and has reduced
the personnel compensation and benefits request $100,000 below
the requested level. Administrative expenses are also reduced
below the request (-$407,000), as are contract programs
(-$393,000). Because the information officer position is not
approved, the information resources management program is cut
$235,000 below the requested level, and the budget and
financial management program is reduced very slightly below the
requested level (-$28,000). The Committee has not provided the
requested funding for the Garrett A. Morgan Technology and
Transportation Futures program (-$200,000). The Committee
believes that there are many national education programs
already in place that encourage and enhance math, science, and
technology literacy, and the Committee is unaware of an
imminent shortage of engineers and other professions in the
transportation industries. The following shows the Committee's
recommended funding distribution for RSPA program support:
Personnel compensation and benefits...........................$4,820,000
Administrative expenses....................................... 3,300,000
Contract programs............................................. 1,100,000
--------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total, program and administrative support............... 9,220,000
Pipeline Safety
(Pipeline Safety Fund)
(Oilspill Liability Trust Fund)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pipeline
safety fund Trust fund Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\ \2\.................................... $30,400,000 $4,248,000 $34,648,000
Budget estimate, 2000........................................... 33,939,000 4,248,000 38,187,000
Committee recommendation \2\.................................... 31,400,000 4,704,000 36,104,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not reflect reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Does not
include supplemental funding of $150,000 for Y2K.
\2\ Pipeline safety funding includes $1,400,000 from reserve fund balances.
The Research and Special Programs Administration is also
responsible for the Department's Pipeline Safety Program. This
activity is largely financed by user fees assessed to the
pipeline operators and by fees paid to the oilspill liability
trust fund [OSLTF]. 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 Pipeline Safety
Program.
Pipeline safety reserve fund.--The Committee recommends
$1,400,000 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 April 1) is $15,367,538, but over the course of the
year, some program costs will be warranted out. 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 of at least $11,000,000
is necessary to sustain operations until fees can be collected
to replenish the fund. The Committee believes it is appropriate
to drawdown against this balance as long as the $11,000,000
level is not breached. The Committee agrees with the
authorizing committees and industry that the fiscal year 1999
cap on the portion of the OPS budget that can be raised through
pipeline safety user fees--$30,000,000--should not be exceeded.
Oilspill liability trust fund.--The Committee recommends
$4,704,000 to be derived from the oilspill liability trust fund
for implementation of the Office of Pipeline Safety [OPS]
responsibilities under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 [OPA],
$456,000 more than the administration's request. The following
table summarizes the Committee recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------- Committee
Program 1999 enacted recommendation \2\
\1\ \2\ 2000 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses......................................... $11,655,000 $13,180,000 $12,821,000
Information and analysis................................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Risk assessment/technical studies.......................... 1,200,000 1,475,000 1,200,000
Compliance................................................. 300,000 300,000 300,000
Training and information dissemination..................... 921,000 1,121,000 921,000
Emergency notification..................................... 100,000 100,000 100,000
Public education........................................... 400,000 200,000 400,000
Risk management and program evaluation..................... ............... 5,000 ..................
Implement Oil Pollution Act................................ 2,443,000 2,443,000 2,443,000
Research and development................................... 1,719,000 2,144,000 1,719,000
State grants............................................... 13,000,000 13,519,000 12,500,000
Risk management grants..................................... 500,000 500,000 500,000
One-call grants............................................ 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Damage prevention grants................................... ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------
Totals............................................... 34,438,000 38,187,000 36,104,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $210,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277. Excludes $150,000
supplemental funding for Y2K.
\2\ Includes $1,400,000 from uncommitted balances in the reserve fund.
Operating expenses.--The administration did not request any
new positions for the Office of Pipeline Safety; however, the
Committee's recommendation includes an increase of $1,166,000
in administrative expenses and personnel cost-of-living
adjustments and merit increases.
Public education.--The Committee recommends $400,000 for
damage prevention public education activities, to accelerate
work on the evolving one-call systems public education
campaign. This represents a $200,000 increase above the
requested level. These funds will be used to leverage private
sector funds to advance the national one-call campaign.
The Committee is pleased that the Office of Pipeline Safety
(OPS) consulted with numerous parties concerned with preventing
damage to underground utilities in drafting the ``Best
Practices'' study required by TEA21. By providing leadership to
over 150 working volunteers representing one-call systems,
underground facility operators, excavators, railroads, and
Federal and state agencies, preventing deaths, injuries,
property damage and service interruptions. The Committee
believes that this group effort, dubbed ``Common Ground'', has
the potential to serve as a basis for a self-sustaining entity
that can advance underground damage prevention by identifying
and encouraging best practices, providing badly needed public
education, and collecting and disseminating information on
damage to underground utilities. The Committee directs OPS to
use existing resources to support the formation and initial
operation of a non-profit organization that will further the
work of ``Common Ground'' and implement other innovative
approaches to advance underground damage prevention.
