[House Report 108-243]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
108th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 108-243
======================================================================
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION AND TREASURY AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2004
_______
July 30, 2003.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Istook, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the
following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2989]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Departments of Transportation and
Treasury and independent agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2004.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
_______________________________________________________________________
Page number
Bill Report
Summary and major recommendations of the bill..............
3
The effect of guaranteed spending..........................
3
Committee hearings.........................................
4
Program, project, and activity.............................
4
Reprogramming guidelines...................................
5
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary............................ 2
6
Federal Aviation Administration.................... 5
12
Federal Highway Administration..................... 15
48
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........ 31
75
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..... 33
82
Federal Railroad Administration.................... 37
91
Federal Transit Administration..................... 43
99
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation...... 54
127
Maritime Administration............................ 55
128
Research and Special Program Administration........ 57
134
Office of Inspector General........................ 59
140
Surface Transportation Board....................... 60
141
Title II--Department of the Treasury:
Departmental Offices............................... 60
142
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network............... 63
149
Financial Management Service....................... 64
150
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau........... 64
151
Bureau of Engraving and Printing...................
151
United States Mint................................. 65
152
Bureau of the Public Debt.......................... 66
153
Internal Revenue Service........................... 66
155
Title III--Postal Service:
Payment to the Postal Service Fund................. 77
160
Title IV--Executive Office of the President and Funds
Appropriated to the President:
Compensation of the President...................... 78
162
White House Office Salaries and Expenses........... 78
162
Executive Residence at the White House............. 79
164
Council of Economic Advisors....................... 82
165
Office of Policy Development....................... 82
165
National Security Council.......................... 82
166
Office of Administration........................... 82
166
Office of Management and Budget.................... 83
167
Office of National Drug Control Policy............. 84
169
Unanticipated Needs................................ 87
172
Special Assistance to the President and the
Official Residence of the Vice President....... 88
173
Title V--Independent Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board............................... 89
173
National Transportation Safety Board............... 89
174
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or
Severely Disabled.............................. 90
176
Federal Election Commission........................ 90
176
Election Assistance Commission..................... 90
176
Federal Labor Relations Authority.................. 91
178
Federal Maritime Commission........................ 92
178
General Services Administration.................... 92
179
Merit Systems Protection Board..................... 106
191
Morris K. Udall Foundation......................... 107
192
National Archives and Records Administration....... 108
193
Office of Government Ethics........................ 109
195
Office of Personnel Management..................... 110
196
Office of Special Counsel.......................... 114
200
United States Tax Court............................ 115
201
White House Commission on the National Moment of
Remembrance.................................... 115
201
Title VI--General Provisions: This Act..................... 115
201
Title VII--General Provisions: Departments, Agencies, and
Corporations........................................... 129
204
House of Representatives Report Requirements:
Constitutional authority...........................
207
Appropriations not authorized by law...............
207
Transfers of funds.................................
209
Statement of general performance goals and
objectives.....................................
210
Compliance with rule XIII, clause 3(e) (Ramseyer
rule)..........................................
210
Changes in the application of existing law.........
217
Comparison with the budget resolution..............
234
Five-year outlay projections.......................
235
Financial asistance to state and local governments.
235
Rescissions........................................
236
Full Committee votes...............................
237
Tabular Summary of the Bill................................
238
Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill
The accompanying bill would provide $89,593,846,000 in new
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the
departments of Transportation and Treasury and independent
agencies, $3,542,806,000 (4 percent) more than requested in the
budget and $2,756,814,000 (3.2 percent) more than the fiscal
year 2003 enacted levels.
Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill
are:
$45,000,000 for a new headquarters building
for the Department of Transportation in southeast
Washington, D.C.;
$14,028,000,000 for the Federal Aviation
Administration, an increase of 3.8 percent above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level, including
$3,425,000,000 for the Airport Improvement Program;
$473,753,000 for the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration;
$900,000,000 for grants to the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak);
$7,231,000,000 for the Federal Transit
Administration, essentially the same as the fiscal year
2003 enacted level;
$11,273,088,000 for the Department of the
Treasury, including $10,351,981,000 for the Internal
Revenue Service;
$65,521,000 for payments to the Postal
Service Fund;
$776,872,000 for the Executive Office of the
President, essentially the same as the fiscal year 2003
enacted level, including $525,140,000 for the Office of
National Drug Control Policy;
$77,279,000 for the National Transportation
Safety Board;
$299,753,000 for the National Archives and
Records Administration; and
$17,505,777,000 for the Office of Personnel
Management, the majority of which is to make payments
for government-wide employee health benefits and
retirement obligation.
The Effect of Guaranteed Spending
Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the
highway category and the mass transit category. The Wendell H.
Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR-21) provided a similar treatment for certain aviation
programs. Although using different procedures, each of these
Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised
spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations
Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual
appropriations process. As the Committee noted during
deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created
mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This
undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally
important programs not protected by funding guarantees.
In past years, the Committee has done all in its power,
considering this environment, to produce a balanced bill
providing adequately for all modes of transportation. The
reorganization of the Committee in the 108th Congress will pose
additional challenges in this regard, because funding
guarantees for selected transportation programs will compete in
the budget process against funding for non-transportation
agencies such as the Office of National Drug Control Policy,
the Internal Revenue Service, and the General Services
Administration.
The funding guarantees of TEA-21 and AIR-21 expire on
September 30, 2003, and the Committee's recommendations were
developed with that in mind. However, as these bills are
debated during the current session of Congress, the Committee
wants to make clear that the continued use of spending
guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts of the discretionary budget
for particular constituencies will cause both transportation
and non-transportation programs all across the government to be
under more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall
budget in balance. The effect of maintaining these guarantees
will leave its mark on non-covered programs and activities in
this bill, since they must compete for leftover funding. The
Committee continues to believe that funding guarantees skew
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending
while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA and FRA, as
well as critical non-transportation programs, to scramble for
the remaining crumbs.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
2003 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
2004 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end
of this report.
Committee Hearings
The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the
programs and projects provided for in the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2004. The Committee
received testimony from officials of the executive branch,
Members of Congress, officials of the General Accounting
Office, and outside experts in areas under the bill's
jurisdiction. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2004
have been developed after careful consideration of all the
information available to the Committee.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2004, 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 an appropriations Act (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 capital investment grants,
Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage
reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds
appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation
Administration 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.
Reprogramming Guidelines
The bill includes a provision (sec. 629) establishing
standard reprogramming guidelines for the agencies funded in
this Act. Previously, the Treasury and Related Agencies
Appropriations Subcommittee had one set of guidelines, whereas
the Transportation Subcommittee had a completely different set,
due to the history and traditions of those subcommittees.
Further, the procedures applying to transportation programs had
not been revised for many years, and covered less than half of
the funding contained in that bill. Considering the merger of
these two subcommittees, the Committee believes it is essential
to standardize the reprogramming guidelines and broaden them to
all programs and activities covered by this bill. The Committee
recommendation specifies that the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations must be notified 15 days in advance of any
proposal to reprogram funds that: (1) creates a new program;
(2) eliminates a program, project, or activity (PPA); (3)
increases funds for any PPA for which funds have been denied or
restricted by the Congress; (4) proposes to redirect funds that
were directed in such reports for a specific activity to a
different purpose; (5) augments an existing PPA in excess of
$5,000,000 or 10 percent, whichever is less; or (6) reduces
existing PPAs by 10 percent. The determination of a PPA shall
be based upon reports accompanying Departments of
Transportation and Treasury and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Acts, including tables in those reports. The
Departments of Transportation and Treasury and the General
Services Administration shall submit, not later than sixty days
following enactment of this Act, a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations showing the base amounts
for each appropriation and PPA against which the programming
thresholds would apply. This report should also identify items
of special Congressional interest. The guidelines proposed
herein are similar to those recently passed by the House in the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2004.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $87,574,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 108,931,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 93,577,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +6,003,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -15,354,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill provides $93,577,000 for the salaries and expenses
of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary.
The following table compares the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
to the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee's
recommendation by office:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 House
enacted\1\ estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immediate office of the secretary......................... $2,196,629 ................ $2,212,000
Office of the deputy secretary............................ 803,742 ................ 841,000
Office of the executive secretariat....................... 1,381,959 ................ 1,447,000
Immediate office of the secretary and deputy secretary.... [4,382,330] $5,149,000 [4,500,000]
Office of the under secretary of transportation for policy 12,371,062 12,717,000 12,717,000
Board of contract appeals................................. 607,029 730,000 730,000
Official of small and disadvantaged business utilization.. 1,295,524 1,268,000 1,268,000
Office of the chief information officer................... 13,101,285 23,369,000 16,565,000
Office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs 2,437,056 2,518,000 2,518,000
Office of the general counsel............................. 15,555,230 15,992,000 15,560,000
Office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs. 8,320,563 8,630,000 8,630,000
Office of the assistant secretary for administration...... 28,882,039 34,351,000 28,882,000
Office of public affairs.................................. 1,913,481 1,982,000 1,982,000
Transfer of functions to department of homeland security.. -1,291,595 ................ ................
Office of intelligence and security....................... ................ 2,225,000 225,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 87,574,000 108,931,000 93,577,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes across the board reduction of .65 percent.
Immediate offices of the secretary and deputy secretary and
the executive secretariat.--The recommendation provides a 2.7
percent increase for these offices rather than the 17.5 percent
proposed. The Committee directs that, within the funding
provided, no more than $250,000 may be used for travel. The
budget proposed $351,000. The Committee believes the request is
excessive, considering that travel for these offices has
averaged $228,000 annually over the past three years. The
recommendation includes individual funding for these offices,
as in past years, rather than consolidating them as the budget
proposed.
Office of the chief information officer.--The Committee
recommends $16,565,000, which represents a 26.4 percent
increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level instead of
the 78.4 percent increase proposed. A table comparing fiscal
year 2003 enacted funding to the fiscal year 2004 budget
estimate and the Committee recommendation is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 House
Activity enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information technology security........................... $5,730,000 $9,650,000 $8,800,000
Information system and technology management.............. 8,991,000 8,895,000 6,499,000
Electronic government..................................... 1,266,000 4,824,000 1,266,000
Congressional reduction................................... -2,885,715 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 13,101,285 23,369,000 16,565,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the general counsel.--The recommendation
maintains funding for the ``accessibility for all America''
initiative at the fiscal year 2003 level of $2,101,000 instead
of the $2,533,000 proposed, a reduction of $432,000. The budget
proposal included $953,000 for outreach efforts, including the
translation of publications related to the Air Carrier Access
Act into other languages. It also included funding for cell
phone contracts and other miscellaneous costs that the
Committee believes can be deferred without impact on the
overall program.
Office of the assistant secretary for administration.--The
recommendation holds these costs at the fiscal year 2003
enacted level. The Committee believes the 18.9 percent increase
requested for administrative costs is excessive. If this
proposal were approved, funding for the office of
administration would have nearly doubled in two years, despite
the fact that approximately one-half of the department's
staffing has been transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in that timeframe. Given the smaller size of the
Department of Transportation, the Committee believes these
costs should not be increasing. The Committee recommendation
includes denial of the 5 new staff years proposed.
Office of intelligence and security.--The fiscal year 2004
budget request included $2,250,000 to reconstitute this office,
which was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
Consistent with Congressional action in fiscal year 2003, the
Committee does not object to the Secretary of Transportation
making arrangements to have staff detailed from DHS, the
Intelligence Community, or other federal entities to remain
informed on intelligence and security issues pertaining to
transportation. However, the Committee does not believe a
permanent office of 15 staff is required, given the fact that
office responsibilities have been transferred to another
federal department. The recommendation of $225,000 is
sufficient to allow the reimbursable detail of 2 staff from
other agencies.
Report on labor agreements for highway projects.--
Particularly in light of the declining estimates for highway
trust fund revenues, it is critical to ensure that federal
highway and transit dollars are being used to their maximum
effective purpose. One important ingredient in controlling
construction costs is to obtain as much competition as possible
in contract bids. Since labor rates are major cost drivers in
these types of contracts, the Committee directs the Office of
the Secretary to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, not later than April 1, 2004,
showing the number and types of union only labor agreements on
federally-funded transportation projects.
Congressional budget justifications.--The Committee again
directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal
year Congressional budget justifications on the first Monday in
February, concurrent with official submission of the
President's budget to Congress. Also, the department is
directed to submit its fiscal year 2005 Congressional
justification materials for the salaries and expenses of the
office of the secretary at the same level of detail provided in
the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2004.
Potential reimbursement for general aviation losses.--The
Committee is concerned about the financial impact on general
aviation ground support activities at Ronald Reagan Washington
National Airport, and airports within fifteen miles of that
airport, resulting from federal action after the terrorist
attacks of September 11, 2001. To consider potential federal
reimbursement for a portion of these unusual financial losses,
the Committee directs the Secretary of Transportation to
submit, not later than December 31, 2003, a report detailing
the documented financial losses by holders of real property
leases at each such airport which are losses attributable to
federal actions since September 11, 2001. The report shall also
describe the likelihood of resuming general aviation activity
at Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, including a
projected time for any such resumption, as well as any other
plans to expand the scope of general aviation activity at this
group of airports. This report should be submitted to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
Bill language.--Language prohibiting funding for the
Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs position has been
retained from last year. Also, the bill continues language that
permits up to $2,500,000 of fees to be credited to the Office
of the Secretary for salaries and expenses.
Report on seventh freedom petition.--In December 1944, the
Convention on International Civil Aviation (commonly called the
``Chicago Convention'') established a framework for future
bilateral and multilateral international aviation agreements.
This framework, including revisions since the original
convention, included the recognition of 8 ``freedoms'' that
would govern international negotiations of specific air rights
between and among countries. It was made clear that the
freedoms were privileges, not rights, and were subject to
international negotiations. The seventh freedom allows an
airline registered in one country to carry traffic between two
foreign countries without ever touching the airline's own
country. While neither U.S. nor foreign nations have approved
seventh freedom rights for scheduled passenger operations, such
freedoms have been liberally authorized by the U.S. Department
of Transportation for foreign air carrier charter operations.
Despite repeated objections from the U.S. charter air carrier
industry, this apparent inconsistency is the subject of an
existing rulemaking petition which has been pending for some
time before the Office of the Secretary of Transportation. H.R.
2115, as recently passed the House of Representatives,
expresses the sense of Congress that, in an effort to modernize
its regulations, the Department of Transportation should
formally define ``fifth freedom'' and ``seventh freedom''
consistently for both scheduled and charter passenger and cargo
traffic. The Committee directs OST to submit a report
explaining the advantages and disadvantages of its current
regulations in this area. Furthermore, the Committee directs
OST to submit a timetable for completing the current petition
in this matter and for development of the formal definitions
for both ``fifth freedom'' and ``seventh freedom.'' Both the
report and the timetable should be submitted, not later than
March 1, 2004, to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the appropriate legislative committees of
the Congress.
Public-private partnerships.--The Committee includes a new
provision (sec. 636) providing a sense of the House that public
private partnerships (PPPs) could help eliminate some of the
cost drivers behind complex, capital-intensive highway and
transit projects. Using qualification-based selection and
performance-based contracting, PPPs integrate risk sharing,
streamline project development, engineering, and construction,
and preserve the integrity of the EPA process, to result in
significant schedule and cost advantages over traditional
infrastructure development processes. To further demonstrate
the effectiveness of PPPs, the provision encourages the
Secretary of Transportation to apply available funds to select
projects that are in the development phase, eligible under
title 23 and title 49, except 23 U.S.C. 133(b)(8), and that
employ a PPP strategy. The goal of this effort would be to
evaluate how PPPs provide means to achieving cost savings. The
Secretary is also directed to work with states and local
entities to identify and eliminate existing impediments to
successful implementation of PPPs and provide a status report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120
days of enactment of this Act.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee includes a provision in the bill (sec. 604), similar
to provisions in past Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of
political and Presidential appointees within the Department of
Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 2004 is 110
personnel, which is the same as requested and 3 more than
approved in fiscal year 2003. Also, language is retained
prohibiting any political or Presidential appointee from being
detailed outside the Department of Transportation.
Assessments.--The bill retains a general provision (sec.
614) prohibiting the obligation of funds for the OST approval
of new assessments or reimbursable agreements pertaining to
funds appropriated to the modal administrations in this Act
unless such proposals have completed the normal reprogramming
process for Congressional notification. This is necessary
because the department has not always followed Congressional
guidelines against the use of these funds for policy
initiatives. The Committee understands that assessments and
reimbursable agreements are useful ways for the department to
pool funds for common administrative services of the
department. However, if the office of the secretary requires
additional funding for policy or programmatic initiatives, such
funds should be proposed in the budget requests for OST. The
Committee is not opposed per se to such initiatives, but
believes they should be funded directly and not by taxing the
budgets of the modal administrations after the appropriations
process is completed.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $8,643,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 8,569,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,569,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -74,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the
Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and
ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity
precepts in all of the department's official actions and
programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and
regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated
and federally assisted transportation programs. This office
also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of
Transportation employees. The recommendation provides
$8,569,000 for the office of civil rights, the same as the
budget estimate and a decrease of $74,000 below the fiscal year
2003 enacted level.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $20,864,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 10,836,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 8,336,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -12,528,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -2,500,000
This appropriation finances those research activities and
studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information
development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities
in the formulation of national transportation policies. It also
finances the staff necessary to conduct these efforts. The
overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with
other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit
research organizations, and private firms.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $8,336,000 for
transportation planning, research and development, a reduction
of $2,500,000 below the budget estimate. The recommendation
would allow $1,500,000 for aviation and international policy
studies instead of $4,000,000. Funding of $500,000 was provided
for these studies in fiscal year 2003. These planned studies
include the following: modernization of the aviation data
system; aviation economic modeling enhancements; the impact of
changing industry structure on airline regulation; airport
financing and design; and the impact of changes in labor work
rules and compensation on productivity and airline industry
financial performance. The Committee believes studies such as
these are of low priority and can proceed at a slower pace.
Working Capital Fund
Limitation, fiscal year 2003\1\....................... ($131,766,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004\2\................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... (116,715,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2003...................... (-15,051,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. (+116,715,000)
\1\ Titled ``Transportation Administrative Service Center'' through
fiscal year 2003. Program name was changed in the fiscal year 2004
budget request.
\2\ Proposed without limitation.
The working capital fund (WCF) was created many years ago
to provide common administrative services to the various modes
and outside entities that desire those services for economy and
efficiency. The fund is financed through negotiated agreements
with the Department's operating administrations and other
governmental elements requiring the center's capabilities. The
program was renamed ``transportation administrative service
center'' (TASC) in fiscal year 1997, but the name and scope of
activities were changed back to WCF during fiscal year 2003.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $116,715,000 on
the working capital fund. This is the amount assumed in the
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate for charges to DOT agencies.
Modal usage of WCF.--Consistent with past practice, the
Committee directs the department, in its fiscal year 2005
Congressional justifications for each of the modal
administrations, to account for increases or decreases in WCF
billings based on planned usage requested or anticipated by the
modes rather than anticipated by WCF managers.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed
loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....... $894,000 ($18,367,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...... 900,000 (18,367,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 900,000 (18,367,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003... +6,000 (..........)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.. ............... (..........)
The minority business resource center of the office of
small and disadvantaged business utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were
funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business
utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made
by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year
1993, a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's
budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans
and the cost to administer the loan program. In fiscal year
2001, the short-term lending program was converted from a
direct loan program to a guaranteed loan program.
The recommendation fully funds the budget request of
$500,000 to cover the subsidy costs for the loans, not to
exceed $18,367,000, and $400,000 for administrative expenses to
carry out the guaranteed loan program.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $2,981,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +19,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
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 grants and
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals. The Committee
has provided $3,000,000, which is $19,000 above the level
provided in fiscal year 2003 and the same level as requested in
the budget.
New Headquarters Building
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... $45,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 45,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +45,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation finances fiscal year 2004 costs for the
new Department of Transportation headquarters building, which
would consolidate all of the department's headquarters
operating administration functions (except the Federal Aviation
Administration) from various locations around the Washington,
D. C. metropolitan area into a leased building within the
central employment area of the District of Columbia.
The Committee is concerned that, according to GSA, the cost
of leasing the new headquarters ($1,247,62,493 over 15 years)
is much greater than the estimated cost to buy the building
outright ($733,717,047). The Committee is also concerned that,
as a privately-owned office building, the new facility is
subject to zoning and permitting requirements of the District
of Columbia. Therefore, DOT tenants requirements, such as
building security, are subject to review and approval by the
District of Columbia. Although DOT has clearly stated its
security requirements to city officials, at the present time,
the required approvals have not been received. The Committee
encourages DOT and GSA to work diligently with city officials
to ensure that critical security requirements in the building
design are not compromised. Fiscal year 2004 funding will be
used for completion of design; environmental remediation of the
site in southeast Washington, D.C.; excavation and site
preparation for initial foundation work; the initial phase of
furniture acquisition; and information technology long lead
equipment procurement.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. The Federal
Government's regulatory role in civil aviation began with the
creation of an Aeronautics Branch within the Department of
Commerce pursuant to the Air Commerce Act of 1926. This Act
instructed the Secretary of Commerce to foster air commerce;
designate and establish airways; establish, operate, and
maintain aids to navigation; arrange for research and
development to improve such aids; issue airworthiness
certificates for aircraft and major aircraft components; and
investigate civil aviation accidents. In the Civil Aeronautics
Act of 1938, these activities were subsumed into a new,
independent agency named the Civil Aeronautics Authority. After
further administrative reorganizations, Congress streamlined
regulatory oversight in 1957 with the creation of two separate
agencies, the Federal Aviation Agency and the Civil Aeronautics
Board. When the Department of Transportation began its
operations on April 1, 1967, the Federal Aviation Agency was
renamed the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and became
one of several modal administrations within the department. The
Civil Aeronautics Board was later phased out with enactment of
the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978, and ceased to exist at
the end of 1984. FAA's mission expanded in 1995 with the
transfer of the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from
the Office of the Secretary, and decreased in December 2001
with the transfer of civil aviation security activities to the
new Transportation Security Administration.
Operations
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $7,023,070,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 7,590,648,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,532,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +508,930,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -58,648,000
This appropriation provides funds for the operation,
maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air
traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers
administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory,
international, medical, engineering and development programs as
well as policy oversight and overall management functions.
The operations appropriation includes the following major
activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a
national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance
of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment
and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in
aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations
governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the
administration of an aviation medical research program; (5)
administration of the acquisition, research and development
programs; (6) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (7) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $7,532,000,000 for FAA operations,
an increase of $508,930,000 (7.3 percent) above the level
provided for fiscal year 2003 and $58,648,000 below the
President's budget request. The Committee notes that the
proposed rate of increase for this appropriation is far above
the government-wide average of 4 percent.
A breakdown of the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Budget activity -----------------------------------------------------
2003 enacted \1\ 2004 estimate 2004 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services...................................... $5,678,891,700 $6,096,800,000 $6,076,724,000
Aviation regulation & certification....................... 830,572,950 873,374,000 870,505,000
Research and acquisition.................................. 206,250,600 218,481,000 218,481,000
Commercial space transportation........................... 12,244,887 12,601,000 11,776,000
Financial services........................................ 48,464,917 49,783,000 49,783,000
Human resources........................................... 68,856,504 82,029,000 75,367,000
Regional coordination..................................... 82,849,952 84,749,000 87,749,000
Staff offices............................................. 82,434,669 143,150,000 140,429,000
Office of information services............................ 29,457,275 29,681,000 29,681,000
Account-wide adjustments.................................. -16,953,454 ................ -28,495,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 7,023,070,000 7,590,648,000 7,532,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes across the board reduction of .65 percent.
USER FEES
The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees
in fiscal year 2004 that were not Congressionally authorized
for collection during fiscal year 2003. The President's budget
assumed that $37,000,000 in overflight user fees would be
collected during fiscal year 2004. However, these funds would
not be available to augment the FAA's budget, since under
current law, the receipts must be transferred to the Office of
the Secretary for the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports
program. In addition, the collection of these fees was
invalidated by a federal court earlier this year, so it is
highly unlikely that any such fees will be collected.
TRUST FUND SHARE OF FAA BUDGET
The bill derives $6,000,000,000 of the total appropriation
from the airport and airway trust fund. This is the same as the
budget estimate. The balance of the appropriation
($1,532,000,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the
Treasury. Under these provisions, 80 percent of the FAA's
operating costs will be borne by air travelers and industries
using those services. The remaining 20 percent will be borne by
the general taxpayer, regardless of whether they directly
utilize FAA services.
STATUS OF THE AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND
The Committee is concerned that recent changes in air
travel demand combined with the deleterious effects of the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 have had a serious
effect on the solvency of the airport and airway trust fund.
Over the next four years, aviation trust fund revenues are now
expected to be approximately $10 billion less than the
projections made two years ago. In fiscal year 2004 alone, the
drop in anticipated revenue is approximately $2.4 billion. The
following chart, developed by the DOT OIG using FAA data,
compares revenue estimates of April 2001 and February 2003 to
the FAA's budget estimates:
Under the administration's budget proposal for fiscal year
2004, $1.7 billion more would be disbursed from the airport and
airway trust fund than estimated receipts, drawing down the
uncommitted balance to $3 billion. The uncommitted balance will
have dropped by 37 percent in only two years, from $4.7 billion
to $3 billion. Clearly, this spending trend is unsustainable,
given current trust fund revenue projections.
CONTROLLING FAA'S OPERATING COSTS
According to the DOT Inspector General, the FAA will be
faced with increasing difficulty in coming years, as it seeks
to fuel a rapidly-growing operations budget with declining
aviation trust fund revenues. The Committee notes that the
recently-passed Flight 100 Century of Aviation Reauthorization
Bill (H.R. 2115) authorized meager percentage increases for
FAA's operating account in the coming years, as shown below.
This is a clear signal from the House that the agency must do
more--and quickly--to rein in its costs:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum %
Fiscal year Maximum authorized
authorized increase
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004.................................. $7,591,000,000 8.1
2005.................................. 7,732,000,000 1.9
2006.................................. 7,889,000,000 2.0
2007.................................. 8,064,000,000 2.2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some specific indications of FAA's budget problem are as
follows:
The agency's average staff year cost in
fiscal year 2004 is estimated at $125,920, an increase
of 26.7 percent in the past four years. This high
salary structure accounts for DOT's number one status
among all cabinet agencies in per capita payroll cost;
Special pays will cost the agency
$374,857,000 in fiscal year 2004, an increase of 11.7
percent over the previous year;
FAA's health care cost increases under the
Federal Employees Health Benefits Program have averaged
9.7 percent over the past five years, a rate far
greater than the agency's operating budget is likely to
rise;
Sick leave consumed by air traffic
controllers is almost 40 percent above the government-
wide average, raising the agency's staffing costs;
The current salary structure is such that
1,044 air traffic controllers are paid more than the
FAA Administrator, and 10,044 were paid more than
$100,000 during calendar year 2002. The highest paid
controller received $212,403, although this included
significant special pays such as overtime.
Only about 8,500 of the agency's employees--
approximately 17 percent--are covered by the pay for
performance system known as core compensation. The
balance have their pay negotiated in labor agreements.
The Committee believes it is imperative that the FAA take
significant and immediate action to lower its operating cost
growth. This could include broader coverage of employees by
core compensation, productivity improvements, process re-
engineering, or firm review of the agency's organizational
structure and administrative activities.
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING
Last year the Committee requested the DOT Inspector General
to review the number and scope of memoranda of understanding
(MOUs) between the FAA and its labor unions. Preliminary
findings from that work, which focused on the National Air
Traffic Controllers Union, found approximately 1,150 MOUs, of
which 63 percent were signed at the regional or local levels.
The IG concluded that FAA would incur at least $26,800,000 in
additional annual costs and $15,900,000 in one-time costs as a
result of these agreements. The agreements include provisions
for cash awards, time-off awards, and reassignment pay. The IG
found that: (1) the agency had issued no standard guidance for
negotiating, implementing, or signing MOUs; (2) no requirement
had been issued specifying that a labor relations specialist
participate in the negotiations on behalf of management; (3)
there was no system for tracking the number and scope of signed
MOUs; and (4) the agency had established no process for
evaluating the cost implications of MOUs during the negotiation
process. The Committee believes that this many MOUs undermines
management's ability to provide executive direction for the
agency in a way consistent and fair to all employee groups. In
effect, they represent a set of ``shadow regulations'' which
make a mockery of personnel reform and management flexibility.
The Committee is encouraged by the FAA Administrator's recent
actions to better manage the MOU process. In order to ensure
that the agency follows through on its commitment to develop a
comprehensive database of MOUs, the bill includes a prohibition
on funding to execute or continue to implement any MOU, or
revision to any MOU, that is not referenced in an automated,
searchable database of national MOUs. The Committee intends to
monitor this situation over the coming year to ensure that
funds are not provided under an MOU that are excessive or
wasteful.
EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION SYSTEM
In April 2000, the FAA implemented a new pay system for its
senior executives. The concept behind this change was to
eliminate automatic pay raises and more effectively tie pay
increases to documented performance. The agency estimated that
15 percent of executives would receive the new superior
contribution increase (SCI). However, the agency has not taken
the difficult steps to implement this system. For example, the
agency awarded an organization success increase (OSI) equal to
the government-wide raise for the senior executive service, to
all of its executives in fiscal years 2000, 2001, and 2002. In
addition to the OSI raise, the agency granted SCIs not to 15
percent of its executives, but to 65 percent of them. The
Committee will continue to monitor these payments, and will not
hesitate to reduce funding for them if the agency continues to
award across-the-board increases not based upon individual
performance.
The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity
are discussed below.
AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES
The bill provides $6,076,724,000 for air traffic services.
Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and
described below:
Adjustments to the budget estimate Amount
Delete additional controller staffing................... -$14,095,000
Controller in charge payments........................... -1,250,000
First line supervisory staffing......................... +4,000,000
Contract tower cost-sharing............................. 7,500,000
NAS handoff--reduce growth.............................. -16,231,000
Controller staffing.--The Committee recommendation deletes
the proposed $14,095,000 to hire 328 additional air traffic
controllers. The budget requested funding to hire 302
controllers for FAA facilities assuming a surge (or ``bubble'')
in retirements beginning in fiscal year 2007, and 26 ``liaison
officers'' to serve Department of Defense facilities at the
request of the North American Aerospace Defense Command
(NORAD). The Committee is not convinced the additional FAA
controllers are needed at the present time for the following
reasons:
FAA's baseline staffing does not reflect the most
recent air traffic trends and forecasts. According to the
Administrator, due to the drop in air traffic, FAA's staffing
standard calculates that the agency needs 694 fewer controllers
than are currently budgeted. Clearly if staffing is rebaselined
to the most current traffic forecast, released in March 2003,
there is flexibility to address any retirements without new
hires. The Committee also notes that, according to hearing
data, 75% of the FAA's en route centers--the largest air
traffic facilities--are currently overstaffed.
Attrition in the controller workforce has been
very low for the past five years--between 1.77% and 2.27%
annually. The number of retirees has ranged from 190 to 334,
although the number has been rising over the past 2 years. This
trend does not provide compelling evidence of an impending
surge in retirements.
Hiring today is not necessary to address
retirements occurring three years from now. FAA's statement
that it takes three years to create a certified professional
controller (CPC) fails to acknowledge that many controllers
working traffic today are not CPCs. FAA data indicates that new
controllers are sent to an operational facility within four
months of initial qualification training, not three years.
FAA's staffing estimates do not take into consideration the
thousands of operational hours performed by controllers
certified to handle traffic, but not at the CPC level.
FAA estimates that mandatory retirement, as
currently structured, would account for a significant
proportion of the surge in retirements (875 retirements over
the next 5 years). The Committee notes that existing law
authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to issue regulations
allowing waivers of mandatory retirement on a case-by-case
basis, but, thirty years after enactment of the provisions, the
regulations still have not been issued. The Committee believes
that, as a hedge against the possible retirement surge in
future years, these regulations must be issued without further
delay. For this reason, the bill includes language directing
the Secretary of Transportation to issue such regulations no
later than March 1, 2004. Implementation of this provision--
authorized by the Congress for three decades--would reduce the
need for an estimated 110 new controllers over fiscal years
2007 and 2008 if twenty percent of those affected by mandatory
retirement were authorized to remain in the workforce.
Regarding the need for controllers at defense facilities,
the Committee would note that these new liaison positions were
requested by NORAD as a temporary measure immediately following
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Although FAA
states this has now ``evolved into a permanent requirement'',
the agency does not state why. Further, even if the need were
justified, such positions should be reimbursed by either the
Department of Defense or the Department of Homeland Security,
as the positions appear to relate more to national defense or
homeland security than to FAA's day-to-day mission of
controlling air traffic. The Committee would not oppose these
being established as reimbursable positions.
First line operational supervisors.--In 1998, FAA began a
policy of replacing first line operational supervisors with air
traffic controllers by significantly expanding a program known
as ``controller in charge''. The agency reduced its supervisory
workforce, and air traffic controllers received differential
pay for those shifts they worked as a ``CIC''. The Committee
approved this initiative reluctantly, and only after assurances
from the FAA and the Office of Inspector General that adequate
quality controls were in place so that aviation safety would
not be affected. However, when the IG discovered weak quality
controls in this program, and operational errors began to rise,
the Committee froze the CIC program, restored funding for
supervisory positions, and directed FAA to hire back up to the
level of supervisors on board at the end of fiscal year 2001,
which was 1,726. The Committee is disappointed that FAA has not
followed this direction, and that stronger measures have become
necessary. FAA data indicate that at the end of fiscal year
2002, the agency had 1,609 supervisors, and the actual on board
number as of March 21, 2003 was 1,606. Although FAA claims
there is insufficient funding to honor the Committee's
direction, this ignores the fact that funds were restored to
the base budget for this purpose, and that the agency's costs
to pay air traffic controllers to perform this function under
the CIC program continue to rise. The Committee insists that
FAA honor the previous direction--and funding--to build the
supervisory level back up to 1,726. To ensure that this
direction is implemented, the bill provides an additional
$4,000,000 solely for the purpose of increasing the level of
operational supervisors to the level of 1,726. This increase is
partially offset by assuming a reduction in CIC payments of
$1,250,000. This recommendation would freeze those costs at the
estimated fiscal year 2003 level rather than provide an
increase exceeding 11 percent. With the additional supervisors
on board, fewer CIC hours will be required.
The Committee believes this will enhance aviation safety as
well. As shown below, recent analysis of the DOT Inspector
General indicates that the number of operational errors when a
CIC was on duty increased by 45.7 percent in calendar year
2001, which was far greater than the 13.6 percent increase in
total CIC hours. The IG concluded ``in our opinion, the
statistics are an indicator that the CIC program may be
adversely impacting operational errors, and these statistics
warrant a more detailed review''.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CY 2000 CY 2001 Change % increase
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of CIC hours......................................... 2,044,222 2,321,485 +277,263 +13.6
Number of errors when CIC is on duty........................ 138 201 +63 +45.7
Percentage of total errors.................................. 12% 17% +5% N/A
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic controller proficiency and development
training.--The Committee continues to note the importance of
controller training conducted under the existing air traffic
instructional services (ATIS) contract. The FAA's budget
request for 2004 included $21,087,000 for these services. In
past years, the agency has reprogrammed funds for this account,
to the detriment of controller training. Within the funds
approved for controller training, the Committee directs FAA to
utilize the planned amount of $21,087,000 under the ATIS
contract. This is designated as an item of special
Congressional interest. Any proposed adjustments from the
amount recommended shall be subject to the Congressional
reprogramming process.
Air traffic controller training.--While the Committee does
not oppose continuation of the Air Traffic Control Collegiate
Training Initiative, the Committee does not believe it should
be expanded, and directs the FAA not to expand these programs.
Further, the Committee directs the FAA Administrator to submit
a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
not later than December 31, 2003, describing the scope,
locations, numbers, and size of the current Collegiate Training
Initiative program.
Contract tower program.--The bill includes $80,313,000, as
requested, to continue the contract tower base program, and, in
addition, $7,500,000 to continue the contract tower cost-
sharing program. The Committee continues to believe this is a
valuable program that provides safety benefits to small
communities. Currently there are 30 towers in this program. The
federal investment leverages approximately $3,200,000 in local
funding. Communities in this program during fiscal year 2003,
as well as federal and local funding, are shown below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Location Federal share Local share
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Westmoreland County Airport, Latrobe, PA $164,223 $185,187
Oneida County, Utica, NY................ 298,327 104,817
Lebanon, NH............................. 273,014 59,930
Williamsport, PA........................ 160,045 173,383
Kinston Regional Jetport, Kinston, NC... 270,472 44,030
Grand Strand, Myrtle Beach, SC.......... 299,337 22,530
Macon Airport, Macon, GA................ 255,295 16,295
McKeller-Sipes Regional Airport, 146,206 59,717
Jackson, TN............................
Hickory Regional Airport, Hickory, NC... 289,228 32,136
Springdale Municipal, Springdale, AR.... 241,837 84,970
Shreveport Downtown, Shreveport, LA..... 295,309 36,498
Concord Regional, Concord, NC........... 358,271 48,855
Stillwater, OK.......................... 251,981 93,198
Merrill C. Meigs, Chicago, IL \1\....... 91,935 65,064
Central Nebraska Regional, Grand Island, 137,388 70,775
NE.....................................
Bolton Field, Bolton, OH................ 138,499 81,340
Manhattan Regional, Manhattan, KS....... 104,764 122,983
Muncie Airport, Muncie, IN.............. 122,515 100,240
New Century Aircenter, New Century, KS.. 183,721 98,926
Garden City, KS......................... 247,464 47,136
Monroe County Airport, Bloomington, IN.. 112,807 117,412
Jefferson City Memorial, MO............. 280,826 17,925
Columbus, IN............................ 136,784 99,051
Walla Walla Regional, Walla Walla, WA... 228,089 43,445
Elko Municipal, Elko, NV................ 251,992 21,912
Laughlin International, Bullhead City, 231,258 17,406
AZ.....................................
Henderson Field, Las Vegas, NV.......... 307,219 19,609
Lake Tahoe, South Lake Tahoe, CA........ 166,629 111,086
Southern CA Logistics Airport, 189,833 977,992
Victorville, CA........................
King Salmon, AK......................... 190,602 252,659
-------------------------------
Total............................. 6,425,884 3,226,521
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This airport was closed during the year.
National airspace system handoff.--The Committee
recommendation provides $111,374,000, a reduction of
$16,231,000 below the budget estimate due to budget
constraints.
Controllers on work groups.--According to the FAA, the
agency has an estimated 400 work groups established by
memoranda of understanding with the National Air Traffic
Controllers Association. In addition, there are approximately
400 controllers on detail, representing 55 staff years,
providing support to modernization and routine operating
activities. While the work of these groups and details may be
important, it is not clear that all of them are worthwhile when
there is a stated need to put more resources to the task of
controlling air traffic. This year, the FAA stated ``it is
possible that we can achieve this very important part of the
procurement process with fewer individual employees involved''.
The Committee encourages the agency in this regard, and directs
FAA to submit a report, not later than December 31, 2003, on
the number and type of work groups, the number and estimated
staff years of controllers on detail, and its estimates of how
those resources can be minimized without harming critical
modernization activities.
National airspace redesign.--The Committee directs that, of
the funds provided for national airspace redesign, not less
than $6,500,000 shall be allocated to airspace redesign
activities in the New York/New Jersey metropolitan area. The
Committee also directs FAA to submit, not later than April 1,
2004 a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on the New York/New Jersey airspace redesign
effort. This report should include details on all planned
components and elements of the redesign project, including
details on aircraft noise reduction and any ocean routing
modeling that has been conducted.
AVIATION REGULATION AND CERTIFICATION
The Committee recommends $870,505,000 for aviation
regulation and certification (AVR), a reduction of $2,869,000
below the budget estimate. Recommended adjustments to the
budget estimate are listed and described below:
Amount
Alien species action plan............................... -$3,000,000
Medallion program....................................... -1,500,000
Transfer of staffing from Office of Policy.............. +1,321,000
Transfer from F&E CFMSS and ASIS........................ +1,120,000
Drug and alcohol compliance testing..................... -810,000
Alien species action plan and medallion program.--The
Committee defers these funds due to lack of justification.
Transfer of staffing from Office of Policy.--The FAA
currently has a Regulatory Analysis Division within the Office
of Policy. This office currently has 17 positions, of which 15
are designated as economists. The mission and title of this
office suggest that it is more appropriately aligned with the
agency's regulatory mission rather than general policy
oversight. Hence the Committee recommendation transfers the
requested funding of $1,321,000 to AVR.
Transfer of funding from ``Facilities and equipment''.--The
Committee believes that the Central Flight Monitoring and
Scheduling System (CFMSS) and the Aviation Standards
Information System (ASIS) projects are more appropriately
funded in the agency's operating budget than under ``Facilities
and equipment'' due to the nature of the work being performed,
and funding is therefore transferred here, at the requested
level, from that appropriation.
Supplemental oxygen.--The Committee is concerned that air
travelers who require supplemental oxygen during flight face
significant barriers to accessing air travel. This situation is
at odds with the goals of the Air Carrier Access Act, which
prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in air
travel and require accommodations that will make air travel
accessible for passengers with disabilities. The Committee is
aware the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and the Research
and Special Projects Administration (RSPA) have entered into
discussions with the National Council on Disabilities (NCD) to
review, and where appropriate, revise policy to improve access
to air travel for patrons requiring supplemental oxygen. The
Committee encourages NCD, FAA, TSA and RSPA to work swiftly to
review, and where appropriate, approve new technologies and
procedures that will improve the ability of patients needing
supplemental oxygen to use during air travel.
Development of procedures at specified airports.--The
Committee supports and encourages FAA to expeditiously develop
procedures for: (1) land and hold short operations (LAHSO) and
standard intersecting runway operations (SIRO) at Chicago
O'Hare International Airport, runway 14R/27L; (2) standard
offset instrument approaches (SOIA) at San Francisco
International Airport; and (3) idle descent approaches at
Denver International Airport and Chicago O'Hare International.
The Committee believes each of the mentioned procedures at
these airports will provide efficiency and capacity gains.
Regarding SOIA procedures at San Francisco International, the
Committee encourages FAA to set a deadline of December 2003 for
full implementation if at all possible.
Cabin air quality.--To the extent permitted by available
funds and other priorities, the FAA is urged to undertake the
projects and studies outlined in the FAA reauthorization bill
regarding cabin air quality. The projects would include:
analysis of samples of residue from aircraft ventilation ducts
and filters after air quality incidents to identify
contaminants; analysis and study of cabin air pressure and
altitude; and establishment of an air quality incident
reporting system.
COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION
The Committee recommends $11,776,000 for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation, a reduction of $825,000 below
the budget estimate. The Committee recommendation reflects the
59 actual staff on board at the end of fiscal year 2002
compared to the budget assumption of 69; past recruitment and
hiring problems which have led to obligation delays in past
years; and a decline in commercial launches.
RESEARCH AND ACQUISITION
The Committee recommends $218,481,000, the same as the
budget estimate.
FINANCIAL SERVICES
The Committee recommends $49,783,000, the same as the
budget estimate.
Cost accounting system.--The Committee notes that, after
providing appropriations totaling $52,465,000, the promise of
an effective cost accounting system (CAS) for the FAA remains
unfulfilled. The administration has requested, and the bill
includes, an additional $8,000,000 for this project in fiscal
year 2004. The Committee expects that, over the coming year,
the FAA will formalize the internal processes specifying how
the cost accounting system is to be used by managers and senior
executives within the agency, including the frequency and types
of routine reports that are to be generated and analyzed. In
addition, the Committee is disappointed that FAA has not
resolved the issue of labor distribution reporting using Cru-X
software. The Committee directs FAA to submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later than
December 31, 2003, detailing the timeline for development of
procedural requirements and use of CAS throughout the agency
and explaining how the agency intends to resolve the Cru-X
issue.
HUMAN RESOURCES
The Committee recommends $75,367,000, a reduction of
$6,662,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction reflects
the elimination of five organizational development specialist
positions during fiscal year 2003 that is not reflected in the
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and an additional reduction to
provide a total increase of 10 percent instead of the 19.1
percent proposed.
Worker's compensation.--The Committee continues to be
concerned over FAA's high payments under the worker's
compensation program. The fiscal year 2004 budget includes
$87,842,000 for these costs. Currently, the agency has 3,731
former workers on the worker's compensation rolls, and many of
these are long-term claimants. Most of these workers are air
traffic controllers, who have an average annual payment of
$46,163. This is well above the government-wide average payment
of $28,864, and helps account for the agency's significant
annual costs under the program. The Committee encourages FAA,
working with the Department of Transportation and the
Department of Labor, to find ways to reduce the costs in this
program.
The Committee is especially concerned over the findings of
a January 17, 2003 OIG audit of traumatic injury claims.
Traumatic injury cases involve claimants who experience a
physical or stress-induced injury as a result of a traumatic
event while working. Claimants may receive up to 45 days off
with continuation of pay to recover from their injuries. The IG
audit found that these costs had risen 39 percent over the past
4 years, and there were indications of fraud and abuse. For
example, one employee filed a stress-related claim in January,
then sent a letter to his workplace asking that his mail be
redirected to Florida during his time off. A second employee
claimed to be traumatized when he observed a supervisor make an
offensive gesture at another employee, and received three days
off with pay. Another individual was found to have filed seven
claims for stress-related injuries in just over six years,
receiving 119 days off with pay. The OIG also found that many
claimants were repeatedly diagnosed by the same doctors, some
of whom distributed their business cards to employees at the
facility. These findings raise serious doubts about the
integrity of the program as currently managed. The Committee
strongly encourages FAA to include more effective monitoring of
traumatic injury claims as part of the agency's overall reform
of its worker's compensation program.
REGIONAL COORDINATION
The Committee recommends $87,749,000 for regional
coordination activities, an increase of $3,000,000 above the
budget estimate. The recommendation restores a base reduction
which was originally made in fiscal year 2003, but reprogrammed
to other activities by the agency and not restored in the
fiscal year 2004 budget.
National park overflight air tour management plans.--The
Committee notes that, since issuance of the final rule on
January 28, 2003, the FAA has received over 100 applications,
which is more than double the amount assumed in the budget
estimate. The Committee encourages the FAA to work with the
Department of the Interior toward a cost-sharing arrangement
for this work, to prevent unnecessary delay in approval of the
plans. The Committee notes that most of the benefit from
approval of the plans will accrue to park system users and not
to aviation generally. The Committee is unlikely to approve
higher funding for this item in future years without some
progress on the cost-sharing issue.
STAFF OFFICES
The Committee recommends $140,429,000 for staff offices, a
reduction of $2,721,000 below the budget estimate. Recommended
adjustments to the budget estimate are listed and described
below:
Adjustments to the budget estimate Amount
International office--staffing reduction................ -$1,000,000
Transfer of Policy staff to AVR......................... -1,321,000
Public affairs office--staffing reduction............... -200,000
Civil rights office--staffing reduction................. -200,000
International office, staffing reduction.--The
comprehensive report on international aviation safety, directed
by the Committee in fiscal year 2000, is now over three years
late. The Committee's reduction in this office last year was,
unfortunately, not significant enough to compel issuance of
this important report. The Committee recommendation for fiscal
year 2004 is intended to correct this problem.