State grants.--Due to stringent budgetary constraints, the
Committee has reduced the funding level for state safety grants
below the level provided in fiscal year 1999, from $13,000,000
to $12,500,000.
Damage prevention grants.--The Committee has included
$1,000,000 in funding, to be derived from the uncommitted
balances in the reserve fund, for RSPA's new damage prevention
grants program. Reducing outside force damage has long been the
office's top-ranked solution to improving pipeline safety. This
new grant program will promote best practices to prevent damage
to pipelines and other underground infrastructure. RSPA will be
holding a public meeting on June 30 to solicit input on
criteria for these grants and on the most effective means to
encourage best practices in one-call notification systems and
other of damage prevention efforts.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(Emergency Preparedness Fund)
Appropriations, 1999.................................... $200,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 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 appropriations for the
emergency preparedness fund for planning and training grants,
monitoring and technical assistance, and for administrative
expenses. Appropriations, also from the emergency preparedness
fund, provide for the training curriculum for emergency
responders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The administration has proposed increasing the annual level
of funding under the Hazmat Registration Program from the
current program level of $8,000,000 to $14,300,000. Under the
current registration program, an annual flat fee of $300 is
assessed on carriers that transport: radioactive materials (in
any quantity); class A or class B explosives (over 25
kilograms); extremely toxic inhalants (more than 1 liter per
package); hazardous material in bulk packaging over 3,500
gallons or 468 cubic feet; or placarded hazardous materials in
shipments of over 5,000 pounds. This affects approximately
27,000 shippers and carriers on the Nation's highways,
railroads, waterways, and airways. Most of the fees collected
under the registration program are used to make training and
planning grants to States to improve emergency response to
hazardous materials incidents.
Under the administration's proposal, the overall funding
for this program would be increased by $6,300,000. In order to
pay for this increase, the administration proposes to raise the
fee level and broaden the base of registrants. There is a
notice of proposed rulemaking pending that would increase the
hazmat carrier fees. The proposed rule would increase the
number of carriers required to register from about 27,000 to
45,000, and would increase the annual registration fee from
$300 to $2,000 for shippers and carriers that are not ``small
businesses'' under Small Business criteria. Small businesses
required to register would continue to pay $300 in annual fees.
The Committee is aware that there are some industry
concerns about the proposed expansion and increase in the
registration program. RSPA is holding a public meeting on the
proposed rule May 25, 1999, RSPA is seeking authorization to
fund both the hazardous materials grant program and the
agency's entire hazardous materials safety program from the
increased and expanded registration program (the authorized
levels for the two programs would total more than $32,000,000).
The Committee believes that a 400-percent increase, from the
current $8,000,000 hazmat registration program to a potential
$32,000,000 program may represent an unfair burden on the
hazardous materials transport community. However, the Committee
has not included bill language that would set a ceiling on fee
collections for fiscal year 2000 at this stage of the
appropriations cycle, but will wait until the industry has had
a chance to comment on this new proposed rule.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $43,495,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 44,840,000
Committee recommendation................................ \2\ 48,000,000
\1\ Does not include reduction of $179,000 for TASC pursuant to section
320 of Public Law 105-277, and transfer of $800,000 from the FTA
pursuant to Public Law 105-277.
\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 $48,000,000. 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.
Disadvantaged business enterprises.--The Committee directs
the Department of Transportation Inspector General to report to
the Senate and House Appropriations Subcommittees on
Transportation not later than 60 days after enactment of this
bill on the percentage of businesses which had been certified
as disadvantaged business enterprises (DBE) but are no longer
eligible under the new regulations; the range and average of
the lengths of time that businesses have been certified as
DBE's; the average percentage of employees at DBE firms who are
disadvantaged compared to the average percentage at non-DBE
firms and the range of percentages; and, the part-time and
full-time mix at DBE firms.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Required Allowed
Appropriation offsetting offsetting Total potential
collections collections funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations, 1999 \1\.................. $13,400,000 ................ $2,600,000 $16,000,000
Budget estimate, 2000..................... ............... ($17,000,000) ............... (17,000,000)
Committee recommendation.................. 15,400,000 (1,600,000) ............... 17,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes reduction of $10,000 pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105-277.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996, by Public Law 104-88, the ICC Termination Act of 1995.
Consistent with the continued trend toward less regulation of
the surface transportation industry, the act abolished the ICC,
eliminated certain functions that had previously been
implemented by the ICC, transferred core rail and certain other
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 2000 program request is
$17,000,000 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, the Committee is convinced that fully fee financing
the STB is not a viable option for fiscal year 1999. 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.