Transfer of policy staff to AVR.--This is previously
described under ``Aviation regulation and certification''.
Public affairs office, staffing reduction.--The
recommendation allows 34 full-time positions in this office, a
reduction of 3 below the budget estimate. The Committee notes
that actual on board staffing at the end of fiscal year 2002
was only 32. The President's budget assumed growth to a level
of 37 during fiscal year 2004. This results in a reduction of
$200,000 below the budget estimate.
Civil rights office, staffing reduction.--The
recommendation allows 85 full-time positions in this office, a
reduction of 3 below the budget estimate. The Committee notes
that actual on board staffing at the end of fiscal year 2002
was only 77. The President's budget assumed growth to a level
of 88 during fiscal year 2004. This results in a reduction of
$200,000 below the budget estimate.
ACCOUNTWIDE ADJUSTMENTS
The Committee recommends $28,495,000 in account-wide
adjustments, as listed and described below:
Amount
Official time productivity savings...................... -$6,500,000
Janitorial and guard services........................... -2,504,000
WCF costs............................................... -6,275,000
Cash awards............................................. -3,228,000
Civil aviation security positions....................... -500,000
Improved management of government credit cards.......... -500,000
Travel.................................................. -8,988,000
Official time productivity savings.--Official time is
defined by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) as
authorized, paid time off from assigned government duties to
represent a union or its bargaining unit employees. Under 5
U.S.C. 71, Congress has authorized official time in two broad
categories: (1) time to negotiate collective bargaining
agreements and participate in impasse proceedings; and (2) time
in connection with other labor-management activities, provided
such time is deemed reasonable, necessary, and in the public
interest. Although time in this second category is somewhat
subjective, it is restricted by the reasonableness standard
established by law. A recent government-wide survey by OPM
revealed that the Department of Transportation paid for 612,397
hours of official time in fiscal year 2002 on behalf of 44,190
bargaining unit employees. Approximately 98 percent of these
hours are attributable to the FAA, which has 38,934 employees
in 46 separate bargaining units. The OPM analysis showed that
DOT allows 13.86 hours of official time per union employee--a
figure three times higher than the government-wide average of
4.21 hours. By comparison, the Department of Defense has ten
times as many bargaining unit employees, but allows only twice
as many total hours of official time, resulting in a ratio of
2.72 hours per union employee. Equally disturbing is the fact
that, at DOT, the official time per union employee has risen
from 5.72 hours in 1998 (when the last OPM survey was
conducted) to 13.86 in 2002--an increase of 142 percent. This
compares to a government-wide increase of 5.5 percent over the
same time period. FAA currently reports 1,424 employees using
official time, including 90 employees on 100 percent official
time. In transmitting the results of her report, the OPM
Director stated ``I believe these are significant increases
demanding new measures to ensure the level of accountability
that the Administration and Congress insist upon and the
American people expect when it comes to taxpayer dollars''. The
Committee believes FAA can achieve savings through a review of
its official time practices. The recommendation includes a
reduction of $6,500,000, which represents 15 percent of the
estimated cost of official time at the FAA.
Janitorial and guard services.--The Committee
recommendation holds these costs to 2 percent growth instead of
the 6.3 percent proposed. Given the current estimates of
inflation, the Committee believes this will be sufficient. The
recommendation allows $58,906,000 versus $61,410,000 proposed,
a reduction of $2,504,000 below the budget estimate.
Working capital fund costs.--The budget for working capital
fund (WCF) costs does not appear to reflect the substantial
transfer of FAA employees to the Department of Homeland
Security, as WCF administrative costs continue to rise. In
fiscal year 2002, those costs were $32,658,000. In fiscal year
2003, they rose to $35,476,000 even though 1,000 FAA employees
transferred to the Transportation Security Administration of
the Department of Homeland Security. In fiscal year 2004, the
budget proposes $36,736,000. The Committee recommendation
allows $30,461,000, 14 percent below the level provided in
fiscal year 2002.
Cash awards.--Given the budget constraints facing Congress
and the nation, the Committee cannot support a large increase
in cash awards. The Committee recommendation freezes these
awards at the fiscal year 2003 level, a reduction of $3,228,000
below the budget estimate.
Civil aviation security positions on detail.--The fiscal
year 2004 budget includes funding for 4 SES-equivalent
positions whose missions have been transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security. These include the director and
deputy director, office of civil aviation security operations;
senior advisor to the deputy administrator for security; and
program director, aviation security research and development
division. These positions should either be transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security or financed through
reimbursable agreement. This results in a reduction of $500,000
below the budget estimate.
Improved management of government credit cards.--The
Committee was disturbed to note the recent findings of the
General Accounting Office concerning the misuse and abuse of
government credit cards by FAA employees. This report
discovered cases where improper and wasteful purchases were
made totaling $5,400,000. For example, the IG identified 25
purchases for 123 personal digital assistants (PDAs) costing as
much as $558 each, complete with assessories such as high-cost
leather PDA cases. They found instances where government credit
cards were used to purchase internet services for FAA
employees, even though the agency provides internet access for
all its staff, and cases where store gift cards and gift
certificates where purchased with little or no justification
and no audit trail. They found almost 1,000 purchases that were
deliberately split into two or more segments to avoid
triggering single-purchase reporting requirements. Although FAA
has responded to these findings in a positive way, according to
hearing data this year no employee has yet been compelled to
repay the government for improper charges. The Committee
believes that more effective management will lead to base
budget savings, and the recommended bill assumes savings of
$500,000 in this regard. This reduction could also be mitigated
through more aggressive collection of improper charges, which
the Committee hopes the agency will pursue. The bill includes a
limitation prohibiting funds in this Act from being used to
purchase store gift cards or gift certificates. Although the
FAA has made such a change in its internal policy documents,
the Committee believes that, based upon the GAO's findings,
such actions should be prohibited by law.
Travel.--The recommendation allows $121,641,000 for travel,
a reduction of $8,988,000 below the budget estimate and an
increase of $12,313,000 (12.3 percent) over the fiscal year
2003 estimated level.
BILL LANGUAGE
Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee
bill includes the limitation requested in the President's
budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned
auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United
States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such
stations during fiscal year 2004.
Second career training program.--Once again this year, the
Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for
the second career training program. This prohibition has been
in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included
in the President's budget request.
Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in
fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday
premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually
worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5
U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work
during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is
not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a
part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * *
premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic
pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and
previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v.
United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that
employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive
premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back
pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually
worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this
provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded
liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating
budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for
fiscal years 1995 through 2003.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill maintains
the provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used
to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C)
activities through the working capital fund (WCF). Public Law
106-181 authorize the transfer of these activities from the
Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee
supported. The Committee believes this work should be conducted
by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the WCF.
General Provision--Federal Aviation Administration
The bill (sections 101-105) continues general provisions
enacted in fiscal year 2003 which: (1) provide the authority
for airports to transfer certain instrument landing systems to
the FAA; (2) limit technical staff years at the Center for
Advanced Aviation Systems Development to no more than 350 in
fiscal year 2004; (3) prohibit funds for engineering work
related to an additional runway at Louis Armstrong New Orleans
International Airport; (4) prohibit funds to require airport
sponsors to provide space to the FAA without cost, subject to
certain conditions; and (5) authorizes the FAA to accept funds
from an airport for FAA to hire staff or consultants for the
purpose of facilitating the timely processing, review, and
completion of environmental activities associated with the
project.
Payments to Air Carriers
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $51,761,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\.................. ................
Recommended in the bill \1\........................... 63,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -11,239,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +63,000,000
\1\ Excludes $50,000,000 permanently appropriated in The Federal
Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 from resources available to the
Federal Aviation Administration.
\2\ The budget assumes $50,000,000 for the essential air service
program: the collection of $37,000,000 in overflight fees and the
balance of $13,000,000 to be paid from other resources available to
the FAA.
The payments to air carriers, or essential air service
(EAS), program was originally created by the Airline
Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to continue air
service to communities that had received federally mandated air
service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides
subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet
certain criteria.
The Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization Act of
1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user
fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation
Administration to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land
in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In
addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees for
authorized expenses of the FAA and stipulated that the first
$50,000,000 of annual fee collections must be used to finance
the EAS program. In the event of a shortfall in fees, the law
requires FAA to make up the difference from other funds
available to the agency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $63,000,000 for the EAS program.
The President's budget requested no funding for this program,
but assumed the transfer of $50,000,000 from resources
available to the Federal Aviation Administration.
According to the General Accounting Office, there are 404
nonhub airports in the United States that generally serve small
and rural communities. Collectively, these airports carry
approximately 3 percent of all airline passengers in the United
States. The EAS program provides air service subsidies to a
small number of these communities. Between 1995 and 2002, the
average federal subsidy per community rose from $424,000 to
$838,000, and the average subsidy per passenger rose from $79
to $229--an increase of 190 percent in just seven years. At the
same time that program costs have grown, the level of service
has declined. Over the same time period discussed above, the
number of subsidized communities has dropped from 75 to 68, and
the median number of daily passengers enplaned in each
community dropped from 11 to 8. For example, one community in
fiscal year 2003 will receive $850,000 in federal funding to
transport an average of 2 passengers per day to the nearest
airport 200 miles away. This represents a subsidy of almost $3
per passenger per mile, or $494 per passenger. Another
community is paid $1,200,000 each year--$263 per passenger--
when the nearest airport is only 69 miles away. Clearly, the
Department of Transportation is paying more for this program,
and getting less, due largely to changing circumstances in the
aviation industry.
The Committee acknowledges that air service under this
program is considered essential by many communities, and also
acknowledges concerns with the subsidy levels. To improve
understanding of all issues, the Committee directs the
Secretary of Transportation to require each community
participating in the EAS program to submit, not later than
March 1, 2004, a statement explaining how federal, state, and
local efforts could cooperate to improve how essential
transportation needs can be met, including flexible options of
how funds might best be obtained and applied to meet those
needs. This information shall be compiled and submitted to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, along with the
Secretary's recommendations, not later than April 15, 2004.
Facilities and Equipment
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $2,961,645,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 2,916,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,900,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -61,645,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -16,000,000
The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal
means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and
airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major
capital investments required by other agency programs,
experimental research and development facilities, and other
improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace
system.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,900,000,000
for this program, a decrease of $61,645,000 (2 percent) below
the level provided for fiscal year 2003 and $16,000,000 below
the budget estimate. The bill provides that of the total amount
recommended, $2,479,158,800 is available for obligation until
September 30, 2006, and $420,841,200 (the amount for personnel
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2004.
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past
appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request.
The following table shows the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this
appropriation:
FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Committee
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category 1: Improve Aviation Safety.................... $468,623,000 $273,900,000 $274,180,000
Terminal Business Unit............................. 151,183,000 137,600,000 135,600,000
Aviation Weather Services Improvements............. 23,440,000 13,200,000 13,200,000
Low Level Windshear Alert System (LLWAS)--Upgrade.. 1,600,000 3,900,000 3,900,000
Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS)............. 15,000,000 13,900,000 12,100,000
Integrated Flight Quality Assurance (IFQA)......... 500,000 2,100,000 .................
Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS)....... 2,100,000 ................. .................
Performance Enhancement Systems (PENS)............. 2,600,000 ................. .................
Safe Flight 21..................................... 40,000,0000 30,300,000 30,300,000
Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping.... 57,200,000 42,800,000 52,600,000
Aircraft Related Equipment Program................. 16,000,000 13,700,000 12,580,000
National Aviation Safety Data Analysis Center 2,000,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
(NASDAC)..........................................
Louisville, KY technology demonstration............ 10,000,000 ................. 8,000,000
Explosive Detection Technology..................... 144,000,000 ................. .................
Volcano Monitoring................................. 3,000,000 ................. .................
System Approach for Safety Oversight............... ................. 12,000,000 3,000,000
Aviation Safety Knowledge Management Environment... ................. 2,500,000 1,000,000
Category 2: Improve Efficiency of the Air Traffic 816,780,300 934,128,300 926,773,300
Control System........................................
Terminal Business Unit............................. 490,030,300 458,128,300 .................
Standard Terminal Automation System Replacement.... ................. ................. 119,800,000
ARTS/DBRITE Sustainment............................ ................. ................. 30,000,000
Terminal Interim Remote Tower Displays............. ................. ................. 2,500,000
Tower Datalink Services (TDLS)..................... ................. ................. 2,500,000
ATCBI-6............................................ ................. ................. 20,000,000
ATC En Route Radar Facilities Improvements......... ................. ................. 2,700,000
Terminal ATC Facilities Replacement................ ................. ................. 151,245,000
ATC/TRACON Facilities Improvement.................. ................. ................. 38,478,300
Terminal Digital Radar (ASR-11).................... ................. ................. 80,000,000
ASR-9 SLEP......................................... ................. ................. 21,950,000
Terminal Applied Engineering....................... ................. ................. 3,400,000
Precision Runway Monitors.......................... ................. ................. 8,000,000
Houston Area Air Traffic System.................... ................. ................. 20,000,000
PCS Moves.......................................... ................. ................. 200,000
New York Integrated Control Complex................ ................. ................. 2,000,000
Aeronautical Data Link (ADL)....................... 29,700,000 23,150,000 6,550,000
Free Flight Phase 2................................ 70,000,000 113,100,000 100,000,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)....................... 13,000,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Free Flight Phase 1................................ 36,600,000 37,400,000 27,000,000
Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS).......... 12,100,000 11,800,000 11,800,000
Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communications 66,100,000 85,850,000 85,850,000
System (NEXCOM)...................................
En Route Automation Program........................ 71,050,000 173,900,000 165,000,000
Weather and Radar Processor (WARP)................. 13,600,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Long Range Radar Sustainment....................... 7,500,000 ................. .................
ATOMS Local Area/Wide Area Network................. 1,100,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP)......... 1,000,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
New York Integrated Control Complex................ 5,000,000 ................. .................
IDS--Flight Service Stations....................... ................. 2,000,000 2,000,000
IDS--Terminal Facilities........................... ................. 5,000,000 2,000,000
Category 3: Increase Capacity of the NAS............... 432,975,000 328,500,000 369,623,800
Navigation and Landing Aids........................ 329,275,000 222,700,000 .................
Local Area Augmentation System..................... ................. ................. 28,100,000
Wide Area Augmentation System...................... ................. ................. 117,923,800
VOR/DME............................................ ................. ................. 8,600,000
Approach Lighting System Improvement Program ................. ................. 19,200,000
(ALSIP)...........................................
Instrument Landing System (ILS) Establishment...... ................. ................. 36,000,000
Runway Visual Range................................ ................. ................. 7,000,000
DME Sustainment.................................... ................. ................. 4,000,000
NDB Sustainment.................................... ................. ................. 1,100,000
Visual Navaids (PAPI/REIL)......................... ................. ................. 5,000,000
VASI Replace With PAPI............................. ................. ................. 5,900,000
Navigation and Landing Aids Service Life Extension ................. ................. .................
Program...........................................
Loran-C............................................ ................. ................. 25,000,000
Transponder Landing System (TLS)................... ................. ................. 6,000,000
Oceanic Automation System.......................... 87,400,000 69,000,000 69,000,000
Gulf of Mexico Offshore Program.................... 2,300,000 ................. .................
Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS).......... 14,000,000 32,800,000 32,800,000
Instrument Approach Procedures Automation.......... ................. 4,000,000 4,000,000
Category 4: Improve Reliability of the NAS............. 434,310,000 472,710,000 456,240,000
Guam Center Radar Approach Control (CERAP)-- 5,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Relocate..........................................
Terminal Voice Switch Replacement/Enhanced TVS..... 14,200,000 12,000,000 14,200,000
Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustained Support...... 5,500,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
En Route Automation Program........................ 150,000,000 173,800,000 163,800,000
ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements..... 35,000,000 34,200,000 34,200,000
Air Traffic Management (ATM)....................... 24,500,000 29,000,000 22,000,000
Critical Telecommunication Support................. 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
FAA Telecommunications Infrastructure (FTI)........ 42,000,000 51,200,000 51,200,000
Air/Ground Communications Infrastructure........... 22,800,000 24,100,000 24,100,000
Voice Recorder Replacement Program (VRRP).......... 5,000,000 3,300,000 3,300,000
NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS)........ 16,000,000 22,100,000 22,100,000
Flight Service Station (FSS) Modernization......... 5,700,000 5,800,000 5,800,000
FSAS Operational and Supportability Implementation 19,710,000 19,710,000 19,710,000
System (OASIS)....................................
Weather Message Switching Center Replacement....... 2,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Flight Service Station Switch Modernization........ 13,200,000 5,400,000 5,400,000
Alaskan NAS Interfacility Communications System 4,000,000 900,000 900,000
(ANICS)...........................................
Electrical Power Systems--Sustain/Support.......... 45,000,000 51,000,000 51,000,000
NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM)................. 9,400,000 12,000,000 12,000,000
Aeronautical Center Infrastructure Modernization... 11,700,000 13,000,000 13,000,000
Frequency and Spectrum Engineering................. 2,600,000 3,600,000 1,930,000
NAS Interference, Detection, Location and ................. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Mitigation........................................
Category 5: Improve the Efficiency of Mission Support.. 413,678,510 458,221,700 452,341,700
NAS Improvement of System Support Laboratory....... 2,700,000 2,700,000 2,700,000
Technical Center Facilities........................ 12,000,000 14,000,000 11,000,000
Technical Center Building and Plant Support........ 3,000,000 3,500,000 3,500,000
En Route Communications and Control Facilities 1,307,950 1,203,390 1,203,390
Improvements......................................
DOD/FAA Facilities Transfer........................ 3,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
Terminal Communications--Improve................... 1,249,300 1,012,000 1,012,000
Flight Service Facilities Improvement.............. 1,223,240 1,276,890 1,276,890
Navigation and Landing Aids--Improve............... 5,034,020 5,929,420 5,929,420
FAA Buildings and Equipment........................ 11,000,000 11,200,000 11,200,000
Air Navigational Aids and ATC Facilities (Local 2,100,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Projects).........................................
Computer Aided Eng and Graphics (CAEG) 2,800,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Modernization.....................................
Information Technology Integration................. 1,600,000 1,600,000 .................
Operational Data Management System (ODMS).......... 3,000,000 ................. .................
NAS Aeronautical Info Management Enterprise System. ................. 10,300,000 10,300,000
Logistics Support Systems and Facilities (LSSF).... 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Test Equipment--Maintenance Support for Replacement 1,700,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
Facility Security Risk Management.................. 25,000,000 41,600,000 30,000,000
Information Security............................... 8,000,000 11,500,000 8,000,000
Distance Learning.................................. 1,300,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
National Airspace System (NAS) Training Facilities. 2,300,000 4,200,000 4,200,000
System Engineering and Development Support......... 23,800,000 28,300,000 28,300,000
Program Support Leases............................. 36,400,000 41,100,000 41,100,000
Logistics Support Services (LSS)................... 7,500,000 7,900,000 7,900,000
Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center--Leases.......... 14,600,000 14,600,000 14,600,000
In-Plant NAS Contract Support Services............. 2,900,000 2,800,000 9,800,000
Transition engineering Support..................... 35,000,000 39,800,000 39,800,000
FAA Corporate Systems Architecture................. 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Technical Support Services Contract (TSSC)......... 41,700,000 47,600,000 47,600,000
Resource Tracking Program (RTP).................... 2,500,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
Center for Advanced Aviation System Development.... 81,364,000 90,800,000 84,620,000
Operational Evolution Plan......................... 1,000,000 2,000,000 .................
NAS Facilities OSHA and Environmental Standards 28,400,000 28,300,000 28,300,000
Compliance........................................
Fuel Storage Tank Replacement and Monitoring....... 8,500,000 5,600,000 5,600,000
Hazardous Materials Management..................... 20,500,000 19,000,000 19,000,000
Research Aircraft Replacement...................... 15,000,000 ................. 15,000,000
Category 6: PCB&T Only................................. 404,655,240 448,540,000 420,841,200
Personnel and related Expenses..................... 404,655,240 448,540,000 420,841,200
Category 7: Accountwide Adjustments.................... 10,000,000 ................. .................
NAS Handoff--Transfer to Operating Expenses........ 10,000,000 ................. .................
Totals................................................. 2,981,022,050 2,916,000,000 2,900,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMPROVE AVIATION SAFETY
The bill includes $274,180,000 for programs to improve
aviation safety.
Terminal business unit.--The Committee recommendation
reduces the medium-intensity airport weather system (MIAWS)
from $4,000,000 to $2,000,000 due to excessive concurrency. A
table comparing the fiscal year 2003 enacted level to the
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation by project is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 House
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEXRAD upgrade............................................ $9,100,000 $10,600,000 $8,600,000
Terminal doppler weather radar............................ 5,700,000 7,200,000 7,200,000
ASDE...................................................... 10,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
AMASS..................................................... 14,583,000 0 0
Weather systems processor................................. 2,200,000 0 0
ASDE-X.................................................... 109,600,000 114,800,000 114,800,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 151,183,000 137,600,000 135,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation safety analysis system.--The Committee
recommendation deletes funding for several small projects due
to low priority and lack of justification, including the
covered position decision support subsystem (-$375,000), the
clinic health awareness program system (-$175,000), the parts
reporting system (-$50,000), and the FAA ID media system
(-$900,000). In addition, the Committee reduces funding for
infrastructure support by $300,000.
Integrated flight quality assurance.--The bill defers
funding for this project due to weak justification, a reduction
of $2,100,000 below the budget estimate.
Safe flight 21.--The Committee recommends $30,300,000, as
requested, of which $6,900,000 is for the Ohio River project
and $21,400,000 is for Project Capstone in Alaska.
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The
Committee recommends $52,600,000, an increase of $9,800,000
above the budget estimate. Most of the increase is attributable
to retaining airport-related research in this budget line, as
in past years. The budget proposed, once again this year, to
transfer that activity to ``Grants in aid for airports''. This
research is not authorized under the grants-in-aid program, and
the Committee concurs that it would be an inappropriate use of
funding provided to that program. A table comparing the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level to the fiscal year 2004 budget estimate
and the Committee recommendation by project is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Committee
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Runway incursion.......................................... $6,700,000 $8,200,000 $8,200,000
Aviation system capacity improvement...................... 5,150,000 6,500,000 6,500,000
Separation standards...................................... 2,200,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
Airspace management laboratory............................ 4,600,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
GA/vertical flight technology............................. 1,000,000 1,400,000 1,400,000
Operational concept validation............................ 1,250,000 2,700,000 2,700,000
Software engineering...................................... 1,000,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
NAS requirements development.............................. - - - 3,000,000 3,000,000
WAAS...................................................... 3,100,000 - - - - - -
LAAS...................................................... 2,800,000 - - - - - -
Domestic RVSM............................................. 4,200,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
Development system assurance.............................. 2,700,000 - - - - - -
Safer skies............................................... 2,000,000 3,400,000 3,400,000
Lithium technologies to mitigate ASR...................... 1,000,000 - - - 1,000,000
ROWS--Gulfport-Biloxi Airport, MS......................... 500,000 - - - - - -
Airfield improvement program.............................. 2,000,000 - - - - - -
Wind/weather research, Juneau, AK......................... 5,500,000 - - - - - -
Phased array radar technology............................. 2,000,000 - - - 3,000,000
Airport research.......................................... 7,500,000 - - - 7,500,000
Fogeye.................................................... 2,000,000 - - - - - -
Required navigation performance (RNP)..................... - - - 2,000,000 2,000,000
NAS safety assessment..................................... - - - 1,000,000 1,000,000
Cyber security for NAS development........................ - - - 1,700,000 - - -
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 57,200,000 42,800,000 52,600,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Phased array radar technology.--The bill includes
$3,000,000 to continue the collaborative effort between FAA and
NOAA's National Severe Storms Laboratory to continue research
and testing of phased array radar technology and to incorporate
airport/aircraft tracking and weather information. This is
$1,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003.
Aircraft related equipment.--The reduction of $1,120,000 in
this program reflects the transfer of the CFMSS and ASIS
projects to FAA ``Operations'', as previously discussed.
Technology demonstration, Louisville International Airport,
KY.--The Committee recommends $8,000,000 to continue this
important initiative at the Louisville International Airport in
Kentucky.
System approach for safety oversight.--The Committee
recommends $3,000,000 for this new program, a reduction of
$9,000,000 below the budget estimate. FAA's description and
justification of this program are both vague and overly
general. Until the agency can more clearly explain the benefits
of the program, the Committee believes a lower amount is
justified.
Aviation safety knowledge management environment.--The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this new program, a
reduction of $1,500,000 below the budget estimate. FAA's
description and justification of this program are both vague
and overly general. Until the agency can more clearly explain
the benefits of the program, the Committee believes a lower
amount is justified.
IMPROVE EFFICIENCY OF THE AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM
The Committee recommends $926,773,200 for programs and
activities designed to improve the efficiency of the air
traffic control system.
Terminal business unit.--The Committee is concerned that
the consolidation of projects into this large, half-billion-
dollar program is reducing Congressional oversight into funding
for the important projects contained within. Under the existing
reprogramming guidelines, the agency could shift $73,500,000 of
fiscal year 2003 funds in this program to other activities
without even advising the Congress. Given the importance of
these programs and the need for strong monitoring and
oversight, the Committee recommends funding in individual
budget lines, a practice maintained until a few years ago, when
funds were consolidated.
Standard termination automation replacement system
(STARS).--The Committee recommends $119,800,000 for this
program. The recommendation includes a transfer of $11,700,000
budgeted under ``ATC/Tracon facilities improvement'' for
facility modifications to accommodate the STARS system and a
general reduction of $10,000,000. Although the STARS program
has made some progress over the past year, the Committee sees
no evidence that the program is ready for accelerated
implementation. In fact, the FAA's past history would make one
wary of moving too quickly in the deployment of new software
and hardware technologies. The House-passed version of the
aviation reauthorization bill (H. R. 2115) authorizes the
Administrator to sign a contract, with a term of up to 20
years, for accelerated field deployment of terminal automation
systems including STARS. If the Administrator makes such a
decision, the bill requires the use of $200,000,000 in this
appropriation during fiscal year 2004 for the program,
notwithstanding the fact that no funding has been budgeted for
this purpose. The Committee will not allow its funding
decisions and priorities to be rearranged after the
appropriations Act is signed, particularly for an effort where
no compelling justification has been submitted. Therefore, the
bill includes a limitation prohibiting funds in this Act from
implementing section 106 of H.R. 2115, as passed the House of
Representatives on June 12, 2003. The Committee also directs
the FAA not to obligate more than fifty percent of funds
appropriated in this Act for STARS until the program has been
completely baselined, including the estimate of all facility
modification and implementation costs, and that baseline
information has been submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
STARS implementation in Oklahoma City, OK.--The Committee
understands that FAA intends to implement the STARS system in
Oklahoma City air traffic control facilities no later than June
2004. The Committee expects FAA to meet this schedule, and
incur no further slippage in the schedule at this facility.
ARTS/DBRITE sustainment.--The Committee recommends
$29,000,000 for sustainment of the ARTS and DBRITE systems, an
increase of $12,000,000 above the budget estimate. The
Committee believes the current budget is insufficient to
address software support and other critical needs of this
program in fiscal year 2004. The Committee intends that these
additional funds be used to fund replacements for aging DBRITE
displays, to support safety function and ADS-B testing for
demonstration activities at Louisville International Airport,
to replace critical data recording devices, and for software
upgrades. The Committee directs FAA not to reprogram any of the
base or additional funding provided for this project except
through the Congressional reprogramming process.
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The
Committee recommends $151,245,000 for the replacement of aged
air traffic control towers. Funds shall be distributed as
follows:
Location Amount
Atlanta, GA............................................. $4,159,909
Cleveland, OH........................................... 2,000,000
Morristown, NJ.......................................... 1,300,000
Dayton, OH.............................................. 4,000,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................ 920,000
Oshkosh, WI............................................. 385,000
Toledo, OH.............................................. 975,000
Abilene, TX............................................. 1,760,000
Cahokia, IL............................................. 625,000
Memphis, TN............................................. 5,000,000
Baltimore, MD........................................... 600,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 5,658,300
Oakland, CA............................................. 21,636,600
Manchester, NH.......................................... 8,300,000
St. Louis, MO (Tracon).................................. 1,195,500
Addison Field, Dallas, TX............................... 2,005,000
Reno, NV................................................ 2,000,000
Seattle, WA............................................. 2,000,000
Seattle, WA (Tracon).................................... 5,280,000
Fort Wayne, IN.......................................... 1,220,000
Newark, NJ.............................................. 500,000
Port Columbus, OH....................................... 700,000
Billings, MT............................................ 3,000,000
Savannah, GA............................................ 1,000,000
Newburgh, NY............................................ 1,500,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 1,000,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 750,000
Everett, WA............................................. 2,000,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 1,500,000
Merrimack, NH (Tracon).................................. 3,217,700
Phoenix, AZ............................................. 3,027,000
Warrenton, VA........................................... 4,110,000
Dulles International, Chantilly, VA..................... 4,500,000
Topeka, KS.............................................. 1,500,000
Newport News, VA........................................ 2,000,000
Battle Creek, MI........................................ 1,000,000
Mathis, CA.............................................. 4,300,000
Huntsville International, AL............................ 8,000,000
Front Range Airport, CO................................. 2,920,000
McCarran International, NV.............................. 4,000,000
Cherry Capital, MI...................................... 4,000,000
Spokane International, WA............................... 10,000,000
Boise Airport, ID....................................... 6,000,000
Phoenix Sky Harbor, AZ (parking structure).............. 2,000,000
Tulsa International, OK................................. 2,500,000
Kalamazoo/Battle Creek International, MI................ 4,000,000
Palm Beach International, FL............................ 1,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 151,245,000
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$80,000,000, a reduction of $20,000,000 below the budget
estimate.
ASR-9 service life extension program.--The Committee
recommends $25,950,000 for the ASR-9 service life extension
program (SLEP). The Committee continues to believe that this is
a valuable program.
Houston area air traffic system.--The Committee recommends
$20,000,000, an increase of $14,000,000 above the budget
estimate. The Committee notes that FAA has been reprogramming
funds out of this important project, which has caused delays in
the program. In order to prevent future diversion of funding,
the bill includes a provision specifying that $20,000,000 is
solely for this program. The Committee encourages FAA to convey
the importance of this program to its terminal business unit,
and expects the agency to include sufficient funds in future
budgets to complete the project without further delay.
New York integrated control complex.--The Committee
recommends $2,000,000, a reduction of $3,000,000 below the
budget estimate. The Committee notes that the Houston area air
traffic system was initiated before this similar project, and
believes the first priority should be given to ensuring the
Houston project remains on schedule. Further, the Committee has
not seen a firm cost estimate for this very expensive project.
The FAA is directed to provide a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, not later than December 31, 2003,
on the projected cost, schedule, and benefits of the New York
integrated control complex, including the degree to which
airspace will be redesigned.
Aeronautical datalink applications.--The recommended
reduction of $16,600,000 would reduce funds for controller-
pilot datalink communications (CPDLC) build 1A from $20,600,000
to $4,000,000. On April 15, 2003, FAA's Joint Resources Council
terminated this project due to slow anticipated equipage rates
by the commercial airlines; projected difficulty in certifying
the system; and changes in the en route automation technology
program which lowered system benefits. Although the agency
requested that $8,000,000 of this funding be retained for
future planning and system sustainment, the Committee believes
this is excessive and instead recommends $4,000,000 for the
effort.
Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends
$27,000,000, a reduction of $10,400,000 below the budget
estimate. The Committee notes that prior year funding for this
program has been excessive, and has been reprogrammed to other
projects, indicating that lower rates of funding are required.
In addition, the Committee believes it is time for many
sustainment activities to transition to the operations budget.
En route automation program.--The recommended reduction of
$8,900,000 reflects the agency's tendency over the past few
years to reprogram a large amount of the appropriation for this
project to other activities.
Information display system, terminal facilities.--The
Committee believes that this effort is premature at the scale
proposed in the budget, and recommends $2,000,000, a reduction
of $3,000,000. This program is to design an integrated display
to replace the various separate displays currently in air
traffic control facilities. Funds would be used to procure and
install ACE-IDS systems at a number of air traffic control
facilities to initiate the program. The Committee believes that
some computer-human interface and requirements development work
will be needed before procurement begins. In addition, the
Committee has not seen an overall plan for this effort,
including the total estimated cost and the number of facilities
to receive the system. While the Committee supports the general
need for such a system, it is not clear that the project is
ready to enter the procurement phase.
Advanced surface observing system.--Of the funds provided
for advanced surface observing system, the Committee directs
the following allocations: Posey Field Airport, AL (install
AWSS), $800,000; Newport Municipal Airport, AR (install AWSS),
$520,000; and Wautoma Airport, WI (install ASOS), $250,000.
INCREASE CAPACITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
The Committee recommends $369,623,800 for programs to
increase the capacity of the national airspace system.
Navigation and landing aids.--The Committee is concerned
that the consolidation of projects into this large program is
reducing Congressional oversight of funding for the important
projects contained within. Under the existing reprogramming
guidelines, the agency could shift $49,391,000 of fiscal year
2003 funds in this program to other activities without even
advising the Congress. Given the importance of these programs
and the need for strong monitoring and oversight, the Committee
recommends funding in individual budget lines.
Local area augmentation system.--The recommendation
includes $28,100,000, a reduction of $6,300,000 below the
budget estimate. The recommendation would reduce studies for
category II/III capabilities by $5,000,000 and program
management by $1,300,000. The local area augmentation system
(LAAS) is a new precision landing system with the potential to
provide great gains in landing system efficiency and safety.
The program has enjoyed considerable support over the years
from this Committee as well as industry. However, the DOT
Inspector General recently reported that expectations for LAAS
need to be reset with respect to how much the system will cost,
when it will be delivered, and what benefits are realistic.
LAAS was expected to be operational in 2004 but is now planned
for late 2006, and system costs and benefits are now under
review. FAA needs to take steps now to prevent a recurrence of
the problems that plagued the wide area augmentation system,
including huge cost overruns and performance problems. The
Committee is disappointed that, despite improved management and
planning tools, the FAA has not learned from past mistakes, and
could repeat them. The Committee believes that this new landing
system has potential for enhancing the capacity of the national
airspace system. However, a much more disciplined approach is
needed and is a prerequisite for future funding. The Committee
directs FAA not to provide funds for production of category I
LAAS systems beyond the limited number planned, or to exercise
options for additional systems, until: (1) at least one system
has been certified as safe for pilots to use; and (2) revised
cost, schedule, and benefit baselines have been approved by the
FAA Administrator and submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations for review. In addition, in future
budget requests FAA must clearly distinguish between funds for
LAAS category I performance and the more demanding category II/
III performance, which is now clearly a research and
development effort.
Wide area augmentation system.--The recommendation includes
$120,300,000 for further development, implementation, and
sustainment of the wide area augmentation system, the same as
the budget estimate.
VOR/DME.--Of the funds provided for VOR/DME, the Committee
directs the following allocations: Sarasota/Bradenton
International Airport, FL (relocate VORTAC, including land
acquisition), $4,500,000; John F. Kennedy Memorial Airport, WI
(install VOR and DME), $400,000; and Rice Lake Regional
Airport, WI (install VOR and DME), $400,000.
Instrument landing system establishment.--The
recommendation includes $36,000,000 for establishment of
instrument landing systems (ILSs) nationwide. Funding is to be
distributed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items in the budget estimate...... Various nationwide.. $19,560,000
Gadsden Airport, AL............... Purchase and install 2,000,000
ILS.
McCook Municipal, NE.............. Purchase and install 910,000
ILS.
Leesburg Executive, VA............ Purchase and install 1,000,000
ILS/Glideslope.
Baxter County Regional, AR........ Purchase and install 1,000,000
ILS.
Logan Airport, UT................. Purchase and install 1,500,000
ILS with MALSR.
Lee Gilmer Memorial, GA........... Purchase and install 1,000,000
ILS.
Eugene Airport, OR................ Install category I 750,000
ILS with ALS, PAPI,
REILs.
Harnett County Airport, NC........ Purchase and install 700,000
ILS.
Eagle River Union Airport, WI..... Install localizer, 625,000
ALS, and DME.
Anson County Airport, NC.......... ILS and AWOS........ 1,500,000
Freeman Municipal Airport, IN..... Glideslope and AWOS. 355,000
Bishop Airport, CA................ Purchase and install 800,000
ILS.
Stevens Point Municipal, WI....... Install ILS, DME, 1,500,000
glideslope,
localizer, MALSR,
and outer marker.
Cleveland Hopkins International, Purchase and install 1,500,000
OH. ILS on runway 10; 2
PAPIs.
Big Sandy Airport, KY............. Purchase and install 300,000
ILS.
Williamsburg/Whitley County, KY... Purchase and install 1,000,000
ILS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Visual navaids.--The bill includes $10,000,000 for visual
navaids such as the precision approach path indicator (PAPI)
and runway end identification lights (REIL). The increase of
$5,000,000 above the budget estimate is for acquisition of
additional PAPI systems.
Navigation and landing aid service life extension
program.--The Committee recommends no funding for this program,
as it appears to duplicate the $5,929,400 provided under
``Navigation and landing aids--improve'' for the upgrading and
improvement of various navigational aids such as localizers,
approach lighting and runway end lighting, distance measuring
equipment, and non-directional beacons. Also, the Committee
recommendation includes additional funding for the acquisition
of new systems, which will allow retirement of older systems
rather than service life extension. The Committee
recommendation results in a reduction of $6,800,000 to the
budget estimate.
Approach lighting system improvement program.--The
Committee recommends $19,200,000 for the approach lighting
system improvement program (ALSIP). Funds shall be distributed
as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amount
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Items in the budget estimate...... Various nationwide.. $8,600,000
Max Westheimer Airport, OK........ Install MALSR with 800,000
REIL and ILS.
Gary/Chicago Airport, IN.......... Replace navaids; 1,200,000
upgrade RVR.
Baton Rouge Metro, LA............. Category II runway 1,000,000
lighting.
North Las Vegas and Henderson REILs............... 500,000
Executive, NV.
Lambert St. Louis Intl, MO........ Navaids; ALSF-2 2,000,000
relocate.
Hartsfield International, GA...... Install ALSF-2 on 2,000,000
runway 26R and 27L.
Cincinnati International, OH...... Navaids for new 2,000,000
north-south runway,
17/35.
Wichita Mid-Continent Airport, KS. Instrument approach 500,000
lighting, runway
19L.
Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS.. Instrument approach 600,000
lighting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Loran-C.--The Committee recommendation includes $25,000,000
for continued modernization of the Loran-C navigation system,
the same amount as enacted for fiscal year 2003. The Committee
directs that none of these funds be reprogrammed except through
the Congressional reprogramming process.
Transponder landing system.--The recommendation includes
$6,000,000 for the transponder landing system (TLS).
The recommendation includes $2,100,000 to install TLS
systems at each of the following locations: Glasgow Airport,
KY, and Palm Springs International, CA.
IMPROVE RELIABILITY OF THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM
The Committee recommends $456,240,000 for programs to
increase the reliability of the national airspace system.
Terminal voice switch replacement.--The recommendation of
$14,200,000 provides the same level of funding as enacted for
fiscal year 2003. This results in an increase of $2,200,000
above the budget estimate.
En route automation program.--The Committee recommends
$163,800,000, a reduction of $10,000,000 below the budget
estimate. The recommendation defers $10,000,000 of the
$16,000,000 budgeted for en route system enhancements due to
lack of justification. Within the total amount provided for
this program, $2,100,000 is continued funding for the initial
academy training system at the FAA Academy.
Air traffic management.--The recommendation reduces the
departure spacing program (DSP) from $11,000,000 to $4,000,000
due to budget constraints and lack of justification.
Frequency and spectrum engineering.--The Committee believes
that some of these studies are more appropriately performed
under the operations appropriation. The recommendation of
$1,930,000 represents a reduction of $1,670,000 below the
budget estimate.
IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF MISSION SUPPORT
The Committee recommends $452,341,700 for programs to
improve mission support activities of the FAA.
Technical center facilities.--The recommendation of
$11,000,000 is $1,000,000 below the amount enacted for fiscal
year 2003 and $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. This
program provides operations and maintenance funding for FAA
facilities at the William J. Hughes Technical Center in Pomona,
New Jersey. The Committee believes these costs should be
declining since a significant portion of the facilities was
used to support civil aviation security activities that have
now been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
Information technology integration.--The Committee deletes
funding for this low priority program, a reduction of
$1,600,000 below the budget estimate. This project would
finance four items that study potential improvements to FAA's
regulatory, information technology, performance management, and
acquisition processes. Such management analyses are an
important function of any large organization's activities, but
they are inappropriate for capital funding through ``Facilities
and equipment''. At the small levels proposed (between $200,000
and $550,000), these studies should be absorbed within existing
funding levels for those operating activities. The Committee
recommendation results in savings of $1,600,000 below the
budget estimate.
Facility security risk management.--The recommendation of
$30,000,000 provides a 20 percent increase above the level
enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead of the proposed increase
of 66 percent. Within the funds provided, $6,500,000 is for a
security command center at the FAA Aeronautical Center.
Information security.--The recommendation of $8,000,000
provides the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead
of the proposed increase of 43.7 percent.
In-plant NAS contract support services.--The recommendation
includes an additional $7,000,000 for contract audit services
to be provided through the Defense Contract Audit Agency
(DCAA). Despite the Committee's encouragement in past years,
the agency has not followed through in obtaining DCAA's
independent review of contractor proposals and payment
requests. In testimony this year, the DOT Inspector General
said ``we have consistently found a lack of basic contract
administration at every stage of contract management from
contract award to contract closeout. For example, we found that
government cost estimates were: prepared by FAA engineers, then
ignored; prepared using unreliable resource and cost data; or,
worst of all, prepared by the contractor (a conflict of
interest). FAA is in the process of following through on its
commitments to address this issue''. The Committee questions
the pace of FAA's follow through, as some of these problems
were noted in Committee reports many years ago. The Committee
believes that an essential element of contracting oversight is
to obtain expert, independent reviews by DCAA. To ensure these
funds are utilized as Congress intends, the bill includes a
provision making such funds available only for this purpose.
Center for advanced aviation system development.--The
recommendation of $84,620,000 provides an increase of 4 percent
above the level enacted for fiscal year 2003 instead of the
proposed increase of 11.6 percent. The Committee believes it
appropriate for this work to proceed at the same overall growth
rate as discretionary programs across the Federal Government.
Operational evolution plan.--The Committee does not believe
this is a valid expense for ``Facilities and equipment'' and
should be absorbed within existing resources for
``Operations''. For example, items in the budget estimate
include: web page development and maintenance; briefings,
testimony, and marketing; operational evolution plan
development; seminars, conferences, and industry forums;
performance measurement; monitoring of regional implementation;
and contractor support to assess program risk and develop
program schedules. The recommendation results in a reduction of
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate.
Research aircraft replacement.--The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 to continue the program initiated in fiscal year
2003 to acquire a replacement for the agency's current B-727
research aircraft. The Committee anticipates that this funding
is sufficient to complete the acquisition.
PERSONNEL COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS
The Committee recommends $420,841,200, an increase of 4
percent above the level provided for fiscal year 2003. This
recommended level represents a reduction of $27,698,800 below
the budget estimate, which included an increase of 10.8
percent.
BILL LANGUAGE
Capital investment plan.--The bill continues to require the
submission of a five year capital investment plan.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $147,485,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 100,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 108,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -39,485,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +8,000,000
This appropriation provides funding for long-term research,
engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic
control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $108,000,000, a decrease of
$39,485,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
$8,000,000 above the President's budget request.
A table showing the fiscal year 2003 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2004 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
RESEARCH, ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT--FISCAL YEAR 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year House
Program 2003 enacted 2004 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Aviation Safety:
Reduce commercial aviation fatalities:
Fire research and safety................................ $6,429,000 $7,725,000 $8,458,000
Propulsion and fuel systems............................. 5,998,000 802,000 802,000
Advanced materials/structural safety.................... 1,374,000 1,244,000 1,244,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards....................... 5,000,000 3,217,000 3,217,000
Aging aircraft.......................................... 20,974,000 14,336,000 18,336,000
Aircraft catastrophic failure prevention................ 1,920,000 762,000 762,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration................... 8,411,000 6,782,000 6,782,000
Reduce general aviation fatalities:
Propulsion and fuel systems............................. 1,713,000 344,000 344,000
Advanced materials/structural safety.................... 1,679,000 1,522,000 1,522,000
Flight safety/atmospheric hazards....................... 1,329,000 1,378,000 1,378,000
Aging aircraft.......................................... 9,243,000 3,584,000 3,584,000
Flightdeck safety/systems integration................... 2,000,000 1,612,000 1,612,000
Aviation System Safety:
Aviation safety risk analysis........................... 6,926,000 7,898,000 6,926,000
ATC/AF human factors.................................... 8,035,000 8,899,000 8,899,000
Aeromedical research.................................... 6,603,000 6,382,000 6,382,000
Weather research........................................ 21,906,000 20,852,000 20,852,000
Improve Efficiency of the ATC System: Weather research 12,099,000 .............. 5,000,000
efficiency.....................................................
Reduce Environmental Impacts: Environment and energy............ 22,100,000 7,975,000 7,975,000
Improve Mission Efficiency:
System planning and resource mgmt........................... 1,000,000 1,261,000 500,000
Technical laboratory facilities............................. 6,455,000 3,425,000 3,425,000
Accountwide Adjustments: CSRS/FEHBP accruals.................... -2,744,000 .............. ..............
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 148,450,000 100,000,000 108,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aeromedical research.--The Committee is aware of attempts
to channel certain categories of aeromedical and aviation
safety research through academic institutions. The Committee is
concerned that this could duplicate existing capabilities at
the FAA Civil Aeromedical Institute. The FAA is directed to
report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
prior to the obligation of funds under a solicitation for cabin
air quality instrument sensor suite development and
implementation, or for any other aeromedical research,
explaining why in-house skills and capabilities cannot be
utilized for such work.
Advanced cargo monitoring.--The funding for ``fire research
and safety'' includes $1,000,000 to develop an advanced cargo
monitoring system, which would employ an intelligent network of
miniature, low-cost, lightweight chemical/fire detector
sensors, wirelessly linking them to an alarm and notification
system, to provide chemical security and safety coverage for
passengers, transportation personnel, and equipment.
Aging aircraft.--The Committee recommendation includes
$4,000,000 for new flight safety research equipment at the
National Institute for Aviation Research.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(AIRPORT AND AIRWAY TRUST FUND)
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 $3,100,000,000 ($3,377,900,000)
\1\............................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 3,400,000,000 (3,400,000,000)
Recommended in the bill......... 3,500,000,000 (3,425,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year +400,000,000 (+47,100,000)
2003...........................
Budget request, fiscal year +100,000,000 (+25,000,000)
2004...........................
\1\ Excludes $325,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations and a
$301,720,000 rescission of contract authority.
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$3,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, airport program
administration, and other authorized activities. This is
$100,000,000 above the amount requested in the President's
budget and $400,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year
2003.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,425,000,000 for fiscal year 2004. This is $25,000,000 above
the President's budget request and $47,100,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 level.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2003 levels and the President's budget request
is shown below. The table assumes the formulas and provisions
of current law, given the pending reauthorization of this
program.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2004
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obligation Limitation.................................. $3,400,000,000 $3,400,000,000 $3,500,000,000
Across the board reduction (.65 percent)........... -22,100,000 0 0
Administrative & Related Expenses.................. -63,207,000 -69,737,000 -64,904,000
Airport Technology Research........................ 0 -17,417,000 0
Essential Air Service.............................. 0 0 0
Small Community Air Service........................ 0 0 -20,000,000
Grants-in-Aid for Airports......................... 3,314,693,000 3,312,846,000 3,415,096,000
========================================================
Formula Grants:
Primary Airports................................... 961,721,388 770,413,521 961,721,388
Cargo Service Airports............................. 99,385,380 99,385,380 102,385,380
Alaska Supplemental (Sec. 4714(e))................. 21,345,114 21,345,114 21,345,114
States (General Aviation):
Non-Primary Entitlement........................ 341,036,416 341,121,749 341,036,416
State Apportionment by Formula................. 321,532,784 321,447,451 341,532,784
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal....................................... 662,569,200 662,569,200 682,569,200
Carryover Entitlement.............................. 354,986,941 354,986,941 354,986,941
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Formula Grants.......................... 2,100,008,023 1,908,700,156 2,123,008,023
========================================================
Small Airport Fund:
Non Hub Airports................................... 220,122,611 0 220,122,611
Non Commercial Service............................. 110,061,305 0 110,061,305
Small Hub.......................................... 55,030,653 0 55,030,653
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Small Airport Fund...................... 385,214,569 0 385,214,569
--------------------------------------------------------
Fund for Small Airports................................ 0 410,292,044 0
Subtotal Non Discretionary....................... 2,485,222,592 2,318,992,200 2,508,222,592
========================================================
Discretionary Grants:
Discretionary Set-Aside: Noise..................... 281,391,959 278,156,140 307,571,949
Discretionary Set-Aside: Environmental Research, 0 20,000,000 0
Engineering and Development (from Noise)..........
Discretionary Set-Aside: Reliever.................. 5,462,314 0 5,970,514
Discretionary Set-Aside: Military Airport Program.. 33,104,936 0 36,184,936
--------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal Discretionary Set-asides................ 319,959,210 298,156,140 349,727,410
--------------------------------------------------------
C/S/S/N............................................ 380,748,149 0 416,171,999
Remaining Discretionary................................ 126,916,050 33,128,460 138,724,000
National Significant Projects.......................... 0 662,569,200 0
Subtotal Other Discretionary..................... 507,664,198 695,697,660 554,895,998
Subtotal Discretionary........................... 827,623,408 993,853,800 904,623,408
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCRETIONARY GRANTS
Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill,
$904,623,408 is available for discretionary grants to airports.
Within this obligation limitation, the Committee directs that
priority be given to grant applications involving further
development of the following airports:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Project name Project description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK Anchorage International. Various improvements.
AK Chandalar Maintenance Funds to replace temporary
Station. tent.
AK Fairbanks International. Terminal facility assessment
and master plan to address
facility deficiencies
including seismic and
security issues.
AK Seward Airport.......... Various improvements.
AL Atmore Airport.......... Upgrade safety zones, acquire
land for approaches; acquire
additional apron space for
aircraft parking.
AL Fort Deposit Municipal.. Repair slope failure along
access road and runway
embankment; install roadside
drainage system.
AL Sonny Callahan Airport, Continue runway improvements.
Fairhope.
AL Montgomery Regional Terminal renovation.
(Dannelly Field).
AL Huntsville International Connecting taxiway and ramp.
AR Arkansas Aeroplex....... Runway, taxiway and ramp
renovation.
AR Batesville Municipal Land acquisition for 32 acres
Airport. for runway protection zone.
AR Baxter County Regional.. New primary cross wind
runway.
AR Northwest Arkansas Construction of cargo apron
Regional. and taxiway.
AR West Helena Municipal... Install lighting, REIL, and
ramps along runway and
construct new hanger.
AR Jonesboro Municipal..... Airport rescue and
firefighting truck and
building to comply with part
139 requirements.
AR Newport Municipal....... Automated weather observation
system.
AR Paragould Municipal..... Airport master plan;
construction of parallel
taxiway; land acquisition
for future extension of
runway 8-26.
AR Walnut Ridge Regional... Add taxiway lights to
taxiways AA, D and F to
light main runway to new
terminal.
AR West Memphis Municipal.. Purchase vacuum sweeper;
rehabilitate taxiway and
runway shoulders; sealcoat
and mark taxiways and north
ramp.
AZ Phoenix Sky Harbor Community noise reduction
International. program; residential sound
assistance; voluntary land
acquisition.
AZ Williams Gateway Airport Construct safety area
shoulders along entire
lenghth of runway 12C/30C
and reconstruct/repair
taxiways A and P, including
shoulders, from runway 12C/
30C to taxiway N.
CA Crows Landing Airport... Improve runway and auxiliary
devices.
CA San Diego International Air Transportation Action
Airport. Program (ATAP).
CA Lampson Airport......... Construct low pressure
watewaster collection system
and central pump station.
CA Meadows Field Airport... Improvements to existing
apron and taxiway; signal
and road improvements to
ease access to site for
future development; runway
extension.
CA Round Valley Airport.... Land acquisition.
CA San Bernardino Infrastructure improvements,
International. including ongoing hangar
repair and electrical supply
delivery.
CA San Luis Obispo Airport. Extend Runway 11/29 by 700
feet; extend parallel
Taxiway ``A''; realign Santa
Fe Road; underpass of runway
safety area.
CA Southern California ``Engine run-up'' runway
Logistics Airport. infrastructure improvements.
CA Stockton Airport Air Infrastructure construction;
Cargo Center. upgrade of ILS.
DE New Castle County Taxiway M restoration; runway
Airport. 1-19 rehabilitation.
FL Pensacola Regional...... Runway 17/35 Reconstruction.
FL Kay Larkin Municipal.... Extension of runway 9-27 from
5,500 feet to 7,500 feet.
FL Orlando Sanford Extend runway 9R/27L.
International.
FL Sarasota Bradenton Various improvements.
International.
FL St. Petersburg/ Runway extension.
Cleanwater
International Airport.
GA Brunswick Golden Isles Terminal renovation, to
Airport. include demolition,
renovation and expansion of
existing space and entrance
roadway improvements.
GA Cherokee County Airport. Runway extension.
GA Richard B. Russell Extension of Runway 1/19 from
Airport, Floyd County 6,000 feet to 8,500 feet.
GA Greene County Airport... Runway and approach lighting
systems (MALSR) improvement.
GA Paulding County Airport. Runway construction.
GA Wright Army Airfield.... Rehabilitation of runway 624.
IA Fort Dodge Airport...... Extension of runway 12/30.
IA Mason City Airport...... Runway rehabilitation.
IL Aurora Municipal........ Construct taxiway A (west
section); rehabilitate
terminal apron (west
section); improve runway 9/
27 safety area; and install
PAPI.
IL Chicago/Romeoville/LOT, Continued construction of
Lewis University primary runway, including
Airport ILS installation and
associated land acquisition.
IL DeKalb Taylor Municipal. Complete construction and
upgrades to several
projects, including a MALSR,
easements north of Barber
Greene Road, slideslope, and
land purchases.
IL Lawrenceville-Vincennes Reconstruction of terminal
International. and hanger.
IL Palwaukee Municipal..... Phase III of taxiway K
project.
IL Waukegan Regional....... Replacement of concrete
apron.
IN Goshen Municipal........ Runway extension.
IN Gary/Chicago Airport.... Centerline lights,
replacements of navigational
aids, and RVR upgrade.
KS Kansas State University Apron repair and hangar door
Airport. repair/replacement.
KS Lawrence Municipal...... Construct two parallel
taxiways, install lighting
and precision approach path
indicator, and rehabilitate
runway.
KS Forbes Field............ Taxiway rehabilitation.
KS Wichita Airport......... Airfield safety improvements/
taxiway improvements.
KY Stuart Powell Field, Runway and taxiway overlay
Boyle County. and fencing.
KY Big Sandy Airport....... Runway Extension.
KY Capitol City Airport.... Runway and taxiway overlay
and apron rehabilitation.
KY Louisville International Remote-control CCTV cameras
to police public areas of
the terminal and adjacent
grounds; emergency
operations center
construction; improvements
to east and west security
perimeter roads; runway
safety area upgrades; west
runway extension; noise
mitigation program including
residential housing
relocation.
KY Madison Richmond Airport Runway safety area and runway
extension.
KY Marshall Field, Scott Extend runway and taxiway,
County Airport. apron overlay.
KY Monticello Airport...... Parallel taxiway extension.
KY Rowan County Airport.... Runway extension to 5500 feet
with 100 feet of safety
zone.
KY Somerset Airport........ Design and build passenger
terminal building; construct
maintenance hanger.
KY Williamsburg/Whitley Land acquisition and
County Airport. clearing.
LA Bastrop-Morehouse Extend the airport runway to
Memorial Aviation Park. 5,000 feet; purchase and
install instrument landing
system, medium-intensity
approach lighting system,
runway indicator lights and
navigational aids; acquire
additional acreage needed
for runway expansion; and
erect aircraft hanger
facilities.
LA Baton Rouge Metropolitan Address environmental and
safety concerns for the air
carrier apron; extend runway
4L/22R; address runway
safety area deficiencies;
enclose canals at end of
runway 4L.
LA Greater St. Tammany Runway extension and various
Airport. other improvements.
LA Houma-Terrebonne Airport Upgrade runways and other
improvements.
LA Lafayette Regional...... Taxiway bravo rehabilitation,
widening and strengthening;
runway 4R/22L safety zone
improvements; extension of
Runway 4R-22L.
LA Monroe Regional......... Renovate/expand terminal
building.
MI Alpena County Regional.. Extension of service road and
utility extension.
MI Chippewa County Completion of new airport
International. terminal.
MI Detroit Metropolitan Construction of new parking
Wayne County Airport. aprons at North and McNamara
terminals; reconstruction of
runway 3R/21L and ramp at
Berry terminal; part 150
study update; evaluation of
airfield pavement; extension
of runway 3L/21R; grading of
runway safety areas at
runway ends 22L and 3L;
reconstruct taxiways, F, H,
V, W, Y-8, and K-16;
construct new taxiway G in
the vicinity of the end of
concourse C at Smith
terminal.
MI Manistee County Blacker Terminal expansion.
Airport.
MI Mt. Pleasant Municipal Refurbish crack sealing
Airport. pavement; terminal building
expansion; parking lot
expansion; snow removal
blower; future planning for
security fencing, sewer, and
water projects.
MI Oakland County Relocate, lengthen and widen
International. north-south (crosswind)
runway; upgrade lighting;
complete acquisition of
homes in accordance with
noise program.
MI Pellston Regional New terminal.
Airport.
MN Minneapolis/St. Paul De-icing pad; pavement
International. rehabilitation between
taxiway Q and courses D and
E.
MN Willmar Municipal Runway paving, electrical;
Airport. fencing; and runway
lighting.
MO Kennett Airport......... Construct new runway.
MO Springfield/Branson Midfield terminal design;
Regional. ramps and access taxiways to
the new midfield terminal.
MS Tunica Airport.......... Airfield construction and
expansion.
MS Gulfport-Biloxi General aviation apron,
International. lighting, taxiway, utilities
and building pad
construction; expansion of
main terminal apron; land
acquisition for future
parallel runway; phase 3 of
perimeter road.
MS Jackson International... Replace existing 40-year old
apron and connecting
taxiways.
MS Greenwood-Leflore County Restore runway 5/23.
Airport.
MT Helena Regional......... Terminal remodeling and
expansion project.
NC Ashe County Airport..... Removal of obstruction on
runway 10 and associated
improvements to provide
required clearance;
environmental assessment for
runway extension.
NC Brunswick County Airport Repair and strengthen
existing runway and
taxiways.
NC Burlington-Alamance Runway extension, including
Airport. paving and lighting the
extension and strengthening
adjoining surfaces.
NC Statesville Municipal... Land acquisition, relocation
of roads for runway
extension.
NC Clinton-Sampson Airfield Airfield pavement
rehabilitation.
NC Columbus County Airport. Runway rehabilitation.
NC Concord Regional........ Runway extension and related
construction.
NC Curritiuck County....... Rehabilitate, overlay, and
extend existing runway.
NC Duplin County Airport... Extend runway and build
parallel taxiway.
NC Elizabethtown Airport... Construct parallel taxiway.
NC Halifax-Northampton Complete construction of new
Regional. airport.
NC Harnett County Airport.. Phase 2 of runway and taxiway
extension project.
NC Hickory Regional........ Apron pavement overlay;
runway lighting
rehabilitation; and
extension of runway safety
area for runway 6.
NC Johnston County Airport. Construction of runway safety
area and wetlands mitigation
on airport property.
NC Lumberton Municipal..... Rehabilitate primary runway.
NC Morganton-Lenoir Airport Reconstruct pavements 3-21;
connector taxiways; existing
apron.
NC Richmond County Airport. Runway extension; ILS
installation; expand and
improve ramp and taxiway.
NC Stanly County Airport... Runway extension; land
acquisition; installation of
perimeter fencing; and
associated construction.
NC Statesville Municipal... Extension of runway 10/28 and
installation of ILS.
NC The Andrews-Murphy Various improvements.
Airport.
NC Wilmington International Repair existing runway and
improve drainage system.
ND Grand Forks Airport..... Construction of new general
aviation runway and parallel
taxiway.
NE McCook Municipal........ Purchase ILS.
NE Central Nebraska Rehabilitate runway 17-35 and
Regional. connecting taxiway; purchase
new crash and rescue
vehicle.
NJ Cape May Airport........ Drainage system
rehabilitation and
reconstruction and safety-
related obstruction removal.
NJ Hammonton Airport, Security fencing;
Atlantic County. construction of a new
aircraft parking apron and
safety related obstruction
removal.
NJ Millville Airport, Land acquisition in the
Cumberland County. runway subzone; snow removal
equipment and safety related
obstruction removal.
NJ Teterboro Airport....... Noise mitigation and
soundproofing of schools.
NJ Solberg-Hunterdon Acquisition of airport.
Airport.
NM Santa Teresa Airport.... Extension of eastern runway
and taxiway.
NY Niagara Falls Access road improvements;
International. expansion of general
aviation west ramp apron
area and taxiway
realignment.
NY Albany International.... Runway 1-19 extension, phase
II.
NY Buffalo Niagara Rehabilitation of primary
International. runway 5/23 and taxiway.
NY Hancock International... Various improvements,
including the purchase of
two jetways.
NY Long Island Islip Perimeter fencing; stronger
MacArthur Airport. access control systems;
improved surveillance.
NY Plattsburgh Continued construction of
International. airport terminal and other
facilities.
NY Albany International.... Runway extension to primary
runway 19.
OH Cincinnati Lunken Design of four maintenance
Airport. improvements: airport road
improvements, which include
drainage and resurfacing of
the roadway from Wilmer
Avenue east to the Lunken
Airport terminus; Wilmer
Avenue roadway improvements,
which includes design of
roadway widening, drainage
system with airport pump
upgrade, sidewalk
installation, and
reconstruction of the bike
trail on Wilmer Avenue;
terminal parking
improvements, which includes
design of the terminal
parking adjacent to Wilmer
Avenue, and the installation
of curbs and gutters on
Airport Road west; and ramp
improvements, which includes
design for reconstruction of
ramp areas at the terminal
and hangers for aircraft and
vehicle public parking.
OH Dayton International.... Terminal access road
improvements.
OH Cleveland Hopkins Major airport expansion and
International. noise mitigation.
OH Erie-Ottawa Regional Taxiway expansion; security
Airport. improvements; and hanger
construction.
OH Springfield Municipal... Acquisition of 96 acres of
land currently extending
into the Instrument Lighting
Systems (ILS) critical area.
OH Wayne County Airport.... Relocation of terminal
building and planning study
for runway extension.
OK Altus/Quartz Mountain Repair of main runway;
Regional Airport. taxiway improvements;
additional lengthening of
runway; drainage
improvements; perimeter
fencing; and controlled
access improvements.
OK Chickasha Municipal..... Runway extension project.
OK Max Westheimer-- Secure airport perimeter and
University of Oklahoma establish modular dual
Airport. identification verification
procedures.
OK Tulsa International..... New taxiway; security
improvements.
OR Madras/Jefferson County Construct new flight services
Airport. building.
OR Roberts Field........... Design and construction of
terminal expansion.
PA Pittsburgh International Relocation of maintenance
facilities from runway 28R
and runway 14 runway
protection zone areas to new
site.
PA Arnold Palmer Regional.. Extend runway 5-25 by 1225
feet.
PA Clarion County Airport.. Runway extension project.
PA Erie International--Tom Runway extension.
Ridge Field.
PA Indiana County--Jimmy Complete next phase of
Stewart Airport. construction of new runway
10-28.
PA Philadelphia Develop safety area for
International. runway 9R; design and
environmental study to
enhance airfield capacity;
reconstruct aircraft parking
apron between terminal D-E.
SC Andrews Municipal Airport pavement
Airport, Georgetown reconstruction.
County.
SC Fairfield County Airport Runway extension.
SC Spartanburg Downtown Extend runway 5/23 to 5,500
Airport. feet and construct required
safety runway area.
SD Pierre Airport.......... Rehabilitate runway.
TN McMinn County Airport... Lengthen and widen runway;
extend parallel taxiway to
the north; land acquisition
for clearances and safety.
TN Nashville International. Pavement reconstruction and
rehabilitation; reconstruct
and widen taxiway fillets at
L2, K2, intersection of
taxiway L and A, and T3 at
taxiway L and T3 at taxiway
K.
TN Chattanooga Metropolitan Rehabilitate runway 15/33.
Airport.
TX A.L. Mangham, Jr. Improving and widening Runway
Regional. 18-36; planning for
installation of MALSR.
TX Denton Municipal Airport Various improvements.
TX Galveston Scholes Reconstruction of taxiways
International. ``D'' and ``A'' and
associated aprons;
rehabilitation of runway 17/
35 and overlaying of runway
13/31.
TX Abilene Regional Airport General aviation ramp
reconstruction; runway and
taxiway lighting
rehabilitation; terminal
renovation; and taxiway
``D'' extension.
TX McKinney Municipal Repair of runway and taxiway.
Airport.
TX Killeen/Ft. Hood Joint Safety improvements.
Use Airport.
TX Sugar Land Regional Construct apron and taxiway.
Airport.
VA Breaks Interstate Land acquisition, design and
Regional. engineering for new airport
to serve Buchanan and
Dickenson Counties.
VA Culpeper Regional Terminal construction.
Airport.
VA Twin County Airport..... Design and pavement
construction of parallel
back taxiway; relocation of
access road; rehabilitation
of runway and upgrade of
lighting.
VA Virginia Highlands Construction of west apron,
Airport. taxiway and access road.
WA Bremerton National Strengthen the center part of
Airport. the runway.
WI Central Wisconsin Complete reconstruction of
Airport. the primary air carrier
runway (08/26) and parallel
taxiway.
WI Dane County Regional Runway 14 safety area
Airport. construction.
WI Sawyer County Airport... Security fencing.
WI Eagle River Union....... Pave and extend existing turf
crosswind runway to 3400
feet; light runway;
reconstruct and expand
existing aprons and
taxiways; and reimburse for
land acquisition for runway
extension.
WI General Mitchell Outer taxiway B construction
International. around concourse C; various
other improvements including
taxiway B pavement
WI La Crosse Munipal Reconstruct connecting
Airport. taxiways.
WI Waukwsha County Airport. Replace storm sewer
underlying runway 18/36 at
Crites Field.
WV Jackson County Airport.. Runway extension.
WV Upshur County Airport... Runway extension and apron
construction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Diego metropolitan area airport study, CA.--The
Committee requests FAA, in concert with the San Diego Airport
Authority, to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, no later than May 15, 2006, reviewing increased
airport capacity for the San Diego metropolitan area.
ADMINISTRATION
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $64,904,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA. The recommended amount is
$1,697,000 (2.7 percent) above the level provided for fiscal
year 2003. For the third year in a row, the recommendation does
not approve the proposal to transfer airport-related research
to this appropriation. This activity remains funded under
``Facilities and equipment.'' A table comparing the fiscal year
2003 enacted obligation limitation to the budget estimate and
the Committee recommendation is shown below. As the table
indicates, the reductions delete one-time fiscal year 2003
costs that were not reflected in fiscal year 2004 base
adjustments, as well as a reduction to inflationary costs.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Fiscal year 2004
enacted estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Base funding.............................................. $57,050,000 $64,620,000 $63,207,000
Inflationary adjustments.................................. 2,647,000 4,177,000 2,907,000
Discretionary adjustments:
Advisory circular contract............................ 1,350,000 0 -1,350,000
Airport financial reporting system.................... 500,000 0 -500,000
PFC program analysis.................................. 300,000 0 -300,000
Environmental streamlining............................ 1,773,000 225,000 225,000
Automated airport data system modification............ 0 400,000 400,000
Wildlife hazard management at airports................ 0 315,000 315,000
Across the board reduction (.65%)..................... -403,000 0 0
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... $63,207,000 $69,737,000 $64,904,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Corrected base and inflationary adjustments.--The Committee
recommendation corrects the fiscal year 2003 base to reflect
the .65 percent across the board reduction, and maintains the
same ratio of inflationary adjustments to base funding (4.6
percent) as was experienced in fiscal year 2003.
BILL LANGUAGE
Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181 and the
DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2003, the bill
allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to
procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and
devices. Because of the urgent safety problem related to runway
incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests
among the highest priorities for discretionary funding.
Small community air service pilot program.--The bill
specifies that $20,000,000 under the obligation limitation for
the Small Airports Fund is only to continue the Small Community
Air Service Pilot Program authorized by AIR-21. This is the
same amount as provided in each of the past two fiscal years.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides
financial assistance to the states to construct and improve
roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other
agencies and organizations involved in road building
activities. Title 23 and other supporting legislation provide
authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway
Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with
program levels established by annual limitations on obligations
in Appropriations Acts.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\...................... ($314,071,181)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... (338,834,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (359,458,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2003...................... (+45,386,819)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. (+20,624,000)
\1\ Reflects the 0.65 percent reduction contained in Division N, section
601 of Public Law 108-7.
This limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and
most other federal highway programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $359,458,000. This
level is sufficient to fund 2,412 FTEs. The recommended level
assumes the following adjustments to the budget request:
Deny funding for employee development................... -$4,106,000
Increase funding for employee multidisciplinary
development program................................. +4,106,000
Increase funding for environmental streamlining......... +7,000,000
Deny FECA administrative costs.......................... -84,000
Deny funding for additional Federal staff............... -1,292,000
Increase funding for Pennsylvania Avenue project........ +15,000,000
Employee development programs.--The Committee has denied
funding for employee workforce development. The Inspector
General has testified that FHWA staff is predominately
engineers and continues to reflect its historic engineering
focus that was vital during construction of the interstate
system. The IG states that because of this, staff is overly
focused on engineering and contract issues, rather than on
oversight, management, and financial processes. Staff must have
multidisciplinary skills to meet the needs of today's program
and perform higher level functions, such as conducting reviews
to ensure effectiveness of the states' processes in areas that
are major project drivers, such as financing, project level
cost estimates, schedule performance and accountability over
funds.
In a hearing before the Committee earlier this year, the
FHWA estimated that it will take a full five years to realign
its staff. The Committee believes the need is too pressing to
wait that long and provides a total of $4,106,000 to advance
this effort. Funding shall be available for activities and
programs that promote the skill sets necessary to meet FHWA
goals as they relate to staff realignment. The Committee
directs FHWA to report back on the details of this new program,
including the goal of the program, what activities it will
support, how many employees are expected to participate, how
employees are selected for the program, and how it is different
from the employee development program funded in prior years.
Environmental streamlining.--The Committee recommendation
includes $7,000,000 in fiscal year 2004 for environmental
streamlining initiatives within the limitation on
administrative expenses. The Committee directs FHWA to provide
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a report, not
later than March 1, 2004, updating the Committees on FHWA's
streamlining efforts. The report should include specific
examples of FHWA activities that have helped streamline the
environmental process.
Deny FECA administrative costs.--The Committee has reduced
funding by $84,000 from the budget request for workers
compensation administrative costs. This amount was not charged
to FHWA in fiscal year 2003.
Reduce funding for oversight of major projects staff.--The
Committee denies funding for 12 full time equivalents (FTE), a
reduction of $1,292,000 below the budget estimate. Although the
Committee agrees that stronger oversight is necessary, it is
not convinced that hiring additional staff is the only way to
increase oversight of major projects.
Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, D.C.--The Committee
provides $15,000,000 to continue a project initially funded in
the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2003. This level was included in the
President's budget request under the Department of Interior
(DOI) budget, to be transferred to the FHWA. This method
provides the funds directly to FHWA, which is managing the
project in consultation with DOI, the National Capital Planning
Commission, and the Executive Office of the President.
Correspondence mismanagement.--The Committee notes with
concern the recent mismanagement and unprofessional conduct of
the Federal Highway Administration in the treatment of
Congressional hearing preparation instructions and official
correspondence. Mischaracterization of Committee instructions
and the distribution of such distorted information are simply
unacceptable. The Committee relies upon professional and
trustworthy relations with the agencies it oversees and expects
considerable improvement by the FHWA in this regard.
Intelligent bridge systems.--The Committee is aware of an
infrastructure control system, known as the Intelligent Bridge
System (IBS), conducted by the Center for Structural Control at
the University of Oklahoma and would like an analysis of IBS'
potential contribution to the nation's highway network. The
Committee was advised that IBS would monitor the structural
health of bridges, individually characterize each bridge and
the vehicles using the bridge, and provide logistics
streamlining for efficient and safe movement of goods along an
economic corridor. The Committee directs that the Federal
Highway Administration provide the Committee a report on IBS,
no later than March 1, 2004 that analyzes and discusses the
costs, benefits, and rigorous nature of IBS technology, and its
application and viability for contributing to the nation's
highway system. Additionally, the report should include cost
and benefit comparisons and rankings between IBS and similar
technologies, especially in regards to IBS' ability to deliver
a competitive product versus that of the other technologies.
Limitation on Transportation Research
Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\..................... (---)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\................. (---)
Recommended in the bill.............................. ($462,500,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2003..................... (+462,500,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................. (+462,500,000)
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2003 and requested in fiscal year
2004 are assumed within the federal-aid obligation limitation.
This limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology contract programs of the Federal
Highway Administration. It includes a number of contract
programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface
transportation research, technology deployment, training and
education, and university transportation research.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $462,500,000 for the following
transportation research programs.
Program Recommended in bill
Surface transportation research, development and
deployment program.................................. $103,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 50,000,000
Training and education.................................. 20,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests and
development......................................... 110,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 122,000,000
University transportation research...................... 26,500,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 462,500,000
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH
Within the funds provided for highway research and
development under the surface transportation research program,
the Committee recommends the following:
Amount
Environment, planning, and real estate.................. $17,000,000
Research and technology program support................. 8,000,000
International research.................................. 500,000
Structures.............................................. 13,500,000
Safety.................................................. 12,000,000
Operations.............................................. 12,500,000
Asset management........................................ 3,000,000
Pavements research...................................... 15,500,000
Policy research......................................... 9,000,000
Long-term pavement project.............................. 10,000,000
Advanced research....................................... 1,000,000
R&T strategic planning/performance measures............. 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 103,000,000
Environment, planning, and real estate research.--The
environment research and technology program develops improved
tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment;
techniques for avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those
impacts and for the enhancement of the environment; and
expertise on environmental concerns within FHWA and state and
local transportation agencies. The planning and real estate
research and technology program advances cost effective methods
to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; develops
and disseminates improved planning methods; develops more
effective planning and data collection techniques for
intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming;
improves financial planning tools for use in developing
transportation plans and programs; evaluates the
characteristics of the national highway system; and develops
improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide
planning and for information and data sharing with state and
local governments. The Committee has provided $17,000,000.
Research and technology program support.--The Committee has
provided $8,000,000. Funds provided under this category support
a variety of programs, including the Transportation Research
Board core program; the small business innovative research
program; and marketing, publication and communication
activities. Within the funds provided the Committee directs
FHWA to provide $750,000 to the University of Illinois
Transportation Center.
International research.--The Committee has provided
$500,000, the level authorized under TEA-21, for international
research activities. FHWA is directed to consult with the
Committee before any international agreements are consummated
that are likely to require financial support.
Structures.--The structures research and technology program
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to
efficiently maintain and renew the aging transportation
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance,
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery
after major disasters. The committee has provided $13,500,000
for structures research. Funds provided will help FHWA make
progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on
NHS bridges from 21.5 percent in 2000 to 21 percent in 2004, as
well as reduce deficiencies on all bridges. This funding will
ensure continued progress on high performance materials and
engineering applications to efficiently design, repair,
rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided,
FHWA shall provide $750,000 for the deployment of lithium
technologies to prevent and mitigate alkali-silica reactivity.
The Committee notes that funding has been provided to the FHWA
for several years, yet little progress has been made in the
deployment of these promising technologies. Also within the
funds provided, the FHWA shall provide $1,000,000 for the New
York City Bridges Corrosion Monitoring Project.
Safety.--The safety research and technology program
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment,
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information
that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway
fatalities and injuries. The Committee has provided $12,000,000
for safety research programs.
Operations and asset management.--The Committee has
provided $15,500,000 for operations research and asset
management. The highway operations research program is designed
to develop, deliver, and deploy advanced technologies and
administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge
durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related
user delays. Funds provided under this category support a
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway
operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather
conditions, and freight management operations. Within the funds
provided, the Committee directs the FHWA to provide $750,000
for the National Steel Bridge Alliance, $2,000,000 to the
Oklahoma Transportation Center, $200,000 for Northwestern
University Highways 2008, and $100,000 for Critical
Vunerability Assessment and Countermeasure Plan.
The Committee has not included any funds for statistical
analysis of the National Quality Initiative under any FHWA
research program. Such analysis shall be performed by the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Pavements research.--The pavements research and technology
program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools,
equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public
information that will significantly contribute to the reduction
of highway fatalities and injuries. Activities include work on
asphalt, Portland cement concrete pavements, and recycled
materials. The Committee has provided $15,500,000 for pavements
research. Pavements research amounts, along with the
$10,000,000 provided for long-term pavement performance, will
allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the
nation's infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the
Committee directs FHWA to provide $350,000 to Florida Atlantic
University for the material integrity project.
Policy research.--The policy research and technology
program supports FHWA policy analysis and development,
strategic planning, and technology development through research
in data collection, management and dissemination; highway
financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement;
and enhancement of highway program contributions to economic
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. The
Committee has provided $9,000,000 for policy research. Within
the funds provided, the Committee directs FHWA to provide
$500,000 to the Kentucky Transportation Center, $300,000 to
Boston University Infrastructure Investment Research
Initiative, and $300,000 to City College of San Francisco
Transportation Academy.
ITS STANDARDS, RESEARCH, OPERATIONAL TESTS AND DEVELOPMENT
The Committee recommends the $110,000,000 provided for ITS
research be allocated in the following manner:
Amount
Research and development................................ $50,000,000
Operational tests....................................... 11,000,000
Evaluation.............................................. 7,000,000
Architecture and standards.............................. 18,000,000
Integration............................................. 12,000,000
Program support......................................... 12,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 110,000,000
ITS DEPLOYMENT
It is the intent of the Committee that the following
projects contribute to the integration and interoperability of
intelligent transportation systems in metropolitan and rural
areas as provided under section 5208 of TEA-21 and promote
deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation
system infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of TEA-21.
These projects shall conform to the requirements set forth in
these sections, including the project selection criteria
contained in section 5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in
section 5209(c), respectively. Projects selected for funding
shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. This
requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that the
use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to
achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS
deployment activities is as follows:
511 Traveler Information Program, North Carolina........ $500,000
Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to America Project Phase
II, Los Angeles, California......................... 1,250,000
Alexandria ITS Real-Time Transit Enhancement Pilot
Project, Virginia................................... 500,000
Altarum Restricted Use Technology Study, Michigan....... 2,000,000
Altoona, Pennsylvania, ITS.............................. 1,000,000
Amber Alert Multi-Regional Strategic Plan, Michigan..... 400,000
Area Wide Traffic Signal Synchronization System, Phase
III, Florida........................................ 2,500,000
ATMS, Montgomery County, Maryland....................... 500,000
Bay County Area Wide Traffic Signal System.............. 1,000,000
Cargo*Watch, New York................................... 2,000,000
Carson Passenger Information System, California......... 300,000
Center for Integrated Transportation & Traffic Systems,
University of Arizona............................... 250,000
Chattanooga (CARTA) ITS, Tennessee...................... 2,500,000
City of Asheville Traffic Signal System Upgrades, North
Carolina............................................ 2,000,000
City of Baltimore, Maryland Traffic Congestion
Management.......................................... 300,000
City of New Rochelle, NY Traffic Signal Replacement
Program............................................. 1,000,000
City of Santa Rosa: Intelligent Transportation System,
California.......................................... 500,000
Computerization of traffic signals in Ashtabula, OH..... 14,000
Corona City-wide automated traffic management system,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
DelTrac Statewide Integration, Delaware................. 1,500,000
Demonstration project to deploy Geospatial Emergency &
Response System (GEARS) for transportation,
Pennsylvania........................................ 300,000
Detroit Metro Airport ITS............................... 700,000
DuPage County Signal Interconnection Project, Illinois.. 300,000
East Bay Incident & Emergency Management System,
California.......................................... 300,000
Elk Grove Traffic Operations Center, California......... 1,000,000
Fairfax County Route 1 Traffic Synchronization ITS Pilot
Project, Virginia................................... 500,000
FAST Las Vegas (ITS-Phase 2)--Construction.............. 500,000
Germantown Parkway ITS project, Tennessee............... 3,000,000
GMU ITS Research, Virginia.............................. 450,000
Great Lakes ITS, Michigan............................... 5,000,000
Harbor Boulevard Intelligent Transportation, California. 1,000,000
Hawthorne Street Public Access Improvements, New
Bedford, MA......................................... 600,000
Houma, Louisiana........................................ 1,650,000
Houston, Texas ITS...................................... 1,700,000
I-70 Incident Management Plan Implementation, Colorado.. 750,000
I-87 Highway Speed E-Z Pass at the Woodbury Toll
Barrier, New York................................... 2,000,000
I-87 Smart Corridor, New York........................... 1,000,000
I-90 Phase 2 Connector ITS Testbed--Town of North
Greenbush--Rensselaer County, NY.................... 250,000
Illinois Statewide ITS.................................. 1,500,000
Implementation of Wisconsin DOT's Fiber Optics Network.. 1,000,000
Integration and Implementation of DYNASMART-X, RHODES
and CLAIRE in Houston, TX........................... 500,000
Intelligent Transportation System (KC metro area)....... 250,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems Deployment Project,
Inglewood, CA....................................... 750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, City of Wichita
Transit Authority, Kansas........................... 750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Statewide and
Commerical Vehicle Information Systems Network,
Maryland............................................ 750,000
Intelligent Transportation Systems, Washington, DC
Region.............................................. 1,000,000
Intersection Signalization Project for the City of
Virginia Beach, Virginia............................ 500,000
ITS--City of East Peoria, Illinois...................... 200,000
ITS--I 74 in Peoria, IL................................. 750,000
ITS Baton Rouge, LA..................................... 1,750,000
ITS Expansion in Davis and Utah Counties, Utah.......... 1,250,000
ITS Logistics and Systems Management for the Gateway
Cities, California.................................. 500,000
ITS Technologies, San Antonio, Texas.................... 323,000
ITS--Initial Implementation, Cache Valley, Utah......... 1,000,000
Jacksonville Transportation Authority, Intelligent
Transportation Initiative, Florida.................. 500,000
King County, County-wide Signal Program, Washington..... 500,000
Laredo Signal Integration Project, Texas................ 1,750,000
Lincoln, Nebraska StarTran Automatic Vehicle Locator
System.............................................. 1,120,000
Los Angeles MTA Regional Universal Fare System.......... 1,000,000
Macomb County ITS Integration, Michigan................. 750,000
Maine Statewide ITS..................................... 1,000,000
Market Street Signalization Improvements, Mississippi... 162,000
MARTA Automated Fare Collection/Smart Card System,
Georgia............................................. 500,000
Metrolina Transportation Management Center, North
Carolina............................................ 2,000,000
Minnesota Guidestar..................................... 2,000,000
Mobile Data Computer Network--Phase II (MDCN), Wisconsin 2,200,000
Monroe County ATMS ITS Deployment Project, New York..... 1,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) AVLS, MA...... 240,000
Multi Region Advanced Traveler Information System (ATIS)
for the IH-20 Corridor--Phase 1 in Texas............ 1,000,000
Nebraska Statewide Intelligent Transportation System
Deployment.......................................... 1,000,000
New York State Thruway Authority Traffic Operation
Package for 1-95 and 1-87........................... 2,700,000
North Bergen, New Jersey Traffic Signalization
Replacement......................................... 1,000,000
Oklahoma County I-40 ITS................................ 3,266,000
Palm Tran, Palm Beach County, FL--Automated Vehicle
Location and Mobile Data Terminals.................. 1,600,000
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) ITS, MA......... 4,000,000
Port of Rochester Transportation Security/Intelligent
Transportation (ITS) Project, New York.............. 1,500,000
Portland State University Intelligent Transportation
Research Initiative, Oregon......................... 750,000
Project Hoosier SAFE-T, Indiana......................... 2,000,000
Real Time Transit Passenger Information System for the
Prince George's County Dept. of Public Works,
Maryland............................................ 1,500,000
Regional Intelligent Transportation System, Springfield,
MO.................................................. 2,500,000
Regional ITS Architecture and Deployment Plan for the
Eagle Pass Region and Integrate with Laredo, Texas.. 300,000
Regional Traffic Signal Interconnect Project, Washington 500,000
Roosevelt Boulevard ITS Enhancement Pilot Program,
Pennsylvania........................................ 1,000,000
Rural Freeway Management System Implementation for the
IH-20 Corridor in the Tyler Region--Phase 1, Texas.. 300,000
Rural Highway Information System, KY.................... 2,000,000
San Diego Joint Transportation Operations Center........ 500,000
San Francisco Muni Transportation Communications System. 1,500,000
Seacoast Intelligent Transportation System Congestion
Relief Project, New Hampshire....................... 1,000,000
Shreveport ITS Project, Louisiana....................... 1,000,000
South Carolina DoT Statewide ITS........................ 3,250,000
Spotswood Township, NJ; Expand and improve traffic flow
with road improvements.............................. 375,000
SR 874 ITS Integration Project, Florida................. 2,000,000
SR 924 ITS Integration Project, Florida................. 1,000,000
SR 112 ITS Integration Project, Florida................. 500,000
State Route 164 Signal Synchronization Muckleshoot,
Washington.......................................... 1,250,000
Swatara Township, Pennsylvania--Traffic Signalization
Improvements........................................ 100,000
TalTran ITS Smartbus Program, Florida................... 2,500,000
Texas Medical Center EMS Early Warning System........... 1,000,000
Town of Cary Computerized Traffic Signal Project, North
Carolina............................................ 750,000
Traffic Signal Controllers & Cabinets, District of
Columbia............................................ 750,000
TRANSCOM Regional Architecture & TRANSMIT project, NJ,
NY, & CT............................................ 750,000
Tucson Fiber Optic Signal Interconnect System, Arizona.. 400,000
Twin Cities, MN Redundant Communications Pilot.......... 750,000
Tysons Transportation Association--ITS, Virginia........ 250,000
Ventura County Intelligent Transportation System,
California.......................................... 1,500,000
West Baton Rouge Parish Joint Operations Emergency
Communications Center............................... 1,000,000
Wisconsin CVISN Level One Deployment.................... 950,000
Wyoming Statewide ITS Initiative........................ 2,500,000
Joint Program Office.--In the early 1990s, the
Appropriations Committees expressed strong support for the
formulation of a Joint Program Office (JPO) within the DOT to
oversee the federal role in the national Intelligent
Transportation System (ITS) effort. This office, which is
located within the Federal Highway Administration, now provides
overall program direction and budget coordination among the
multiple DOT offices conducting ITS activities. The Committee
believes the JPO has successfully managed the ITS program. For
example, the JPO's close association with FHWA's research,
headquarters staff, and regional offices has ensured a unified
approach to providing training, implementation and testing of
standards, and adherence to a national systems architecture.
The Committee maintains that the JPO's positive working
relationship with the FMCSA and FTA has facilitated progress in
advancement of technologies and the deployment of systems.
The appropriation for ITS provided herein is predicated on
the continuation of the JPO conducting the functions identified
previously. Maximum efficiencies are most likely to be obtained
by retaining the current administrative structure of the JPO
within the FHWA with a reporting function to the Deputy
Secretary. If there is any change in the administrative
structure or responsibilities of the JPO, the Secretary is
directed to inform the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and to justify in detail such changes.
BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS
Under the FHWA appropriation, the accompanying bill
provides $31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation
Statistics (BTS), the amount authorized in TEA-21. The
Committee does not provide additional amounts requested from
the airport and airway trust fund. The Committee notes that BTS
has undergone significant increases in staffing since 1993, the
year BTS was established. In fiscal year 1993, on-board
positions totaled 5, in 2001 total staff stood at 101, and BTS
was limited to 136 in 2003. Concern about the rate of growth in
general, but particularly when staffing exceeded the
Administration's request to Congress, led the Committee to
limit BTS staff in fiscal year 2003. The Committee continues to
limit BTS full time positions to 136 for fiscal year 2004.
Federal-Aid Highways
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year $32,000,000,000 ($31,593,300,000)
2003 \1\.....................
Budget request, fiscal year 30,000,000,000 (29,293,948,000)
2004.........................
Recommended in the bill....... 34,000,000,000 (33,385,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year +2,000,000,000 (+1,791,700,000)
2003.........................
Budget request, fiscal +4,000,000,000 (+4,091,052,000)
year 2004....................
\1\ Limitation on obligation reflects the across the board reduction
pursuant to Division N section 601 of Public Law 108-7.
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA
approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The
federal government provides financial support for construction
and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary
with the type of road.
There are almost four million miles of public roads in the
United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal
Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the
construction and preservation of about 958,000 miles (24
percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive
interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes.
Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of
total U.S. highway traffic.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends liquidating cash appropriation of
$34,000,000,000. This level is the required amount to pay the
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at
levels provided in past Appropriation Acts.
The current authorization, the Transportation Equity Act
for the 21st Century (TEA-21) expires on September 30, 2003.
Since no reauthorization bill has been passed by Congress, the
Committee bill assumes the account structure and funding levels
contained in the final year of TEA-21.
TEA-21 aligned highway spending with receipts into the
highway account of the highway trust fund. The obligation
limitation is $5,091,052,000 over the Office of Management and
Budget's estimate of receipt deposits into the highway account
of the highway trust fund in fiscal year 2004. Following the
TEA-21 model that aligned receipts to obligation limitation,
fiscal year 2004 funding level would be $28,293,948,000.
However, this does not take into account the downward
adjustment of about $4 billion required due to overestimation
of receipts in prior years.
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2004 federal-aid highways obligations to $33,385,000,000,
an increase of $1,791,700,000 from the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level and $4,091,052,000 over the budget request. This
obligation limitation level is $5,091,052,000 more than the
estimates of receipts into the highway trust fund in fiscal
year 2004.
Federal-Aid Highways Estimated Obligations
Although the following table reflects an estimated
distribution of obligations by program category, the bill
includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain
federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated
obligations by program within the $33,385,000,000 provided by
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent
law:
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATION LIMITATION BY PROGRAMS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 est.
Programs limitation limitation limitation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface Transportation Program........................... $6,007,633 $6,926,475 $7,698,954
National Highway System.................................. 5,113,998 5,919,346 6,579,941
Interstate Maintenance................................... 4,203,960 4,847,211 5,390,114
Bridge Program........................................... 3,592,045 4,141,741 4,606,035
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement........ 1,465,679 1,689,817 1,878,109
Minimum Guarantee........................................ 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Safety Incentive Grants for Use of Seat Belts............ 101,248 100,145 112,000
ITS Standards, Research and Development.................. 94,920 98,357 110,000
ITS Deployment........................................... 108,480 109,086 122,000
Transportation Research.................................. 214,116 208,880 230,500
Federal Lands Highways................................... 855,323 772,919 690,115
National Corridor Planning and Coordinated Border 509,419 377,313 140,000
Infrastructure..........................................
Administration........................................... 310,548 \1\ 314,071 359,458
Other Programs........................................... 4,872,239 1,538,748 908,794
High Priority Projects Program........................... 1,607,648 1,821,583 1,947,317
Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge (Special)................. 232,942 230,467 0
Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation..... 108,480 50,496 130,000
Appalachian Development Highway System................... 400,427 446,645 481,663
--------------------------------------------------
Total Obligation Limitation \2\........................ 31,799,105 31,593,300 33,385,000
==================================================
Emergency Relief Program..................................... 87,198 138,089 100,000
Minimum Allocation/Guarantee................................. 655,276 581,569 616,028
Demonstration Projects....................................... 264,359 164,671 115,269
--------------------------------------------------
Total Estimated Obligation of Exempt Programs.......... 1,006,833 884,329 831,297
==================================================
Emergency Relief Supplemental................................ 115,619 285,248 0
==================================================
Grand Total, Federal-Aid Highways (Direct)............. 32,921,557 32,762,877 34,216,297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Net of the .65% across-the-board reduction contained in Div. N, Sec. 601 of P.L. 108-7. Does not reflect
FHWA's share of the WCF reduction.
\2\ Please note that distribution of the obligation limitation for the core programs are estimated.