The Committee has provided $15,400,000 for activities of
the Board, including statutory liability for severance
payments. This amount will be augmented by the collection of
$1,600,000 in user fees. The Board anticipates collecting up to
$1,200,000 from these fees. Bill language has been included to
assure that fees received in excess of $1,600,000 shall remain
available to the Board but shall not be available for
obligation until October 1, 2000.
The Committee's recommendation will fund a total of 140
full-time staff equivalent (FTE) positions, if the Board
collects the full $1,600,000 in user fees. This increase in FTE
above the current level of 135 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, 38 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.
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $3,847,000
Budget estimate, 2000................................... 4,633,000
Committee recommendation................................ 4,500,000
\1\ Does not include $60,000 emergency funding for Y2K conversion.
The Committee recommends $4,500,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
$133,000 less than 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 30.25 FTE, one FTE less than the fiscal year 1999
staffing level, consistent with the Board's budget request.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriations, 1999 \1\................................ $53,473,000
Budget estimate, 2000 \2\............................... 47,000,000
Committee recommendation................................ 51,500,000
\1\ Excludes $2,300,000 in emergency appropriations.
\2\ 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
Due to budget constraints, the bill includes $51,500,000
for the Safety Board, the same level of funding that was
enacted fiscal year 1999 with the exception of costs associated
with renting hangar space in Calverton, New York as discussed
below. Appropriations to the Safety Board have increased by 26
percent since fiscal year 1997, primarily because of prolonged
investigations of the tragic crashes of USAir Flight 427 and
TWA Flight 800. The Committee expects the NTSB to continue to
investigate accidents and issue safety recommendations and has
provided the Safety Board with the flexibility to manage the
recommended funding level by controlling discretionary
expenditures.
Calverton facility.--The Committee is concerned about the
cost to rent hangar space which houses the 94-foot-long
reconstruction of the fuselage of the TWA Flight 800 plane
wreckage. The Safety Board has spent $13,600,000 to rent the
Calverton facility and the budget estimate includes $3,200,000
to cover rent for the first six months of fiscal year 2000. In
the fiscal year 1999 supplemental appropriations conference
report, the Committee insisted on the statement that ``the
conferees do not plan to continue funding the rental expenses
at the Calverton facility in future years. Accordingly, the
Committee has deleted funding for the rental and directs the
Safety Board to develop alternatives for housing the TWA Flight
800 wreckage, including options at ``no cost to the
government.'' The report is request by August 1, 1999.
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 charge foreign
governments for the costs incurred during investigations
conducted at the request of that government, if consistent with
U.S. foreign policy goals.
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 100
political and Presidential appointees to the Department of
Transportation.
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. 316. 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.
Sec. 319. Includes provision which the administration had
requested be deleted that reduces the funds provided for the
Transportation Administrative Service Center.
Sec. 321. Includes provision which prevents any state from
receiving more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate transit
formula and capital investment grants national program funds.
Sec. 322. Includes a provision allowing the States of
Oklahoma and Vermont flexible use of transportation funds.
Sec. 324. Includes provision which the administration had
requested be deleted that limits the amount available for
advisory committees to $1,000,000.
Sec. 327. Includes provision similar to language carried in
the fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill which allows capital
transit grant funds to be used for any aspect of Charleston, SC
monobeam corridor project.
Sec. 329. 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, 2000.
Sec. 331. Modifies provision requested by the
administration relating to funding for the Amtrak Reform
Council.
Sec. 332. 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. 333. Includes a provision which the administration had
requested be deleted, which prohibits the Department of
Transportation from creating ``peanut-free zones'' aboard
domestic aircraft, absent fulfilling certain conditions.
Sec. 334. Includes a provision which is similar to language
carried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations
act, relating to the execution of certain Olympics-related
projects.
Sec. 335. Includes a provision which requires the Federal
Transit Administration to inform the Committees on
Appropriations when the agency approves a new full funding
grant agreement.
Sec. 336. Includes a provision which is similar to language
carried in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations
act, relating to state highway funding flexibility.
Sec. 337. Includes a provision which allows the Department
of Transportation to enter into a fractional aircraft ownership
demonstration.
Sec. 338. Includes a provision regarding the terms of a
land conveyance of property held by the United States Coast
Guard.
Sec. 339. Includes a provision which prevents the
distribution of personal data and photographs from drivers
licenses without express written consent of the individual.
Sec. 340. Includes a provision providing for the completion
of the National Advanced Driving Simulator.
Sec. 341. Includes a provision making technical changes to
a highway project authorized in Public Law 102-240.