The following table reflects the estimated distribution of
the federal-aid limitation by state:
ESTIMATED FY 2004 OBLIGATION LIMITATION
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated FY FY 2004 Appalachian
State 2004 formula minimum development Total
limitation guarantee highways
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama..................................... $474,338 $36,849 $53,034 $564,221
Alaska...................................... 248,718 69,955 0 318,673
Arizona..................................... 448,905 49,754 0 498,659
Arkansas.................................... 338,732 26,519 0 365,251
California.................................. 2,535,880 150,109 0 2,685,989
Colorado.................................... 358,091 22,145 0 380,236
Connecticut................................. 368,355 48,358 0 416,713
Delaware.................................... 121,492 8,515 0 130,007
Dist. of Col................................ 114,465 315 0 114,780
Florida..................................... 1,196,365 168,438 0 1,364,803
Georgia..................................... 877,848 104,285 21,195 1,003,328
Hawaii...................................... 133,427 10,093 0 143,520
Idaho....................................... 184,639 19,536 0 204,175
Illinois.................................... 905,230 37,407 0 942,637
Indiana..................................... 589,237 61,762 0 650,999
Iowa........................................ 330,696 10,461 0 341,157
Kansas...................................... 322,376 9,505 0 331,881
Kentucky.................................... 425,174 26,846 48,651 500,671
Louisiana................................... 421,743 27,311 0 449,054
Maine....................................... 142,152 7,944 0 150,096
Maryland.................................... 437,794 25,609 8,293 471,696
Massachusetts............................... 502,534 19,391 0 521,925
Michigan.................................... 807,086 65,636 0 872,722
Minnesota................................... 399,074 16,143 0 415,217
Mississippi................................. 325,056 17,654 5,948 348,658
Missouri.................................... 627,684 30,960 0 658,644
Montana..................................... 250,056 34,525 0 284,581
Nebraska.................................... 223,235 6,618 0 229,853
Nevada...................................... 188,113 17,730 0 205,843
New Hampshire............................... 131,767 9,207 0 140,974
New Jersey.................................. 715,080 37,061 0 752,141
New Mexico.................................. 255,492 21,260 0 276,752
New York.................................... 1,317,440 89,000 11,431 1,417,871
North Carolina.............................. 699,677 69,841 31,225 800,743
North Dakota................................ 181,275 10,635 0 191,910
Ohio........................................ 888,292 59,245 23,915 971,452
Oklahoma.................................... 433,648 13,321 0 446,969
Oregon...................................... 319,759 16,430 0 336,189
Pennsylvania................................ 1,166,657 58,323 129,676 1,354,656
Rhode Island................................ 162,477 10,540 0 173,017
South Carolina.............................. 431,375 44,852 2,598 478,825
South Dakota................................ 187,631 13,206 0 200,837
Tennessee................................... 536,856 36,656 59,458 632,970
Texas....................................... 2,039,743 220,203 0 2,259,946
Utah........................................ 212,565 7,410 0 219,975
Vermont..................................... 127,630 5,679 0 133,309
Virginia.................................... 653,927 55,918 12,497 722,342
Washington.................................. 479,459 18,763 0 498,222
West Virginia............................... 219,205 10,163 73,742 303,110
Wisconsin................................... 498,014 53,930 0 551,944
Wyoming..................................... 196,690 7,984 0 204,674
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.............................. 26,153,154 2,000,000 481,663 28,634,817
Special Limitation:
High Priority Projects.................. ............... ............... ............... 1,947,317
Allocation Programs..................... ............... ............... ............... 2,802,866
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Limitation...................... ............... ............... ............... 33,385,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendations are based on current law,
under which Federal-aid highways funds are made available
through the following major programs:
National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and
the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995
subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS).
This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers,
international border crossings, intermodal transportation
facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of
years of effort by many organizations, both public and private,
to identify routes of national significance. It includes all
interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials,
the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic
highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 76 percent
of commercial truck traffic and 44 percent of all vehicular
traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its
NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The
federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability
period of 4 years.
Interstate maintenance.--The 46,567-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
Funds provided for the interstate maintenance discretionary
program in fiscal year 2004 shall be available for the
following activities in the corresponding amounts:
Business Route I-44 (Chestnut Expressway) and National
Avenue Intersection Improvement Missouri............ $750,000
Capacity expansion on I-35 in Olathe, KS, from 159th St.
to 175th St......................................... 1,200,000
Cawtawba Avenue Interchange (I-77) Improvement, North
Carolina............................................ 750,000
Central Sarasota Parkway Interchange at I-75, Sarasota,
Florida............................................. 500,000
City of Wheat Ridge, Colorado, I-70 and State Highway 58
Interchange Reconstruction.......................... 1,600,000
Conceptual Development & Preliminary Design improvements
to the intersections of Interstate 59, U.S. Highways
15 and 84, Mississippi.............................. 265,000
Construct Madison Street Interchange I-29 in Sioux
Falls, SD........................................... 3,000,000
Coors/Interstate 40 Interchange Reconstruction, New
Mexico.............................................. 1,000,000
Deming, NM I-10 Frontage Road Extension................. 1,800,000
Double Eagle II Airport (Paseo del Volcan) Interchange
and Roadway Rehabilitation, New Mexico.............. 2,000,000
Ellensburg Interchange I-90, Milepost 108.31, Washington 2,000,000
Feasibility study for Routes 495/195 Interchange,
Wareham, Massachusetts.............................. 500,000
Four interchanges at I-435 and I-35 in Johnson County,
Kansas.............................................. 1,000,000
I-12 Sound Barriers, Slidell, Louisiana................. 750,000
I-15, Utah/ Salt Lake County Line to SR-92.............. 3,000,000
I-20 Downing Pines Interchange, Louisiana............... 1,405,000
I-205, Oregon........................................... 1,000,000
I-210 and Highway 14 Interchange, Lake Charles,
Louisiana........................................... 1,000,000
I-25, US 36, I-270 Interchange, Colorado................ 500,000
I-25/Tramway Interchange, Albuquerque, New Mexico....... 2,000,000
I-285 Noise Walls, Henderson Mill to Chamblee Tucker
Road, Georgia....................................... 800,000
I-285 Noise Walls, I-20 to Bouldercrest Road, Georgia... 480,000
I-295/Meadowville Interchange, Virginia................. 2,000,000
I-35 East/I-635 interchange, Texas...................... 800,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma..................... 1,000,000
I-44 exit ramp in Luther area, Oklahoma................. 2,000,000
I-44 Rogers Lane Interchange, Lawton, Oklahoma.......... 1,000,000
I-44 widening and construction Arkansas River east to
Yale Avenue in Tulsa, OK............................ 5,000,000
I-476 Reconstruction and Widening Project, Pennsylvania. 1,000,000
I-5 Rush Road to Maytown Widening, Lewis County, WA..... 500,000
I-5 Vancouver Interchange Improvements, Washington...... 1,000,000
I-5/Ortega Highway Interchange Construction, California. 1,000,000
I-66/Route 29 Gainsville Interchange, Virginia.......... 1,750,000
I-676 Martin Luther King Blvd., Camden County, NJ....... 1,250,000
I-695 Baltimore Beltway N/E Inner Loop, Maryland........ 1,000,000
I-70 Projects: Frederick, Maryland...................... 750,000
I-75 in Rockcastle County, Kentucky (Milepoint 64.5 to
Milepoint 69.0), 4.5 Miles.......................... 1,500,000
I-75/Aviation Blvd, Atlanta, Georgia.................... 1,000,000
I-76, Fort Morgan, Colorado to Brush, Colorado.......... 250,000
I-77/Lauby Road exit, Ohio.............................. 1,000,000
I-80 Truck Climbing Lane, Keystone to Robb Drive, Nevada 500,000
I-81 Corridor and I-690 Interchange Improvement Project
in Syracuse, New York............................... 2,000,000
I-84, Glenns Ferry to King Hill, Idaho.................. 1,000,000
I-84/I-87 Interchange Reconstruction, New York.......... 250,000
I-84/Route 2 East Hartford Connecticut, operational
improvements (flyover access)....................... 1,000,000
I-85 Coweta County Noise Barriers, Georgia.............. 750,000
I-90, Spokane to Idaho State Line, Washington........... 1,000,000
I-96/Latson Road Interchange, Michigan.................. 750,000
IH 30 from FM 989 (Kings Highway) to US 59/71 (Stateline
Avenue) in Texarkana, Texas......................... 3,000,000
IH-30 Interchange Improvement Project, Texas............ 2,000,000
IH35/SH45 interchange at Round Rock, Texas.............. 250,000
Improvements to I-75 in Lee County, FL.................. 1,000,000
Interchange at I-565 and County Line Road, Alabama...... 1,000,000
Interstate 10 Cypress Avenue Overcrossing, California... 1,000,000
Interstate 10/Tippecanoe Interchange, California........ 2,500,000
Interstate 295/Route 38 Interchange Improvements, New
Jersey.............................................. 750,000
Interstate 430/630: Interchange Modification, Arkansas.. 1,000,000
Interstate 74 Bridge Corridor Project, Iowa............. 500,000
Interstate 80-Exits 298-299 Renovation Project,
Pennsylvania........................................ 1,000,000
Laval Road Interchange Upgrades at I-5, California...... 1,000,000
Louisville--Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges project,
Indiana............................................. 3,250,000
New York State Thruway Authority, Westchester County,
Byram Bridge Rehabilitation......................... 1,000,000
Noise Walls on I-20 from Fulton Industrial Boulevard to
H. E. Holmes, Fulton County, Georgia................ 500,000
Northbound I-675 Sound Barrier, Greene County, Ohio..... 1,000,000
Ohio River Bridges, Kentucky............................ 6,550,000
Pavement and Bridge Rehabilitation on I-85, North
Carolina............................................ 1,000,000
Pennsylvania Turnpike--Interstate 95 Interchange Project 250,000
Phase II, I-44 Modification (Widen Eastbound I-44 Bridge
at Meramec River), Missouri......................... 200,000
Pineda Causeway Interchange at I-95, Florida............ 1,100,000
Rancho Cucamonga I-15 & Base Line Road Interchange
Improvements, California............................ 1,000,000
Reconstruct Exit 60--I-90 in Rapid City, South Dakota... 1,000,000
Reconstruction/Removal of I-40 and I-55 ramps, Memphis,
TN.................................................. 750,000
Right of way Project on IH 35, from FM 2063 in Hewitt to
South Loop 340/ State Hwy 6 Interchange, Texas...... 1,500,000
Scott City, Missouri Access Ramp........................ 250,000
Sierra College Boulevard/I-80 Interchange, California... 1,000,000
SR-56/I-5 Northbound Widening, California............... 1,000,000
Tri-State Tollway (I-294), Plaza 33 Irving Park Road, MP
39.0, Illinois...................................... 600,000
Upgrade Interchange at I-15--Design, Cajalco Road,
Corona, CA.......................................... 200,000
Upgrade of the Interstate 95 and SC-327 Interchange in
South Carolina...................................... 1,750,000
Valley Mall Boulevard Interchange and South Union Gap
Interchange, Washington............................. 500,000
Waltham, MA 1-95/Rt 20 Interchange...................... 2,000,000
Widening Interstate 35 East between FM 2181 and Lake
Lewisville, Denton County, Texas.................... 250,000
All remaining federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. TEA-21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior interstate construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer
any surplus interstate construction funds to their interstate
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate
maintenance program.
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a flexible program that may be used by the
states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are
not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors.
These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-aid
highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are not
restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA-21, which may be used as if they were STP
funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 50 percent divided among areas of over 200,000
population and remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent
for any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less
are guaranteed an amount based on previous funding, and 15
percent of the amounts reserved for these areas may be spent on
rural minor collectors. The federal share for the STP program
is 80 percent with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program provides assistance for bridges on public roads
including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and
for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a state's
bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the
amount of any such transfer is deducted from national bridge
needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the
following year.
Funds provided for the bridge discretionary program in
fiscal year 2004 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:
12th Street Viaduct (Kansas City, Missouri)............. $750,000
Boulder Ave Bridge project, Highland, California........ 1,000,000
Coal Creek Parkway, Washington.......................... 1,500,000
Construction of the Cooper River Bridge Replacement
Project, South Carolina............................. 2,000,000
CR 309 Georgetown Bridge, Putnam County, Florida........ 500,000
Ferry Street Bridge, New Haven, CT...................... 1,750,000
First Street Bridge, Roanoke, Virginia.................. 500,000
Gill-Montague Bridge, MA................................ 5,000,000
Gilmerton Bridge, Virginia.............................. 4,000,000
Greenspot Bridge, Highland, CA.......................... 500,000
Hagatna River, Flood Mitigation Bridge Improvement
Project, Guam....................................... 750,000
Historic Woodrow Wilson Bridge Restoration Project,
Rankin Co., MS...................................... 2,500,000
I-195 Washington Bridge (East Bound), Rhode Island...... 750,000
I-35 Trinity River Bridge, Texas........................ 1,000,000
I-710 Corridor/Gerald Desmond Bridge Gateway Program
(Desmond Bridge Replacement)........................ 2,000,000
I-95 New Haven Q-Bridge, Approach Work (Contract C),
Connecticut......................................... 750,000
Indian River Inlet Bridge Replacement, Delaware......... 2,000,000
Interstate 74 Bridge Corridor Project, Iowa............. 1,900,000
Kapahi Bridge, Island of Kauai.......................... 500,000
Lake Pontchartrain Causeway Bridge, Louisiana........... 3,000,000
Leeville Bridge, Lafourche Parish, Louisiana............ 2,000,000
Longfellow Bridge, Boston and Cambridge, Massachusetts.. 3,000,000
Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Aprons, Toledo, Ohio...... 2,000,000
MD 70 Bridge over Weems Creek, Maryland................. 500,000
Missouri River Bridge, Rulo............................. 1,250,000
North Avenue Bridge over the North Branch of the Chicago
River, Illinois..................................... 1,000,000
Red Cliff Arch Bridge, Colorado......................... 1,500,000
Replacement of existing I-75 Brent Spence Bridge over
Ohio River between Covington and Cincinnati......... 2,500,000
Route 17/Essex St. Bridge Replacement, Bergen County,
New Jersey.......................................... 3,000,000
Route 52 Causeway Replacement and Somers Point Circle
Elimination, New Jersey............................. 1,750,000
Russell Street Viaduct Replacement, Maryland............ 650,000
Sauvie Island Bridge Replacement, Oregon................ 500,000
State Highway 332 at Brazos River, Brazoria County,
Texas............................................... 6,000,000
Tamiami Bridge Replacement, Florida..................... 2,000,000
U.S. 220--Business Bridge Replacement, Virginia......... 2,600,000
U.S. 34 Missouri River Bridge in Mills County, Iowa..... 2,500,000
US-169 viaduct between Kansas Avenue and I-70, Kansas
City, Kansas........................................ 2,100,000
US-2, Dover Bridge, Bonner County, Idaho................ 2,000,000
VA Route 28 Widening, Virginia.......................... 2,000,000
Vernon Atlantic Boulevard Bridge Expansion Project,
California.......................................... 500,000
Waldo-Hancock Suspension Bridge in Prospect and Verona,
Maine............................................... 3,000,000
Funds provided for seismic retrofit under the bridge
discretionary program in fiscal year 2004 shall be available
for the following activities in the corresponding amount:
9th Street Bridge, NE over New York Avenue, District of
Columbia............................................ $750,000
Christina River Bridge Seismic Retrofit, Delaware....... 2,500,000
Golden Gate Bridge Seismic Retrofit, California......... 5,000,000
Highway 21/Rincon Truck Bypass, Georgia................. 7,500,000
Sakonnet River Bridge Replacement, Rhode Island......... 1,750,000
South Capitol Street/Frederick Douglass Bridge, Maryland 2,500,000
SR 520/SR 25 Flyover Bridge, Glynn County, Georgia...... 5,000,000
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, provided DOT, after
consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet
national ambient air quality standards. TEA-21 provides greater
flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands
and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce
extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter
(PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no
non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as
if they were STP funds. On-road and off-road demonstration
projects may be appropriate candidates for funding under the
CMAQ program. Both sectors are critical for satisfying the
purposes of the CMAQ program, including reducing regional
emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides funding
through four major categories--Indian reservation roads,
parkways and park roads, public lands highways (which
incorporates the previous forest highways category), and
Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the
National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA-21 also established a new
program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation
roads.
Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year
2004 shall be available for the following activities in the
corresponding amounts:
Access roads to Beale Air Force Base, CA................ $750,000
Adams National Historic Park Transportation and Access,
Massachusetts....................................... 465,000
Apache County Road, 5020, Arizona....................... 750,000
Apache County South Fork Bridge, Arizona................ 250,000
Atwater Federal Penitentiary Access Road, California.... 1,500,000
Badger Creek Crossing, Fall River Lake, Greenwood
County, KS.......................................... 5,000,000
Battlefield Parkway expansion from Kindaid Boulevard to
Route 7, Virginia................................... 6,000,000
BIA Route 35 resurfacing: State line to Montezuma Creek,
Utah................................................ 1,500,000
Big South Fork, Scenic Railway Track Restoration in
McCreary County, Kentucky........................... 400,000
Blackstone River Bikeway, Rhode Island.................. 800,000
Blackwater Wildlife Refuge roads and visitor center,
Rhode Island........................................ 500,000
Boston Harbor Islands National Park Area Universal
Access, Massachusetts............................... 2,600,000
Brown's Park, Utah...................................... 1,500,000
Calaveras Wagon Trail Expressway Realignment, California 500,000
Calumet Trail, Prairie Duneland Trail and Marquette
Trail Link, Indiana................................. 307,000
Choctaw Roads, Band of Choctaw Indians Road
Improvements, Mississippi........................... 900,000
City of Henderson Lake Las Vegas/Lake Mead Interchange,
Nevada.............................................. 2,000,000
Cross Base Highway, Washington.......................... 1,000,000
East Flagstaff Traffic Interchange, Arizona............. 500,000
Foothills Parkway, Great Smoky Mountains National Park,
Tennessee........................................... 1,000,000
Fort Yates Business Loop Street Improvement, North
Dakota.............................................. 550,000
George Washington Memorial Parkway Safety Improvements,
Virginia............................................ 800,000
Glorieta Battlefield New Mexico 50 realignment.......... 750,000
Hal Rogers Parkway, Kentucky............................ 1,000,000
Hansen Dam Recreation Area Parking Enhancements,
Pacoima, California................................. 500,000
Highway 62 Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements,
in Yucca Valley, California......................... 500,000
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge, Arizona....................... 5,000,000
Hoover Dam Bypass-Boulder Extension (US 93/US 95, Wagon
Wheel Pass), Nevada................................. 6,000,000
IH20--Dyess AFB Access Project, Texas................... 2,500,000
Lake Tahoe EIP, Nevada.................................. 1,000,000
Lowell Riverwalk Phase II Design, Massachusetts......... 800,000
Marin Parklands/Muir Woods Visitor Access, California... 2,000,000
MD 4 Suitland Parkway Interchange....................... 4,500,000
Military Cutoff Road (SR 1409) Improvements in New
Hanover County, North Carolina...................... 887,000
Mill Creek Road (Mendocino County), California.......... 800,000
Navajo Archeological Study, Utah State Route 262 between
Montezuma Creek and Aneth........................... 2,000,000
Needles Highway Realignment and Safety Improvements,
California.......................................... 3,000,000
Ohiki Road Bank Stabilization and Engineering, Hanalei,
Island of Kauai..................................... 100,000
Ohio State Route 2/Ottawa National Wildlife Refuge...... 1,000,000
Phase 2 South Palm Canyon Realignment and Ancillary
Access Improvements, California..................... 300,000
Presidio Trails and Bikeways, Golden Gate National
Recreation Area, California......................... 1,500,000
Preston North & South, Nebraska......................... 500,000
Public Lands Highways Project, Cedar Creek bridge
construction at Wilson Lake, Russell County, Kansas. 304,000
Regional Tourism and Transportation Center, New York.... 1,250,000
Rehabilitation of the Henry Drive Bridge over the Union
Pacific Railroad tracks at Fort Riley, Kansas....... 808,000
Rossie Coats Road, Kemper County, MS.................... 200,000
Russell Cave National Monument Road, Jackson County,
Alabama............................................. 496,000
Saginaw Chippewa Transportation Improvement Project,
Michigan............................................ 1,000,000
Seminoe Dam Road, Wyoming............................... 750,000
Snake Road (BIA Route 1281) Improvement, Florida........ 1,000,000
SR 196 Widening, Liberty County, Georgia................ 1,000,000
Stafford 8th Avenue Bridge, Arizona..................... 1,000,000
State Highway 149, Colorado............................. 500,000
Sturgeon Lake Road Overpass, Minnesota.................. 2,000,000
Summit Valley Road Project, San Bernardino, California.. 500,000
Tank Destroyer Blvd, Ft. Hood, TX....................... 2,000,000
Timucuan Preserve Bike Trail, Florida................... 600,000
Turquoise Trail Project (BIA Route 4), Arizona.......... 2,498,000
US 50 Phase I highway and water quality improvement
project, California................................. 2,000,000
US 666 Archaeological Studies and Planning Design, New
Mexico.............................................. 880,000
USMC Heritage Center Access, Virginia................... 750,000
Western Canalway, Suffolk and Moody Street Reach,
Massachusetts....................................... 500,000
Western Maryland Low Impact Welcome Center at Byron
Overlook, Maryland.................................. 770,000
Wolf Trap National Park Pedestrian Crossing, Virginia... 1,285,000
The Committee directs that the funds allocated above shall
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program,
and not from funds allocated to the Fish and Wildlife Service
and National Park Service regional offices.
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA-21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each state receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each state will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the states
as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related
to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub-
state allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are
distributed among core highway programs.
Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and
reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned
roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of
natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA-21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under TEA-21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999-2004; is available until expended;
and distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete
estimate.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA-21 established a new national corridor planning
and development program that provides funds for the coordinated
planning, design, and construction of corridors of national
significance, economic growth, and international or
interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors
identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors
using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated
border infrastructure program is established to improve the
safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./
Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders.
Funds provided for the national corridor planning and
border infrastructure programs in fiscal year 2004 shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:
172nd Street/I-5 Interchange and Bridge Expansion,
Washington.......................................... $2,000,000
60/67 Interchange--Butler County, Missouri.............. 1,500,000
Aiken Road Bridge, Kentucky............................. 100,000
Alameda Corridor-East Gateway to America Project Phase
II, Los Angeles, California......................... 2,000,000
Anacostia Crossings and Freeway Study, Maryland......... 750,000
Annie Glidden Road, DeKalb, Illinois.................... 500,000
Arch-Sperry Road Improvements, California............... 250,000
Auburn Ravine Bridge--City of Lincoln, California....... 250,000
Bayfield County bridge projects, Wisconsin.............. 410,000
California State Route 75 (City of Coronado) Tunnel
Project Report and Environmental Document,
California.......................................... 500,000
Cameron Street Bridge, Shamokin/Coal Townships,
Northumberland County, Pennsylvania................. 1,000,000
Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation U.S. 15,
Pennsylvania........................................ 2,000,000
Central Thruway (LA 37/US 190 to Central Thruway
Connector), Louisiana............................... 1,000,000
City of Forsyth Frontage Road, Illinois................. 200,000
City of Madison East Washington Avenue Reconstruction,
Wisconsin........................................... 2,000,000
City of Seminole, US 377 upgrades and creation of a
spur, Oklahoma...................................... 2,000,000
City of Wewoka, Oklahoma................................ 250,000
Coalfields Expressway--Virginia......................... 500,000
Columbus, Mississippi Highway 45 Bypass................. 750,000
Corridor V construction along SR-6, Mississippi......... 1,000,000
County State Highway 21 Project, Minnesota.............. 750,000
CR 578 Widening from Mariner Boulevard to Suncoast
Parkway, Florida.................................... 1,000,000
Donna-Rio Bravo International Border Crossing, Texas.... 750,000
Elk Grove Sheldon 99 Interchange, California............ 300,000
Extend 4-Lane Highway from Maverick Junction to Nebraska
in Fall River County, South Dakota.................. 250,000
FAECO Drive, Luzerne Township, Pennsylvania............. 3,000,000
Falls to Falls Corridor, Minnesota...................... 1,000,000
Freight Rail Transportation Corridor and Urban Mobility
Program--Harris County, Texas....................... 1,000,000
Georgia S.R. 316 Improvements--Gwinnett County, Georgia. 100,000
Highway 101 Implementation Plan, California............. 600,000
Highway 22/Cordon Road interchange- Environmental Impact
Study, Oregon....................................... 500,000
Highway 29/Highway 51 Wausau, Wisconsin................. 3,000,000
Highway 412: Baxter County Line to Eastern Sharp County
Line................................................ 1,500,000
Highway 431 Modification, Alabama....................... 1,200,000
Highway 71: Louisiana State Line, DeQueen, Arkansas..... 1,000,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma..................... 8,000,000
I-5 Interregional Arterials Improvement Project,
California.......................................... 725,000
I-540 and Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas...... 1,050,000
I-65 and County Road 24 Interchange, Limestone County,
Alabama............................................. 1,000,000
I-66 A westbound widening from Rosslyn Tunnel to Dulles
Connector, Virginia................................. 1,000,000
I-675 Corridor Improvements, Ohio....................... 500,000
I-69 Indianapolis to Evansville, Indiana Segment........ 1,000,000
I-75, Enterprise South Connector Road, Chattanooga,
Tennessee........................................... 1,000,000
I-75/Austin Road Interchange, Ohio...................... 650,000
I-87 Exit 11A New Interchange, New York................. 750,000
I-96 at Beck Rd. and Wixom Rd. interchange
reconstruction, Michigan............................ 2,000,000
Interchange/overpass at highway K-7 and 55th St. and
Johnson Dr. in Shawnee, Kansas...................... 1,000,000
Intercounty Connector (ICC), Maryland................... 500,000
Interstate 15 Managed Lanes, California................. 1,000,000
Interstate 5 Riverfront Reconnection, California........ 500,000
Jasper Airport Road, Jasper, Alabama.................... 1,000,000
Jim Thorpe Bridge Renovation Project, Pennsylvania...... 500,000
Johnsontown Road, Kentucky.............................. 200,000
Kauffman Ave Roadway Improvements, Greene County, Ohio.. 500,000
KY750 from US 23 to KY 3105 in Raceland, Greenup County,
Kentucky............................................ 300,000
LA 18 from Avondale to US 90, Jefferson Parish,
Louisiana........................................... 500,000
LA Hwy 820 Improvements, Lincoln Parish, Louisiana...... 1,500,000
Lake County, Tennessee, State Route 21, from Log Mile
7.0 to Obion County Line............................ 500,000
Lincoln bypass-SR65/Ferrari Interchange Construction,
California.......................................... 2,000,000
Long Meadow Parkway Fox River Bridge Crossing, Bolz
Road, Illinois...................................... 3,000,000
Loop 201 Expansion Project, Texas....................... 750,000
Loop 304 Expansion and Improvement, Crockett, Texas..... 500,000
Lyndale Avenue Bridge, Minnesota........................ 2,000,000
Montgomery County/U.S. 35 Widening, Ohio................ 500,000
New Haven Road Corridor Study, Connecticut.............. 90,000
New Jersey Route 31 Highway/ Congestion Mitigation Study 150,000
New Jersey Route 57/CR Route 519 Intersection
Improvements........................................ 1,300,000
North Coast Interstate 5, La Jolla Village Drive and
Vandegrift Boulevard, California.................... 500,000
Northern Bypass of Somerset, Kentucky in Pulaski County. 650,000
Northern Tier Expressway (NTE), New York................ 100,000
North-South Highway TCL-MSL Corridor, Alabama........... 1,000,000
Pennsylvania Mon Fayette Expressway and Southern Beltway
Project, Pennsylvania............................... 2,000,000
Pinellas County, Florida Roosevelt Connector Project.... 7,000,000
Pittston Connector Project, Pennsylvania................ 300,000
Planning for New Route over Cape Fear River, North
Carolina............................................ 250,000
Ports-to-Plains highway rehabilitation between Del Rio
and Eagle Pass, Texas............................... 1,000,000
Ranchero Road/Cajon Branchline Grade Separation,
California.......................................... 500,000
Route 104/Dominion Boulevard, Virginia.................. 3,000,000
Route 106 Underpass Rehabilitation, Mansfield,
Massachusetts....................................... 750,000
Route 116 Ashfield, Conway, Massachusetts............... 2,500,000
Route 12, Veterans Memorial Corridor, Auburn,
Massachusetts....................................... 1,250,000
Route 168 Corridor Improvements, Camden and Gloucester
Counties, New Jersey................................ 250,000
Route 17 Improvements from Route 3 to Linwood Avenue,
Bergen Co, New Jersey............................... 1,000,000
Route 2 Safety Improvements, Athol, Philipston, Orange,
Massachusetts....................................... 3,000,000
Route 24/140 Interchange Improvements, Taunton,
Massachusetts....................................... 750,000
Route 403 Relocation, Rhode Island...................... 1,000,000
Route 590 Reconstruction project, Irondequoit, New York. 2,500,000
Route 79 Relocation and Harbor Enhancement, Fall River,
Massachusetts....................................... 750,000
Route 8, Berkshire County, Massachusetts................ 1,250,000
Rutherford Avenue, Boston, Massachusetts................ 1,500,000
Santa Clarita Cross Valley Connector, California........ 3,000,000
SH 158 widening in Sterling County, Texas............... 1,000,000
Shelby County CR 500 E Safety Upgrade, Indiana.......... 100,000
SR694, Pinellas Park, Florida........................... 2,000,000
St. Charles, Illinois, Fox River Crossing at Red Gate
Corridor............................................ 1,750,000
St. Clair Avenue in East Liverpool, Ohio................ 500,000
State Highway 29 (Interstate 94--Chippewa Falls,
Wisconsin).......................................... 2,000,000
Ten Mile at Middlebelt Road Intersection Safety,
Michigan............................................ 200,000
Tennessee US 412 Corridor, Tennessee.................... 2,000,000
Tennessee's I40 in Roane County......................... 750,000
Rock Island Parkway, Arkansas........................... 600,000
Tienken Road Bridge over the Paint Creek, Rochester
Hills Michigan...................................... 750,000
Town of Marana, Twin Peaks Corridor, Arizona............ 1,000,000
Trenton Channel Bridge Replacement, Wayne County,
Michigan............................................ 375,000
U.S. Highway 54, Kansas................................. 1,000,000
U.S. Route 33 Corridor Improvements at Winchester-
Cemetary Road, Ohio................................. 1,000,000
U.S. Route 33 Road Improvements (Pendelton County, West
Virginia)........................................... 500,000
U.S. Route 422 Improvement Project, Pennsylvania........ 500,000
University Boulevard Interchange Project, Pittsburgh
area Pennsylvania................................... 250,000
Upgrade of SR 1165 (Beckford Drive) to a multilane
facility, North Carolina............................ 100,000
Upgrade US158 to a multilane facility between I-85 and
I-95, North Carolina................................ 250,000
US 20 Webster County Widen to four lanes, Iowa.......... 1,500,000
US 278 from Sulligent, AL to Guin, Alabama.............. 1,500,000
US 60, Osage County, Pawhuska to Vinita, Oklahoma....... 2,000,000
US 83 Anzalduas Connection Road and Structures to New
International Bridge, Texas......................... 500,000
US Highway 212/County Road 134 Intersection, Minnesota.. 750,000
US Highway 218 in Keokuk, Iowa.......................... 1,000,000
US Market Street Bridge, Lycoming County, Pennsylvania.. 1,000,000
US-12 Burbank to Walla Walla, Washington................ 1,000,000
US-395 North Spokane Corridor, Washingon................ 1,000,000
USH 151 Dickeyville-Dodgeville, Wisconsin............... 2,000,000
USH 53 Bypass (Eau Claire, Wisconsin)................... 2,000,000
West Laredo Multimodal Trade Corridor, Texas............ 2,000,000
Widen NC 210 (Murchison Road) in Cumberland County,
North Carolina...................................... 1,750,000
Winfield Way Extension, Canton, Ohio.................... 500,000
I-66 widening.--The Committee has provided $1,000,000 for
I-66 westbound widening. However, if funds are not obligated by
June 1, 2004, amounts shall be available for Route 7 widening
in Fairfax County.
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Current law
provides funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry
terminal facilities. It also sets-aside $20,000,000 from each
of fiscal year for marine highway systems that are part of the
National Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New
Jersey and Washington. Consistent with current law, this bill
provides $38,000,000.
Funds provided for the ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities program in fiscal year 2004 shall be available for
the following activities in the corresponding amounts:
Beale Street Landing/Docking Facility, Memphis, TN...... $750,000
Canal Corridor Association--Port of LaSalle Project,
Illinois............................................ 500,000
Capital Cost of Contracting for Water Bus Service,
Florida............................................. 500,000
City of Palatka Ferry Service, Florida.................. 750,000
Coffman Cove ferry terminal, Alaska..................... 2,000,000
Erie-Western Pennsylvania Port Authority Ferry Vessel
Acquisition......................................... 1,100,000
Ferry service from Rockaway Peninsula to Manhattan
(Jamaica Bay Transportation Hub), New York.......... 500,000
Fire Island Ferry Terminal, Saltaire, New York.......... 500,000
Fishers Island Ferry District New London Terminal
Expansion and Upgrade, Connecticut.................. 750,000
Governor Curtis Ferry Boat Replacement, Maine........... 500,000
High Speed Ferry Terminal, Bridgeport, CT............... 1,000,000
Jacksonville Water Taxi Stations, Florida............... 700,000
Oyster Point Ferry Vessel, California................... 500,000
Passenger Ferry, Port of Corpus Christi, Texas.......... 500,000
Passenger-only ferry purchase and facility development,
Washington.......................................... 1,000,000
Pittsburgh Water Taxi, Pennsylvania..................... 250,000
Rockland County and City of Yonkers, NY Ferry Service... 1,250,000
S-236 Claggett Road/Lewis & Clark Ferry Boat Facilities
on Missouri River, Montana.......................... 1,000,000
Savannah Water Ferry Project............................ 1,000,000
Southworth and Vashon Terminal Improvements, Washington. 400,000
St. George's Ferry, New York............................ 1,000,000
St. Mary's River Ferry System Facility and Facility
Improvement, Michigan............................... 250,000
Stamford High Speed Ferry, Stamford, CT................. 500,000
Swans Island Ferry Terminal Improvements, Swans Island,
Maine............................................... 500,000
Winthrop, MA Ferry...................................... 300,000
National scenic byways program.--This program provides
funding for roads that are designated by the Secretary of
Transportation as All American Roads (AAR) or National Scenic
Byways (NSB). These roads have outstanding scenic, historic,
cultural, natural, recreational, and archaeological qualities.
In fiscal year 2004, the bill provides $26,500,000 for this
program. Funds provided for the national scenic byways program
in fiscal year 2004 shall be available for the following
activities in the corresponding amounts:
Amherst County Greenway, Virginia....................... $2,000,000
Berkshire/Franklin Mohawk Trail Scenic Byway, MA........ 1,000,000
City of Espanola El Camino Real Scenic Byway alignment,
New Mexico.......................................... 100,000
Enhancements to Route 6A Scenic Byway, Cape and Islands
Rural Roads Initiative, Massachusetts............... 1,000,000
Flagler County Scenic and Historic A1A, Florida......... 892,000
Franklin County Connecticut River Scenic Byway, MA...... 1,000,000
Gateways for Maine's National Scenic Byways............. 1,000,000
Great River Road in Mercer County, Illinois............. 500,000
Idaho National Scenic Byways............................ 75,000
Kentucky Scenic Byways.................................. 1,000,000
Mason Creek Greenway, Virginia.......................... 1,250,000
New York State Scenic Byways Program Statewide Project.. 2,000,000
Pioneer Historic Byway Interpretive Site Development,
Idaho............................................... 100,000
Route 29 Scenic Byway, Hunterdon County, NJ............. 500,000
S-323 Alzada-Ekalaka, Montana........................... 4,183,000
Snoqualmie Point View Park, Washington.................. 600,000
US 78 Bamberg Scenic Highway Project, South Carolina.... 5,000,000
Washington State Scenic Byways.......................... 1,000,000
Welcome Center off SR 410, Washington................... 2,800,000
Woodward Avenue--Developing the Byway Story, Michigan... 500,000
Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA-21 established a new transportation and community
and system preservation program that provides grants to states
and local governments for planning, developing, and
implementing strategies to integrate transportation and
community and system preservation plans and practices. These
grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the
transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on
the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments
in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs,
services, and centers of trade.
Funds provided for the transportation and community and
system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2004 shall be
available for the following activities in the corresponding
amounts:
34th St. Corridor Completion and Related Improvements,
Minnesota........................................... $200,000
Anacostia Riverwalk and Trail Construction, District of
Columbia............................................ 250,000
Atlantic Avenue Extension, Jamaica, Queens, New York.... 150,000
Balls Ferry Historic Park, Georgia...................... 250,000
Bremerton Ferry/Tunnel project, Washington.............. 400,000
Briarcliff Manor Union Free School District, New York
traffic light....................................... 100,000
Central Avenue Parking Facility and Pedestrian
Improvements, Florida............................... 100,000
City of Bayfield/Highway 13 Emergency Culvert Repairs,
Wisconsin........................................... 140,000
Civic center streetscape improvement, New York.......... 400,000
Connection of the Alabama Chief Ladiga Trail and the
Georgia Silver Comet Trail, Alabama................. 100,000
Crocker/Stearns, widening and construction, North
Olmstead, Ohio...................................... 300,000
Des Moines Riverwalk, Des Moines, IA.................... 400,000
Downtown Revitalization Project, Somerset, Kentucky..... 1,750,000
Fairmont Pedestrian Bridge, West Virginia............... 200,000
FM 66 Ellis County from IH-35 in Waxahachie to FM 157 at
Maypearl, Texas..................................... 750,000
Forest Park/Atlanta State Farmers Market Transportation
Study, Georgia...................................... 200,000
Glenwood Avenue Overpass, Ohio.......................... 1,100,000
High line project, New York City, New York.............. 250,000
Hobbs Industrial Air Park Roads, New Mexico............. 100,000
Homewood, IL railroad station/platform acquisition and
improvement......................................... 193,500
Hot Springs Bike Trail, Arkansas........................ 80,000
Houston-Galveston Regional Congestion Study, Texas...... 750,000
Independence Creek Hiking/Biking Road Access, Kansas.... 250,000
Lafayette Street Extension/Pennsylvania Turnpike
Electronic Toll Interchange......................... 500,000
Lakeland In-town Bypass, Phase II, Florida.............. 400,000
Lewisburg Comprehensive Transportation Plan, Lewisburg,
West Virginia....................................... 85,000
Lincoln Boulevard Improvement Project, California....... 400,000
Lombardy Street Renovation between Route 1 and Admiral
Street (Richmond, VA)............................... 750,000
Los Angeles City College Red Line Pedestrian Connector,
California.......................................... 250,000
M&B Railroad Bridge Rehabilitation, Alabama............. 1,000,000
Marathon County--Mountain Bay Trail, Wisconsin.......... 100,000
Marion County Alabama Safety, Efficiency, and Trade
Highway Improvement Program......................... 1,000,000
Miller Farm Bridge, Pennsylvania........................ 500,000
Milwaukee Avenue Rehabilitation, Illinois............... 250,000
Newberg-Dundee Transportation Improvement Project,
Oregon.............................................. 200,000
North Dakota 23 Lake Sakakawea Crossing Improvements.... 250,000
North Delaware River East Coast Greenway Trail Project.. 100,000
Northern Corridor, St. George, Utah..................... 400,000
Oneonta, Alabama Downtown Revitalization................ 500,000
Osceola, WI installation of culverts under Hwy. 35 and
repair of eroded highway beds....................... 140,000
Pedestrian Walkway over US Highway 601 at South Carolina
State University and Claflin University............. 250,000
Puna Makai Alternate Road Study, Island of Hawaii....... 100,000
Riverfront Battle Property Trail, Georgia............... 250,000
Riverfront Redevelopment and Park Area, City of North
Augusta, SC......................................... 1,800,000
Riverwalk, Warren, Ohio................................. 200,000
Road construction for industial park for City of Vinita,
Oklahoma............................................ 100,000
Rockford Road, Ardmore, Oklahoma........................ 700,000
Route 152 Safety Improvements, Santa Clara County,
California.......................................... 300,000
Route 17 Congestion Improvements from Route 3 to Linwood
Avenue, Bergen County, New Jersey................... 200,000
Route 17 Safety Improvements from Route 50 to I-66,
Virginia............................................ 25,000
Route 50 traffic calming in Loudoun and Fauquier
Counties, Virginia.................................. 75,000
Sauk Trail Reconstruction Improvements, Park Forest,
Illinois............................................ 330,000
Scranton Nay Aug Park Enhancement Project, Pennsylvania. 250,000
Sheridan Road Evanston, Illinois........................ 431,500
Streetscape Initiative, Northwest Moultrie, Georgia..... 300,000
Streetscape/Roadway Improvements to the Chester City
(PA) Waterfront..................................... 350,000
Study of Highway 35/county M Bypass of Downtown Osceola,
Wisconsin........................................... 100,000
Susquehanna Road/Limekiln Road/Norfolk Southern Bridge
Project, Pennsylvania............................... 400,000
Talcottville Transportation Improvement Project,
Connecticut......................................... 500,000
Traffic Calming for the City of Riviera Beach, Florida.. 250,000
Trinity River Visions Neighborhood Linkage, Texas....... 500,000
U.S. 101 Bikeway System, California..................... 100,000
US-222 Kutztown Bypass, Pennsylvania.................... 250,000
US30 Bypass--PA10 to US30 Business, Pennsylvania........ 250,000
Village of Glencoe, Illinois, Green Bay Trail--North
Branch Trail Connection............................. 200,000
Village of Owego riverwalk, New York.................... 250,000
Walden Woods Corridor Overpass Study, Massachusetts..... 200,000
Weston Streetscape Renewal, West Virginia............... 200,000
White Pond Drive, Akron, Ohio........................... 250,000
Widen NC 210 in Cumberland County, North Carolina....... 250,000
Williamsburg corridor access, New York.................. 100,000
Woodland Avenue Bridge Repair, Cleveland, Ohio.......... 200,000
Woodward Avenue Livable Community Project, Michigan..... 100,000
Performance based outcomes.--The Committee recognizes the
impact that performance based outcomes can have on the road
building industry by allowing contractors the freedom and
flexibility to focus on quality and long term performance, and
encourages the Department of Transportation to further explore
their use.
Ineffective use of transportation funding.--The Committee
is concerned that transportation funding is being diverted to
projects and activities that do not contribute directly to
roadway construction or solving the growing problem of highway
congestion. For example, about $600,000,000 per year of
transportation enhancement funding has been spent on roadway
landscaping, transportation museums, and renovation of historic
places. The Committee believes that given the serious drop in
estimated highway taxes, every penny of our Federal highway
investment must go to its best and highest use. It is essential
to focus the nation's limited transportation funding on
critical transportation projects and not divert funds for
projects that are ``nice to have,'' but do not contribute in a
meaningful way to solving our highway congestion problems.
Therefore, the Committee has included a provision (section 114)
that discontinues the mandatory 10 percent set-aside from the
surface transportation program (STP) for the transportation
enhancement (TE) program. However, TE-type projects remain
eligible under STP, and states can spend their limited
resources on TE, consistent with their priorities, if they
choose.
Central Artery/Tunnel project cost recovery program.--The
Committee is concerned that cost recovery efforts for the
Central Artery/Tunnel project in Boston, Massachusetts have
not, to date, yielded substantial recoveries. The Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority recently revised its evaluation process in
an attempt to strengthen these efforts. Nevertheless, the DOT
Inspector General has raised concerns regarding the revised
process, citing concerns that the partnership between the
Massachusetts Turnpike Authority and the prime contractor may
make it difficult for the process to maintain organizational
independence and objectivity.
Further, several entities, including FHWA, the
Massachusetts Inspector General, Massachusetts State Auditor
and the Governor of Massachusetts have also announced an
intention to review the cost recovery process. The Committee
concurs with DOT IG that the most effective way to ensure that
there is a thorough, objective, and effective cost recovery
process is to establish one cost recovery review effort that is
jointly carried out by FHWA, the Governor's Office, the State
Auditor, and the Massachusetts IG.
Therefore, the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is directed
to provide to the Committee, no later than August 1, 2003, its
plan for a revised cost recovery review process that adheres to
the precepts set forth by the DOT IG in his letter of May 21,
2003. This process shall be conducted jointly by the entities
identified in the IG's letter and should address the following
needs:
A proper governance framework to provide
independent, credible executive direction;
An appropriate review methodology to provide
the engineering, forensic accounting/auditing, and
legal analyses to document design errors and the
resulting costs; and
The proper mix of skills, including
engineering, accounting, and legal expertise related to
construction change orders, in order to apply the
methodology and resolve questionable change orders
appropriately.
Highway rest area commercialization.--The Committee
encourages FHWA to preserve the federal ban on highway rest
area commercialization and consider expanding it to the rest of
the national highway system.
Costs and Benefits of Transportation.--The Committee
directs GAO to provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations with a study on the costs and benefits of
various forms of transportation modes, to include comparisons
between competing forms of transportation modes within
communities, not later than one year from the date of enactment
of this Act.
Bridge standards in rural areas.--The Committee is
concerned that there may not be compelling reasons to construct
or maintain bridges in urban and rural areas to the identical
engineering standards, given the differences in use and traffic
on those bridges. To investigate this further, the Committee
directs FHWA, in concert with representatives of rural
communities knowledgeable in bridge use and bridge standards,
to submit a report on the potential simplification of bridge
standards in rural areas. This report should be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later
than April 1, 2004.
Federal-Aid Highways
(RESCISSION)
The bill rescinds $137,000,000 in contract authority
balances from the five core programs. These resources cannot be
obligated by the states as they were apportioned at levels over
and above annual statutory obligation limitations. The
Committee directs FHWA to administer the rescission by allowing
each state maximum flexibility among the five programs in
making these adjustments.