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.................................. $2,772,000,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements......... 370,426,000
Environmental compliance and restoration............ 12,450,000
Retired pay......................................... 730,327,000
Reserve training.................................... 72,000,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation......... 17,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations.......................................... 5,857,450,000
Facilities and equipment............................ 2,045,652,000
Research, engineering, and development.............. 150,000,000
Grants-in-aid to airports........................... 1,300,000,000
Federal Railroad Administration: Railroad safety........ 91,789,000
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation............. 11,496,000
Research and Special Programs Administration: Research
and Special Programs................................ 30,752,000
Surface Transportation Board............................ 17,000,000
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 reported en bloc, an original fiscal year 2000 Energy
and Water Development Appropriations bill, and S. 1143, an
original fiscal year 2000 Transportation Appropriations bill,
both subject to amendment and subject to the section 302 budget
allocation, by a recorded vote of 27-1, a quorum being present.
The vote was as follows:
Yeas Nays
Chairman Stevens Mrs. Feinstein
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
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.
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5309. Discretionary grants and loans
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Letters of Intent, Full Financing Grant Agreements, and
EarlySystems Work Agreements
(1)(A) The Secretary of Transportation may issue a letter
of intent to an applicant announcing an intention to obligate,
for a project under this section, an amount from future
available budget authority specified in law that is not more
than the amount stipulated as the financial participation of
the Secretary in the project. The amount shall be sufficient to
complete at least an operable segment when a letter is issued
for a fixed guideway project.
(B) At least 30 days before issuing a letter under
subparagraph (A) of this paragraph, the Secretary of
Transportation shall notify in writing the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation of the House of Representatives and
the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs of the
Senate and the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations of
the proposed issuance of the letter.
* * * * * * *
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, Public Law
102-240
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1107. INNOVATIVE PROJECTS.
(a) * * *
(b) Authorization of Projects.--The Secretary is authorized
to carry out the innovative projects described in this
subsection. Subject to subsection (c), there is authorized to
be appropriated out of the Highway Trust Fund (other than the
Mass Transit Account) for fiscal years 1992 through 1997 to
carry out each such project the amount listed for each such
project:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNT in
CITY/STATE INNOVATIVE PROJECTS millions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Cadiz, Ohio.......................... Construction of 4-lane Limited Access Highway from 20.0
Cadiz, OH to Interstate 70 Interchange at St.
Clarisville, OH along U.S. Rt. 250....................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Maryland............................. [Construction of a replacement bridge at Watervale 1.1
Bridge #63, Harford County, MD] For improvements to
Bottom Road Bridge, Vinegar Hill Road Bridge and
Southampton Road Bridge, Harford County, MD..........
* * * * * * *
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, Public Law 105-178
TITLE I--FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle A--Authorizations and Programs
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1212. MISCELLANEOUS.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(g) Project Flexibility for Minnesota and New Jersey.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, funds allocated for
a project in the State of Minnesota or the State of New Jersey
under section 117 of title 23, United States Code, may be
obligated for any other project in the State for which funds
are so allocated; except that the total amount of funds
authorized for any project for which funds are so allocated
shall not be reduced.
* * * * * * *
TITLE III--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION PROGRAMS
SEC. 3021. PILOT PROGRAM FOR INTERCITY RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT
FROM MASS TRANSIT ACCOUNT OF HIGHWAY TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--The Secretary shall establish a [single-
State] pilot program to determine the benefits of using funds
from the Mass Transit Account of the Highway Trust Fund for
intercity passenger rail. [Any assistance provided to the State
of Oklahoma or the State of Vermont under sections 5307 and
5311 of title 49, United States Code] The funds made available
to the State of Oklahoma and the State of Vermont to carry out
sections 5307 and 5311 of title 49, United States Code and
sections 133 and 149 of title 23, United States Code, during
fiscal years 1998 through 2003 may be used for capital
improvements to, and operating assistance for, intercity
passenger rail service.
(b) Report.--
(1) In general.--Not later than October 1, 2002,
the Secretary shall submit to the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure of the House of
Representatives and the Committee on Banking, Housing,
and Urban Affairs of the Senate a report on the pilot
program established under this section.
(2) Contents.--The report submitted under paragraph
(1) shall include--
(A) an evaluation of the effect of the
pilot program on alternative forms of
transportation within the State of Oklahoma and
the State of Vermont;
(B) an evaluation of the effect of the
program on operators of mass transportation and
their passengers;
(C) a calculation of the amount of Federal
assistance provided under this section
transferred for the provision of intercity
passenger rail service; and
(D) an estimate of the benefits to
intercity passenger rail service, including the
number of passengers served, the number of
route miles covered, and the number of
localities served by intercity passenger rail
service.
(c) Grant Requirements.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the Amtrak employees employed in the railroad
passenger service authorized by this section shall be afforded
the same labor protections afforded other Amtrak employees
under the terms of their employment contracts.