Federal-Aid Highways
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $283,147,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 400,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +116,852,500
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +400,000,000
In addition to the $33,385,000,000 provided under the
Federal-aid obligation limitation, the Committee provides a
$400,000,000 appropriation, derived from the Highway Trust
Fund, other than the Mass Transit Account, to be distributed
and allocated under the terms and conditions, of Section 110,
title 23, U.S.C. In addition, states or a compact of states may
apply to FHWA to transfer a portion of its allocation provided
within this section to Amtrak. Before any distribution or
allocation is made, $133,450,000 shall be set aside for surface
transportation projects, as follows:
America Samoa Ferry Boat System......................... $300,000
Anniston East Bypass, Alabama........................... 2,000,000
Arlington County South Glebe Road improvements, Virginia 500,000
Bobby Jones Expressway (GA)/Palmetto Parkway (SC)
extension in South Carolina......................... 4,000,000
Broadway Bridge, Colorado............................... 700,000
Broken Bow rail spur, Oklahoma.......................... 750,000
Bronx River--Concrete Plant Link of the Bronx Greenway,
New York............................................ 700,000
California University of Pennsylvania Shuttle System
(CUPSS), PA......................................... 1,000,000
Caraway Bridge Overpass, Arkansas....................... 1,000,000
City of Aurora, Colorado I-225.......................... 2,500,000
City of Bayfield, Highway 13 Emergency Culvert Repairs.. 500,000
City of Columbus, Ohio, Morse Road corridor improvement
program phase I..................................... 500,000
City of Fort Worth Corridor Redevelopment Program, Texas 1,200,000
City of Madison State Street Revitalization, Wisconsin.. 1,000,000
City of Orangeburg Railroad Relocation Project, South
Carolina............................................ 1,000,000
City of Oxford, Mississippi bike path................... 800,000
City of St. Petersburg, Florida, bike path.............. 500,000
Collins Road (Iowa Highway 100) and 1st Avenue (Business
Highway 151) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.................. 1,000,000
Copperas Cove Reliever Route, Texas..................... 1,000,000
Dagget Road, Port of Stockton, California............... 100,000
Delaware Avenue Streetscape Program in the Village of
Kenmore, New York................................... 400,000
Fairmont Gateway Connector System, West Virginia........ 2,750,000
Feasibility Study and Work Plan for International Trade
Processing Center, Wichita, Kansas.................. 1,000,000
Forest Park/Atlanta State Farmers Market Transportation
Study, Georgia...................................... 200,000
Forsyth Downtown Streetscape Project, Georgia........... 750,000
Frederick Douglass Bridge, Maryland..................... 1,750,000
Grand Avenue Railroad relocation, Illinois.............. 500,000
Greene County, Missouri Demonstration Bridge............ 400,000
Harlem River Promenade, New York........................ 500,000
Highway 20 Corridor through Woodbury, Ida and Sac
Counties, Iowa...................................... 1,000,000
Highway 71, Alma to Greenwood........................... 900,000
Highway 74 Monroe Bypass, North Carolina................ 2,600,000
Highway 92 study in Warren County, Iowa................. 500,000
Holyoke Canalwalk, Massachusetts........................ 1,200,000
Houston, Texas Main Street Corridor Revitalization
Project............................................. 400,000
I-40 Crosstown Expressway, Oklahoma..................... 1,000,000
I-66 Pike County, Kentucky.............................. 2,000,000
I-66 Somerset to London, Kentucky....................... 2,000,000
I-69 at SR 304, Mississippi............................. 2,500,000
I-69, Texas............................................. 7,000,000
I-79/Parkway West Missing Ramps and Widening Project,
Pennsylvania........................................ 1,000,000
I-80 Waukee/West Des Moines Interchange................. 3,000,000
I-87 exit 11A new interchange, New York................. 845,000
I-95 at CR 23, Georgia.................................. 4,000,000
I-540 Perry Road Interchange, Rogers, Arkansas.......... 200,000
I-880/Coleman Avenue Interchange Reconstruction,
California.......................................... 1,000,000
Intermodal Transportation for Corridor from Atlanta to
Chattanooga, Tennessee.............................. 1,000,000
Interstate 5-Sorrento Valley Road and Genesee Avenue
Interchange Project, California..................... 1,000,000
Interstate 94/43/794 (Marquette Interchange), Milwaukee,
Wisconsin........................................... 6,000,000
Jefferson Road Connector (Kanawha County, West Virginia) 1,000,000
Jimmy Carter Blvd pedestrian safety, Gwinnett County,
Georgia............................................. 400,000
Knik Arm Bridge Causeway, Alaska........................ 1,000,000
LA 143-US 165 Connector & Quachita River Bridge,
Louisiana........................................... 1,280,000
Lake County, Tennessee, State Route 21, from Log Mile
7.0 to Obion County Line............................ 500,000
Lake Stanely Draper Road improvements, Oklahoma......... 300,000
Logan Square Access and Safety Improvements,
Philadelphia Pennsylvania........................... 1,000,000
Los Angeles Metro system intermodal studies, California. 1,000,000
MacArthur and Airport Drive Intersection Improvements,
Shawnee, Oklahoma................................... 750,000
Martin Luther King, Jr. Pkwy in Des Moines, Iowa........ 1,800,000
Miniature Transportation Safety Training Village, Town
of Brookhaven, New York............................. 1,000,000
Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail, California......... 300,000
Montgomery County ITS Phase II, Pennsylvania............ 2,000,000
NE 23rd street between Lincoln and I-35, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma............................................ 250,000
North Sinatra Drive, Hoboken, New Jersey................ 500,000
Northern Bypass of Somerset, Kentucky in Pulaski County. 1,850,000
Ohio and Erie Canal towpath trail, Ohio................. 1,000,000
Orchard Lane and Factory Road, Greene County, Ohio...... 1,000,000
Pennsylvania State Route 30/981 upgrade................. 500,000
Port of Albany Security Improvements, New York.......... 500,000
Puerto Rico Port Authority Ferry Program................ 500,000
Queens Plaza Roadway rebuilding project, Long Island
City, New York...................................... 750,000
Reflective Crack Relief Interlayer, US 59, Texas........ 3,000,000
Rehabilitation of Laurel Street and Cass Street Bridges,
Florida............................................. 250,000
Replace Meridan Bridge at Yankton, South Dakota......... 1,000,000
Route 9W Alpine/Tenafly, Bergen County, New Jersey...... 100,000
Routes 23 and 94--Linwood Avenue to Wallkill Avenue
Intersection, Sussex Co., New Jersey................ 500,000
Route 66, Village of Chatham, New York.................. 200,000
Route 93 Feasibility Study, Milton, Massachusetts....... 250,000
Route 130 Renaissance Boulevard to Adams Lane
Intersection Improvements, Middlesex County, New
Jersey.............................................. 1,000,000
San Antonio Economic Development Spur, Texas............ 3,000,000
San Francisco Muni Third Street Project Phase II
roadwork, California................................ 2,500,000
Sauk Village Industrial Park Access Road, Illinois...... 1,000,000
South La Brea Avenue and Imperial Highway Realignment
Project, California................................. 500,000
South Orient economic rehabilitation project, Texas..... 1,000,000
SR 1/US 27 widening, Heard County, Georgia.............. 2,500,000
St. Leo University Transportation Safety & Community
Access Project, Florida............................. 2,500,000
State Street Corridor Improvement Plan, Massachusetts... 1,000,000
Stearns Widening, Ohio.................................. 500,000
Susquehanna Road/Limekin Road, PA....................... 400,000
Teaneck, New Jersey Pedestrian Overpass................. 400,000
Tennessee State Route 28/US 127......................... 400,000
Thackerville, Oklahoma I-35 Interchange................. 1,000,000
Thomas Cole National Historic Site, New York............ 50,000
Toledo Downtown Waterfront Redevelopment, Ohio.......... 500,000
Town of Saratoga Scenic Byway, New York................. 250,000
Transportation Improvement Project, Desert Hot Springs,
California.......................................... 1,925,000
Trevillian Way, Kentucky................................ 100,000
U.S. 31 South Bend to Indianapolis Freeway project,
Indiana............................................. 2,000,000
U.S. 319 Expansion, Florida............................. 1,000,000
U.S. Route 35 Corridor Improvements in Mason and Putnam
Counties, West Virginia............................. 5,650,000
US 36, Wadsworth, State Highway 128 Interchange,
Colorado............................................ 750,000
US Highway 84, Evergreen, Al to Monroeville, Alabama.... 250,000
US 27 North of Somerset, Kentucky....................... 2,000,000
Village of Schuylerville, New York...................... 500,000
West Grand Ave. (from North Western to N. California
Ave.)............................................... 950,000
Weston Ave. Streetscape, Wisconsin...................... 1,500,000
WI--Highway 2 Ashland, Wisconsin........................ 2,000,000
WI--Highway 53 Chetek, Wisconsin........................ 800,000
Widening and creation of sidewalks at Floyd Road and
Veterans Memorial Highway in Cobb County, Georgia... 1,600,000
Woodland Avenue Bridge, Ohio............................ 400,000
General Provisions--Federal Highway Administration
The bill includes a provision (sec. 110) that distributes
an obligation authority among Federal aid highways programs.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 111) that provides a
specific percentage take-down for FHWA administrative funds.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 112) that provides that
funds received by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics may
be credited to the Federal aid highways account.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 113) that amends ISTEA
to identify U.S. 78 from Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of
the Appalachian development highway system near Fulton,
Mississippi, extending to Birmingham, Alabama, as a High
Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and as a
future part of the interstate system, and to designate the
corridor as future Interstate Route I-22.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 114) that discontinues
the mandatory set-aside for the transportation enhancement (TE)
program, but continues eligibility for TE-type projects under
the surface transportation program (STP).
The bill includes a provision (sec. 115) that amends
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century to allow changes to projects in New York and Louisiana.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 116) that amends the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and allows ITS
funds already appropriated to the State of Wisconsin in prior
laws to be used for the installation of intelligent
transportation infrastructure elements in the metropolitan
areas of Wausau and Superior.
The bill includes provision (sec. 117) that allows ITS
funds already appropriated for use in specified locations
within Wisconsin to be spent in additional locations within the
state.
The bill includes a provision (sec. 118) that requires the
Department of Transportation to restructure an existing loan
with ACTA for the purpose of additional improvements to the
Alameda Corridor, including the construction of a truck
expressway. The budgetary cost of the loan modification shall
not exceed $80,000,000.
The bill includes a new provision (sec. 119) requiring the
Secretary to enter an agreement with the State of Arizona and/
or the State of Nevada to provide a method of funding for the
Hoover Dam Bypass Bridge.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
The primary mission of Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) is to improve the safety of commercial
vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To accomplish this
mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and
severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources and
activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle
operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger
enforcement measures against safety violators; expedited safety
regulation; technology innovation; improvements in information
systems; training; and improvements to commercial driver's
license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish
these activities, FMCSA works closely with federal, state, and
local enforcement agencies; the motor carrier industry; highway
safety organizations; and individual citizens. In addition,
FMCSA has the responsibility to ensure that Mexican commercial
vehicles, entering the U.S. in accordance with the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), meet all U.S. hazardous
material and safety regulations.
The Administration's request proposes excellent changes in
the FMCSA account structure in the fiscal year 2004 budget. It
would simplify and consolidate activities with similar missions
under the same program areas. Since no reauthorization proposal
has been passed by Congress, the Committee bill assumes the
account structure and funding levels contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the
Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA), which established
the FMCSA within the Department of Transportation.
These laws, which expire on September 30, 2003, provide
funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative
expenses, motor carrier research and technology, national motor
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information
systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI). FMCSA's scope
was expanded in fiscal year 2003 by the U.S.A. Patriot Act
(P.L. 107-56), which called for new security measures. In
addition, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriates Acts 2002 and 2003 (P.L. 107-87 and P.L. 108-7)
funded border enforcement and safety related activities
associated with implementation of NAFTA, and activities
associated with permitting of hazardous materials.
The Committee recommends a total of $439,624,000 for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration plus an additional
$47,000,000 for state truck inspection facilities at the
Southern U.S. border.
Motor Carrier Safety
(LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation on
administrative
expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 2003 \1\, \2\............... ($116,700,484)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004\3\, \4\............ (257,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............................. (236,753,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2003.................... (+120,052,516)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................ (-20,247,000)
\1\ Includes a reduction of $963,516 pursuant to P.L. 108-7.
\2\ Does not include $41,694,000 in administrative expenses associated
with 274 border personnel. This was funded under the FHWA limitation
on administrative expenses in fiscal year 2003.
\3\ Includes $42,908,000 for administrative expenses associated with
border personnel for fiscal year 2004.
\4\ Reflects funding in the TEA-21 account structure. The President's
budget proposed a change in account structure.
The motor carrier safety account provides salaries,
expenses, research, and safety program funding for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
MCSIA amended section 104(a)(1) of title 23 United States
Code to deduct one-third of one-percent from specified Federal-
aid funds to finance personnel, and to administer motor carrier
safety programs and motor carrier research. This mechanism,
known as a ``takedown,'' has proven to be inflexible and has
been unable to adequately cover basic administrative expenses
after the first year of enactment. In addition, it has been
unable to react to new national safety and programmatic needs,
such as emergent safety enforcement on our Southern border due
to NAFTA, and security changes required to protect our nation
as a result of the September 11th terrorist attacks.
This inflexibility forces the Committee to either
irresponsibly compromise safety by reducing and eliminating
important programs, or, as in past years, amend current law to
increase the ``takedown'' percentage. The budget request
proposes a level of $257,000,000 to fund motor carrier
administration, including border personnel, safety-related
programs, and safety research. The takedown would provide only
$92,712,176.
The Committee increases the takedown percentage to nine-
tenths of one percent and provides a total of $236,753,000 for
these purposes. Of the total provided, $229,753,000 is for
operating expenses and $7,000,000 is for research and
technology initiatives. In response to recent safety and
security issues, the Committee provides funding for grant
programs under this limitation--$23,000,000 for southern
border-state operations grants, $9,000,000 for northern border-
state truck inspection grants, $21,000,000 for state commercial
driver's license (CDL) program improvement grants, and not less
than $5,000,000 for new entrant program state grants. These are
provided under the administrative account because no
flexibility exists to fund these new programs elsewhere.
The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to
the budget request:
New entrant program reduction........................... -$9,000,000
Hazardous materials permitting program reduction........ -865,000
Conditional carrier review program reduction............ -666,000
Commercial driver's license background checks........... -3,000,000
Household goods enforcement reduction................... -466,000
``Safety is good business'' program reduction........... -250,000
Administrative infrastructure reduction................. -6,000,000
New entrant program.--As required under section 210 of
MCSIA, the interim final rule for the new entrant safety
assurance process was published on May 13, 2002, with an
effective date of January 2003. Section 350 of the Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriation Act, 2002
required FMCSA to complete this rule as a precondition to
opening the Southern border. This rule requires all new
entrants to pass a safety audit within the first 18 months of
operations in order to receive permanent DOT registration.
The Committee reduces this program by $9,000,000 to reflect
half-year funding of personnel and a reduction in costs
associated with Federal versus state safety auditors and
contractors. The Committee agrees with FMCSA that the program
will be ultimately staffed entirely with state-hired safety
auditors supported through Federal grants. Therefore, the
Committee directs FMCSA to provide at least $5,000,000 to
states to hire state safety auditors and to contract out when
necessary. The Committee believes that the Federal
responsibility is limited to program oversight and to respond
to the rare case where a state does not have the authority to
implement the program. The Committee understands that two
states lack this authority. The FMCSA shall not hire Federal
safety auditors for states and shall enter into Federal
contracts for safety auditors only in cases where the state
lacks the authority to implement the program. Therefore, the
Committee directs FMCSA to retain not more than $2,200,000 for
Federal responsibilities, and to provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriation a summary of the use of these funds
by March 15, 2004.
Hazardous materials permitting.--The hazardous materials
program, authorized under 49 U.S.C. 5109, requires a HAZMAT
permitting program for certain carriers of extremely hazardous
materials, to ensure that carriers have sufficient safety and
security measures in place. The Committee reduces funding by
$865,000 and provides $1,135,000 to support the rulemaking
effort and fund 13 new positions at half-year funding. In
addition, this funding will allow FMCSA to meet the settlement
agreement pursuant to Litigation involving the Citizens for
Reliable and Safe Highways.
Conditional carrier reviews.--The Committee reduces funding
for conditional carrier reviews by $666,000 below the budget
request. This level funds six new safety auditors at a half-
year funding level. The implementation of the new entrant
program and strengthening of the outreach program will
necessitate fewer conditional carrier reviews.
Commercial driver's license background checks.--The
Committee deletes funding for CDL background checks, a
reduction of $3,000,000 below the budget estimate. Funding for
the background checks is no longer an FMCSA responsibility, as
duties have been transferred to the Transportation Security
Administration.
Share the road program.--The purpose of the share the road
program is to reduce crashes between commercial and passenger
vehicles by educating the motoring public about sharing the
road with commercial motor vehicles. FMCSA has not evaluated
the effectiveness of the share the road program since 2000, and
past evaluations of the program provided little information on
the program's effectiveness. In a report entitled, ``Share the
Road Safely Program Needs Better Evaluation of its
Initiatives,'' GAO found that some initiatives funded as a part
of this program lack a clear linkage to the program's goal. In
fact, 20 percent of the fiscal year 2002 and 2003 funding was
not directly linked to the program's goal.
The Committee directs FMCSA to immediately eliminate each
initiative that is not directly linked to the program's goal,
and aggressively continue to combine educational outreach with
local enforcement efforts. Further, consistent with GAO's
recommendations, the Committee directs FMCSA to: (1) develop an
explicit program strategy that clearly and directly links
FMCSA' share the road safely program initiatives to its goal;
(2) use the results of the large truck crash causation study
and other relevant data to effectively target resources; and
(3) establish a systematic strategy for evaluating the
program's initiatives that makes greater use of DOT's
experience in designing and evaluating information
dissemination programs to enhance highway safety. The Committee
directs FMCSA to report on its progress by January 5, 2004.
``Safety is good business'' program.--The Committee
provides $250,000, half of the request level, for the safety is
good business program. FMCSA shall first use this funding to
develop a goal, message, coherent strategy, and initiatives
that are directly linked to the program's goal. The Committee
encourages FMCSA to combine this outreach effort with other
interactions it has with motor carrier companies, such as
security sensitivity visits, compliance reviews, and safety
audits.
Commercial driver's license program.--The Committee
includes $21,000,000, consistent with the budget request, for
the commercial driver's, license (CDL) program from the office
of motor carrier safety. This funding is to support new and
expanded safety and security initiatives. This increase in
funding is necessary to meet the backlog of demand for state
computer systems and data reporting improvements; to maintain
the central depository of Mexican and Canadian commercial
driver's license convictions; implement the OIG's report dated
May 8, 2002, as directed in Public Law 108-7, and fund state
compliance program reviews.
Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should
continue working with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead
MCSAP agencies, and licensing agencies to improve all aspects
of the CDL program. In addition within high priority funds,
FMCSA should consider sponsoring another pilot project
involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to
explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers who have
been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate during
the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA should
continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach
effort.
Household goods enforcement.--The Committee reduces funding
by $466,000 for the household goods enforcement program to
reflect half-year funding of the new positions requested. Total
funding of $534,000 will support 7 positions and establish a
highly visible enforcement program to reduce the number of
consumer complaints filed against household carrier moving
companies and brokers and allow FMCSA to respond to lapses in
enforcement and concerns of Congress and the GAO.
Administrative infrastructure.--The Committee provides a
total of $4,400,000 to augment its current administrative
infrastructure. Currently, the Federal Highway Administration
partially supports FMCSA administrative infrastructure, and
this increase will allow FMCSA to contract out additional
services that FHWA is completing. The reduction of $6,000,000
reflects half-year funding and reduced costs associated with
contractors versus Federal employees.
Interstate digital image exchange project and online
verification of birth records.--Any savings in any account
within funding provided to the FMCSA shall be used to expand
pilot projects that improve the integrity of CDLs and reduce
the number of fraudulent CDLs. FMCSA should provide up to
$2,560,000 in savings for the interstate digital image
exchange, and up to $3,190,000 for online verification of birth
and death records to deploy these systems nationwide.
New Hampshire study.--Within the funds provided under the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, the Secretary
shall provide $250,000 to the New Hampshire Department of
Transportation to conduct a study to evaluate the safety,
economic, and infrastructure impacts of a weight limit
exemption on Interstates 89 and 93.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORITY)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(Liquidation of
contract authorization) (Limitation on
obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\............................ $190,000,000 ($188,765,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\........................... 190,000,000 (190,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................................ 190,000,000 (190,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................ (- - -) (+1,235,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004........................... (- - -) (- - -)
\1\ The limitation on obligations includes a reduction of $1,235,000 pursuant to Public Law 108-7.
\2\ Reflects funding in the TEA-21 account structure. The President proposed a change in account structure.
The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program (NMCSP)
was authorized by TEA-21 and amended by the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two
major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program
(MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety
initiatives (ISSSI) program. MCSAP provides grants and project
funding to states to develop and implement national programs
for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and
regulations concerning motor carrier safety. The major
objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity
of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are
made to qualified states for the development of programs to
enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous
materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety
Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle
safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial
motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and
enhance data-related motor carrier programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $190,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of
$190,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program.
This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA-21, and is the same
level provided in 2003.
The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as
follows:
Amount
Motor carrier safety assistance program................. $170,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Basic motor carrier safety grants................... 130,329,000
Performance based incentive grant program........... 7,015,000
High priority activities \1\........................ 25,593,000
State training and administration................... 2,063,000
Crash causation (sec. 224(f) MCSIA)................. 5,000,000
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives.... 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Data Analysis and Information systems............... 14,000,000
PRISM............................................... 5,000,000
Driver programs..................................... 1,000,000
\1\ Up to $17,000,000 is for the implementation of the new entrant
program required under section 210 of MCSIA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Border Enforcement Program
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\.................. ................
Recommended in the bill \3\........................... $47,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +47,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +47,000,000
\1\ Does not includes $41,694,000 in administrative expenses associated
with 274 border personnel, $17,883,000 state operations grants, and
$46,695,000 in infrastructure improvements under the FHWA
appropriation; and $8,196,000 in MCSAP border grants reflected under
the national motor carrier safety program.
\2\ Does not include $42,908,000 in administrative expenses associated
with border personnel, $32,000,000 in border grants, and $47,000,000
in infrastructure improvements.
\3\ Does not include $42,908,000 in administrative expenses associated
with border personnel and $32,000,000 in border grants. These are
reflected under the FMCSA limitation of administrative expenses.
Enacted in 1993 and entered into force in 1994, the North
American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was based on the premise
that all of the countries in North America would be integrated
into one free trade area. Under NAFTA's original timeline, the
United States and Mexico agreed to permit commercial vehicle
access to each other's border states by December 18, 1995.
Reciprocal access beyond the border states was promised by
January 1, 2000. (Canadian carriers have been operating
throughout the U.S. since 1982.) The NAFTA timetable also
called for the U.S. and Mexico to lift all restrictions on
regular route, scheduled cross-border bus service by January 1,
1997.
In December 1995, the prior administration postponed
implementation of NAFTA cross-border trucking provisions, which
continued to limit Mexican trucks to operations in designated
commercial zones within Arizona, California, New Mexico, and
Texas. A NAFTA arbitration panel concluded in February 2001
that the U.S. blanket refusal to process the applications of
Mexican carriers seeking U.S. authority because of concerns
over the carriers' safety was in breach of its NAFTA
obligations.
In February 2001, the Administration announced it would
fully comply with NAFTA obligations regarding truck and bus
access. Concerns regarding safety compliance and monitoring of
Mexican-domiciled commercial vehicles were resolved in section
350 of the Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, 2002 (P.L. 107-87). The Administration has completed all
requirements under section 350 and has implemented a regime of
regulations to ensure the safety of Mexican trucks operating
within the U.S. However, on January 18, 2003, the 9th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals blocked Mexican trucks from gaining
wider access to U.S. highways citing that DOT did not prepare a
full environmental impact statement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $47,000,000 from the
highway trust fund for the construction of permanent truck
safety inspection facilities along the U.S./Mexico border. In
the fiscal year 2002 budget request, the Administration's
stated goal was to receive a total of $160,000,000 over three
years to contribute towards the construction of state border
inspection facilities at 23 sites. In the past two fiscal
years, the Committee has provided $112,695,000 for this effort.
Total FMCSA border funding.--Consistent with the budget
request, the Committee recommends a total of $121,908,000 for
motor carrier border related programs. Under FMCSA's limitation
on administrative expenses, a total of $42,908,000 is for
Federal personnel on the border and $32,000,000 for Federal
border safety enforcement grants. A total of $47,000,000 is for
inspection station construction under the Border Enforcement
Account. Total funding in fiscal year 2004 exceeds the
$114,468,000 level provided in fiscal year 2003.
General Provisions--Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
The bill includes a provision (Sec. 130) which provides a
specific percentage take-down for FMCSA administrative funds.
The bill includes a provision (Sec. 131) which prohibits
the use of funds in this Act to implement or enforce any
provision of the final rule issued on April 16, 2003 (docket
no. FMCSA-97-2350) as it applies to operators of utility
service vehicles.
The Committee is concerned that operators of utility
service vehicles have unique public service responsibilities
and operating characteristics that were not adequately
considered or addressed in the rulemaking. The Committee
directs the FMCSA to review the appropriate application of
driver hours-of-service rules, including an analysis of the
unique public service responsibilities of operators of utility
service vehicles, and whether they should be exempted from the
regulations in 49 C.F.R. Part 395.
The bill includes a new provision (sec. 132) subjecting
funds appropriated or limited in this Act to the terms and
conditions of section 350 of Public Law 107-87, including that
the Secretary submit a report on Mexico-domiciled motor
carriers.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the
National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had
administered traffic and highway safety functions as an
organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration.
To date, the administration's current programs are
currently authorized in five major laws: (1) the National
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (chapter 301 of title 49,
U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act, (chapter 4 of title 23,
U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act
(MVICSA), (Part C of subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); (4) the
National Driver Register (chapter 303 of Title 49 U.S.C.); and
(5) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-
21).
The first law provides for the establishment and
enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated
equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the
acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of
the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations
were subsequently established for the NDR under the National
Driver Register Act of 1982.
The second law provides for coordinated national highway
safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states
and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration
programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public
Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program
(section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce
drunken driving prevention programs.
The third law (MVICSA) provides for the establishment of
low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information
activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects,
automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An
amendment to this law established the Secretary's
responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the
administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards.
A 1992 amendment to the MVICSA established automobile content
labeling requirements.
The fourth law provides for the operation of the national
driver register which facilitates the interstate exchange of
driver licensing concerning problem drivers whose licenses to
drive have been suspended or revoked for cause.
The fifth law (TEA-21) is the current authorization for the
full range of NHTSA programs. These include: safety incentives
to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons
(section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt incentive grants
(section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive
grants (section 405); highway safety data improvement incentive
grant program (section 411); highway safety research
development and demonstration programs (section 403); and a
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions,
including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash
protection systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the
odometer requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the
Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile
domestic content labeling requirements. This law is scheduled
to expire on September 30, 2003. Because reauthorization
actions have not yet been completed, the Committee has
continued the fiscal year 2003 program levels as if authorized
through fiscal year 2004.
In 2000, the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act amended the
National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act in numerous
respects and enacted many new initiatives. These consist of a
number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions,
including a requirement that manufacturers give NHTSA notice of
safety recalls or safety campaigns in foreign countries
involving motor vehicles or items of motor vehicle equipment
that are identical or substantially similar to vehicles or
equipment in the United States; higher civil penalties for
violations of the law; a criminal penalty for violations of the
law's reporting requirements; and a number of rulemaking
directions that include developing a dynamic rollover test for
light duty vehicles, updating the tire safety and labeling
standards, improving the safety of child restraints, and
establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer
information program.
Traffic Safety Trends
After remaining fairly constant for the past several years
at approximately 42,000 traffic-related fatalities per year,
the nation experienced an increase in 2002. The latest NHTSA
estimates indicate fatalities in 2002 were 42,850, an increase
of 734 over 2001. In comparing 2001 to 2002, the number of
police-reported nonfatal crashes remained approximately the
same, with 6,241,000 in 2002 compared to 6,285,000 in 2001. The
number of injured persons declined to 2,914,000 in 2002, down
from 3,033,000 in 2001. The fatality rate in 2002 was 1.51
deaths per 100,000,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT), which is
the same as 2001. Motorcycle rider deaths continued to
increase, with 3,276 riders killed in 2002 compared to 3,181
riders killed in 2001. Alcohol-related fatalities increased by
3 percent over 2001 to 17,970. The number of passenger vehicle
occupants killed in traffic related crashes increased by 850,
to 34,055 deaths in 2002. The downward trend of traffic deaths
of the nation's youngest (ages 0 through 7) continued to
improve to the lowest levels recorded.
Operations and Research
(Highway trust
(General fund) fund) Total funding
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................................. $137,389,000 $71,532,000 $208,921,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................................ 126,058,000 92,052,000 218,110,000
Recommended in the bill......................................... 134,178,000 72,000,000 206,178,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................. -3,211,000 468,000 -2,743,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................ 8,120,000 -20,052,000 -11,932,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$206,178,000. Of this total, $134,178,000 is for operations and
research from the general fund and $72,000,000 is for 23 U.S.C.
403 activities from the highway trust fund. The funding shall
be distributed as follows:
Amount
Salaries and benefits................................... $68,300,000
Travel.................................................. 1,330,000
Operating expenses...................................... 24,481,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance (rulemaking)..................... 10,553,000
Safety assurance (enforcement)...................... 17,028,000
Highway safety programs............................. 41,684,000
Research and analysis............................... 58,443,000
General administration.............................. 665,000
Grant administration reimbursements..................... -16,306,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. $206,178,000
The recommendation assumes the following major adjustments
to the budget request:
Reduce funding for crash causation study................ -10,000,000
Increase funding for highway safety programs............ +450,000
Reduce funding for harmonization of vehicle safety
standards........................................... -200,000
Reduce funding for new car assessment study............. -220,000
Reduce funding for fuel economy program................. -267,000
Reduce funding for workforce planning and development... -300,000
Increase funding for NH Dept. of Safety research........ +40,000
Increase funding for Univ. of Mass. research............ +300,000
Highway safety programs.--The Committee is very troubled by
the proposed NHTSA budget for highway safety programs in fiscal
year 2004. The latest statistics show that, from 2001 to 2002,
alcohol-related fatalities and motorcycle fatalities have
increased by three percent each, while general highway
fatalities also increased. These statistics are a stark
reminder that (contrary to the administration's proposal)
programs to address these critical issues should not be
diminished. The Committee has therefore funded highway safety
programs at the following levels:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004
request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Impaired driving.................... $10,926,000 $12,000,000
Peds/bicycle........................ 1,284,000 1,284,000
Motorcycle.......................... 656,000 800,000
National occupant protection........ 11,373,000 11,373,000
Traffic law enforcement............. 2,174,000 2,174,000
Emergency medical services.......... 2,226,000 2,226,000
Records and licensing............... 2,570,000 2,570,000
Highway safety research............. 7,238,000 7,090,000
Emerging traffic safety issues...... 1,187,000 1,167,000
NOPUS............................... 1,600,000 1,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Committee is concerned that the very
important role of enforcement in impaired driving and occupant
protection may currently be overlooked at NHTSA. Therefore,
$50,000 from the national occupant protection program and
$50,000 from the impaired driving program shall fund a law
enforcement liason demonstration program in fiscal year 2004.
This program should help encourage the use of law enforcement
liaisons to help facilitate impaired driving and occupant
protection information dissemination and training. No funds
shall be expended until NHTSA provides an implementation plan
to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
NHTSA shall also report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations on all fiscal year 2003 expenditures on
impaired driving, motorcycle, and national occupant protection
programs. The report shall include all planned expenditures for
fiscal year 2004, and explanations describing how the majority
of these activities are based on proven research and
implementation strategies. This report is due by September 30,
2003, and shall be posted on NHTSA's webpage. An update of this
information should also be provided in NHTSA's fiscal year 2005
budget justification.
Artemis program.--The Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act required motor
vehicle and motor vehicle equipment manufacturers to report
information and to submit documents on customer satisfaction
campaigns and other activities that may assist in identifying
defects related to motor vehicle safety. NHTSA was charged with
developing and implementing a data system for this purpose,
which is known as Artemis. NHTSA has contracted the development
work to the Volpe National Transportation System Center, or the
Volpe Center. The Committee is very concerned with the current
status of the development work. To date, the project is
$3,400,000 over budget and the Volpe Center, as the prime
contractor, is expected to make-up $1,000,000 of this overrun,
leaving NHTSA with the task of scrambling to produce the
excess. This mismanagement of government dollars is absolutely
unacceptable.
To investigate the causes of this problem fully, the
Committee has requested an audit from the Inspector General of
the work currently being undertaken at the Volpe Center. The
audit will address the following issues: (1) How has Volpe's
role and function changed over the years, and do the current
activities meet the needs of DOT; (2) Does Volpe have the
necessary financial controls in place to assure that its
service fees are appropriate; and (3) What is DOT's role in
overseeing Volpe and is it adequate to ensure that cost
effective services are being provided. The report shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
no later than December 1, 2003.
Regulatory activities.--In July 2002, NHTSA published a
request for comments on a planning document that described the
agency's safety priorities for 2005. The agency's openness to
public scrutiny of its priorities, and its reaction to public
comments, should result in improved vehicle safety in an
effective manner and the Committee commends these actions.
Although not all of NHTSA's activities were included in the
report, the plan is less then one year old and NHTSA appears to
be falling behind the proposed rulemaking schedule. For
example, the priority plan indicates final actions on daytime
running light intensity, upgraded tire standards, and a child
restraint rating system in calendar year 2002. It appears that
only one of these actions has been taken. In addition, many
activities shown for 2003, such as a proposal for offset
frontal protection or the use of a small female dummy in the
advanced air bag's thirty-five mile-per-hour speed test also
have not been undertaken to date. It is important that the
public and the regulated participants have confidence in the
agency's ability to deliver on its intentions. In recognition
that such a plan is a living document subject to changes and
that the agency indicated in its July 25, 2002, Federal
Register notice that it ``intends to periodically update the
plan'', the Committee requests NHTSA, by December 1, 2003, to
update the plan and submit it to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. The report should include public
comments that have been received, as well as new data and
research results.
Harmonization of vehicle safety standards and new car
assessments.--Due to budget constraints, funding is denied for
the proposed international harmonization of vehicle safety
standards and the new car assessment study.
Fuel economy standards.--Improving fuel efficiency and
conserving natural resources are a recognized and important
goal of the fuel economy program. However, the fiscal year 2004
budget submission stated that the key goal of the program is
reducing pollution. Nowhere in the 1975 statute is it stated
that NHTSA is to work to reduce ``pollution'', as is declared
in the agency's budget justification. The Committee is
disappointed with NHTSA's goals related to this program and
therefore denies the proposed increase. Further, the Committee
directs NHTSA to reevaluate the agency's goals with regard to
fuel economy and produce an updated performance structure,
which shall be submitted in writing to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Motorcycle injury prevention study.--There was a continuous
decline in motorcycle crash fatalities from the mid-1980's
through 1997. Since 1997, however, motorcycle fatalities have
increased annually. An additional $40,000 is included for the
New Hampshire Department of Safety to conduct a study to
evaluate the speed and safety threshold for preventing and
analyzing motorcycle injuries. The Department of Safety shall
work in coordination with the Inova Fairfax Hospital Honda
CIREN Center in Fairfax, Virginia, and a report shall be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
upon completion.
University of Massachusetts, Amherst Risk Prone Driving
Research.--The Human Performance Laboratory at the University
of Massachusetts College of Engineering is home to one of the
nation's most advanced driving simulators. The simulator
consists of a full-size car in which an individual can
``drive'' as though on an actual highway. Among other projects,
the simulator has been used to test the effects of very low
levels of blood alcohol on the performance of younger drivers;
the ability of novice and more experienced drivers to recognize
potential risks in various driving situations; and the design
of directional signs for the depressed section of Boston's
Central Artery. Additional funding of $300,000 has been
provided to support a research study to look at risk awareness
and avoidance training program for younger drivers and analyze
driver perceptions and behavior during left-turn maneuvers at
signalized intersections.
National Driver Register
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,987,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 3,600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,600,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003..................... +1,613,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................... ---
The National Driver Register Act (chapter 303 of Title 49,
U.S.C.) provides for the operation of the national driver
register, which facilitates the interstate exchange of driver
licenses due to concerns regarding problem drivers whose
licenses to drive have been suspended or revoked for cause.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $3,600,000 from the highway trust
fund for activities associated with the national driver
register. This is the same amount as the fiscal year 2004
request.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....... $225,000,000 ($223,538,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...... 447,000,000 (447,000,000)
Recommended in the bill............... 225,000,000 (225,000,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003... ............... (+1,462,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.. -222,000,000 (-222,000,000)
TEA-21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway
safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program,
and the state highway safety data improvement grant program.
The Committee recommends $225,000,000 for liquidation of
contract authorization, which is the same as the fiscal year
2003 level.
LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS
As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred
under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. These
obligations are set out in TEA-21, and the Committee continues
this funding at its current level until reauthorization actions
have been completed. The bill includes separate obligation
limitations with the following funding allocations:
Highway safety programs................................. $165,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.................... 20,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures................ 40,000,000
Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states
for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and
injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs
to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed
limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices;
reduce alcohol-and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes
between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus
crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency
medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian
and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger
drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide
additional support for state data collection and reporting of
traffic deaths and injuries.
An obligation limitation of $165,000,000 is included in the
bill. The national occupant protection survey shall be funded
within this total. Also, language is continued in the bill that
limits funding available for federal grants administration from
this program to $8,150,000.
The fiscal year 2004 budget submission reflected NHTSA's
reauthorization proposal, which restructures the highway safety
grant programs into a consolidated program, funded at the
combined level of the TEA-21 section 402, 410, 405, 411,
2003(b), 163, and 157 programs. The Committee has continued to
fund the 157 and 163 programs at their authorized level, which
is $122,000,000, out of the highway account of the highway
trust fund.
Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has
funded the section 405 occupant protection incentive grant
program at $20,000,000. States may qualify for this grant
program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs:
(1) a law requiring safety belt use by all front seat
passengers, and beginning in fiscal year 2001, in any seat in
the vehicle; (2) a safety belt use law providing for primary
enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt
and child seat use law violations; (4) special traffic
enforcement programs for occupant protection; (5) a child
passenger protection education program; and (6) a child
passenger protection law which requires minors to be properly
secured. Language is included in the bill that limits funding
available for federal grants administration from this program
to $1,000,000.
In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant
program, TEA-21 established a safety incentive grant program
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage.
The grant program totaled $500,000,000 over the past six fiscal
years and, as stated, the Committee has extended this funding
at its current levels. Allocations of federal grants require
determinations of: (1) seat belt use rates and improvements;
and (2) federal medical cost savings attributable to increased
seat belt use. States that meet the section 157 requirements
can use funds for any purpose under title 23, including highway
construction, highway safety, and intelligent transportation
systems. NHTSA and FHWA are jointly administering this program.
NHTSA will collect the state data and determine the allocation
of funds.
Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--The Committee
has funded the section 410 alcohol incentive grant program at
$40,000,000. These grants offer two-tiered basic and
supplemental grants to reward states that pass new laws and
start more effective programs to attack drunk and impaired
driving. States may qualify for basic grants in two ways.
First, they can become eligible by implementing 5 of the
following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license
revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from
obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving
law enforcement; (4) a graduated licensing law with nighttime
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) programs to
address drivers with high blood alcohol content (BAC); (6)
young adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals
ages 21-34; and (7) an effective system for increasing the rate
of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they
can reach eligiblity by demonstrating a reduction in alcohol-
related fatality rates in each of the last three years for
which Fatal Accident Reporting System data is available and
demonstrate rates lower than the national average for each of
the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to
states that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of
drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving
programs; laws to reduce driving with suspended licenses; use
of passive alcohol sensors by police; a system for tracking
information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs.
The Committee has provided $40,000,000 for these grants in
fiscal year 2004. Language is included in the bill that limits
funding available for federal grants administration from this
program to $2,000,000.
In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant
program, TEA-21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six
years for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC
law (section 163). The Committee has continued this funding for
fiscal year 2004 at its current level. For each fiscal year in
which a state meets this criterion, it will receive a grant in
the same ratio in which it receives section 402 funds. The
states may use these funds for any project eligible for
assistance under title 23 (e.g. highway construction, bridge
repair, highway safety). This grant program encourages states
to adopt and enforce significant anti-drunk driving
legislation.
Bill language.--The bill maintains two provisions that
pertain to NHTSA's highway safety grant programs. First,
language is continued that prohibits the use of funds for
construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs or for
office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private
buildings or structures. Second, language is continued that
limits the amount available for technical assistance to
$500,000 under section 410.
Oversight of state highway safety programs.--The GAO
recently found that NHTSA's ``performance based'' approach to
oversight of state and community highway safety program
expenditures by the states has not yielded measurable safety
benefits since it was implemented in fiscal year 1998. Indeed,
highway fatalities have increased each year since the policy
was implemented.
The Committee shares the concerns raised by GAO regarding
the federal oversight of these state programs. Prior to fiscal
year 1998, NHTSA reviewed and approved each state's highway
safety plan as a condition of state spending authority.
However, concerns have risen that some states may not be using
their grant funding in the most cost-effective manner. The
approval of a state's spending plan prior to implementation, to
ensure that resources are being applied in the most effective
manner, is a necessary and normal element of Federal oversight,
and one that the Committee feels is essential to ensuring that
federal resources are being used effectively and efficiently.
Therefore, the Committee directs NHTSA to rescind its 1998
policy regarding the submission of state plans. All funds
allocated to states under the state and community highway
safety program (section 402) under this legislation must be
subject to approval of each state's highway safety plan by the
Administrator. Further, the Committee would recommend that
NHTSA take a lead in providing guidance to states on how best
to craft these plans. Funding of $50,000 in operating expenses
has been provided to begin this process.
As part of this review, NHTSA should also look at the
agency's own policies with regard to the state grant programs.
The Committee directs the submission of a report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by December 1, 2003,
that should include the following information: (1) how the
agency has provided oversight and supervision of the state
grant programs; (2) how NHTSA will address the oversight of
state highway safety plans that receive federal funding; and
(3) how NHTSA is proposing to help facilitate states in the
process of drafting these plans and future funding requirements
for these purposes.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Section 140 allows states to use funds provided under
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C. to produce and place highway
safety public service messages in television, radio, cinema,
print media, and on the internet. The provision allocates
$10,000,000 for innovative seat belt projects under section 157
and $12,000,000 under section 410 to be used to purchase
advertising for national seat belt and impaired driving
mobilizations. The provision was included for the first time in
fiscal year 2001.
Section 141 directs that, for fiscal year 2004 only, the
comprehensive early warning reporting requirements applicable
to manufacturers of trailers under section 579.24 of title 49,
Code of Federal Regulations, as promulgated by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) in accordance
with section 30166(m), title 49, United States Code shall not
apply to trailers rated at 26,000 pounds or less gross vehicle
weight. Manufacturers of such vehicles shall be required to
report information about incidents involving one or more deaths
that are identified in a claim or a notice received by the
manufacturer alleging or proving that the death was caused by a
possible defect in the manufacturer's vehicle, as required by
49 CFR 579.27. The Committee notes that the authorizing
committee in this area, the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce, is scheduled to review the early warning reporting
program in the context of a reauthorization of NHTSA later this
year.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible
for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve
safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad
industry, as well as managing the high-speed ground
transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance
programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's
physical plant are also administered by the FRA.
Safety and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $116,600,141
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 131,175,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 130,922,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +14,321,859
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -253,000
\1\ Reflects reduction of $762,859 pursuant to section 601 of PL 108-7.
The safety and operations account provides support for
FRA's rail safety and passenger and freight program activities.
Funding also supports salaries and expenses and other operating
costs related to FRA staff and programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
A total of $130,922,000 has been allocated to safety and
operations, which is 12.3 percent above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level. Of this total, $11,712,000 is available until
expended. The following adjustments were made to the budget
request:
Deny half of workforce planning funding................. -$175,000
Deny funding for one position........................... -78,000
Workforce planning.--The Committee has provided a total of
$475,000 for workforce planning. While this represents an
increase of $175,000 over the fiscal year 2003 level, it is
only half of the increase requested. The Committee believes the
funding level should provide ample resources for human capital
workforce planning and employee development needs.
Staff.--The Committee has provided FRA with a total of 24
new full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years. The Committee
denies funding for title VI enforcement due to budget
constraints.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $29,134,388
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 35,025,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 28,225,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -909,388
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -6,800,000
\1\ Reflects reduction of $190,612 pursuant to section 601 of PL 108-7.
The railroad research and development appropriation
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and
enforcement activities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,225,000,
which is $6,800,000 less than requested. The Committee
recommendation would delete funding for nationwide differential
global positioning system.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
TEA-21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and
improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The
aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not
exceed $3,500,000,000 at any one time. Not less than
$1,000,000,000 is reserved for projects primarily benefiting
freight railroads other than class I carriers. The funding may
be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or
rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of
track, bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance
existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal
or railroad facilities. No federal appropriation is required,
since a non-federal infrastructure partner may contribute the
subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the
form of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily
established investigation charges are immediately available for
appraisals and necessary determinations and findings.
The Committee has included bill language specifying that no
new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made
using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium
amount during fiscal year 2004, as requested.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $30,252,075
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 23,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 28,250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -2,002,075
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +5,050,000
\1\ Reflects reduction of $197,925 pursuant to section 601 of Public Law
108-7.
The next generation high-speed rail program funds the
development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed
rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the
program authorized in TEA-21.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $28,250,000 for the next
generation high-speed rail program, which is $5,050,000 more
than the budget request. Total program funding is allocated as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004 Committee
request recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems:
North American joint PTC project $9,000,000 $9,000,000
Train control--TTC.............. 1,000,000 1,000,000
Non-electric locomotives:
Advanced locomotive propulsion 3,800,000 3,500,000
system.........................
Prototype non-electric 2,000,000 2,000,000
locomotive.....................
Diesel multiple units compliance ................ 5,000,000
and demonstration..............
Grade crossing and innovative
technologies:
Mitigating hazards.............. 3,000,000 2,250,000
Low-cost technologies........... 1,300,000 1,000,000
Track and structures technologies... 1,300,000 1,000,000
Corridor planning................... 1,700,000 3,500,000
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 23,200,000 28,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diesel multiple units (DMU) compliance and demonstration
program.--There is a growing interest from both commuter and
intercity rail passenger service providers to use diesel
multiple units on commuter and future high-speed rail
corridors. However, this form of rail technology has not been
produced in the United States since the Federal Railroad
Administration issued passenger equipment safety regulations.
The Committee has provided $5,000,000 to validate the
compliance of diesel multiple units with existing passenger car
safety standards and to make grants to two public entities for
the purpose of continuing or initiating a demonstration in
daily revenue service of a compliant DMU during calendar year
2004. The Committee expects that one of these grantees shall
have received no prior Federal funding for this purpose.
Federal funding shall only be made available if funds are
matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis from non-federal sources
and shall only be used for activities related to establishing
the compliance of the DMU design with passenger car safety
standards and for the acquisition of DMUs and service
facilities necessary for revenue service demonstration. All
other expenses, including the cost of passenger facilities and
any net operating expenses, are not eligible for funding under
this appropriation.
California corridor.--In making any funds available to the
California High-Speed Rail Authority, the Committee expects FRA
to ensure that the State of California maintains its level of
effort in state funds to support high-speed rail development
and does not substitute federal funds for reduced level of
state funding.
Rail-highway crossing hazard eliminations.--Under section
1003 of TEA-21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing
hazards. A limited number of corridors are eligible for these
funds. Of these funds distributed under this program for fiscal
year 2004:
$1,022,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing
hazards at Assembly Street, Whaley Street and Rosewood
Drive in Columbia, South Carolina;
$2,300,000 shall be used on the Tulsa Sealed Corridor
Quiet Zone in Tulsa, Oklahoma;
$1,078,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing
hazards related to the New Orleans Union Passenger
Terminal project in Louisiana; and
$850,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing
hazards associated with an intersection at Hamilton
Boulevard over the CSX rail line near US 90, Mobile,
Alabama.
Northern New England high speed rail corridor.--The
Committee is aware that the existing Northern New England High
Speed Rail Corridor only goes from Boston to Portland and from
Boston to Montreal. The Committee is concerned that the
existing designation does not include many large communities in
Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New York that would greatly
benefit from being part of a High-Speed Rail Corridor.
Therefore, the Committee directs the Secretary of
Transportation to include the train routes from Boston,
Massachusetts via Worcester and Springfield, Massachusetts to
Albany, New York and from Springfield, Massachusetts via
Hartford, Connecticut to New Haven, Connecticut as part of the
existing Northern New England High-Speed Rail Corridor.