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 2000: Subcommittee on
Transportation and Related Agencies:
General purpose discretionary........................... 12,034 12,034 14,226 \1\ 14,226
Highways................................................ ........... ........... 24,574 24,574
Mass transit............................................ ........... ........... 4,117 4,114
Violent crime reduction................................. ........... ........... ........... ...........
Mandatory............................................... 721 721 717 717
Projections of outlays associated with the recommendation:
2000.................................................... ........... ........... ........... \2\ 17,520
2001.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 16,411
2002.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 7,358
2003.................................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,456
2004 and future year.................................... ........... ........... ........... 3,501
Financial assistance to State and local governments for 2000 NA 1,204 NA 8,228
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 1999 AND BUDGET ESTIMATES AND AMOUNTS RECOMMENDED IN THE BILL FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2000
[In thousands of dollars]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Senate Committee recommendation
compared with (+ or -)
Item 1999 Budget estimate Committee -----------------------------------
appropriation recommendation 1999
appropriation Budget estimate
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Office of the Secretary
Salaries and expenses:
Immediate Office of the Secretary......................... 1,624 1,967 1,900 +276 -67
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary.................. 585 612 600 +15 -12
Office of the General Counsel............................. 8,750 9,150 9,000 +250 -150
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy.............. 2,808 2,924 2,900 +92 -24
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and 7,650 7,732 7,700 +50 -32
International Affairs....................................
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. 6,349 6,790 6,870 +521 +80
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 1,941 2,039 2,000 +59 -39
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration...... 19,722 18,847 18,600 -1,122 -247
Office of Public Affairs.................................. 1,565 1,836 1,800 +235 -36
Executive Secretariat..................................... 1,047 1,102 1,110 +63 +8
Board of Contract Appeals................................. 561 520 560 -1 +40
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization.... 1,020 1,222 1,222 +202 ................
Office of Intelligence and Security....................... 1,036 1,574 ................ -1,036 -1,574
Office of the Chief Information Officer................... 4,875 5,075 5,100 +225 +25
Office of Intermodalism................................... 957 1,187 ................ -957 -1,187
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Policy and Intermodalism.................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 60,490 62,577 59,362 -1,128 -3,215
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)............................ (7,754) ................ ................ (-7,754) ................
Office of Civil Rights........................................ 6,966 7,742 7,200 +234 -542
Transportation planning, research, and development............ 9,000 6,275 3,300 -5,700 -2,975
Transportation Administrative Service Center.................. (124,124) (229,953) (169,953) (+45,829) (-60,000)
Minority business resource center program..................... 1,900 1,900 1,900 ................ ................
(Limitation on direct loans).............................. (13,775) (13,775) (13,775) ................ ................
Minority business outreach.................................... 2,900 2,900 2,900 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Office of the Secretary.......................... 81,256 81,394 74,662 -6,594 -6,732
Coast Guard
Operating expenses............................................ 2,400,000 2,607,039 2,238,000 -162,000 -369,039
Defense function.......................................... 300,000 334,000 534,000 +234,000 +200,000
Title I--Readiness (emergency funding).................... (100,000) ................ ................ (-100,000) ................
Title IV--Counterdrug (emergency funding)................. (16,300) ................ ................ (-16,300) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (27,715) ................ ................ (-27,715) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (4,058) ................ ................ (-4,058) ................
Acquisition, construction, and improvements:
Vessels................................................... 219,923 165,760 123,560 -96,363 -42,200
Aircraft.................................................. 35,700 22,110 33,210 -2,490 +11,100
Other equipment........................................... 36,569 53,726 52,726 +16,157 -1,000
Shore facilities and aids to navigation facilities........ 54,823 55,800 63,800 +8,977 +8,000
Personnel and related support............................. 48,450 52,930 52,930 +4,480 ................
Deepwater replacement project revolving fund.............. ................ ................ 44,200 +44,200 +44,200
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, A C and I appropriations...................... 395,465 350,326 370,426 -25,039 +20,100
Acquisition, construction, and improvements Title I-- (100,000) ................ ................ (-100,000) ................
Counterdrug (emergency funding)..........................
Hurricane Georges (emergency funding)..................... (12,600) ................ ................ (-12,600) ................
Title IV--Counterdrug (emergency funding)................. (117,400) ................ ................ (-117,400) ................
Environmental compliance and restoration...................... 21,000 19,500 12,450 -8,550 -7,050
Alteration of bridges......................................... 14,000 ................ 14,000 ................ +14,000
Retired pay................................................... 684,000 730,327 730,327 +46,327 ................
Reserve training.............................................. 69,000 72,000 72,000 +3,000 ................
Title I--Readiness (emergency funding).................... (5,000) ................ ................ (-5,000) ................