Magnetic levitation.--Section 1218 of TEA21 established a
magnetic levitation deployment program to be administered by
the FRA. FRA has received project submissions for several
projects in the eastern and western United States which have
the potential to provide significant traffic congestion relief.
It is a Committee priority to make the most of our limited
transportation resources. In order to assist the Committee to
evaluate the potential of magnetic levitation to achieve
traffic congestion relief and determine its appropriate role in
our nation's transportation system, the Committee directs the
FRA to provide the Committee a cost-benefit comparison report
of magnetic levitation to other modes of travel.
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(AMTRAK)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,043,175,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 900,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 900,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -143,175,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) was
created by the Rail Passenger Service Act in 1970 and
incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia. It
started operation on May 1, 1971. Amtrak's purpose was to
operate a national rail passenger system to relieve the freight
railroads of the burden of money-losing passenger operations
and to preserve rail passenger service over a national system.
It was created as a for-profit government corporation that was
granted the right of access to the tracks owned by the freight
railroads at incremental cost and with operating priority over
freight trains. Amtrak was also granted jurisdiction to provide
intercity rail transportation over its route system and was to
receive federal subsidies for the first few years, but then it
was expected to make a profit.
Status of Amtrak
For over thirty years, Amtrak has operated in the red at
the expense of American taxpayers. After three decades of
federal jump-starting, nearly forty percent of Amtrak's costs
are still taxpayer subsidized. In a Subcommittee hearing this
year, the Deputy Secretary of Transportation testified:
The Department of Transportation (DOT) expects that
each and every one of Amtrak's 17 long distance trains
will this year lose money on a fully allocated cost
basis, even excluding depreciation and interest. On a
fully allocated cost basis including depreciation and
interest (a more accurate measure of overall federal
investment), all of Amtrak's 43 regularly scheduled
routes lose money. Ten of its 17 long distance train
routes have a net loss of more than $40 million per
year. On a per passenger basis, the loss for long
distance trains range from $131 per passenger to $551
per passenger.
If increased levels of support had a realistic chance of
turning Amtrak into a successful railroad, it would be
worthwhile to consider such a plan. However, after thirty years
it should be apparent that the difficulties faced by Amtrak
will not go away with additional injections of federal funding.
After years of mortgaging, leasing, and misleading Congress
about the state of the corporation, Amtrak is finally facing a
time where fundamental system change is necessary. The only
actions that can change the abysmal situation at Amtrak is to
completely change how Amtrak operates and how intercity
passenger rail is managed. As the Deputy Secretary testified,
``the problem at Amtrak simply will not go away with a more
liberal application of dollars drawn from the federal treasury.
The status quo cannot stretch to resolve these and other
inherent weaknesses with which Amtrak has struggled to live.
Structural reform is needed''.
The Committee believes that, given the perennial financial
losses of the railroad, Amtrak must show that it can operate
effectively on a more limited system before even attempting to
continue operations on its current scale. Amtrak has itself
stated that its long-distance trains are ``political'' trains
whose viability should be decided by the Congress and not by
the corporation. The Committee bill makes that decision by
focusing the nation's limited resources on train operations in
the northeast corridor and the west coast corridor. Only if and
when Amtrak demonstrates it can manage these services, would it
be appropriate for Congress to consider an expansion of their
system back to its current size.
In fiscal year 2002, 23,407,000 passengers rode on Amtrak
trains. Of those, 59% were passengers on the northeast
corridor, as shown in the table below:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage
of total
Trains (25) Fiscal year Amtrak
2002 national
ridership
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Northeast corridor total ridership............ 13,834,000 59
West total ridership.......................... 4,610,000 20
Intercity total ridership..................... 4,963,000 21
-------------------------
Amtrak Total Ridership.................. 23,407,000 100
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amtrak service should not be equated with rail passenger
service. Amtrak carries less than five percent of the rail
passengers in America. The remaining vast majority are carried
by commuter rail systems which focus high-volume routes in
densely-populated areas, rather than attempting expensive and
money-losing cross-country routes.
In fiscal year 2003, Congress provided new guidelines for
the Department of Transportation to follow in administering its
grants to Amtrak. The Department of Transportation called these
``important reforms'' that provide ``oversight with teeth,
placing the relationship between DOT and Amtrak on a footing
similar to the oversight DOT exercises with respect to other
transportation modes''. Amtrak had to pace itself on
expenditures, with DOT oversight, to ensure that their funding
would last through the fiscal year. For the first time in four
summers, the railroad did not threaten to enter bankruptcy and
have to request supplemental funding. For example, last year,
the railroad came within weeks of shutting down before an
emergency appropriation was provided, and in 2001 it mortgaged
Pennsylvania Station in New York City, one of its last
remaining unencumbered assets. As a start to creating financial
accountability for Amtrak, these reforms are promising and as a
result, the Committee bill retains them for fiscal year 2004.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $900,000,000 for grants to Amtrak
in fiscal year 2004, subject to completion of authorization
actions by the Congress. Of this total, $400,000,000 is
provided as a subsidy for operating losses on Amtrak routes,
with $188 million for short distance train operating losses and
$193 million for long distance train operating losses. The
northeast corridor trains currently operate with a profit of
$188,000,000, according to the Office of Inspector General, and
this revenue is expected to be used for Amtrak's debt principal
payment in fiscal year 2004, which is estimated to be
$163,000,000. $373,000,000 is provided for capital improvements
to the northeast corridor and $127,000,000 is provided for
general capital improvements, including $117 million for the
debt service payment for fiscal year 2004. Similar to fiscal
year 2003, funding is provided to the Secretary of
Transportation, subject to the same grant oversight and
management reforms as enacted in fiscal year 2003. Further, the
Secretary is directed to ensure that the Amtrak continues to
meet all debt principal and interest payments in fiscal year
2004.
Capital grants.--The Secretary is directed to assure that
any funds provided to Amtrak be spent in a prudent manner, on
projects where positive results can be seen. Funding should be
spent on projects that maximize operational efficiencies and
promote those lines with the highest ridership and cost sharing
agreements in place. Amtrak shall not begin any new projects
unless they can be fully funded with the fiscal year 2004
appropriation and Amtrak-generated revenues unless such
projects are critical for safety or infrastructure repairs.
Operating and capital plans.--Bill language has been
continued that prohibits funding to Amtrak until after an
operating and capital plan has been developed for fiscal year
2004. This plan must be approved by the Board of Directors and
the Secretary of Transportation and submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than: (1) 60 days
after enactment of a final Amtrak appropriation, or (2) at the
time Amtrak submits its grant request to Congress in February
2004, whichever comes first. Development and approval of the
operating and capital plan should minimize the number of
stopgap measures Amtrak has to employ, particularly relating to
capital projects, in those cases where the Corporation is
unable to commit funding to complete an entire project.
Amtrak financial information.--In addition to the
submission of an operating and capital plan for fiscal year
2004, the Secretary must continue to vouch for the accuracy of
Amtrak's financial information. This must be in the form of a
signed letter that accompanies the operating and capital plans.
In doing so, the Secretary must certify in writing, that based
on his knowledge, the financial statements and other financial
information prepared by Amtrak for Congress (e.g. capital and
operating plans and business plans that are attached to yearly
grant requests) fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition of the Corporation. Specifically, the
Secretary's letter should attest that:
1. Amtrak's financial information and reports are prepared
using generally accepted accounting standards.
2. Amtrak has corrected any material weaknesses or
inaccuracies identified by a publicly registered accounting
firm using practices sanctioned by generally accepted
accounting principles.
3. Amtrak has disclosed to the Secretary any and all
material off-balance sheet transactions, arrangements, and
obligations that may have a material current or future effect
on the Corporation's financial condition, changes in financial
condition, results in operations, liquidity, capital
expenditures, capital resources, or any significant components
of revenues or expenses.
4. Amtrak has designed internal controls to ensure that
material information is made known to the Board of Directors
and the Secretary of Transportation in a timely fashion.
5. The Secretary has evaluated the effectiveness of
Amtrak's internal controls to assure that deficiencies are not
occurring and all significant deficiencies in the design or
operation of internal controls that could adversely affect the
Corporation's ability to record, process, summarize, or report
financial data and identify fraud, have been corrected.
6. Amtrak's financial information does not contain untrue
statements of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
necessary for the Board of Directors and the Secretary of
Transportation to make informed financial decisions.
The House and Senate Committees on Appropriations must
approve all variations to the base operating and capital plans
according to the Department's reprogramming process.
Direct loan provisions.--Bill language is also continued
from fiscal year 2003 that requires Amtrak to continue abiding
by certain provisions of the direct loan agreement signed on
June 28, 2002, which would otherwise expire. These include the
following requirements:
1. Amtrak management will significantly improve financial
controls and accounting transparency. Management must report to
the Board of Directors, the Department of Transportation, and
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations monthly on:
(a) all revenues and expenses associated with rail operations
by route, and (b) budgeted and actual expenditures for all
capital investments.
2. Amtrak management will provide to the Board of
Directors, the Department of Transportation, and Congress
monthly performance reports no later than 30 days after the end
of that month. Amtrak shall also make available to DOT the same
details and reports on its financial performance that it makes
available to Amtrak management, at the same time that it
provides those reports and details to Amtrak management.
3. Amtrak funds will be spent only on existing plant and
services. With the exception of expenditures for which it
obtains written approval from DOT, Amtrak will suspend use of
any of its funds for actual expansion or planning for expansion
of rail service, including all high speed rail service, through
fiscal year 2004.
4. Amtrak will provide DOT all core operating data so the
Department can monitor and evaluate the railroad's ability to
manage its cash flow, within the current appropriations level
and using conservative revenue assumptions.
Monthly reporting requirements.--The monthly performance
reports that Amtrak is required to submit to DOT and the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations shall include the
following:
all revenue and expenses associated with
rail operations by route, grouped by the following
service types or regions: (a) Northeast Corridor
intercity; (b) Corridor services reported individually
for the Empire, Keystone, Midwest, California, and
North Carolina Corridors; (c) long-distance services,
with profit and loss visibility on individual trains;
and (d) remaining services, with profit and loss
visibility on individual services or groups of
services;
budgeted and actual expenditures for all
capital investments, including categories for high-
speed rail activities;
monthly performance reports, including cash
flow information, revenues, and expenses;
a comprehensive business plan for the
upcoming fiscal year that includes targets for
ridership, revenues, capital, and operating expenses
for each business unit;
a quarterly assessment explaining the extent
to which each goal identified in the comprehensive
business plan has been achieved or deviated from (and
why);
a current listing of all debt including
assets, long-term liabilities, and the repayment
schedule for those liabilities; and
a detailed report on all operating
relationships between Amtrak and commuter rail systems
that highlights the manner and extent each commuter
operation and state could be impacted if a suspension
of Amtrak operations occurred.
Office of Inspector General quarterly reports.--The DOT
Office of Inspector General shall report quarterly to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations on Amtrak's compliance
with these provisions.
State-assisted intercity rail service.--The Secretary,
working with affected states, is directed to develop and
implement a fair competitive bid procedure to assist states in
introducing carefully managed competition to demonstrate
whether competition will provide higher quality rail service at
reasonable prices. The goal is to give the states, at their
option, the ability to conduct a fair competition for state-
assisted operations, commonly known as 403(b) trains. The bill
provides a dispute resolution process for the Secretary to
resolve disputes between states and Amtrak regarding the
provision of facilities, equipment, and services by Amtrak at
reasonable terms and compensation to enable service by a non-
Amtrak operator. This process is similar to the one Amtrak now
uses under 49 U.S.C. 24308 to resolve disputes with freight
railroads for their provision of facilities and services to
enable passenger rail service by Amtrak. The objective of this
provision is to allow states the option of providing
competitive intercity rail service.
The Secretary may reprogram up to $5,000,000 from Amtrak
operating grant funds to make grants to the states for
implementation of this provision. As part of this process, the
Secretary shall evaluate and report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, as well as the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Technology, by November 3, 2003, on
options for insurance pooling to provide states and operators
with the lowest possible insurance costs. Further, the
Secretary is directed to initiate the Fair Competitive Bid
Procedure by January 1, 2004. The Secretary will administer the
process, monitor its progress, and make monthly reports to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Section 150 amends Section 11123 of title 49, U.S.C., to
ensure that emergency commuter rail service is continued if
Amtrak should cease operation.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1,
1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal
Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were
transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation
Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit
Administration administers federal financial assistance
programs for planning, developing, and improving comprehensive
mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas.
Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration
is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are
required for portions of other accounts.
Authorization for the programs funded by the Federal
Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), which will expire on
September 30, 2003. Because reauthorization actions have not
yet been completed, the Committee has continued the fiscal year
2003 program levels as if authorized through fiscal year 2004.
TEA-21 also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide
two additional discretionary spending categories, the highway
category and the mass transit category. The mass transit
category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit
capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative
expenses, transit planning and research and university
transportation center funding. The Budget Enforcement Act
amendments will also expire on September 30, 2003, without
actions by Congress.
The authorized level for mass transit category obligations
were capped at $7,226,000,000 in fiscal year 2003. After an
across-the-board cut of .65 percent, mass transit category
obligations were $7,179,030,000. Any additional appropriated
funding above the levels guaranteed (that which could be
appropriated from general funds authorized under section
5338(h)) is scored in the budget process against the non-
defense discretionary category.
Administrative Expenses
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations Total funding
(general fund) (trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................................. $14,505,000 $58,020,000 $72,525,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................................ 76,500,000 0 76,500,000
Recommended in the bill......................................... 14,500,000 58,000,000 72,500,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................. -5,000 -20,000 -25,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................ -62,000,000 +58,000,000 -4,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$72,500,000 for FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation
is $25,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. The
recommendation is comprised of an appropriation of $14,500,000
from the general fund and $58,000,000 from limitations on
obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust
fund. A limitation has been included to limit travel to
$1,000,000 for fiscal year 2004.
Administrative expenses.--Funding is specified in the bill
for the administrative offices of FTA at the following levels:
Office of the Administrator............................. $948,000
Office of administration................................ 6,126,000
Office of the chief counsel............................. 3,848,000
Office of communication and congressional affairs....... 1,067,000
Office of program management............................ 7,303,000
Office of budget and policy............................. 6,027,000
Office of research, demonstration and innovation........ 4,328,000
Office of civil rights.................................. 2,657,000
Office of planning...................................... 3,732,000
Regional offices........................................ 17,697,000
Central account......................................... 16,567,000
National transit database............................... 2,200,000
In addition, the Administrator is authorized to transfer
funding between offices, but any transfers totaling more then
three percent of the initial appropriation must be approved by
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The Director
of Safety and Security has been reported under the Office of
the Administrator.
The Committee is disturbed that FTA's centralized
administrative system does not allow for a sufficient
itemization of office expenses. It is important for the
department and the Congress to have the ability to analyze the
needs of FTA on an office-by-office basis consistent with other
DOT agencies. Therefore, FTA is directed to submit the fiscal
year 2005 budget request by office, similar to the format
utilized by the Office of the Secretary.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--Within the fiscal
year 2004 Federal Transit Administration budget justification,
FTA listed an increase of $964,000 for the support of ten
additional FTE as a ``mandatory increase''. This puzzles the
Committee, as it is clearly not mandatory to provide increases
in human capital. The Committee approves four of the requested
FTE for the Offices of Planning and Program Management only.
Revisions of Congressional intent.--The Committee is
troubled by actions taken by FTA this year to revise the intent
of Congressional programs without discussing such measures with
the Committee. Although the Committee appreciates the prompt
intervention of the Office of the Secretary in this matter, the
Committee reiterates to FTA that it is improper for DOT
agencies to take actions changing the Congressionally-approved
scope of programs without receiving the approval of the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations. FTA is directed to
consult with the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
before making any decisions clarifying Congressional intent.
Transit project performance standards.--TEA-21 allocated
forty percent of transit funds to new starts and forty percent
to the modernization of existing rail systems, leaving twenty
percent for bus systems. This method has skewed the outcomes of
local analysis because more federal funding is available for
new fixed guideway systems without regard to overall
priorities. The Committee believes strongly that high-capacity
transit systems, regardless of the technology, that will move
the most people, relieve the most congestion, produce the
largest increase in transit ridership, and have the greatest
positive cost-benefit ratio, should be those that are rewarded
with federal investment.
The Committee believes that each new start project, in
order to qualify for a full funding grant agreement, should be
required to show that its locally-preferred alternative will
attract and move more transit riders, at the lowest cost per
rider, than other modal alternatives. This would help shift the
nation's mass transit funding system to a more cost-efficient,
outcomes-based system and away from the funding category-based
system currently in place. As long as eighty percent of federal
funding is reserved for fixed guideway technology, local
transit agencies will continue to presume that the answer to
their transit needs will be found in that technology. The
Committee believes that the current funding criteria do not
adequately provide incentives for the best transit investments.
The Federal Government can no longer continue to allocate
scarce transportation resources without maximizing the benefits
relative to the costs.
Reauthorization of transit programs.--The administration's
proposal for reauthorization of federal transit programs calls
for a significant restructuring of FTA programs. In particular,
the administration is proposing to shift the resources
currently provided in the section 5309 bus and bus facilities
program to the urbanized area formula and state-administered
formula programs, an expanded new starts program, and
performance incentive grants. One of the justifications for the
elimination of this discretionary program is that historically
``only half of the States have received statewide earmarks''
and that this ``shift in resources will make for a more
equitable distribution across the Nation'', according to
materials submitted for the record by FTA. The Committee is
very concerned that this proposal would not make a more
equitable distribution, but simply shift control of Federal
funds away from the Congress. In the last two fiscal years,
every state, as well as the District of Columbia and the Virgin
Islands, has received a transit allocation in the annual
transportation appropriations bill, and the Committee is
troubled that FTA is trying to make it seem as if states' bus
funding is being shortchanged at the hand of Congressional
appropriators.
Project management oversight activities.--The Committee
directs that any savings from funding of any administrative
expenditures be used to increase funding for project management
oversight activities. It is critical that FTA continue to
support strong project and financial oversight activities,
particularly as more communities are applying for capital
grants funding as urbanized areas grow.
Further, the Committee encourages FTA to provide for
additional planning experience in the regional and metropolitan
offices, as it is essential to have adequate knowledge of the
fundamentals of these activities in the offices that are most
closely involved in the development of individual projects.
The Committee also directs that FTA submit to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations the quarterly FMO and PMO
reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement.
To further support oversight activities, the bill continues
a provision requiring FTA to reimburse the Department of
Transportation Office of Inspector General $2,000,000 for costs
associated with audits and investigations of transit-related
issues, including reviews of new fixed guideway systems. This
reimbursement must come from funds available for the execution
of contracts. Over the past several years, the IG has provided
critical oversight of several major transit projects, which the
Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that
the Inspector General will continue such oversight activities
in fiscal year 2004.
Office of research, demonstration, and innovation.--The
Committee is concerned with the effectiveness and worth of the
office of research, demonstration, and innovation. Therefore,
FTA shall report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations on all expenditures on research, demonstration
and innovation activities for the past three fiscal years and
all planned expenditures for fiscal year 2004. The report shall
include explanations of how each activity is based on advancing
transit initiatives, and how this work is implemented within
the industry. The report is due by September 30, 2003. An
update of this information should also be provided in FTA's
fiscal year 2005 budget justification.
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--TEA-21, as amended,
requires that FTA notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations as well as the House Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure and the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing
and Urban Affairs, sixty days before executing a full funding
grant agreement. In its notification to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, FTA shall include the following:
(1) a copy of the proposed full funding grant agreement; (2)
the total and annual federal appropriations required for that
project; (3) yearly and total federal appropriations that can
be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each
fiscal year through 2004; (4) a detailed analysis of annual
commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the
program authorization; (5) an evaluation of whether the
alternatives analysis made by the applicant objectively and
fully weighed all viable alternatives; and (6) a financial
analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability to
finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner
and which shall include an assessment of the capital cost
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all
public- and private-sector financial instruments; an operating
plan which enumerates the project's future revenue and
ridership forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks
associated with the project.
The Committee also directs FTA to inform the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations in writing thirty days
before approving scope or budget changes in any full funding
grant agreement. Correspondence relating to scope changes shall
include any budget revisions or program changes that materially
alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding
grant agreement, including any proposed change in rail car
procurements.
The Committee further directs FTA to notify the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations fifteen days before any
project in the new starts process is given approval by FTA to
advance to preliminary engineering or final design.
Advanced vehicle program.--The transit industry has been
leading the nation's heavy-duty vehicle industry in the use of
clean fuel vehicle technology helping to improve air quality
and lessen our nation's dependence on foreign oil. In the past
ten years, the use of alternative fuels in the transit industry
has increased dramatically. In 1993, sales of alternative fuel
transit buses was less than one percent of the total. Today,
20% or more of all new transit buses are fueled by natural gas.
At the end of 2002, there were over 6,000 natural gas transit
buses in use.
DOT and FTA also have played an important role in
supporting the development of heavy-duty hybrid electric
vehicles through its support of the consortia-based advanced
vehicle program (AVP), which supports the early stage
development of every North American hybrid electric bus
manufacturer. Based on its success in facilitating the
development of heavy-duty hybrid electric technology, the
Committee feels that AVP would be the ideal venue for
initiating a major fuel cell bus program in the United States.
The consortia model used by AVP helps to encourage the flow of
information and networking to a much higher degree than
traditional programs. Therefore, the Committee encourages FTA
and DOT to actively develop operations of AVP and build on the
agency's strong relationship with the transit industry.
Charter service activities.--Section 604 of title 49 of the
United States Code states that recipients of equipment or
facilities funding from the Federal Transit Administration may
not use that property to provide private charter service, with
few exceptions. The Committee is concerned that despite these
statutory regulations many local transit agencies continue to
provide charter service under the guise that it may be
``regular and continuing service''. The Committee is concerned
that FTA is not enforcing this statute to the full extent of
the law. These activities present a great injustice to private
operator services, which should not have to compete with a
government entity that uses federal subsidies to purchase their
equipment. The Committee directs FTA to revisit its enforcement
of this statute and ensure that it is not being exploited. A
report on FTA's review of this situation shall be submitted to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
October 1, 2003.
Formula Grants
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations (trust Total funding
(general fund) fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003........................... $762,809,000 $3,051,237,000 $3,814,046,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.......................... .............. 5,615,406,000 5,615,406,000
Recommended in the bill................................... 767,800,000 3,071,200,000 3,839,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... +4,991,000 +19,963,000) +24,954,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... +767,800,000 -2,544,206,000) -1,776,406,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The accompanying bill provides $3,839,000,000 for transit
formula grants.
The recommended level of $3,839,000,000 is comprised of an
appropriation of $767,800,000 from the general fund and
$3,071,200,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. 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 (sec. 5308); formula grants
and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities (sec. 5310); and formula grants
for other than urbanized areas (sec. 5311). In addition, set
asides of formula funds are directed to a grant program for
intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) accessibility costs and the Alaska Railroad for
improvements to its passenger operations.
The proposed oversight take down increase is denied. Within
the total funding level of $3,839,000,000, the Committee's
recommendation includes the following distribution:
Urbanized areas (sec. 5307)............................. $3,428,709,908
Oversight............................................... 18,432,736
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)........................ 90,652,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311)......................... 239,404,605
Over-the-road bus accessibility program................. 6,950,000
Alaska Railroad......................................... 4,850,000
Clean-fuels............................................. 50,000,000
Section 3007 of TEA-21 amends title 23 U.S.C. 5307,
urbanized formula grants, by striking the authorization to
utilize these funds for operating costs, but including a
specific provision allowing the Secretary to make operating
grants to urbanized areas with a population of less than
200,000. Generally, these grants may be used to fund capital
projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of
equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used
in mass transportation.
Major project alternatives analysis and preliminary
engineering and design.--Funds in the bill can be used, among
other activities, for alternatives analysis and preliminary
engineering and design (PE&D) of new rail extensions or
busways. The Committee continues to assert that local project
sponsors of new rail extensions or busways must use these funds
(or those provided under section 5303 metropolitan planning)
for alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering and
design activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary
set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects FTA, when
evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project,
to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have
used these formula grants apportionments for alternatives
analysis and PE&D activities of proposed new systems.
Clean fuels program.--TEA-21 required that $50,000,000 be
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants
program to fund a clean fuels program.
This program has been extended in fiscal year 2004. The
clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside
from the major capital investment's bus program and provides
grants for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for
eligible recipients in areas that are not in compliance with
air quality attainment standards. The Committee has continued
to identify designated recipients of these funds within the
projects listed under the bus program of the capital investment
grants account, as has been done in previous years.
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee
provides $6,950,000 for the over-the-road bus accessibility
program. This program is designed to assist operators of over-
the-road buses to finance the incremental capital and training
costs of complying with the department's final rule on
accessibility required by the Americans with Disabilities Act.
The following table displays the state-by-state
distribution of formula funds within each of the program
categories:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2004 APPORTIONMENTS FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 5310
Section 5307 Section 5311 non- elderly &
State urbanized area urbanized area persons with State total
disabilities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................. $15,138,667 $6,692,853 $1,582,925 $23,414,445
Alaska.................................. \1\ 8,583,909 932,825 240,303 9,757,037
America Samoa........................... ................ 153,015 60,088 213,103
Arizona................................. 45,440,735 3,265,027 1,652,847 50,358,609
Arkansas................................ 8,174,080 4,841,318 1,029,871 14,045,269
California.............................. 586,497,810 10,288,103 9,488,916 606,274,829
Colorado................................ 45,565,774 2,906,645 1,160,010 49,632,429
Connecticut............................. 42,916,872 1,487,843 1,128,644 45,533,359
Delaware................................ 6,423,520 674,570 352,994 7,451,084
District of Columbia.................... 68,645,916 ................ 309,042 68,954,958
Florida................................. 164,147,558 6,709,898 6,064,881 176,922,337
Georgia................................. 62,615,813 8,483,506 2,295,637 73,394,956
Guam.................................... ................ 413,460 157,227 570,687
Hawaii.................................. 27,934,110 1,003,237 476,147 29,413,494
Idaho................................... 5,729,233 1,843,271 455,768 8,028,272
Illinois................................ 218,339,751 7,162,729 3,526,256 229,028,736
Indiana................................. 35,559,976 7,129,966 1,871,517 44,561,459
Iowa.................................... 12,691,349 4,838,329 980,862 18,510,540
Kansas.................................. 9,947,047 3,954,418 882,653 14,784,118
Kentucky................................ 19,148,378 6,610,369 1,461,839 27,220,586
Louisiana............................... 30,616,488 5,163,713 1,455,553 37,235,754
Maine................................... 3,061,990 2,566,606 533,084 6,161,680
Maryland................................ 69,033,173 2,668,245 1,545,478 73,246,896
Massachusetts........................... 124,990,002 1,906,899 2,041,414 128,938,315
Michigan................................ 67,602,520 8,973,689 2,938,848 79,515,057
Minnesota............................... 41,820,114 5,896,505 1,366,007 49,082,626
Mississippi............................. 5,296,811 5,781,661 1,032,720 12,111,192
Missouri................................ 36,365,026 6,689,314 1,788,808 44,843,148
Montana................................. 2,581,409 1,784,125 384,485 4,750,019
N. Mariana Islands...................... 675,985 20,101 60,998 757,084
Nebraska................................ 8,239,653 2,420,193 596,510 11,256,356
Nevada.................................. 24,473,107 859,874 721,940 26,054,921
New Hampshire........................... 4,642,118 1,826,747 457,852 6,926,717
New Jersey.............................. 217,148,481 1,764,249 2,587,773 221,500,503
New Mexico.............................. 9,551,855 2,555,204 655,206 12,762,265
New York................................ 550,931,718 9,272,746 6,091,120 566,295,584
North Carolina.......................... 37,901,829 11,453,770 2,563,722 51,919,321
North Dakota............................ 3,055,663 1,098,794 310,725 4,465,182
Ohio.................................... 90,141,703 10,795,153 3,431,195 104,368,051
Oklahoma................................ 14,269,627 5,253,598 1,208,398 20,731,623
Oregon.................................. 35,475,309 3,860,108 1,122,512 40,457,929
Pennsylvania............................ 153,018,676 10,870,487 4,044,433 167,933,596
Puerto Rico............................. 43,018,815 886,505 1,399,708 45,305,028
Rhode Island............................ 8,886,917 321,036 463,004 9,670,957
South Carolina.......................... 14,252,555 5,710,780 1,383,261 21,346,596
South Dakota............................ 2,347,890 1,496,368 339,305 4,183,563
Tennessee............................... 28,940,103 7,276,884 1,914,830 38,131,817
Texas................................... 196,543,779 16,174,536 5,644,548 218,362,863
Utah.................................... 27,263,133 1,295,598 592,321 29,151,052
Vermont................................. 1,043,871 1,344,670 294,426 2,682,967
Virgin Islands.......................... ................ 290,086 150,772 440,858
Virginia................................ 54,598,970 6,317,121 2,017,699 62,933,790
Washington.............................. 95,763,294 4,247,495 1,720,930 101,731,719
West Virginia........................... 4,949,894 3,454,176 784,330 9,188,400
Wisconsin............................... 40,150,971 6,733,687 1,574,405 48,459,063
Wyoming................................. 1,381,661 982,500 256,054 2,620,215
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.......................... 3,433,535,608 239,404,605 90,652,801 3,763,593,014
Oversight............................... 17,253,948 1,203,038 ................ 18,456,986
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 3,450,789,556 240,607,643 90,652,801 3,782,050,000
Over-the-Road Bus Program............... ................ ................ ................ 6,950,000
Clean Fuels............................. ................ ................ ................ 50,000,000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand total....................... ................ ................ ................ 3,839,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $4,825,700 to Alaska Railroad for improvements to passenger operations.
University Transportation Research
Limitation
Appropriation on Total
(general obligations funding
fund) (trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year $1,192,000 ($4,769,000) $5,961,000
2003........................
Budget request, fiscal year ............. ............ ............
2004........................
Recommended in the bill...... 1,200,000 (4,800,000) 6,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal +8,000 (+31,000) +39,000
year 2003...............
Budget request, fiscal +1,200,000 (+4,800,000) +6,000,000
year 2004...............
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The accompanying bill provides a total of $6,000,000 for
university transportation research. The recommendation is a
$39,000 increase above the fiscal year 2003 level.
The recommended program level of $6,000,000 is comprised of
an appropriation of $1,200,000 from the general fund and
$4,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund.
Transit Planning and Research
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations Total funding
(general fund) (trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.............................. $24,043,000 ($97,164,000) $121,207,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................. .............. ................ ...............
Recommended in the bill...................................... 24,200,000 (97,800,000) 122,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.......................... +157,000 (+636,000) +793,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004......................... +24,200,000 (+97,800,000) +122,000,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The accompanying bill provides $122,000,000 for transit
planning and research. The recommendation is $793,000 more than
provided in fiscal year 2003.
The recommended level of $122,000,000 is comprised of an
appropriation of $24,200,000 from the general fund and
$97,800,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund.
The bill contains language specifying that $60,385,600
shall be available for metropolitan planning; $12,614,400 shall
be available for state planning; $31,500,000 shall be available
for national planning and research; $8,250,000 shall be
available for transit cooperative research; $4,000,000 shall be
available for the National Transit Institute; and $5,250,000
shall be available for rural transportation assistance.
National planning and research.--Within the funds for
national planning and research, support is provided for a
number of important initiatives including:
CALSTART/Weststart Bus Rapid Transit; Clean Mobility and
Transit Enhancements................................ $3,250,000
Center for Intermodal Transportation, Florida State
University.......................................... 1,000,000
Northern Illinois University Fuel Cell Research......... 1,750,000
Transportation Research Program at the University of
Kansas.............................................. 2,000,000
Community Transportation Association of America's
National Joblinks Program........................... 1,000,000
PVTA Electric Bus Program, MA........................... 1,925,000
North Carolina State University Center for
Transportation and the Environment.................. 1,000,000
National Transit Institute at Rutgers University........ 1,000,000
State University System of Florida Intermodal
Transportation Safety Initiative.................... 8,000,000
National Transit Institute at Rutgers University, TELLUM 1,000,000
NYU-Wagner Rudin Center Americas Mega City Project, NY.. 75,000
Advanced Transportation Technology Institute, TN........ 1,000,000
Project ACTION.......................................... 2,000,000
Hennepin County community transportation, MN............ 1,000,000
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(LIQUIDATION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2004...................... ($5,781,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004..................... (320,594,000)
Recommended in the bill.............................. (5,807,020,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.................. (- - -)
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................. (+26,020,000)
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
For fiscal year 2004, the Committee has provided
$5,807,020,000 for liquidation of contract authorization.
Capital Investment Grants
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations Total funding
(general fund) (trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................ $603,253,000 $2,413,013,000 $3,016,266,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004........................... 1,213,500,000 320,594,000 1,534,094,000
Recommended in the bill.................................... 599,280,000 2,507,220,000 3,106,500,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003........................ -3,973,000 -94,207,000 +90,234,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004....................... -614,220,000 +2,186,626,000 +1,572,406,000
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,106,500,000 to
be available for capital investment grants. The recommendation
is $90,234,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2003.
The recommended level of $3,106,500,000 is comprised of an
appropriation of $599,280,000 from the general fund and
$2,507,220,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund.
Funds provided for capital investment grants shall be
distributed as follows:
Recommended in the bill
Fixed guideway modernization............................ $1,214,400,000
New starts.............................................. 1,214,400,000
Bus and bus facilities.................................. 677,700,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $3,106,500,000
Three-year availability of section 5309 funds.--Consistent
with past years the Committee has included bill language that
permits the administrator to reallocate discretionary new start
and buses and bus facilities funds from projects which remain
unobligated after three years. Funds made available in the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2001 and previous Acts are available for
reallocation in fiscal year 2004 as availability for these
discretionary projects is limited to three years. The Committee
directs the FTA to reprogram funds from recoveries and previous
appropriations that remain available after three years and are
available for reallocation to only those new starts and bus and
bus facilities projects identified in the accompanying reports
of the fiscal year 2004 Departments of Transportation and
Treasury and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act. The FTA
shall notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
15 days prior to any such reallocation, consistent with
reprogramming guidelines.
The Committee, however, directs FTA not to reallocate funds
provided in the fiscal year 2001 Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or previous Acts for
the following new start projects:
Los Angeles-San Diego LOSSAN Corridor Project, California
Dulles Corridor Project, Virginia
Wilmington, Delaware, Downtown Transit Corridor Project
Lowell, Massachusetts-Nashua, New Hampshire Commuter Rail
Project
Portland, Maine, Marine Highway Program
Charlotte, North Carolina, North Corridor and South Corridor
Transitway
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, North Shore-Central Business
District Corridor Project
Nashville, Tennessee, Regional Commuter Rail Project
Spokane, Washington, South Valley Corridor Light Rail Project
Philadelphia-Reading SEPTA Schuylkill Valley Metro Project
Alaska Ferry Projects
Girdwood to Wasilla, Alaska, Commuter Rail Project
Birmingham, Alabama, Transit Corridor
Twin Cities Transitways Project
Kenosha, Racine & Milwaukee Rail Extension
West Trenton, New Jersey, Rail Project
Indianapolis, Indiana Northeast-Downtown Corridor Project
Burlington-Bennington (ABRB), Vermont Commuter Rail Project
Kansas City, Missouri, Southtown Corridor Project
Hollister/Gilroy Branch Line Rail Extension Project, CA
(2001)
Colorado Roaring Fork Valley Project
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill Triangle Transit Project
The Committee makes these exceptions based on FTA
information that these funds are likely to be awarded by the
fourth quarter of fiscal year 2003 or soon thereafter.
In addition, the Committee directs FTA not to reallocate
funds provided in the fiscal year 2001 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act or
previous Acts for the following bus and bus facilities
projects:
Sullivan County, buses, bus facilities, and related
equipment, NY
Jamaica, intermodal facilities, NY
Statewide bus and bus facilities (including Tallahassee), FL
Alabama State Docks intermodal passenger and freight
facility, AL
University of South Alabama, buses and bus facilities, AL
Homer, Alaska Maritime Wildlife Refuge intermodal and welcome
center, AK
Port Mackenzie intermodal facilities, AK
Port Mackenzie/Upper Cook Inlet facilities, AK
Ship Creek pedestrian and bus facilities and intermodal
center/parking garage, AK
Alabama Bus A&M University, AL
University of North Alabama, bus and bus facilities, AL
Central Arkansas Transit Authority, bus and bus facilities,
AR
River Market and College Station Livable Communities Program,
AR
Gary--Adam Benjamin Intermodal Center, IN
Kansas City, JOBLINKS, KS
Wyandotte County, buses, KS
Traverse City, transfer station, MI
Greater Minnesota buses and bus facilities, MN
Metro Transit, buses and bus facilities, MN
Newark Arena bus improvements, NJ
Trenton, train/intermodal station, NJ
Eastchester, Metro North facilities, NY
Suffolk County, senior and handicapped vans, NY
Fayette County, maintenance facilities, PA
Somerset County, ITS related equipment, PA
Bellows Falls Multimodal, VT
Brattleboro multimodal center, VT
Burlington multimodal transportation center, VT
Central Vermont Transit Authority buses and bus facilities,
VT
Washington County, intermodal facilities, buses and bus
facilities, PA
Fayatte County intermodal parking facility, PA
Wilkes-Barre, intermodal facility, PA
Wilkes-Barre intermodal transportation center, PA
Tulsa pedestrian and streetscape improvements, OK
Binghamton intermodal transportation center, NY
For those projects where Congress extends the availability
of funds that remain unobligated after three years and would
otherwise be available for reallocation at the discretion of
the administrator, such funds are extended only for one
additional year, absent further Congressional direction. Those
projects have had four years to expend their funding, and if
they still remain unable to do so, the Committee believes it is
better to allocate these funds to projects that can obligate
these funds in a more timely fashion.
BUSES AND BUS FACILITIES
The accompanying bill provides $677,700,000 for bus
purchases and bus facilities, including maintenance garages and
intermodal facilities. Bus systems play a vital role in the
mass transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA
estimates that 95 percent of the areas that provide mass
transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus.