Research, development, test, and evaluation................... 12,000 21,709 17,000 +5,000 -4,709
Title I--Readiness (emergency funding).................... (5,000) ................ ................ (-5,000) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Coast Guard...................................... 3,895,465 4,134,901 3,988,203 +92,738 -146,698
Federal Aviation Administration
Operations (airport and Airway trust fund).................... 5,562,558 6,039,000 5,857,450 +294,892 -181,550
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (14,946) ................ ................ (-14,946) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (13,852) ................ ................ (-13,852) ................
Facilities and equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)...... 1,900,000 2,319,000 2,045,652 +145,652 -273,348
Title II--Antiterrorism (emergency funding)............... (100,000) ................ ................ (-100,000) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (106,612) ................ ................ (-106,612) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (15,521) ................ ................ (-15,521) ................
Rescission................................................ ................ ................ -299,500 -299,500 -299,500
Aviation insurance revolving fund............................. ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Research, engineering, and development (Airport and Airway 150,000 173,000 150,000 ................ -23,000
Trust Fund)..................................................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (147) ................ ................ (-147) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (220) ................ ................ (-220) ................
Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (1,600,000) (1,750,000) (1,750,000) (+150,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (1,950,000) (1,600,000) (2,000,000) (+50,000) (+400,000)
(Obligation limitation reduction) (Public Law 105-277).... ................ ................ (-290,000) (-290,000) (-290,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Aviation Administration.................. 7,612,558 8,531,000 8,053,102 +440,544 -477,898
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (1,950,000) (1,600,000) (1,710,000) (-240,000) (+110,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............................... (9,562,558) (10,131,000) (9,763,102) (+200,544) (-367,898)
Federal Highway Administration
Limitation on administrative expenses......................... (327,413) (344,616) (370,000) (+42,587) (+25,384)
Highway safety initiative................................. ................ ................ (14,500) (+14,500) (+14,500)
Section 405(b) grant...................................... ................ ................ (7,500) (+7,500) (+7,500)
Limitation on transportation research......................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Federal-aid highways (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (25,511,000) (26,245,000) (26,245,000) (+734,000) ................
Domestic Discretionary.................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
(Revenue aligned budget authority) (RABA)................. ................ (1,456,350) (1,456,350) (+1,456,350) ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (-452,120) ................ ................ (+452,120)
(Adjustment).............................................. ................ (63,000) ................ ................ (-63,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation on obligations..................... (25,511,000) (27,312,230) (27,701,350) (+2,190,350) (+389,120)
(Exempt obligations)...................................... (1,424,047) (1,132,116) (1,132,116) (-291,931) ................
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (24,000,000) (26,000,000) (26,300,000) (+2,300,000) (+300,000)
National motor carrier safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (100,000) (105,000) (105,000) (+5,000) ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (100,000) (105,000) (105,000) (+5,000) ................
National motor carrier safety program (highway trust fund).... ................ 50,000 50,000 +50,000 ................
Additional provisions--Division A Public Law 105-277: Surface 332,000 ................ ................ -332,000 ................
transportation projects......................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Highway Administration................... 332,000 50,000 50,000 -282,000 ................
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (25,611,000) (27,417,230) (27,806,350) (+2,195,350) (+389,120)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,424,047) (1,132,116) (1,132,116) (-291,931) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............................... (27,367,047) (28,599,346) (28,988,466) (+1,621,419) (+389,120)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Operations and research (Highway Trust Fund).................. 87,400 ................ 72,900 -14,500 +72,900
Operations and research (highway trust fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (72,000) (72,000) (72,000) ................ ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (125,450) ................ ................ (-125,450)
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (72,000) (197,450) (72,000) ................ (-125,450)
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (752) ................ ................ (-752) ................
National Driver Register (highway trust fund)................. 2,000 2,000 2,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Operations and research....................... (162,152) (199,450) (146,900) (-15,252) (-52,550)
Highway traffic safety grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... (200,000) (206,800) (206,800) (+6,800) ................
(Limitation on obligations):
Highway safety programs (Sec. 402).................... (150,000) (152,800) (152,800) (+2,800) ................
Occupant protection incentive grants (Sec. 405)....... (10,000) (10,000) (10,000) ................ ................
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants (Sec. (35,000) (36,000) (36,000) (+1,000) ................
410).................................................
State Highway safety data grants (Sec. 411)........... (5,000) (8,000) (8,000) (+3,000) ................
Child passenger protection education grants (by ................ (7,500) (7,500) (+7,500) ................
transfer)............................................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Highway Traffic Safety Admin........ 89,400 2,000 74,900 -14,500 +72,900
(Limitations on obligations).................... (272,000) (404,250) (278,800) (+6,800) (-125,450)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources........................... (361,400) (406,250) (353,700) (-7,700) (-52,550)
Federal Railroad Administration
Office of the Administrator................................... 21,215 ................ ................ -21,215 ................
Railroad safety............................................... 61,488 ................ ................ -61,488 ................