Funds made available for bus and bus facilities are to be
supplemented with $37,000,000 from projects included in
previous appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these
funds may not be needed due to changing local circumstances or
are in excess of the project requirements. The unexpended sums
from the following projects from previous appropriations Acts
are reallocated:
Birmingham-Jefferson County Transit Authority buses and bus
facilities, AL (2001)
Dothan--Wiregrass Transit Authority buses and bus facilities,
AL (2001)
Intermodal Center, AL (1999)
Montgomery--Moulton Street Intermodal Facility, AL (2001)
Montgomery, civil rights trail trolleys, AL (2001)
Tuscaloosa interdisciplinary science building parking and
intermodal facility, AL (2001)
University of Alabama Birmingham fuel cell buses, AL (2001)
Anaheim, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
Brea, buses, CA (2001)
Compton, buses and bus-related equipment, CA (2001)
El Dorado, buses, CA (2001)
Folsom, transit stations, CA (2001)
Fresno, intermodal facilities, CA (2001)
Modesto, bus facility, CA (2001)
Monterey Salinas Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities,
CA (2001)
Oceanside, intermodal facility, CA (2001)
Sacramento, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
Santa Cruz, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
Sonoma County, buses and bus facilities, CA (2001)
Sunline transit agency, buses, CA (2001)
Vista, bus center, CA (2001)
Bridgeport, intermodal center, CT (2001)
Norwich bus terminal and pedestrian access, CT (2001)
Waterbury, bus garage, CT (2001)
Chatham, buses and bus facilities, GA (2001)
Cobb County, buses, GA (2001)
Georgia Regional Transit Authority, buses and bus facilities,
GA (2001)
Des Moines park and ride, IA (2001)
Mason City, bus facility, IA (2001)
Sioux City Trolley system, IA (2001)
Waterloo, buses and bus facilities, IA (2001)
Statewide, bus and bus facilities, ID (2001)
Alexandria buses and vans, LA (2001)
Plaquemines Parish ferry/New Orleans Regional Planning
Commission vans, buses, facility construction in Plaquemines,
St. Bernard, St. John and St. Charles Parishes, LA (2001)
St. Tammany Parish park and ride, LA (2001)
Bangor intermodal transportation center, ME (2001)
Southeast Missouri Transportation Service bus and bus
facilities, MO (2001)
Brookhaven multimodal transportation center, MS (2001)
Coast Transit Authority multimodal facility and shuttle
service, MS (2001)
Picayune multimodal center, MS (2001)
Missoula Ravalli Transportation Management Association buses,
MT (2001)
Missouri River pedestrian crossing--Omaha, NE (2001)
Elizabeth Ferry Project, NJ (2001)
Angel Fire bus and bus Facilities, NM (2001)
Clovis, buses and bus facility, NM (2001)
Las Cruces, buses, NM (2001)
Valencia County, transportation station improvements, NM
(2001)
Clark County bus passenger intermodal facility--Henderson, NV
(2001)
Lake Tahoe CNG buses and fleet conversion, NV (2001)
Reno and Sparks, buses and bus facilities, NV (2001)
Washoe County buses and bus facilities, NV (2001)
Greenport and Sag Harbor, ferries and vans, NY (2001)
Highbridge pedestrian walkway, NY (2001)
Intermodal Transporter Center, NY (2000)
Tompkins County, intermodal facility, NY (2001)
Westchester and Duchess counties, vans, NY (2001)
Columbus Near East transit center, OH (2001)
Columbia County ADA buses, OR (2001)
Hood River County bus and bus facility, OR (2001)
Lakeview buses, OR (2001)
Rogue Valley buses, OR (2001)
Altoona bus testing facility, PA (2001)
Bucks County, intermodal facility improvements, PA (2001)
Monroe County, buses and bus facilities, PA (2001)
Phoenixville, transit related improvements, PA (2001)
Statewide, buses and bus facilities, SC (2001)
Brazos Transit District, buses, TX (2001)
Houston Metro, Main Street Transit Corridor improvements, TX
(2001)
Charlottesville bus and bus facilities, VA (2001)
City of Richmond bus and bus facilities, VA (2001)
Fair Lakes League, VA (2001)
Fair Lakes League, VA (2000)
Fairfax County Transportation Association of Greater
Springfield, VA (2001)
Falls Church Bus Rapid Transit terminus, VA (2001)
Jamestown/Yorktown and Williamsburg CNG bus, VA (2001)
Springfield station improvements, VA (2001)
King County Metro transit bus and bus facilities, WA (2001)
Renton/Port Quendall transit project, WA (2001)
Richland, bus maintenance facility, WA (2001)
Cheyenne transit and operation facility, WY (2001)
The Committee recommendation assumes the following
distribution of bus and bus facilities funds:
95th Dan Ryan Transit Station Refurbishment, IL......... $1,000,000
AC Transit Expansion Buses, CA.......................... 1,500,000
Access Enhancements to Sierra Madre Villa Gold Line
Station, CA......................................... 750,000
Adams County Transit Authority (ACTA) buses and bus
facility, Adams County, PA.......................... 70,000
Alameda Point aerial transit project, CA................ 700,000
Albany, GA, Intermodal Facility......................... 2,000,000
Allegan County, MI, Bus and Equipment................... 4,000,000
Alternative Fuel Replacement Buses for Sun Tran, AZ..... 500,000
Ames, IA transit/bus facility........................... 3,000,000
Amesbury, MA bus facility upgrade....................... 2,500,000
AMTRAN Buses and Transit System Improvements, PA........ 750,000
Anaheim, CA Resort Transit (ART)........................ 750,000
Ann Arbor Transit Authority Transit Center, MI.......... 1,750,000
Antelope Valley, CA Transit Authority Operations and
Maintenance Facility................................ 3,000,000
Area Transit Authority, PA Bus Purchase................. 2,750,000
Athens Clarke County Park Ride Project, GA.............. 3,900,000
Attleboro Intermodal Transportation Center, Attleboro,
MA.................................................. 2,500,000
Audubon Area Community Services, KY..................... 225,000
Baltimore, MD, Center Plaza............................. 1,000,000
Barry County Transit, MI, Replacement maintenance
equipment........................................... 50,000
BARTA Fixed Route Bus and Paratransit Vehicle
Replacement, PA..................................... 4,800,000
BARTA Park-N-Transit Facility, PA....................... 650,000
Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Authority New and
Replacement Buses, MI............................... 500,000
Bay Area Transportation Authority Facility and Buses,
Grand Traverse County, MI........................... 3,000,000
Beaver County, PA Transit Authority replacement buses
and equipment....................................... 650,000
Bergen Intermodal Stations and Park n' Rides Capital
Improvements, NJ.................................... 4,000,000
Berkshire Regional Transit Authority (BRTA) Buses and
Fare Boxes, MA...................................... 765,000
Birmingham, AL Downtown Intermodal Facility............. 1,000,000
Bismarck Fixed Route Bus System, Fargo/Moorhead Transit
Maintenance Facility, Valley City Garage, ND........ 4,000,000
Bloomington Transit--Bloomington, IN.................... 720,000
Branch Area Transit Authority Equipment Upgrade, MI..... 40,000
Brazos County, TX Bus Replacement Program............... 1,000,000
Brockton Area Intermodal Transit Centre Bus Replacement,
MA.................................................. 500,000
Bronx HUB Streetscape Improvement & Pedestrianization,
NY.................................................. 1,000,000
Broome County Hybrid Buses, NY.......................... 1,800,000
Bucks County, PA Intermodal Facility Improvements....... 2,000,000
Buffalo Niagara Medical Campus Implementation, NY....... 1,580,000
Bus Replacement, Brockton Area Transit Authority, MA.... 2,000,000
Butler Multi-Modal Transit Center, PA................... 2,500,000
Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority, MI Buses............ 200,000
Cadillac/Wexford Transit Authority, MI Intermodal
Facility............................................ 1,500,000
Calexico Transit System, CA............................. 400,000
Cambria County Transit Bus and Facility, PA............. 900,000
Capital Area Transit Buses, PA.......................... 3,000,000
Capital District Transportation Authority (CDTA),
Rensselaer Intermodal Station, NY................... 500,000
Capital Metro Hybrid Electric Buses, TX................. 500,000
Capital Metro North Operating Facility, TX.............. 1,250,000
CART/UOO, Norman, OK Buses and Bus Facilities........... 1,750,000
CAT, NV Double Decker Bus Purchase...................... 5,950,000
CATA Bus Replacement, Lansing, MI....................... 2,500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority, NY.. 5,000,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority Facility................. 1,100,000
Central Oklahoma Transportation and Parking Authority
(COPTA)............................................. 1,820,000
Centre Area Transit Authority--Advanced Public
Transportation Systems Initiative, PA............... 1,600,000
Cerone Operating Complex Improvements, CA............... 750,000
Cerritos, CA, Circulator Buses.......................... 500,000
Chapel Hill, NC Bus Maintenance Facility................ 1,000,000
Charlotte, NC Area Transit System Transit Maintenance
and Operations Center............................... 8,000,000
Chatham Area Transit Authority, GA Bus and Bus
Facilities.......................................... 10,000,000
Cherry Street Multi-Modal Facility, IN.................. 1,800,000
Church Street Transportation Center, Williamsport,
Lycoming County, PA................................. 1,000,000
Citrus County Enhancement Project for the Transportation
Disadvantaged, FL................................... 300,000
City Bus, Williamsport Bureau of Transportation,
Lycoming County, PA................................. 3,000,000
City of Adrian, MI Equipment Upgrade.................... 95,000
City of Albuquerque, NM Transit Department Revenue
Vehicle Purchase.................................... 6,000,000
City of Albuquerque, NM Transit Department West Side
Transit Facility.................................... 2,000,000
City of Alexandria After School Bus Program, VA......... 75,000
City of Alma, MI Intermodal Transit Facility, Equipment
Replacement and Tenant Sweeper...................... 300,000
City of Asheville, NC Transit System Fleet Replacement.. 825,000
City of Baldwin Park, CA Downtown/Metrolink Parking
Improvements........................................ 500,000
City of Battle Creek, MI Equipment and Facility Upgrade. 100,000
City of Belding, MI, Bus replacement and communication
equipment........................................... 100,000
City of Burbank, CA Empire Area Transit Center.......... 1,000,000
City of Canby, OR, Transit Center....................... 150,000
City of Clinton, MO Transit Office...................... 300,000
City of Columbia, MO, Transit Replacement............... 107,000
City of Corvallis, OR, Bus Replacement.................. 250,000
City of Davis, CA Intermodal Facility................... 350,000
City of Durham, NC Multimodal Transportation Facility... 1,500,000
City of El Paso, TX Sun Metro--Bus Replacement Program.. 1,000,000
City of Eureka, CA Intermodal Depot..................... 400,000
City of Fresno, CA FAX Buses, Equipment, and Facilities. 4,000,000
City of Grapevine, TX Bus Purchase...................... 325,000
City of Greenville, SC Multimodal Transportation Center
Improvements........................................ 525,000
City of Hillsdale, MI Equipment and Facility Upgrade.... 400,000
City of Holland, MI Macatawa Area Express (MAX)......... 1,500,000
City of Jackson, MI Transportation Authority Facility
upgrade............................................. 1,500,000
City of Lubbock/Citibus Buses, TX....................... 1,250,000
City of Lufkin, Intermodal Transit Terminal/Parking
Facility, TX........................................ 1,000,000
City of Macon, GA Alternative Fuel Vehicle Purchase..... 420,000
City of Nacogdoches, TX, Vehicle Replacement............ 1,000,000
City of Palm Beach, FL, Gardens Mass Transit Bus
Shelters............................................ 50,000
City of Peoria, IL Bus Purchase......................... 650,000
City of Revere, MA Intermodal Transit Improvements...... 2,500,000
City of San Fernando, CA Local Transit System........... 300,000
City of Springfield, IL Bus Purchase.................... 700,000
City of Waco, TX Bus Facility Project................... 1,500,000
City of Wichita Transit Authority, KS System Upgrades... 288,000
CityLink van and technology replacement, Abilene, TX.... 700,000
Clallam Transit Buses, WA............................... 250,000
Clare County, MI Transit Corporation--Replacement Buses,
MI.................................................. 250,000
Claremont, CA Intermodal Transit Village Expansion
Project............................................. 2,500,000
Clean Fleet Bus Purchase and Facilities, VA............. 2,500,000
Clinton, MI Transit Bus Purchase........................ 75,000
Coast Transit Authority, MS............................. 900,000
Coconino County, AZ Buses and Facilities................ 2,000,000
Collegian Busway Improvements, CA....................... 250,000
Colorado Transit Coalition Bus and Bus Facilities....... 10,000,000
Connecticut Statewide Bus Replacement Purchase.......... 6,000,000
Coralville, IA Intermodal Facility...................... 2,000,000
Corona Transit Center, CA............................... 1,750,000
Corpus Christi, TX, Bus and Bus Facilities.............. 800,000
County Connection, Midland County, MI................... 200,000
Danville, KY Transit Facility / Parking Structure....... 1,750,000
Danville, VA Trolley Buses.............................. 225,000
Delaware Bus and Bus Facilities......................... 3,000,000
Detroit Bus Replacement, MI............................. 4,000,000
Detroit Downtown Transit Center, MI..................... 8,000,000
Detroit Timed Transfer Center--Phase II, MI............. 2,000,000
East Haddam Mobility Improvement Project, CT............ 5,075,000
Eastern Contra Costa County Park and Ride Lots, CA...... 700,000
Ed Roberts Campus, CA................................... 450,000
El Garces Intermodal Station, Needles, CA............... 3,000,000
Endless Mountain Transportation Authority, Bradford
County, PA.......................................... 100,000
Erie Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus Acquisition, PA. 500,000
Escondido Bus Maintenance Facility, CA.................. 1,000,000
Everett Transit Buses, WA............................... 500,000
Fairfax County, VA Richmond Highway Transit Improvements 1,850,000
Fairfield/Vacaville, CA Intermodal Transit Station...... 700,000
Fayette County Intermodal Transit Facility, PA.......... 400,000
Flagler Senior Services Transit Coaches, FL............. 300,000
Flint Mass Transportation Authority New and Replacement
Buses, MI........................................... 1,000,000
Florida International University/University of Miami
University Transportation Center.................... 1,000,000
Folsom, CA Railroad Block Project....................... 2,000,000
Foothill Transit, CA Transit Oriented Neighborhood
Program............................................. 4,000,000
Fort Edward Intermodal Station Interior Restoration/
Rehabilitation Project, New York.................... 600,000
Fort Lauderdale, FL, Tri-City Transit Authority, fare
collection system................................... 1,440,000
Fort Smith, Arkansas Transit Facility................... 750,000
Fort Wayne, IN, Citilink Bus Purchase................... 1,000,000
Franklin Regional Transit Authority (FRTA) Bus, MA...... 150,000
Ft. Worth Transportation Authorty Fleet Modernization
and Bus Transfer Centers, TX........................ 4,000,000
Fulton County Transit Authority, KY..................... 400,000
Gallagher Intermodal Transportation Center Project, MA.. 2,000,000
Galveston Maintenance Facility Renovations, TX.......... 800,000
Georgia Statewide Bus Replacement, and Facility Projects
in Albany & Rome.................................... 2,000,000
Golden Empire Transit Traffic Signal Priority, CA....... 750,000
Grand Rapids, MI Metropolitan Area, Multimodal surface
transportation center............................... 3,475,000
Grant Transit Authority, Bus Facility, WA............... 1,200,000
Grays Harbor Transportation Authority Capital
Improvement, WA..................................... 75,000
Greater Dayton, OH Regional Transit Authority........... 2,000,000
Greater New Haven Transit District, CT, Fuel Cell and
Electric Bus Funding................................ 4,000,000
Greater Ouachita Port and Intermodal Facility, LA....... 1,000,000
GRTA Capital Improvements, GA........................... 3,000,000
Hamilton Clean Fuels Bus Facility, GA................... 2,500,000
Hampton Roads Transit Southside Bus Facility, VA........ 1,000,000
Harbor Transit, MI Bus Replacement...................... 450,000
Harrisburg Transportation Center Capital Purchase, PA... 1,750,000
Harrison County multi-modal facilities and shutle
service, MS......................................... 1,000,000
Harrison Intermodal Project, NJ......................... 1,000,000
HART Bus Facility--Ybor Station Intermodal Facility, FL. 700,000
HART Bus Purchase, FL................................... 750,000
Hartford Downtown Circulator, CT........................ 750,000
Hemet Transit Center/Bus Facility, CA................... 800,000
Henderson Area Rapid Transit Authority, KY.............. 25,000
High Point, NC Project Terminals........................ 3,000,000
Holyoke Multimodal Transportation Center, MA............ 4,000,000
Honolulu Bus and Paratransit Replacement Program, HI.... 750,000
Honolulu Middle Street Intermodal Center, HI............ 1,300,000
Hopkins County, TX, Intermodal Center................... 750,000
Howard Boulevard Intermodal Park & Ride, NJ............. 4,000,000
Hunt County, TX, Committee on Aging Transportation
Facility............................................ 750,000
Hunterdon County Intermodel Stations and Park & Rides,
NJ.................................................. 1,250,000
Wyandanch, NY Intermodal Transit Facility............... 750,000
Idaho Transit Coalition Capital Purchases............... 4,000,000
Illinois Statewide Buses and Facilities................. 6,000,000
Indiana County Transit Authority/Bus Facility Expansion
and Renovation, PA.................................. 400,000
Indiana University Bloomington, IN...................... 1,500,000
Indianapolis Downtown Transit Center, IN................ 1,800,000
Intelligent Transportation System for ITP--The Rapid, MI 1,500,000
Intermodal Transit Facility for ULM, LA................. 750,000
Intermodal Transportation Hub Study, Raleigh, NC........ 250,000
Interstate 15 Managed Lanes BRT Capital Purchase, CA.... 2,000,000
Iowa Statewide bus and bus facility..................... 6,600,000
Isabella County Transportation Commission Vehicle
Replacement, MI..................................... 600,000
Island Transit Operations and Maintenance Facility, WA.. 2,500,000
Jacksonville, FL Transportation Authority, Bus and Bus
Facilities, Bus Replacement......................... 3,250,000
Jacobi Transportation Facility, NY...................... 1,000,000
Jamaica Intermodal Facilities, Queens, NY............... 750,000
Jasper, AL Bus Replacement.............................. 100,000
JATRAN vehicles for disabled and elderly, MS............ 300,000
Jefferson City Transit System, MO....................... 400,000
Jefferson Transit Bus Facility, WA...................... 1,000,000
Jefferson Transit bus purchase, WA...................... 200,000
Johnson County, KS Nolte Transit Center................. 200,000
Johnson County, KS, Transit automated vehicle locator
system.............................................. 50,000
Kansas City Area Transit Authority: bus replacement,
facility improvement, KS............................ 3,000,000
Kansas Department of Transportation Bus and Bus Facility
Project............................................. 3,000,000
Kearney RYDE Transit Program, NE........................ 2,250,000
Kent State University Intermodal Facility, OH........... 750,000
Key West, FL, Bus and Bus Facilities.................... 2,000,000
Kibios Area Transit System (KATS) maintenance facility
and vehicles, OH.................................... 642,000
King County, Clean Air Buses, WA........................ 450,000
Kitsap Transit bus purchase, WA......................... 500,000
Knoxville, TN Electric Transit Intermodal Center........ 2,025,000
KY Transportation Cabinet/Community Action Groups....... 1,250,000
Lake Erie Transit Bus Storage Facility and Maintenance
Facility Expansion, MI.............................. 1,400,000
Lakeland Area Mass Transit District--Citrus Connection,
FL.................................................. 1,250,000
Lane Transit District Bus Facilities, OR................ 850,000
Laredo, TX, Bus Facility................................ 1,750,000
Lawrence, Kansas, Transit System maintenance facility... 400,000
Lebanon County Transit Authority, Bus and Bus Related
Facilities, PA...................................... 600,000
Lee County, FL LeeTran Bus Replacement.................. 500,000
Leesburg, GA, Train Depot Renovation and Restoration.... 400,000
Lenawee Transportation Corporation equipment upgrade, MI 300,000
LETS Bus Replacement, MI................................ 225,000
Levy County Improvement Project for the Transportation
Disadvantaged, FL................................... 500,000
Lincoln County, OR Transportation--Bus Garage Facility.. 200,000
Livingston County, NY, Transportation Center............ 500,000
Long Beach Transit--Bus Purchase, CA.................... 1,400,000
Lorain Port Authority, OH, Lighthouse Shuttle and Black
River Water Taxi Project............................ 250,000
Los Angeles County, CA MTA Bus Improvements............. 3,500,000
Louisiana Bus & Bus-Related Facilities.................. 4,500,000
Ludington, MI Mass Transportation Authority Bus Facility 525,000
Macon and Athens Multimodal Station, GA................. 2,000,000
Macon, GA Terminal Station.............................. 2,000,000
Mammoth Lakes, CA Bus Purchase.......................... 2,250,000
Manassas, VA, Old Town Intermodal Center................ 4,530,000
Manistee County, MI Transportation, Replacement Buses... 125,000
MARTA Automated Fare Collection/Smart Card System, GA... 6,000,000
MARTA Bus Acquisition Program, GA....................... 4,000,000
Maryland Bus and Bus Facilities Program................. 7,250,000
Mason County Transportation Authority Capital
Improvements, WA.................................... 200,000
Mecosta Osceola County Area Transit Vehicle Replacement,
MI.................................................. 350,000
Mesa, AZ Operating Facility............................. 2,000,000
Metro Transit Bus/Bus Facilities, MN.................... 4,400,000
Metro Transit Turn Around at Taylor Landing Park, WA.... 70,000
Miami Dade County, FL System Enhancements............... 5,000,000
Miami-Dade County, FL Bus Procurement................... 1,000,000
Mid County Transit Authority Kittanning, PA............. 400,000
Mid Mon Valley Transit Authority, Charleroi, PA......... 600,000
Minnesota Bus Replacement............................... 672,000
Minnesota Transit Vehicles and Transit Bus Facilities... 1,000,000
Missouri Bus & Paratransit Vehicles--Rolling Stock...... 1,500,000
Mobile, AL Waterfront Terminal and Maritime Center of
the Gulf............................................ 1,750,000
Modesto, CA Bus Facility................................ 2,250,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) Buses and Bus
Facility, MA........................................ 2,000,000
Montachusett Area Regional Transit (MART) Regional
Transit Facility, MA................................ 2,400,000
Montclair State University Campus and Community Bus
System, NJ.......................................... 800,000
Monterey-Salinas Transit Buses, CA...................... 2,800,000
Montgomery, NY Buses.................................... 40,000
Morgantown Intermodal Facility, WV...................... 3,500,000
Morris County Intermodal Facilities and Park & Rides, NJ 5,000,000
MTA/Long Island Bus purchase, NY........................ 2,000,000
Muncie Indiana Transit System, IN....................... 2,000,000
Myrtle Beach Regional Multimodal Transit Center, SC..... 500,000
Myrtle/Wycoff/Palmetto Transit Hub Enhancement, NY...... 750,000
Nashville, TN, Replacement of aged buses................ 800,000
Nassau HUB Enhancements, NY............................. 2,000,000
New Castle Transit Authority replacement buses, PA...... 500,000
New Hampshire Statewide Bus Acquisition................. 4,500,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department
Park & Ride......................................... 150,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department
Statewide Multi-Modal Transportation System......... 150,000
Newark Penn Station Intermodal Improvements, NJ......... 2,000,000
Newton, MA Rapid Transit Handicap Access Improvements... 300,000
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority Metro Bus and
Rail replacement buses, NY.......................... 4,500,000
Normal Multimodal Transportation Center including
facilities for adjacent public uses, IL............. 3,000,000
North Bend Park and Ride, WA............................ 2,000,000
North Carolina Bus and Bus Facilities................... 6,250,000
North Charleston Regional Intermodal Transportation
Center, SC.......................................... 3,000,000
North Las Vegas Intermodal Transit Hub, NV.............. 1,500,000
North Side Transfer Center Brownsville Urban System
(BUS), TX........................................... 500,000
Northern Michigan Bus and Bus Facilities................ 500,000
Northern Oklahoma Regional Multimodal Transportation
System.............................................. 5,500,000
Northumberland County Transportation, PA................ 125,000
Northwest Corridor Busway, MN........................... 4,000,000
NW 7th Avenue Transit HUB Improvements, FL.............. 1,300,000
Oates Transportation Service of Southwest Missouri...... 80,000
Oceanside, CA Transit Maintenance Improvements.......... 750,000
Oklahoma Department of Transportation Transit Programs
Division............................................ 6,250,000
Omnitrans--Paratransit Vehicles, CA..................... 300,000
Oneonta, NY Bus Replacement............................. 1,000,000
Orange County, CA Transit Center Improvements........... 725,000
Orange County, CA Bus Rapid Transit (Initial Capital)... 5,000,000
Orange County, CA Fare Collection System................ 2,250,000
Orange County, CA Inter-County Express Bus Service...... 5,000,000
Orange County, NY Bus Replacement....................... 3,400,000
Over the Road Bus Accessibility--Intercity Bus
Accessibility Consortium, NY........................ 5,000,000
Paducah Area Transit Authority, KY...................... 75,000
Palm Beach County and Broward County Regional Buses, FL. 5,000,000
Palmdale Intermodal Facility Parking Lot Expansion, CA.. 750,000
Palo Alto, CA Intermodal Transit Center................. 750,000
Paoli Transportation Center, PA......................... 1,250,000
Passenger Intermodal Transit Center, Bridgeport, CT..... 5,000,000
PCDC Busstop Related Facility Enhancements, PA.......... 1,000,000
Perry County, KY, Intermodal Facility................... 2,500,000
Phoenix/Glendale, AZ West Valley Operating Facility..... 5,000,000
Phoenix/Regional, AZ Heavy Maintenance Facility......... 1,350,000
Piedmont Authority for Regional Transportation (PART)
multimodal transportation center, NC................ 2,250,000
Pierce Transit Maintenance and Operations facility, WA.. 1,000,000
Pioneer Valley Transit Authority (PVTA) Buses, MA....... 2,500,000
Pittsfield Intermodal Transportation Center, MA......... 615,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County Clean Fuel Buses, PA. 3,000,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, PA - Bus Purchase... 2,000,000
Potomac and Rappahannock Transportation Commission, VA.. 1,000,000
Public Transportation Management, Tyler/Longview, TX.... 500,000
Puerto Rico Metropolitan Bus Authority Replacement...... 750,000
Pulse Point Joint Development and Safety Improvements,
Norwalk, CT......................................... 1,250,000
Purchase of Advanced Public Transportation Technology,
MS.................................................. 300,000
Putnam County, FL, Transit Coaches for Ride Solutions... 3,000,000
Ray County Transportation vehicle replacement, MO....... 80,000
Red Cross Wheels, KY.................................... 200,000
Redondo Beach, CA Catalina Transit Terminal............. 1,500,000
Regional Transit Project for Quitman, Clay, Randolph and
Stewart Counties, GA................................ 1,000,000
Reseda Boulevard, CA Bus Rapid Transit Project Capital
Improvement......................................... 450,000
Rhode Island Bus Replacement............................ 2,500,000
Rhode Island ITS Program Phase II Capital Program....... 500,000
RIPTA Facilities Upgrade, RI............................ 600,000
Riverside Transit Agency, Automatic Traveler Information
System (ATIS), CA................................... 200,000
Riverside Transit Agency: Bus Rapid Transit Investment,
CA.................................................. 1,250,000
Riverside Transit Agency: Transit Center, CA............ 2,250,000
Rochester Central Station, NY........................... 5,000,000
Rock Island County Mass Transit District (Metrolink)
transit facility, IL................................ 450,000
Rome, NY Martin Street Station Restoration.............. 1,000,000
Ronstadt Transit Center Modifications, AZ............... 3,000,000
Roseville, CA Multitransit Center....................... 1,000,000
Sacramento Regional Bus Expansion, Enhancement, and
Coordination Program, City of Auburn, CA............ 200,000
Sacramento Regional Bus Expansion, Enhancement, and
Coordination Program, City of Lincoln, CA........... 1,000,000
Sacramento, CA Regional Transit District, Bus
Maintenance Facility................................ 750,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--Bus Replacement................. 600,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--South Salem Transit Center...... 750,000
San Antonio, TX, VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority--New
Buses and Bus Facility Modernization................ 1,000,000
San Francisco, CA Muni Bus and Bus Facilities........... 4,000,000
San Mateo County, CA Transit District Zero-Emission
Buses............................................... 800,000
Sanilac County, MI Bus facility......................... 250,000
Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit District Electric Bus
Investment, CA...................................... 500,000
Santa Clara Valley, CA Transportation Authority Zero-
Emission Buses...................................... 400,000
Santa Fe Trails Transit Center, NM...................... 300,000
Schlow Library Bus Depot, State College, PA............. 2,000,000
Schuylkill Transportation System, Bus and Bus
Facilities, PA...................................... 2,000,000
SEPTA Hybrid Buses, PA.................................. 2,200,000
SEPTA Norristown Intermodal Facility, PA................ 5,000,000
SEPTA Trackless Trolley Acquisition, PA................. 1,000,000
Shiawassee Transportation Center and two replacement
buses, MI........................................... 200,000
Shreveport, LA, Intermodal Bus Facility................. 2,000,000
Small Urban and Rural Transit Center, ND................ 400,000
Smithtown Senior Citizen Center Bus Replacement, NY..... 200,000
Snohomish County Community Transit Park and Ride Lot
Expansion Program, WA............................... 800,000
Somerset County, PA Transportation System Maintenance
Facility............................................ 160,000
Sound Transit Regional Express Transit Hubs, WA......... 2,500,000
South Amboy, NJ Regional Intermodal Transportation
Initiative.......................................... 1,000,000
South Bend TRANSPO Bus Facilities, IN................... 2,600,000
South Carolina Statewide Transit Facilities Construction
Project............................................. 2,500,000
South Clackamas Transit--Molalla, OR.................... 100,000
South Dakota, Statewide buses and bus facilities........ 3,000,000
Southeast Arkansas Regional Intermodal Authority........ 500,000
South East Texas Transit Facility Improvements and Bus
Replacements........................................ 250,000
South San Fernando Valley, CA Park and Ride facility
expansion........................................... 400,000
Southeast Missouri Bus Service Capital Improvements..... 3,500,000
Southern and Eastern Kentucky Bus and Bus Facilities.... 2,500,000
Southern Maryland Commuter Bus Initiative............... 5,000,000
Southern Minnesota Transit Facilities................... 100,000
Southern Minnesota Transit Vehicles..................... 1,000,000
South Whitler, CA Circulator Buses...................... 500,000
Southwest Missouri State University Intermodal Transfer
Facility............................................ 2,225,000
Sparks and Reno, Nevada bus and bus facilities.......... 500,000
Spring Valley, CA Multi-Modal Center.................... 1,600,000
Springfield Union Station Intermodal Redevelopment
Project, MA......................................... 3,000,000
St. Augustine Intermodal Transportation and Parking
Facility, FL........................................ 1,500,000
St. George Ferry Terminal Reconstruction, NY............ 3,953,000
St. George Transit O&M Facility, UT..................... 500,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Administrative
Facility............................................ 650,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Passenger
Amenities........................................... 150,000
St. Johns County Council on Aging, FL, Transit Coaches.. 800,000
St. Louis Downtown Shuttle/Trolley Equipment, MO........ 375,000
St. Louis, MO, Bus Facility............................. 1,250,000
St. Tammany Park and Ride, LA........................... 1,000,000
State of Arkansas, Bus and Bus Facilities; Urban, Rural
and Elderly and Disabled Agencies................... 3,750,000
State of Maine Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities Progam.. 1,250,000
State of Wisconsin, Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.... 22,000,000
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
(SMART) bus and bus facilities, MI.................. 6,400,000
Suffolk County, NY Transit Bus.......................... 1,900,000
SunLine Transit Agency Clean Fuels Mall Facility and
Hydrogen Infrastructure Expansion, CA............... 1,000,000
TalTran Bus and Bus Facilities Project, FL.............. 1,500,000
TalTran Intermodal Facility Project, FL................. 1,000,000
TARTA/Toledo Bus Fueling Facilities Improvements, OH.... 3,000,000
Temecula, CA Transit Center............................. 1,950,000
Tempe, AZ Downtown Transit Center....................... 1,500,000
Tempe/Scottsdale, AZ East Valley Maintenance Facility... 6,000,000
Tennessee Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities.............. 4,500,000
Terminal Station Multi-Modal Roof Rehabilitation, GA.... 338,000
The District-Bryan Intermodal Transit Terminal/Parking
Facility & Pedestrian Improvements, TX.............. 1,250,000
The Woodlands Capital Cost of Contracting, TX........... 800,000
The Woodlands Park and Ride Expansion, TX............... 800,000
Tillamook County, OR Transportation District--
Maintenance Facility................................ 200,000
Tompkins County Bus Facilities , NY..................... 600,000
Topeka Metropolitan Transit Authority Bus and Bus
Facilities, KS...................................... 500,000
Transit Authority of Northern Kentucky Bus Replacement.. 2,000,000
Transit First Implementation, Chula Vista, CA........... 400,000
Transit Provider Vehicle Acquisition Program, SC........ 4,000,000
Transportation Authority of the River City, KY (TARC)--
bus/trolley replacement............................. 5,100,000
Transportation Authority of the River City, KY (TARC)--
expansion facility.................................. 2,000,000
Transportation Modernization Initiative, Northwest
Shoals Community College, AL........................ 450,000
Tri-Met, OR Regional Bus Replacement.................... 1,500,000
Truckee, CA Replacement Buses........................... 200,000
Tucson, AZ Alternative Fuel Replacement Buses........... 8,085,000
Tulsa, OK Transit Bus Replacement Program............... 4,500,000
UCHRA, TN Capital Improvements.......................... 600,000
Ulster County Area Transit Buses, NY.................... 40,000
Unified Government of Kansas City, Kansas bus
replacement, KS..................................... 500,000
Union County, PA, Union/Snyder Transportation Alliance
(USTA).............................................. 2,000,000
Union Depot Multi-modal Transportation Hub, MN.......... 750,000
Union Station Regional Intermodal Transportation Center,
Washington, DC...................................... 1,250,000
Union Station Renovations, Utica, NY.................... 2,500,000
University of Delaware Fuel Cell Bus Demonstration
Project, DE......................................... 1,500,000
UTA Transit ITS, Upgrades, UT........................... 1,000,000
Utah Intermodal Terminals............................... 750,000
Utah Statewide Bus and Bus Facilities................... 4,000,000
Ventura County, CA--CNG Fueling Station and Facility
Pavement Replacement................................ 500,000
Vermont, Bus Upgrades................................... 1,000,000
Village of Pleasantville, NY Handicapped Ramp........... 48,000
Village of Pleasantville, NY Memorial Plaza............. 400,000
Virgin Islands Transit (VITRAN) Buses................... 750,000
Visalia, CA Bus Operations and Maintenance Facility..... 4,000,000
VOTRAN Public Transit System--Buses, FL................. 1,750,000
West Palm Beach, FL, Trolley Buses...................... 2,000,000
Westchester, NY Replacement Buses for Bee-line System... 2,500,000
Western Gateway Transportation Center Intermodal
Facility--Schenectady, NY........................... 750,000
Westfield Multimodal Transportation Center, MA.......... 3,400,000
Westmoreland County Transit Authority (WCTA) Bus
Replacement, PA..................................... 900,000
Whitehall Intermodal Terminal of the Staten Island Ferry
Reconstruction, NY.................................. 2,000,000
Wilsonville, OR--Park and Ride.......................... 300,000
Winston-Salem Union Station, NC......................... 3,000,000
Winter HavenTransit Terminal, FL........................ 800,000
WMATA Bus Fleet, Washington, DC......................... 1,750,000
WMATA Buses, MD......................................... 1,000,000
Wyandanch, NY Intermodal Transit Facility............... 750,000
Wyoming Statewide Buses and Bus Facilities.............. 2,000,000
Yamhill County, OR--bus and bus facilities.............. 167,000
York County Transit Authority (YCTA) buses and bus
facility, York County, PA........................... 750,000
Zanesville, OH Bus System Improvements.................. 85,000
San Dieguito Transportation Cooperative, CA.--The Committee
directs that amounts to be distributed under this heading for
fiscal year 2002 to the San Dieguito Transportation
Cooperative, California, instead be distributed to the North
County Transit District for initial design and planning for
construction of a new facility to provide enhanced bus
transportation.
Cambria County, Pennsylvania.--The Committee directs that
amounts to be distributed under this heading for fiscal year
2003 to the Cambria County operations and maintenance facility,
Pennsylvania, instead be distributed to the Johnstown Inclined
Plane visitor's center, Pennsylvania.
Hollister-Gilroy Caltrain Extension Project, Califorina.--
The Committee directs that amounts to be distributed under this
heading for fiscal year 2001 to the Hollister-Gilroy Caltrain
Extension Project, California, instead be distributed to the
Caltrain San Francisco-San Jose-Gilroy service to Pajaro,
Castroville and Salinas in Monterey County, California.
Somerset County, Pennsylvania.--The Committee directs that
amounts to be distributed under this heading for fiscal year
2002 to the Somerset County Transportation System buses should
instead be distributed for Somerset County Accessible Raised
Roof Vans ($90,000) and to Somerset County Buses and Bus
Facilities ($146,000).
Community Medical Centers, California.--Funds made
available for the Community Medical Centers Intermodal facility
in Fresno, California, shall be made available for the City of
Fresno for the same project. The availability of such funds for
obligation shall be extended through fiscal year 2004.
FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION
The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 from the
capital investment grants program to modernize existing rail
transit systems. These funds are to be redistributed,
consistent with the provisions of TEA-21, as follows:
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, SECTION 5309 FIXED GUIDEWAY MODERNIZATION APPORTIONMENTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
State ------------------------------------ Change from
2003 2004 estimate fiscal year 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................................... 2,275,498 2,319,574 44,076
Arizona................................................... 2,576,616 2,612,495 36,334
California................................................ 146,247,070 147,696,762 1,449,712
Colorado.................................................. 2,934,066 2,975,025 40,959
Connecticut............................................... 40,310,522 40,445,001 134,479
District of Columbia...................................... 52,404,061 53,132,445 728,384
Florida................................................... 19,096,161 19,352,512 256,351
Georgia................................................... 24,974,158 25,304,065 329,907
Hawaii.................................................... 1,148,189 1,164,990 16,801
Illinois.................................................. 130,987,530 131,538,057 550,527
Indiana................................................... 8,933,175 8,982,688 49,513
Louisiana................................................. 2,959,087 2,967,450 8,363
Maryland.................................................. 28,561,203 28,792,929 231,726
Massachusetts............................................. 74,595,418 74,954,059 358,641
Michigan.................................................. 653,975 663,817 9,842
Minnesota................................................. 6,225,814 6,307,551 81,737
Missouri.................................................. 4,505,207 4,565,470 60,263
New Jersey................................................ 104,063,042 104,471,490 408,448
New York.................................................. 367,272,491 369,033,091 1,760,600
Ohio...................................................... 17,057,145 17,131,843 74,698
Oregon.................................................... 4,457,988 4,520,661 62,673
Pennsylvania.............................................. 99,622,792 99,950,443 327,651
Puerto Rico............................................... 2,417,921 2,450,605 32,684
Rhode Island.............................................. 90,174 91,312 1,138
Tennessee................................................. 318,044 323,616 5,572
Texas..................................................... 8,416,760 8,525,074 108,314
Virginia.................................................. 17,042,175 17,277,259 235,084
Washington................................................ 23,567,344 23,882,868 315,524
Wisconsin................................................. 812,198 822,828 10,630
-----------------------------------------------------
Total Apportioned................................... 1,194,525,369 1,202,256,000 7,730,631
Oversight (1 percent)..................................... 12,065,064 12,144,000 78,936
-----------------------------------------------------
Grand Total......................................... 1,206,590,433 1,214,400,000 7,809,567
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NEW STARTS
The accompanying bill provides $1,214,400,000 for new
starts. These funds are available for preliminary engineering,
right-of-way acquisition, project management, oversight, and
construction of new systems and extensions. Funds made
available in this Act for new starts are to be supplemented
with $23,000,000 from projects included in previous
appropriations Acts. The Committee is aware that these funds
are not needed due to changing local circumstances or are in
excess of project requirements. The bill, therefore,
reallocates the unexpended sums from the following projects
which were provided in previous appropriations Acts, the fiscal
years of which are noted in parentheses:
Stockton, California, Altamont Commuter Rail Project (2001)
Stamford, Connecticut, Fixed Guideway Corridor (2001)
Hawaii Ferry Project (2001)
Boston--South Boston Piers Transitway Project (2001)
Massachusetts North Shore Corridor Project (2001)
MARC Expansion--Penn-Camden Lines Connector & Midday Storage
(2001)
Greater Albuquerque, NM Mass Rail Transit Project (2000)
Albuquerque/Greater Albuquerque, NM Mass Transit Project
(2001)
Clark County, Nevada, RTC Fixed Guideway Project (2001)
Dallas Southeast Corridor Light Rail (2001)
New starts report.--The Committee was satisfied with the
timely submission of FTA's fiscal year 2004 annual report on
new starts projects. TEA-21 required this report to be
submitted in conjunction with the budget, yet year after year,
this report was submitted months late. Without a timely
submission of this information, the Committee cannot make well-
informed decisions about new starts projects. To ensure that
this report continues to be submitted on time, the Committee
has continued bill language included in fiscal year 2003 that
requires FTA to submit its annual new starts report with the
initial submission of the President's budget request. In
addition, the Committee encourages FTA to develop a more
regular process for submitting supplementary new starts reports
throughout the fiscal year.
Ratings for new starts projects.--The Committee is
encouraged that FTA implemented new, and more focused, ratings
process for the fiscal year 2004 annual new starts report.
However, the Committee calls on FTA to continue to develop more
stringent measures by which to rate new starts projects. Not
only should all transit projects be subject to improved
performance measures, it is crucial that more focused attention
be given to criteria such as congestion relief and future
operational costs. The large investment that transportation
users on the nation's roads continue to devote to transit
infrastructure should most certainly be evaluated on criteria
that will show tangible benefits to those who pay for the
system, as well as those who use it.
The Committee is concerned that sufficient weight and
review are not being given to the earliest stage of the new
starts projects, namely the alternatives analysis undertaken by
local communities. The FTA does not appear to be providing
critical oversight of that process, to assure that such
analyses are not designed to reach pre-determined conclusions,
but instead are objective efforts to analyze transportation
needs and to determine optimal solutions. The Committee directs
the FTA that it should not consider any new starts, or
expansions of new starts, unless it determines that the
underlying alternatives analysis supports the chosen
alternative as the superior choice.
Further, the abolition of ``cost-per-new-rider'' as a
factor in New Starts decision-making removes an important tool
from the evaluation process. The use of ``time savings per
rider'' is a useful measure, but it should not supplant the
``cost-per-new-rider'' measurement. This criterion should be
restored in all future FTA evaluations. It is also important
that measurements of benefits should look deeper than system-
wide numbers, and should also include measurements of riders
and benefits for each sub-segment of a proposed new start
(i.e., a breakout of the projected ridership and benefits
between the individual stations). The FTA should also include
relief of traffic congestions as a highly significant criterion
in evaluating proposals.
Seattle Sound Transit Intitial Segment.--The geography and
other conditions create great challenges for this project, and
there is no inexpensive solution. The level of local commitment
is very noteworthy. However, the proposal provides only minimal
relief of the current traffic congestion in the Seattle area.
Of 42,000 projected daily riders, only 16,000 would be new
transit riders. About 26,000 riders would change to light-rail
from the current bus systems, and only 16,000 from the
congested roads. That means the cost-per-new-rider is about
$150,000 (with the federal cost being about 1/5th of this). The
Committee shares the concerns, noted in the report by the
Inspector General, that the voter-approved I-776 referendum--if
upheld by Washington State's Supreme Court--could dramatically
impact the non-federal funding base, essentialy causing the
collapse of significant funds upon which its proposal relies.
Before any FFGA is approved, Sound Transit's governing board
msut make a formal and binding commitment that is more detailed
and specific than its resolution dated July 17, 2003, and must
include a more-detailed amended financial plan that dedicates
other funds in the even I-776 is upheld. As also indicated by
the Inspector-General, a key part of that commitment must be
that the current level of other transit services will be
maintained (such as Sounder Commuter Rail and Regional Express
Bus), and will not be reduced to fill any financial gap for the
light-rail service. Further, the Committee is aware that Sound
Transit has made earlier and potentially-conflicting
commitments, specifically including sub-area equity. In this
additional action by its governing board, Sound Transit must
also state explicitly whether its commitment to fund an FFGA
supercedes its earlier commitment to sub-area equity, as well
as any other prior commitments.
New starts projects.--The Committee takes special note that
the Central Arizona East Valley Corridor, which was only one of
two projects that achieved a ``Highly Recommended'' rating from
the FTA, New York Long Island Rail Road East Side Access, and
Washington, DC, Dulles Corridor Rapid System projects are
important activities to their respective regions. The Committee
anticipates further consideration and attention to these
projects.
Appropriations for full funding grant agreements.--Before
passage of the 1991 Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act (ISTEA), there were less than 10 new starts
projects with full funding grant agreements (FFGAs). Since
1992, a total of 51 FFGAs have been signed or recommended in
Presidential budgets. Currently, there are 26 existing FFGAs.
The total capital cost for these projects is $13,680,000,000
and the federal commitment is $7,090,000,000.
The number of potential new starts projects is expanding
rapidly. As of June, 2003, FTA is: (1) tracking over 130
current transit capital investment planning studies that are
estimated to cost over $24,000,000,000, if funded to their
completion; (2) working with 39 projects in the preliminary
engineering (PE) phase of project development, that have a
total capital cost of $39,360,000,000; and (3) working with 17
projects in the final design phase of project development, that
have an estimated capital cost of $10,824,000,000. Many of the
projects in final design and preliminary engineering will be
seeking an FFGA in the next two years. Currently, federal
resources are not available to fund even a fraction of these
projects.
Since demand has too quickly outstripped available
resources, the Committee has had to make difficult decisions in
this area. The Committee recommendation adheres to the
following guidelines: First, the Committee has tried to fund
every project that has a current FFGA, at the schedule six
amount. Second, specific allocations have been provided for
other new start projects. These projects shall be subject to a
dollar-for-dollar cost-share with non-federal funding and
applies to all projects where a full funding grant agreement is
not in force. Third, the Committee has continued to provide no
funding for projects currently in the alternatives analysis
phase, as in previous years. Local project sponsors of new rail
extensions or busways can use section 5307 formula funds or
section 5303 metropolitan planning funds for these activities
rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Fourth,
the Committee reiterates its direction originally agreed to in
the fiscal year 2002 conference report that FTA should not sign
any FFGAs that have a maximum federal share of higher than
sixty percent. Based on this earlier direction, significant
appropriations have been provided for those projects in final
design or preliminary engineering that have a federal share of
no more than sixty percent. The Committee agrees with the
administration that underlying law should be changed to
prohibit a federal share of more than fifty percent. Less
funding, or in some instances no, funding has been provided for
those projects that have a federal share above sixty percent.
The Committee strongly encourages the impacted projects to
revisit the amount of local funding they plan to contribute and
find ways to increase their local share.
In total, the $1,214,400,000 provided in this Act, together
with previous appropriations, is to be distributed as follows:
Project Recommended in the bill
Baltimore, MD, Central Light Rail Double Track Project.. 40,000,000
BART San Francisco Airport (SFO), CA Extension Project.. 100,000,000
Boston, MA Silver Line Phase III........................ 3,000,000
Charlotte, NC South Corridor Light Rail Project......... 4,000,000
Chicago Transit Authority, IL Douglas Branch
Reconstruction...................................... 85,000,000
Chicago, IL Metra Communter Rail Expansions and
Extensions.......................................... 52,000,000
Chicago, IL Ravenswood Reconstruction................... 45,000,000
Dallas, TX, North Central Light Rail Extension.......... 30,161,283
Denver, CO, Southeast Corridor LRT (T-REX).............. 80,000,000
East Side Access Project, NY Phase I.................... 70,000,000
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, Tri-Rail Commuter Project...... 18,410,000
Las Vegas, NV Resort Corridor Fixed Guideway............ 15,000,000
Los Angeles, CA Eastside Light Rail Transit System...... 10,000,000
Memphis, TN Medical Center Rail Extension............... 9,247,588
Minneapolis, MN, Hiawatha Corridor Light Rail Transit
(LRT)............................................... 74,980,000
New Orleans, LA Canal Street Streetcar Project.......... 23,921,373
New York, Second Avenue Subway.......................... 3,000,000
Newark, NJ Rail Link (NERL) MOS1........................ 22,566,022
Northern, NJ Hudson-Bergen Light Rail (MOS2)............ 100,000,000
Phoenix, AZ Central Phoenix/East Valley Light Rail
Transit Project..................................... 13,000,000
Pittsburgh, PA, Stage II Light Rail Transit
Reconstruction...................................... 32,243,422
Portland, OR, Interstate MAX Light Rail Extension....... 77,500,000
Raleigh, NC, Triangle Transit Authority Regional Rail
Project............................................. 3,000,000
Salt Lake City, Medical Center LRT Extension............ 30,663,361
San Diego, CA, Mission Valley East Light Rail Transit
Extension........................................... 65,000,000
San Diego, CA, Oceanside-Escondido Rail Project......... 48,000,000
San Francisco, CA Muni Third Street Light Rail Project.. 10,000,000
San Juan, PR Tren Urbano Rapid Transit System........... 43,540,000
Seattle, WA Sound Transit Central Link Initial Segment.. 15,000,000
Washington, DC/MD, Largo Extension...................... 65,000,000
Washington, DC/VA Dulles Corridor Rapid Transit Project. 25,000,000
Hawaii and Alaska Ferry Boats........................... 10,296,000
Oversight set-aside..................................... 12,144,000
San Francisco, CA Muni Third Street Light Rail Transit
Project.--The Committee has provided $10,000,000 for the San
Francisco Muni's Third Street Light Rail Transit Project and
has included a provision that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to include all non-new starts contributions made
towards phase 1 of the two-phase project for engineering, final
design and construction. The Committee understands that the
project received a ``not recommended'' rating from the Federal
Transit Administration in this year's 3j report due, in part,
to the submission of incomplete transportation system user
benefit data. The project sponsor is expected to submit
complete transportation system user benefit data to the Federal
Transit Administration, which FTA shall review, taking into
account non-seciton 5309 funds committed to on phase 1 of the
project, and issue expeditiously a rating for fiscal year 2004.
The funds provided in this Act shall not be made available for
the project if the Federal Transit Administration assigns a
rating of ``not recommended'' for fiscal year 2004.
Harris County Metropolitan Transit Authority.--The
Committee understands the referendum referred to in section 163
to be considered by the voters in the Harris County
Metropoolitan Transit Authority (Houston, TX Metro) service
area will be a referendum on bonding authority for a
comprehensive transit system plan.
The final placement or location of each rail segment may be
adjusted within each corridor in the future as required by
unforeseen or unavoidable factors such as right of way
requirements or environmental impact studies. The Committee
does not intend to convey or require that Houston Metro submit
separate ballot propositions within the same referendum
election for each segment of the light rail system.
Further, the Committee does not intend for this section to
operate as a restriction or prohibition on the use of funds
appropriated for Houston Metro in this Act for any transit
purpose other than light rail in the event a majority of
Houston voters do not approve of the light rail system
submitted to them in such a referendum.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Grants
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations Total funding
(General fund) (Trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003............................... $29,805,000 ($119,220,000) $149,025,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.............................. .............. ................ ..............
Recommended in the bill....................................... 17,000,000 (68,000,000) 85,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003........................... -12,805,000 (-51,220,000) -64,025,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.......................... +17,000,000 (+68,000,000) +85,000,000
For fiscal year 2004, the job access and reverse commute
(JARC) grants program is funded at a total level of
$85,000,000, with no more than $17,000,000 derived from the
general fund and $68,000,000 derived from the mass transit
account of the highway trust fund.
The program makes competitive grants to qualifying
metropolitan planning organizations, local governmental
authorities, agencies, and non-profit organizations in
urbanized areas with populations greater than 200,000. Grants
may not be used for planning or coordination activities. No
more than $10,000,000 may be provided for reverse commute
grants.
The Committee has transferred $65,000,000 to the bus and
bus facilities program due to higher prioritization within that
category of funding. The Committee recommends the following
allocations of job access and reverse commute grant program
funds in fiscal year 2004:
AC Transit Welfare to Work, CA.......................... $1,215,000
ADA Mobility Planning, Wichita, KS...................... 365,000
Akron, OH Metro Regional Transit Authority Job Access
and Reverse Commute Program......................... 243,000
Bay Area Transit, VA.................................... 300,000
Bedford Ride, Virginia.................................. 60,000
Bowling Green, KY Housing Authority Reverse Access
Commute............................................. 318,000
Broome County Transit--JARC, NY......................... 100,000
Capital District Transportation Authority Jobs Access/
Reverse Commute Project, NY......................... 500,000
Central New York Regional Transportation Authority...... 500,000
Central Ohio Transit Authority, Job Access & Mobility
Management Program.................................. 500,000
Chatham Area Transit Job Access Reverse Commute (JARC),
GA.................................................. 1,000,000
City of El Paso--Job Access Program, TX................. 200,000
City of Irwindale, CA Senior Transportation Services.... 55,000
City of Lubbock/Citibus JARC, TX........................ 230,000
City of Poughkeepsie, NY Underserved Population Bus
Service............................................. 25,000
CityLink public transportation services, TX............. 100,000
Community Transportation Association of America's
National Joblinks Program........................... 2,500,000
Corpus Christi, TX, Job Access and Reverse Commute...... 375,000
Delaware Welfare to Work................................ 750,000
Detroit, MI Job Access Reverse Commute.................. 1,600,000
Flint, MI Mass Transportation Authority Job Access-
Reverse Commute Program............................. 608,000
Galveston Job Access Reverse Commute Program, TX........ 450,000
Georgetown, Washington, DC--Metro Connection............ 1,000,000
Grand Rapids/Kent County, MI Job Access Plan............ 1,200,000
Guaranteed Ride Home, Santa Clarita, CA................. 410,000
Holyoke Community Access to Employment and Adult
Education, MA....................................... 75,000
IndyFlex Program, IN.................................... 600,000
Jackson-Josephine Job Access Reverse Commute Program, OR 200,000
Jacksonville, FL Transportation Authority, Community
Transportation Coordinator Program.................. 5,200,000
Jaunt, Inc., City of Charlottesville, Virginia.......... 440,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute program, MidAmerica
Regional Council, Kansas City, KS................... 490,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute program, Unified
Government of Wyandotte County/Kansas City, KS...... 488,000
Job Access and Reverse Commute, CT...................... 3,176,000
Jobs Access and Reverse Commute Program (JARC), OK...... 6,000,000
Jobs Access/Reverse Commute Projects, RI................ 1,000,000
Kansas City Job Access Partnership, MO.................. 800,000
Key West, Florida, Job Access and Reverse Commute....... 1,000,000
Knox County, TN, Community Action Committee
Transportation Program.............................. 500,000
Knoxville, TN Area Transit Job Access Service........... 750,000
Maricopa Association of Governments Job Access/Reverse
Commute Grant Projects, AZ.......................... 2,250,000
Maryland Job Access and Reverse Commute Program......... 4,000,000
Mendocino Transit Authority Job Access Reverse Commute,
CA.................................................. 50,000
Metropolitan Council Job Access, MN..................... 850,000
Monroe County, TN Job Access and Reverse Commute Program 150,000
New Jersey Community Development Corporation
Transportation Opportunity Center, Paterson, NJ..... 300,000
New Jersey Job Access/Reverse Commute Program........... 5,000,000
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department.. 500,000
New York State-Job Access/Reverse Commute Project....... 1,000,000
Niles/Trumbull Transit, OH.............................. 200,000
North Country County Consortium, NY..................... 5,000,000
North Oakland Transportation Authority, MI.............. 150,000
Operation Ride DuPage, DuPage County, IL................ 500,000
Orange County, NY, transportation initiative............ 100,000
Pioneer Valley Access to Jobs and Reverse Commute
Program, MA......................................... 405,000
Port Authority of Allegheny County, PA--JARC............ 3,520,000
Portland, OR Region Jobs Access-Reverse Commute......... 800,000
Ray Graham Association for People With Disabilities, IL. 125,000
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority Job
Access and Reverse Commute, NY...................... 750,000
Sacramento, CA Region Job Access and Reverse Commute
Project............................................. 2,000,000
Salem, OR Area Transit--Job Access Reverse Commute...... 175,000
San Antonio, TX, Metropolitan Transit Authority--Job
Access Program...................................... 400,000
SEPTA Job Access and Reverse Commute Program, PA........ 4,000,000
South East Texas Transit Facility Improvements and Bus
Replacements........................................ 150,000
State of Maine Job Access and Reverse Commute Program... 423,000
State of Wisconsin, Job Access and Reverse Commute
Grants.............................................. 2,600,000
Tennessee Statewide Jobs Access Program................. 6,000,000
Texas Colonias JARC Initiative.......................... 2,400,000
Toledo, OH Job Access/Reverse Commute................... 324,000
Tompkins Consolidated Area Transit, NY.................. 75,000
Topeka, KS Metropolitan Transit Authority Access to Jobs 500,000
Ulster County, NY Area Transit Rural Feeder Service..... 50,000
Virginia Regional Transportation Association............ 200,000
VoxLinx Voice-Enabled Transit Trip Planner.............. 1,500,000
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.......... 800,000
Washington State Transit car-sharing job access......... 800,000
Ways to Work, CA........................................ 1,220,000
West Memphis Transit Service, AR........................ 410,000
GENERAL PROVISIONS--FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations
from limitations on obligations.