Safety and operations......................................... ................ 95,462 91,789 +91,789 -3,673
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -66,461 ................ ................ +66,461
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ 82,703 29,001 91,789 +9,086 +62,788
Railroad research and development............................. 22,364 21,800 22,364 ................ +564
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -21,300 ................ ................ +21,300
Next generation high-speed rail............................... 20,494 12,000 20,500 +6 +8,500
Alaska Railroad rehabilitation................................ 10,000 ................ 14,000 +4,000 +14,000
Alaska Railroad capital improvements (Division A)............. 28,000 ................ ................ -28,000 ................
Rhode Island Rail Development................................. 5,000 10,000 10,000 +5,000 ................
Capital grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation. 609,230 570,976 571,000 -38,230 +24
Rail initiative trust fund (Highway Trust Fund) (RABA transfer
under Title III):
(Liquidation of contract authorization)................... ................ (35,400) ................ ................ (-35,400)
(Limitation on obligations)............................... ................ (35,400) ................ ................ (-35,400)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Federal Railroad Administration.................. 777,791 622,477 729,653 -48,138 +107,176
(Limitations on obligations)........................ ................ (35,400) ................ ................ (-35,400)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............................... (777,791) (657,877) (729,653) (-48,138) (+71,776)
Federal Transit Administration
Administrative expenses....................................... 10,800 12,000 12,000 +1,200 ................
Administrative expenses (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
Account).....................................................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (43,200) (48,000) (48,000) (+4,800) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Administrative expenses....................... (54,000) (60,000) (60,000) (+6,000) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)...................... (250) ................ ................ (-250) ................
Formula grants................................................ 570,000 619,600 619,600 +49,600 ................
Formula grants (Highway Trust Fund):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (2,280,000) (2,478,400) (2,478,400) (+198,400) ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (212,270) ................ ................ (-212,270)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Formula grants................................ (2,850,000) (3,310,270) (3,098,000) (+248,000) (-212,270)
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).................. 19,800 21,000 21,000 +1,200 ................
Transit planning and research (Highway Trust Fund, Mass
Transit Account):
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (78,200) (86,000) (86,000) (+7,800) ................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (4,000) ................ ................ (-4,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Transit planning and research................. (98,000) (111,000) (107,000) (+9,000) (-4,000)
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..................................... (43,842) (49,632) (49,632) (+5,790) ................
State planning and research............................... (9,158) (10,368) (10,368) (+1,210) ................
National planning and research............................ (27,500) (33,500) (29,500) (+2,000) (-4,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (98,000) (111,000) (107,000) (+9,000) (-4,000)
Trust fund share of expenses (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation (4,251,800) (4,929,270) (4,638,000) (+386,200) (-291,270)
of contract authorization)...................................
Capital investment grants (general fund)...................... 451,400 490,200 490,200 +38,800 ................
Capital investment grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit (1,805,600) (1,960,800) (1,960,800) (+155,200) ................
Account) (limitation on obligations).........................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Capital investment grants..................... (2,257,000) (2,451,000) (2,451,000) (+194,000) ................
(Fixed guideway modernization)............................ (902,800) (980,400) (980,400) (+77,600) ................
(Buses and bus-related facilities)........................ (451,400) (490,200) (490,200) (+38,800) ................
(New starts).............................................. (902,800) (980,400) (980,400) (+77,600) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (2,257,000) (2,451,000) (2,451,000) (+194,000) ................
Mass transit capital fund (Highway Trust Fund) (liquidation of (2,000,000) ................ ................ (-2,000,000) ................
contract authorization)......................................
Discretionary grants (Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit ................ (1,500,000) (1,500,000) (+1,500,000) ................
Account) (liquidation of contract authorization).............
Job access and reverse commute grants (general fund).......... 35,000 15,000 15,000 -20,000 ................
(Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account) (limitation on (40,000) (60,000) (60,000) (+20,000) ................
obligations).............................................
(RABA transfer under Title III)........................... ................ (75,000) ................ ................ (-75,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Job access and reverse commute grants......... (75,000) (150,000) (75,000) ................ (-75,000)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (general fund). 50,000 ................ ................ -50,000 ................
=========================================================================================
Total, Federal Transit Administration................... 1,138,200 1,159,000 1,159,000 +20,800 ................
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (4,251,800) (4,929,270) (4,638,000) (+386,200) (-291,270)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............................... (5,390,000) (6,088,270) (5,797,000) (+407,000) (-291,270)
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation
Operations and maintenance (Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund).... 11,496 ................ 11,496 ................ +11,496
Mandatory proposal........................................ ................ (12,042) ................ ................ (-12,042)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal................................................ (11,496) (12,042) (11,496) ................ (-546)
Research and Special Programs Administration
Research and special programs................................. ................ 33,340 ................ ................ -33,340
Hazardous materials safety................................ 16,063 ................ 16,960 +897 +16,960
Emergency transportation.................................. 997 ................ 1,275 +278 +1,275
Research and technology................................... 3,676 ................ 3,297 -379 +3,297
Program and administrative support........................ 8,544 ................ 9,220 +676 +9,220
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, research and special programs................. 29,280 33,340 30,752 +1,472 -2,588
Offsetting collections (user fees)........................ ................ -4,575 ................ ................ +4,575
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (182) ................ ................ (-182) ................
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (100) ................ ................ (-100) ................
Pipeline safety:
Pipeline Safety Fund...................................... 29,000 33,939 30,000 +1,000 -3,939
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund............................ 4,248 4,248 4,704 +456 +456
Pipeline safety reserve................................... (1,400) ................ (1,400) ................ (+1,400)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal, Pipeline safety............................... 33,248 38,187 34,704 +1,456 -3,483
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (150) ................ ................ (-150) ................
Emergency preparedness grants:
Emergency preparedness fund............................... 200 200 200 ................ ................
(Limitation on obligations)............................... (11,000) ................ (11,000) ................ (+11,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Special Programs Admin.............. 62,728 67,152 65,656 +2,928 -1,496
(Limitations on obligations)........................ (11,000) ................ (11,000) ................ (+11,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total budgetary resources............................... (73,728) (67,152) (76,656) (+2,928) (+9,504)
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and expenses......................................... 43,495 44,840 5,000 -38,495 -39,840
Surface Transportation Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 16,000 14,400 15,400 -600 +1,000
Offsetting collections.................................... -2,600 -14,400 ................ +2,600 +14,400
General Provisions
Transportation Administrative Service Center reduction........ -15,000 ................ -60,000 -45,000 -60,000
Transit discretionary grants (rescission of contract (-392,000) ................ ................ (+392,000) ................
authorization)...............................................
National Aviation Review Commission (rescission).............. (-849) ................ ................ (+849) ................
Amtrak Reform Council......................................... 450 750 950 +500 +200
Urban discretionary grants (rescission)....................... (-4,026) ................ ................ (+4,026) ................
State Flexibility......................................... ................ ................ ................ ................ ................
=========================================================================================
Net total, title I, Department of Transportation........ 14,294,923 14,693,514 13,868,522 -426,401 -824,992
Appropriations...................................... (14,043,239) (14,693,514) (14,168,022) (+124,783) (-525,492)
Rescissions......................................... (-396,875) ................ (-299,500) (+97,375) (-299,500)
Emergency appropriations............................ (648,559) ................ ................ (-648,559) ................
(By transfer)........................................... ................ (7,500) (7,500) (+7,500) ................
(Limitations on obligations)............................ (32,095,800) (34,386,150) (34,444,150) (+2,348,350) (+58,000)
(Exempt obligations).................................... (1,424,047) (1,132,116) (1,132,116) (-291,931) ................
=========================================================================================
Net total budgetary resources......................... (47,814,770) (50,211,780) (49,444,788) (+1,630,018) (-766,992)
TITLE II--RELATED AGENCIES
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 3,847 4,633 4,500 +653 -133
Y2K conversion (emergency funding)........................ (60) ................ ................ (-60) ................
National Transportation Safety Board
Salaries and expenses......................................... 53,473 57,000 51,500 -1,973 -5,500
Offsetting collections.................................... ................ -10,000 ................ ................ +10,000
Emergency fund................................................ (1,000) ................ (1,000) ................ (+1,000)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total, National Transportation Safety Board............. 53,473 47,000 51,500 -1,973 +4,500
=========================================================================================
Total, title II, Related Agencies....................... 58,380 51,633 57,000 -1,380 +5,367
Appropriations...................................... (57,320) (51,633) (56,000) (-1,320) (+4,367)
Emergency appropriations............................ (1,060) ................ (1,000) (-60) (+1,000)
=========================================================================================
Net total appropriations................................ 14,353,303 14,745,147 13,925,522 -427,781 -819,625
Appropriations.................................. (14,100,559) (14,745,147) (14,224,022) (+123,463) (-521,125)
Rescissions..................................... (-396,875) ................ (-299,500) (+97,375) (-299,500)
Emergency appropriations........................ (649,619) ................ (1,000) (-648,619) (+1,000)
(By transfer)....................................... ................ (7,500) (7,500) (+7,500) ................
(Limitation on obligations)......................... (32,095,800) (34,386,150) (34,444,150) (+2,348,350) (+58,000)
(Exempt obligations)................................ (1,424,047) (1,132,116) (1,132,116) (-291,931) ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net total budgetary resources..................... (47,873,150) (50,263,413) (49,501,788) (+1,628,638) (-761,625)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------