Section 161 allows funds for discretionary grants of the
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries to be used for other
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162 allows transit funds appropriated before
October 1, 2002, that remain available for expenditure to be
transfered.
Section 163 prohibits funds for design or construction of a
light rail system in Houston, Texas, unless certain specified
conditions are met.
Section 164 clarifies transit Buy American Act requirements
in their application in conjunction with manufactured products
requirements.
Section 165 allows funds made available for the Roaring
Fork Transportation Authority, Colorado, to be made available
for the Roaring Fork Valley Bus Rapid Transit project.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Operations and Maintenance
(HARBOR MAINTENANCE TRUST FUND)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $13,994,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 14,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 14,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +706,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +300,000
The Saint 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, including the two Seaway
locks located in Massena, NY and vessel traffic control in
areas of the St. Lawrence River and Lake Ontario. The mission
of the Corporation is to serve the United States intermodal and
international transportation system by improving the operation
and maintenance of a safe, secure, reliable, efficient, and
environmentally responsible deep-draft waterway. The
Corporation's major priorities include: safety, reliability,
trade development, management accountability, and bi-national
collaboration with its Canadian counterpart.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$14,700,000 to fund the operations and maintenance of the
Corporation, which is $300,000 above the requested amount.
Appropriations from the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and
revenues from non-federal sources finance the operation and
maintenance of the Seaway for which the Corporation is
responsible.
The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the
commercial use and competitive position of the St. Lawrence
Seaway. The bill continues language, carried for many years,
that will provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to
available resources needed to finance costs associated with
unanticipated events, which could threaten the safe, secure,
and uninterrupted use of the Seaway. The language permits the
Corporation to use, for emergency purposes, sources of funding
not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund by Public
Law 99-662. These sources would be derived primarily from prior
year revenues received in excess of costs, unused borrowing
authority, and miscellaneous income--for emergency purposes.
Infrastructure maintenance.--The recommended increase in
appropriation will ensure that the SLSDC is able to complete
its annual infrastructure maintenance program at the two U.S.
locks. Many of these infrastructure improvements and
replacements projects were deferred in recent years for the
agency to fund post-9/11 security improvements, and include
several electrical, mechanical, and fendering improvements that
have a direct impact on the agency's key performance area of
ensuring system availability. Addressing these infrastructure
improvements is critical to ensuring the safe and efficient
transit of commercial vessels through the waterway and
maintaining the Corporation's current timeline for its five-
year capital plan. Throughout its history, the Corporation has
been able to offset any shortfalls in funding with its non-
federal revenues to fund its operation and maintenance
activities. Due to the current state of the economy, continued
reduction in investment income caused by lower interest rates,
and lower concession revenues, non-federal revenues have
decreased by approximately one-third, to an estimated $600,000.
Therefore, the Committee recommends an additional $300,000 to
mitigate the lost of revenue and prevent further deferrals to
already delayed maintenance projects.
Security.--The Committee recognizes the efficient and cost-
effective steps the Corporation has taken with respect to
securing the U.S. portion of the Saint Lawrence Seaway. The
Committee encourages the Corporation to continue its efforts in
establishing collaborative solutions to the Seaway's security
challenges amongst the other federal and local stakeholders
such as the U.S. Coast Guard, New York State Power Authority,
and New York Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic
Preservation.
MARITIME ADMINISTRATION
The overall mission of the Maritime Administration (MARAD)
is to promote the development and maintenance of an adequate,
well-balanced United States merchant marine, sufficient to
carry the nation's domestic waterborne commerce and a
substantial portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and
capable of serving as to naval and military auxiliary in time
of war or national emergency. MARAD also seeks to ensure that
the United States enjoys adequate shipbuilding and repair
services, efficient ports, effective intermodal water and land
transportation systems, and reserve shipping capacity in time
of national emergency.
MARAD is primarily an advocacy and promotional agency with
particular interests in U.S.-flag shipping and shipbuilding,
maritime security, sustainability of a U.S. citizen mariner
workforce, and development of domestic ports and intermodalism
to meet the demands of seaborne trade. MARAD has a strong
national security component that is served by available
commercial maritime industry. The work of the agency is often
conducted not by establishing policy, but rather by aiding and
promoting U.S. maritime interests before government agencies
that more directly influence the maritime domain, such as the
Department of Defense, the Department of Commerce, the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of Homeland
Security, and the Department of State.
Given the transfer of the Coast Guard outside of the
Department of Transportation (DOT), the Committee is interested
in the examination of MARAD's current role and future
development. The Committee is especially interested in
sustaining U.S.-flag maritime commercial viability while
ensuring that maritime priorities are well articulated within
the safety and infrastructure mission of the DOT. The Committee
directs MARAD to conduct a maritime policy review, to include
an examination of the agency's mission and its long-term goals
in the context of the reorganized department. Given the
confluence of national security and homeland security issues
within the nations' strategic ports and vital waterborne
commercial routes, this maritime policy review should include a
particular emphasis on maritime security and how it has
refocused MARAD's mission and impacted the shipping industry.
The Committee directs MARAD to submit the report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations by January 31, 2004.
Maritime Security Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $98,058,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 98,700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 98,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriaiton, fiscal year 2003................... +642,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Committee recommends $98,700,000 for the Maritime
Security Program (MSP), consistent with the budget request.
This recommendation provides funding directly to MARAD and
assumes that MARAD will confine to administer the program with
support and consultation from the Department of Defense. The
purpose of the MSP is to maintain and preserve a U.S. flag
merchant fleet to serve the national security needs of the
United States. The MSP provides direct payments to U.S. flag
ship operators engaged in U.S.--foreign trade. Participating
operators are required to keep the vessels in active commercial
service and are required to provide intermodal sealift support
to the Department of Defense in times of war or national
emergency. During Operation Iraqi Freedom the vessels called
upon from the MSP performed superbly. The Committee recognizes
and applauds the efforts of the mariners that provided a vastly
improved sealift capability to the U.S. Armed Forces. MSP
activities in this bill are funded under budget category 054
(miscellaneous national security programs). The Committee's
recommendation provides funding for payments to U.S. carriers
for 47 ships, limited to $2,100,000 annually per ship. The
recommendation will provide the necessary resources for the
operation of the MSP through fiscal eyar 2004.
10-year age criterion for vessels entering the MSP.--The
Committee notes with concern MARAD's efforts to waive the 10-
year rule for foreign vessels re-flagging to enter the MSP. The
Committee considers this eligibility criterion to be a
necessary component of the standards of safe operation for the
U.S. merchant fleet and encourages adherence to section 1137(a)
of P.L. 104-324 if less than 10 years of age on the date of
documentation or compliance with chapter 31 of title 46, United
States Code, if over 10 years of age on the date of
documentation. While it is understandable that a given vessel
may offer necessary military utility, the 10-year rule should
only be relaxed in those rare situations of where the military
function fulfilled by the subject vessel is needed and
otherwise unavailable.
The Committee supports the growth of the U.S. fleet, but
encourages such expansion via newer vessels with superior
levels of safety. While there are currently older ships in the
U.S. merchant marine, the majority of these vessels was
originally built to a higher safety standards under U.S.
regulations and have been inspected and monitored throughout
their life by the U.S. Coast Guard. The Committee is concerned
about any compromise to the standards of safety of the U.S.
fleet and encourages MARAD to continue its collaborative
efforts with the U.S. Coast Guard and the International
Maritime Organization toward the progressive improvement of
such standards.
Operations and Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $92,093,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 104,400,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 105,897,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriaiton, fiscal year 2003................... +13,804,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +1,497,000
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $105,897,000
to fund programs under the Operations and Training account of
MARAD, an increase of $13,804,000 (14.9 percent) above the
fiscal year 2003 appropriation and $1,497,000 above the budget
request. Funds provided for this account are to be distributed
as follows:
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY04 House
Activity Request \1\ Recommended \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. Merchant Marine Academy:
Salary and benefits................... $20,981 $22,000
Midshipmen program.................... 6,274 6,274
Instructional program................. 3,431 3,431
Program direction and administration.. 2,931 2,931
Maintenance, repair, & operating 6,298 6,298
requirements.........................
Capital improvements.................. 13,000 13,000
-----------------------------
Subtotal, USMMA..................... 52,915 53,934
=============================
State Maritime Schools:
Student incentive payments............ 1,200 1,200
Direct schoolship payments............ 1,200 1,200
Schoolship maintenance and repair..... 7,063 9,063
-----------------------------
Subtotal, State Maritime Academies.. 9,463 11,463
=============================
MARAD Operations:
Base operations....................... 37,425 36,000
Strategic ports evaluation and 0 500
provision............................
Enterprise architecture & IT security 4,597 3,000
upgrades.............................
Maritime security professional 0 1,000
training.............................
-----------------------------
Subtotal, MARAD Operations.......... 42,022 40,500
=============================
Subtotal, Operations and Training... 104,400 105,897
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These figures do not contain accruals for retiree CSRS and health
benefits, estimated at $4,305,000.
Specific adjustments to the Operations and Training budget
estimate are discussed below:
United States Merchant Marine Academy.--The Committee
recommendation includes $53,934,000 for the operation and
maintenance of the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (USMMA), which
is $1,019,000 above the budget request. The Committee
recommendation includes $22,000,000 for salaries and benefits
of Academy personnel. The Committee is aware of the substantial
personnel needs of the Academy and provides $1,019,000 above
the requested amount to help address this need. The increase
above the budget request for salaries at USMMA will allow the
Academy to meet current staffing demands in addition to filling
positions that are approved, but vacant. The Committee expects
the Academy to make strategic hires, and preference shall be
given to filling vacancies that deal specifically with core
competencies relating to the Academy's mission of producing
merchant marine officers. The Committee recommendation also
includes $13,000,000, to remain available until expended for
the continuation of an initiative to maintain and repair the
Academy's infrastructure. MARAD has previously submitted to the
Committee a master plan to address the Academy's long-term
maintenance and renovation needs. The Committee has approved
this allocation to address specific capital improvement needs,
including the elimination of lead in Academy drinking water,
renovations to bring buildings into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act, renovations to the Mallory
pier and bulkhead, and the completion of architectural and
engineering design to renovate the barracks buildings. The
$13,000,000 provided for fiscal year 2004 will enable the
Academy to pursue additional capital improvements consistent
with the facilities master plan. The Committee reminds MARAD
and the Academy that deviations from the approved spending plan
are subject to reprogramming requirements.
State Maritime Schools.--The recommendation includes
$11,463,000 for the six State Maritime Schools (SMS). This
recommendation includes $9,063,000 for schoolship maintenance
and repair, which is $2,000,000 above the requested amount.
This additional $2,000,000 is intended to expedite the
maintenance and modernization of the active SMS training
vessels as well as to help purchase new technologies to train
students in accordance with the International Maritime
Organization's Standards of Training Certification and
Watchkeeping. The subdivision of the $9,063,000 provided for
schoolship maintenance and repair is detailed below:
State Maritime Academy Schoolship M&R Program
EMPIRE STATE (NY) RRF................................... $2,680,000
ENTERPRISE (MA) RRF..................................... 2,380,000
GOLDEN BEAR (CA) RRF.................................... 1,086,000
STATE OF MAINE (ME)..................................... 1,080,000
TEXAS CLIPPER II (TX)................................... 1,280,000
STATE OF MICHIGAN (MI).................................. 557,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal, Schoolship M&R.......................... 9,063,000
The Committee also notes that MARAD has again requested
$1,200,000 under this activity to maintain the Student
Incentive Payment program at the current level. The Committee
directs MARAD to report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by November 30, 2003, with a justification for
the annual target for new reservists in relation to documented
emergency requirements that cannot be met from other sources.
MARAD Operations.--The Committee recommendation includes
$40,500,000 for operating programs and general administration
of MARAD, including $36,000,000 for MARAD's base operations, an
increase of $456,000 above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level.
The $40,500,000 recommended in the bill is intended to support
958 full-time equivalent staff years, upgrade information
technology security, modernize MARAD's enterprise architecture,
and provide additional funding for the 14 strategic ports and
maritime security professional training in support of section
109 of the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002.
Enterprise architecture and information technology
upgrades.--The Committee notes the considerable request of
MARAD for funds to support modernization of its enterprise
architecture in accordance with Office of Management and Budget
Circular A-130, regarding management of federal information
resources. The Committee supports the efforts of MARAD to
modernize its information technology resources and expand its
e-government capabilities. Despite being $1,597,000 below the
requested amount, the recommended appropriation of $3,000,000
constitutes a $1,800,000 (150 percent) increase over MARAD's
fiscal year 2003 expenditure on enterprise architecture and IT
security. The Committee directs MARAD to conduct an assessment
of its interoperability of information resources among the 14
U.S. strategic commercial ports. This assessment should include
a specific emphasis on MARAD's ability to share information
with other federal, state, and local port and border security
agencies. The Committee directs MARAD to submit this assessment
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later
than January 31, 2004.
Port and intermodal development.--The Committee recognizes
and applauds the work of MARAD in assisting the Transportation
Security Administration in the evaluation and award of port
security grants, especially the work being done to secure the
14 strategic commercial ports against terrorism and to improve
their military utility. To further MARAD's efforts to evaluate
the throughput of military supplies (e.g. ammunition, explosive
ordnance, and military vehicles) at the 14 strategic commercial
ports, the Committee recommends an additional $500,000 above
the $9,455,000 requested. The Committee directs MARAD to report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, no later
than November 30, 2003, on the performance of the intermodal
system with respect to the efficiency of the most congested
ports. Within this report, particular emphasis should be placed
on summarizing the performance of the 14 strategic commercial
ports during the military force build-up for Operation Iraqi
Freedom and on identifying the most glaring deficiencies of the
intermodal system as a whole. This report is to contain a
thorough comparison of the most congested ports in terms of
operational efficiency; identification of significant
intermodal obstacles associated with each port; and a summary
of future actions MARAD plans to take to address and improve
the throughput of cargo in America's ports.
Maritime security professional training.--The Committee
supports the intent of section 109 of the Maritime
Transportation Security Act of 2002 and strongly encourages the
MARAD Administrator to direct funds and resources towards the
initiatives specified within this Act, as practicable. The bill
contains $1,000,000 in additional funding to initiate training
opportunities for any federal, state, local, and private law
enforcement or maritime security personnel as specified in the
Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002. The Committee
expects MARAD to coordinate with the state maritime academies,
the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy, and the Appalachian
Transportation Institute in the facilitation of this training.
Furthermore, the Committee encourages MARAD to seek assistance
from the Department of Homeland Security in the implementation
of this training.
Ship Disposal
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $11,088,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 11,422,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 14,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +2,912,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +2,578,000
The Committee recommends $14,000,000, an increase of
$2,578,000 (22.6 percent) above the budget request, for
necessary expenses related to the disposal of obsolete vessels
in the National Defense Reserve Fleet (NDRF). The Committee
recognizes the work and efficiency of MARAD with respect to
disposing of high priority vessels with the funds provided in
fiscal year 2003. The Committee encourages MARAD to continue to
seek a comprehensive and robust solution to the challenging
problem that is the proper, environmentally responsible
disposal of the obsolete vessels of the NDRF. Specifically, the
Committee supports international disposal of vessels to the
extent that similar standards of domestic disposal are applied
at international facilities. In the instances of foreign
disposal, the appropriate offices of the Maritime
Administration, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the
U.S. State Department shall make a collaborative, qualifying
determination on the proposed international facility. Vessels
that are determined to be a substantial transit risk are
presumed to be better candidates for either reefing or for
domestic disposal. The Committee disapproves of expending funds
to improve the seaworthiness of vessels that are beyond their
serviceable life solely for the purpose of overseas disposal
and notes the significant improvement of the economic
competitiveness of domestic scrapping operations with that of
foreign entities. However, the Committee believes that the
application of various disposal options provides the best value
to the taxpayer while ensuring the swift, responsible removal
of obsolete NDRF vessels that pose threats to the environment.
The Committee encourages MARAD to promote aggressive
competition amongst the domestic scrapping industry and
international disposal facilities for funds appropriated for
disposal. MARAD is directed to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than November 30,
2003 detailing the agency's competitive bid process for ship
disposal. Specifically, this report should highlight any
changes to the agency's proposal review process and compare the
proposals from domestic and international ship scrapping
entities over the last five years.
Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... \1\ $4,099,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 4,498,000
Recommended in the bill............................... ---
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -4,099,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -4,498,000
\1\ Does not include the $25,000,000 appropriated in H.R. 1559,
Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003.
The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account, pursuant to title XI
of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended, received
$25,000,000 in the Emergency Wartime Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 2003 (P.L. 108-11), to remain available
until September 30, 2005. The Committee directs MARAD to use
funds from this supplemental appropriation to cover its
estimated administrative costs for fiscal year 2004. These
costs are estimated at $4,498,000. Funds appropriated in P.L.
108-11 were intended to cover both administrative expenses as
well as the cost of guarantees loans. This bill includes a
general provision (sec. 171) to clarify that intent.
Expenditure of funds from the fiscal year 2003 supplemental
appropriation for the purposes of loan guarantees is contingent
upon receipt by the Committee of certification from the
Department of Transportation Inspector General (DOTIG) that the
Maritime Administration has adopted and is implementing the
recommendations of report #CR-2003-031 to his satisfaction.
This certification is not, however, applicable to funds drawn
from the appropriation for administrative purposes, up to
$4,498,000. The Committee notes that MARAD's title XI program
has responded positively to recent audits by the DOTIG and the
General Accounting Office and has taken a proactive,
responsible approach to adopting the recommended reforms. Using
this response and the recently adopted reforms as indicators,
the Committee is optimistic about the improvement of the title
XI program. It is expected that MARAD will work closely with
the Secretary of Defense to ensure that vessels approved for
title XI loan guarantees by the Secretary of Transportation not
only provide commercial viability, but also exhibit military
utility, such as tank vessels capable of transporting refined
product as a business commodity and jet fuel in time of war or
roll-on/roll-off vessels capable of carrying automobiles during
peacetime and light military vehicles in time of armed
conflict.
General Provisions--Maritime Administration
The Committee continues a provision (Sec. 170) that allows
the Maritime Administration to furnish utilities and services
and make necessary repairs in connection with any lease,
contract, or occupancy involving government property under
control of the Maritime Administration and apply payments
received for such agreements as a credit to the Treasury.
The Committee includes a new provision (Sec. 171) that
amends chapter 10 of P.L. 108-11 by allowing funds in that Act
to be used for administrative costs for fiscal year 2004.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was
originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's
organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received
statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad
portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous
materials, pipelines, international standards, emergency
transportation, and university research. As the department's
only multimodal administration, RSPA provides research,
analytical and technical support for transportation programs
through headquarters offices and the Volpe National
Transportation Systems Center.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $40,714,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 50,723,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 47,018,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +6,304,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -3,705,000
RSPA's research and special programs administers a
comprehensive nationwide safety program to: (1) protect the
nation from the risks inherent in the transportation of
hazardous materials by water, air, highway and railroad; (2)
oversee the execution of the Secretary of Transportation's
statutory responsibilities for providing transportation
services during national emergencies; and (3) coordinate the
department's research and development policy, planning,
university research, and technology transfer. Overall policy,
legal, financial, management and administrative support for
RSPA's programs is also provided under this appropriation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a program level for research and
special programs of $47,018,000. Budget and staffing data for
this appropriation are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2003 Fiscal year 2004 Recommended in
enacted estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety................................ $22,767,000 $24,981,000 $23,558,000
(Positions)........................................... (137) (155) (143)
Research and technology................................... 2,822,000 2,737,000 2,139,000
(Positions)........................................... (9) (11) (9)
Emergency transportation.................................. 1,926,000 3,616,000 2,463,000
(Positions)........................................... (9) (26) (15)
Program support........................................... 12,965,000 19,389,000 18,858,000
(Positions)........................................... (59) (62) (62)
-----------------------------------------------------
Total, Research and Special Programs................ 40,714,000 50,723,000 47,018,000
(Positions)......................................... (212) (262) (229)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
Reduce funding for 35 requested hazmat, emergency
preparedness, and emergency transportation positions
and associated administrative costs................. -$2,037,000
Reduce funding for hazmat-misuse research and
development......................................... -223,000
Reduce funding for hydrogen fuel research activities.... -606,000
Reduce funding for emergency transportation regional
equipment and training.............................. -614,000
Reduce funding for real estate administrative support... -136,000
New positions.--The President's fiscal year 2004 budget
requests a $10,200,000 increase for Research and Special
Programs, from $40,500,000 in FY 2003 to $50,700,000, including
the addition of fifty new positions. While the Committee fully
supports the goals of the program, the Committee questions some
of these new positions.
Eight of the positions would be used to restore funding to
the hazardous materials program (OHMS) after diverting staff
resources to hazmat security matters in the wake of the
terrorist attacks of September 11th. The Committee provided two
requested personnel for this purpose in fiscal year 2003. The
Committee recognizes RSPA's need to transfer staff as a short-
term measure due to the critical need, but positions cannot
continue to be transferred as a substitute for hiring new
employees. The Committee has provided funding associated with
four new positions.
Ten new positions were requested to supplement OHMS'
current staff of five to upgrade the ability to manage demands
created by the anticipated increased transportation of spent
nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level radioactive waste (HLW). The
Department of Energy expects to make 300 to 400 shipments of
SNF and HLW annually by 2010. While this is significant
activity, those shipments will only account for less than one
percent of all hazmat shipments. The Committee recognizes the
importance of safety on America's roads as this increase
begins, but questions the fervor with which RSPA is addressing
it. One engineering position and one enforcement position are
approved and appropriate funding has been provided. $500,000
has been provided in research and development funds to review
and analyze the transport regulations governing the transport
of SNF and HLW. RSPA shall report to the appropriate committees
of Congress on this review one year from the date of enactment
of this Act.
In addition, two positions were requested for RSPA's Office
of Chief Counsel to handle SNF issues. The Committee questions
whether the dedication of these staff to SNF/HLW issues is
warranted at this time given other hazardous materials demands
and backlogs that currently exist. Funding for these positions
is denied.
Two positions and contract funding was requested for
research regarding the transport of hydrogen fuel. Before
permanent staff is hired, RSPA shall perform an assessment on
the safety and technology status of the infrastructure
supporting hydrogen fuels transportation and report to the
Committee no later then November 3, 2003 on the findings.
Funding is denied for additional positions. However, $50,000 is
provided for necessary research.
Thirteen positions were requested for the Crisis Management
Center, which monitors the nation's transportation network. Ten
to twelve rotational employees on temporary assignment from
other DOT modes, who each stay three to twelve months,
currently operate the CMC. The Committee believes that it is
important for the many administrations of the Department to
fully understand and utilize the CMC. The current rotational
system will ensure that a degree of coordination and
information flow throughout the department. Funding is provided
for three permanent CMC positions that shall be responsible for
the day-to-day operations of the Center and for ensuring that
the process is used for all modes to gain a better
understanding of the role and importance of the CMC. Funding
for one continuity of operations officer position is denied.
Funding for five positions and resources for contractual
staff were requested for the relocation of twenty program
databases. One data manager position and funding for other
proposed activities are provided. Further, the Committee
requests that RSPA keep the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations informed of activities related to these
infrastructure upgrades with bi-annual reports, due in August
and February.
In addition, RSPA requested two new positions to oversee
contracts and procurement policies and two positions for budget
and finance. The Committee approves funding for one position
for contract policies and one position for budget.
Emergency response training.--RSPA requested $500,000 for
training regional emergency response teams, as well as State
and local government and industry personnel. The Committee
supports RSPA's initiative in this arena and encourages RSPA to
coordinate any emergency response training with local response
training that the Department of Homeland Security is currently
undertaking to ensure that there is no duplication and that all
federal emergency training is focused on uniform methods.
Funding is provided in fiscal year 2004 for the three requested
regional coordinator positions from the emergency
transportation program. RSPA does not have a strong history of
quickly hiring employees, and as the current regional
coordinators have insufficient time to devote to developing the
necessary national security skills, as stated in the RSPA
budget justification, the Committee denies funding for this
training until such time as the new coordinators are hired.
$100,000 is provided for response equipment, instead of
$217,000 as requested.
The Volpe Center.--The Committee is concerned that the
administration of the Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center has been negligent in oversight of programs or contracts
that the Center carries out for the department. The contract
for NHTSA's Artemis project has run over budget by millions of
dollars. This is unacceptable. Therefore the Committee has
directed the Inspector General to perform an audit of all the
work currently being undertaken at the Volpe Center. The audit
shall address the following issues: (1) How has Volpe's role
and function changed over the years and do the current
activities meet the needs of DOT; (2) Does Volpe have the
necessary financial controls in place to assure that its
service fees are appropriate; and (3) What is DOT's role in
overseeing Volpe and is it adequate to ensure that cost
effective services are being provided. This report is to be
submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
by December 1, 2003.
Research and technology.--The Committee strongly urges RSPA
and OST to evaluate the extent to which the agency can be more
effective in research, eliminating duplicative programs, and
implementing certain GAO recommendations included in a report
the Committee requested. An implementation plan must be
submitted to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations
by October 1, 2003.
Regulatory backlog and support.--RSPA has an extensive
regulatory backlog, which is of concern to the Committee.
Currently, RSPA has over forty-one open rulemaking dockets,
including eight that are designated as ``significant.'' Several
of these proceedings have been the subject of NTSB reports. The
Committee strongly encourages RSPA to address this backlog as
expeditiously as possible.
Hazardous materials training and outreach.--One of the
greatest successes of the hazardous materials program is the
technical and training resources given to the regulated
community by RSPA. These services and products are either
provided free or at comparatively nominal cost, and are an
effective defense for protection against threats to public
safety, health, property, and the environment resulting from
hazardous materials incidents. It should be noted that the non-
federal leadership involved in the Cooperative Hazardous
Materials Enforcement Development (COHMED) program have
abandoned RSPA as a sponsor and have joined with the Commercial
Vehicle Safety Alliance to continue this valuable program. The
decision was made following meetings with RSPA that many
believed would have significantly altered this program. The
Committee encourages RSPA to continue to work with COHMED to
enhance RSPA's coordination of compliance services.
Pipeline Safety
(PIPELINE SAFETY FUND)
(OIL SPILL LIABILITY TRUST FUND)
(Oil Spill
(Pipeline Liability Total
Safety Fund) Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year $56,370,000 $7,473,000 $63,793,000
2003.........................
Budget request, fiscal year 48,336,000 18,741,000 67,077,000
2004.........................
Recommended in the bill....... 55,054,000 9,000,000 64,054,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year -1,316,000 +1,527,000 +261,000
2003.....................
Budget request, fiscal +6,718,000 -9,741,000 -3,023,000
year 2004................
The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to
life and property in the transportation of natural gas,
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The bill includes $64,054,000 to continue pipeline safety
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid
in fiscal year 2004. This is a one percent increase above the
level enacted for fiscal year 2003. The bill specifies that of
the total appropriation, $9,000,000 shall be derived from the
oil spill liability trust fund and $55,054,000 shall be from
the pipeline safety fund.
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request:
Reduce funding for information databases................ -$125,000
Reduce funding for increased compensation and
administrative expenses............................. -2,252,000
Reduce funding for controller study..................... -300,000
Restore funding for one-call grants..................... +1,000,000
Pipeline safety activities.--The last three fiscal years
have seen a dramatic increase, from $36,681,000 in fiscal year
2000 to $63,793,000 in fiscal year 2003, in the Office of
Pipeline Safety budget. This 43 percent increase was needed to
address near-term safety deficiencies and recommendations.
However, budgetary constraints make it impossible to let this
office continue to grow at such an astonishing speed,
especially when so many other major challenges face the
Department and RSPA. Therefore, the Committee reduces funding
for the proposed increases for fiscal year 2004, with the
exception of mandatory increases.
State one-call grants.--The Committee is concerned that
RSPA proposed a $1,000,000 decrease for state one-call grants
in fiscal year 2004. States use these grants to help prevent
excavation-related damage to underground pipelines, as well as
fiber optic cable, and voice and data transmissions. According
to RSPA, excavation-related damage was the cause of 41% of all
pipeline incidents in 2001. The Committee believes that these
grants are an important program to help reduce the number of
pipeline incidents. This proposed decrease is denied.
Oil spill liability trust fund.--The Committee is concerned
with the significant increase in the request of funds from the
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990
requires that these trust funds be used for oil spill
prevention and response activities, and the Committee strongly
encourages the Office of Pipeline Safety to allocate oversight
activities between the hazardous liquid and gas pipelines and
to factor the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund into the
allocation formula that determines the hazardous liquid
pipeline user fee assessment to accurately reflect the amount
and type of oversight activities being conducted by the office
consistent with the Trust Fund. The fiscal year 2005 budget
justification should adequately address this issue.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FUND)
(Emergency (Emergency
preparedness preparedness Total
fund) grant program)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003.................................... $199,000 ($14,300,000) $14,499,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................................... 200,000 (14,300,000) 14,500,000
Recommended in the bill............................................ 200,000 (14,300,000) 14,500,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................................ +1,000 ............... +1,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004............................... ............ ............... ............
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $200,000, the same amount as
requested, for activities related to emergency response
training curriculum development and updates, as authorized by
section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA. The Committee has provided
an obligation limitation of $14,300,000 for the emergency
preparedness grant program.
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $54,912,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 55,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 56,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,088,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +1,000,000
\1\ Excludes $2,509,000 appropriated to this office, but subsequently
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security.
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportation
and the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General (IG) is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommendation provides $56,000,000 for
activities of the Office of Inspector General, an increase of
$1,088,000 (2 percent) above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and $1,000,000 above the administration's request. The
Committee continues to value highly the work of the Office of
Inspector General in oversight of departmental programs and
activities. In addition, the OIG will receive $7,874,000 from
other agencies in this bill, as noted below:
Federal Highway Administration.......................... $3,524,000
Federal Transit Administration.......................... 2,000,000
Federal Aviation Administration......................... 2,250,000
National Transportation Safety Board.................... 100,000
The OIG's total funding of $63,874,000 is essentially
unchanged from the $63,786,000 provided, from all sources, in
fiscal year 2003. Funding in the bill is sufficient to finance
380 full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years under direct funding
and 59 under reimbursable funding, for total FTE of 439.
Motor fuel tax evasion.--Within the additional $1,000,000
provided, the Committee expects the OIG to give a high priority
to providing additional resources to address the continuing
problem of motor fuel tax evasion. To the extent possible, the
OIG should work in multi-agency teams, including representation
from the Internal Revenue Service and the Department of
Justice, to ensure the most effective investigative and
prosecutorial results.
Unfair business practices.--The bill maintains language
first enacted in fiscal year 2000 which authorizes the OIG to
investigate allegations of fraud and unfair or deceptive
practices and unfair methods of competition by air carriers and
ticket agents.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings. The OIG is also directed to withhold from
public distribution for a period of 15 days any final audit or
investigative report which was requested by the House or Senate
Committees on Appropriations.
Time to complete audit reports.--The Committee is concerned
that the average time to complete OIG audits has risen
substantially over the past few years. In fiscal year 2000, the
average audit required 10 months for completion. In fiscal year
2002, that has increased 40 percent, to 14 months. The
Committee urges the OIG to investigate the causes of this
change and compare their issuance time to those of similar OIGs
to help determine whether the process could be expedited.
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003 \1\................... $19,323,575
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \2\.................. 19,521,000
Recommended in the bill \2\........................... 19,521,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +197,425
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Does not reflect a reduction of $126,425 pursuant to section 601 of
Public Law 108-07. Of this total, $1,000,000 is offset through the
collection of user fees.
\2\ Assumes collection of $1,050,000 in user fees, to offset the
appropriation as the fees are collected throughout the fiscal year.
The Surface Transportation Board was created on January 1,
1996 by P.L. 104-88, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)
Termination Act of 1995. Consistent with the continued trend
toward less regulation of the surface transportation industry,
the Act abolished the ICC; eliminated certain functions that
had previously been implemented by the ICC; transferred core
rail and certain other provisions to the Board; and transferred
certain other motor carrier functions to the Federal Highway
Administration (now under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration). The Board is specifically responsible for
regulation of the rail and pipeline industries and certain non-
licensing regulations of motor carriers and water carriers. The
law empowers the Board through its exemption authority to
promote deregulation administratively on a case-by-case basis
and continues intact the important rail reforms made by the
Staggers Rail Act of 1980.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$19,521,000, equal to the budget request. Included in the
recommended amount is an estimated $1,050,000 in fees, which
will offset the appropriated funding. At this funding level,
the Board will be able to accommodate 145 full-time equivalent
staff years.
User fees.--Current statutory authority, under 31 U.S.C.
9701, grants the Board the authority to collect user fees. The
Committee agrees with the budget request that $1,050,000 in
user fees is reasonable. Language is included in the bill
allowing the fees to be credited to the appropriation as
offsetting collections, and reducing the general fund
appropriation on a dollar-for-dollar basis as the fees are
received and credited. This language, continued from last year,
simplifies the tracking of the collections and provides the
Board with more flexibility in spending its appropriated funds.
Union Pacific/Southern Pacific merger.--On December 12,
1997, the Board granted a joint request of Union Pacific
Railroad Company and the City of Wichita and Sedgwick County,
KS (Wichita/Sedgwick) to toll the 18-month mitigation study
pending in Finance Docket No. 32760. The decision indicated
that at such time as the parties reach agreement or discontinue
negotiations, the Board would take appropriate action.
By petition filed June 26, 1998, Wichita/Sedgwick and UP/SP
indicated that they had entered into an agreement, and jointly
petitioned the Board to impose the agreement as a condition of
the Board's approval of the UP/SP merger. By decision dated
July 8, 1998, the Board agreed and imposed the agreement as a
condition to the UP/SP merger. The terms of the negotiated
agreement remain in effect. If UP/SP or any of its divisions or
subsidiaries materially changes or is unable to achieve the
assumptions on which the Board based its final environmental
mitigation measures, then the Board should reopen Finance
Docket 32760 if requested by interested parties, and prescribe
additional mitigation properly reflecting these changes if
shown to be appropriate.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
DEPARTMENTAL OFFICES
Salaries and Expenses
(including Transfer of Funds)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $157,669,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 166,875,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 175,809,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +18,140,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +8,934,000
The Departmental Offices' function in the Treasury
Department is to provide basic support to the Secretary of the
Treasury, who is the chief operating executive of the
Department. The Secretary of the Treasury also has a primary
role in formulating and managing the domestic and international
tax and financial policies of the Federal Government. The
Secretary's responsibilities funded by the salaries and
expenses appropriation include: recommending and implementing
United States domestic and international economic and tax
policy; fiscal policy; governing the fiscal operations of the
Government; maintaining foreign assets control; managing the
public debt; managing development of financial policy;
representing the United States on international monetary, trade
and investment issues; overseeing Treasury Department overseas
operations; directing the administrative operations of the
Treasury Department; and providing executive oversight of the
bureaus within the Treasury Department. This account also
includes funding for the Office of Professional Responsibility.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $175,809,000
for Departmental Offices, Salaries and Expenses, an increase of
$18,140,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an
increase of $8,934,000 above the President's request. The
Committee has removed the travel limitation on these funds and
directs the Secretary to provide to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations quarterly reports on travel
expenditures funded through this account and summarized by
office, including travel charges incurred and paid for
protection. In addition, each report shall contain specific
details regarding international travel by the office of
international affairs. The bill includes $3,000,000 for
information technology, $150,000 for official reception and
representation expenses, $258,000 for unforeseen emergencies,
$21,855,000 for the Office of Foreign Assets Control,
$2,900,000 for grants to fight money laundering, and $3,393,000
for Treasury-wide financial statement audits.
Changes to the President's request include a decrease of
$3,480,000 to reflect reductions enacted for fiscal year 2003
but not included in the President's fiscal year 2004 budget
request (-$27,000 for Federal Employees' Compensation Act
(FECA) costs, -$2,854,000 to reflect savings from prior year
Congressional priorities, and -$599,000 for a business strategy
adjustment) as well as an increase of $3,480,000 for
unanticipated administrative cost increases resulting from
proposed transfers to the Department of Homeland Security and
other developments that require Treasury participation and
involvement. In addition to the increase noted above, the
Committee recommends an additional $2,919,000 to support this
function. The Committee understands that a portion of these
funds may be used to support personnel that had been expected
to be transferred to the Department of Homeland Security but
were not transferred.
The rest of the increase above the President's request
($6,015,000) is for a variety of budget needs recently
recognized. The largest single increase ($2,730,000 and no more
than 10 FTE) is for the Office of International Affairs and is
provided to better address the requirements facing the
Department regarding international trade, global economic
markets, and world-wide financing and investments. The
Committee also recommends an increase of $2,285,000 and no more
than 14 FTE for the new Office of Terrorist Financing and
Financial Crimes that was recently created within the
Department as the lead for the Administration. In addition, the
Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 for Treasury-
wide certificate-based internet security initiatives. The
recommended funding is distributed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 2004
2004 request recommended
(000) (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic Policy....................... $4,145 $4,145
International Affairs................. 25,151 27,881
Tax Policy............................ 13,955 13,955
Domestic Finance...................... 9,448 9,448
Terrorist Financing & Financial Crimes ............... 2,285
Foreign Asset Control................. 21,855 21,855
Management and CFO Programs........... 14,275 14,275
Executive Direction................... 17,168 17,168
Treasury-wide Financial Statement 3,393 3,393
Audits...............................
Administration........................ 57,485 61,404
---------------------------------
Total........................... 166,875 175,809
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSFERS
The Homeland Security Act, 2002, created the largest
reorganization of the Federal Government in recent history. As
part of this reorganization, most Treasury law enforcement
bureaus (the Customs Service, the Secret Service, and the
Federal Law Enforcement Training Center) were transferred to
the new Department of Homeland Security. Accompanying these
major bureau transfers were to be transfers of functions and
personnel that provided headquarters management and oversight
support. In the President's fiscal year 2004 budget request for
Treasury Departmental Offices, a total of 226 full-time
equivalent staff years were noted to have transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security along with $28,000,000 to
support these positions during fiscal year 2003. The Committee
is concerned about the status and accuracy of these ancillary
management and oversight support transfers and directs the
Secretary to provide a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the enactment of
this Act details regarding all transfers from this account
(both dollars and positions) to the Department of Homeland
Security.
OFFICE OF TERRORIST FINANCING
During fiscal year 2003, a new executive office was created
within Treasury to coordinate and lead the Department's efforts
to combat terrorist financial and other financial crimes
committed within the United States and abroad. The new Office
for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes highlights the
priority that has been placed on this issue by this
Administration. The Committee commends this emphasis and
strongly supports the goal of working with others to identify,
block, and dismantle sources of financial support for terror
and other criminal activities.
U.S. CURRENCY POLICIES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
The Committee directs the Secretary of the Treasury to
provide to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
within 90 days of the enactment of this Act, a report examining
the U.S. currency policies of any trading partners that create
an anti-competitive advantage by deliberately devaluing their
currencies relative to the U.S. dollar in order to encourage
exports, suppress imports, and attract foreign investment. The
report shall describe each occurrence and the effect of each
such action on U.S. industries and commercial enterprises; the
extent to which such actions are disallowed by international
law; and the actions being taken by the United States
government in response to such actions. The report shall
include comment on the extent to which China, by requiring
Chinese companies to sell the dollars they accrue to its
central bank at a fixed rate, alters the value of the yuan
relative to the dollar to create anti-competitive advantages.
CERTIFICATE-BASED INTERNET SECURITY
The Committee is aware of the need for security in
permitting secure internet communication for the Department of
the Treasury to prevent cyber attacks and protect against
identity theft in key information systems. The Committee
strongly supports fully implementing certificate-based internet
security capabilities as appropriate to provide standards-based
e-mail encryption and digital signatures; permit
interoperability with the Federal Bridge and other government
public key infrastructure systems and applications; demonstrate
proven scalability; support multiple platforms; and include
automated, secure key and certificate management. To help meet
this need, the Committee has recommended an additional
$1,000,000 beyond funds already recognized and slated to be
used for Treasury-wide certificate-based internet security
requirements during fiscal year 2004. The Committee also
directs the Secretary of the Treasury to provide a report to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, not later
than 30 days after the enactment of this Act, on departmental
actions to ensure this security and on the level and sources of
funding involved as well as an assessment of and timeline for
remaining requirements across the Department of the Treasury.
FINANCIAL SERVICES ISAC
The Committee is concerned about the technological
capabilities of the Financial Services Information Sharing and
Analysis Center (ISAC). Each ISAC is organized within the
private sector along industry lines to facilitate information
exchange and improve the management of operational risks from
physical and cyber disruption. As the federal lead agency for
the Financial Services ISAC, Treasury is to assist in
organizing and planning protection and continuity-of-operation
efforts, in identifying and promoting effective risk-management
policies and protection practices and methodologies, and in
information sharing. The Committee directs the Secretary of the
Treasury to provide a report to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations, not later than 90 days after the enactment
of this Act, which evaluates the technological capabilities of
the Financial Services ISAC and discusses options for how these
functions could be improved.
REVIEW OF DEBT CEILING EFFORTS
In February 2003, the Treasury Department began to take a
series of steps to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling. Through a
series of accounting devices, including holding back certain
federal employee investments and reinvestments, the Department
was able to temporarily remain under the debt ceiling. After
the debt ceiling crisis was averted, the Treasury Department
said they would restore all due interest and principal to the
affected accounts. The Committee directs the General Accounting
Office (GAO) to review the steps taken by the Department of the
Treasury to avoid exceeding the debt ceiling. As part of this
report, the GAO should determine whether all major accounts
that were used for debt ceiling relief have been properly
credited or reimbursed.
PAYMENTS TO STATES FOR SERVICES AND COMPLIANCE
The Committee is aware that the Treasury Department has
begun distributing $10 billion in temporary fiscal relief
payments to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and
territories provided under Title VI, Section 601 as added by
Section 401(b) of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation
Act (Public Law 108-27) signed into law on May 28, 2003. As
that legislation states, these funds were provided to cover the
cost of essential government services, or to cover the cost to
a state to comply with federal intergovernmental mandates where
the Federal Government has not provided funds to cover the
costs, and may only be used for certain types of expenditures
permitted under the most recently approved state budget. To
assure that funds have been used for the intended purposes, the
Committee directs that the Secretary of the Treasury, within 60
days of enactment of this Act, compile and submit to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the House Committee on
Ways and Means, and the Senate Finance Committee a detailed
report itemizing the specific purpose and amount for which each
state, the District of Columbia, and each territory has
expended the funds provided under Section 601 and Section 401
of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act.
RESPONSIVENESS OF THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN ASSET CONTROL
The Committee is extremely concerned by the poor
performance of the Office of Foreign Asset Control (OFAC) in
complying with the licensing deadlines for implementing the
Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act (TSRA) of
2000. The Committee further understands that the office has
been consistently late in submitting required reports and has
not submitted reports on the processing of licenses for the
first and second quarters of 2003. A lack of transparency and
an apparent disinterest in customer service have made the
process extraordinarily burdensome for license applicants. Such
performance is unacceptable; these delays have resulted in lost
opportunities for American agricultural and medical exporters.
The Committee directs OFAC to immediately: (1) remedy any
staffing shortfalls that have contributed to the backlog; (2)
submit overdue licensing reports to Congress as required by
Section 906(b) of TSRA; and (3) provide the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations, by December 31, 2003, a report
detailing how the growing backlog of license applications will
be expeditiously remedied and how customer service will be
enhanced.
Department-Wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $36,653,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 36,928,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 36,653,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -275,000
This appropriation funds the modernization of Treasury
business processes and increases in Department-wide systems
efficiency through technology investments for systems that
involve more than one Treasury bureau or Treasury's interface
with other governmental agencies.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $36,653,000
for Department-wide Systems and Capital Investments Programs,
the same as the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease
of $275,000 below the President's request. The decrease below
the President's request is to be allocated to the HR Connect
effort. The following table reflects the distribution of these
funds by project:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2004
Fiscal year 2004 recommendation
request (000) (000)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
HR Connect.......................... $25,989 $25,714
Treasury Architecture............... 200 200
Treasury-wide Critical 8,993 8,993
Infrastructure.....................
Treasury Back-up/Disaster Recovery.. 1,746 1,746
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 36,928 36,653
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of Inspector General
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $11,092,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 12,792,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +12,792,000
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct operational and
administrative deficiencies, which create conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and
mismanagement. The audit function provides program, contract,
and financial statement audit services. Contract audits provide
professional advice to agency contracting officials on
accounting and financial matters relative to negotiation,
award, administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts.
Program audits review and evaluate all facets of agency
operations. Financial statement audits assess whether financial
statements fairly present the agency's financial condition and
results of operations, the adequacy of accounting controls, and
compliance with laws and regulations. The investigative
function provides for the detection and investigation of
improper and illegal activities involving programs, personnel,
and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,792,000
for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,700,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of
$12,792,000 above the President's request. The President's
budget request proposed to combine this function and account
with the function and account for the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration, creating a new entity. Such
action requires extensive new legislation that has yet to be
enacted. The increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
(+$1,700,000) is for operational support to maintain current
levels of service. The bill includes $2,000,000 for official
travel expenses, up to $100,000 for unforeseen emergencies, and
$2,500 for official reception and representation expenses.
Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $124,198,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 128,034,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +3,836,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +128,034,000
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Restructuring and Reform
Act of 1998 established the Office of Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration and abolished the IRS Office of
the Chief Inspector. The Office was established in January of
1999 as required by that legislation. The Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration conducts audits, investigations,
and evaluations to assess the operations and programs of the
IRS and its related entities, the IRS Oversight Board and the
Office of Chief Counsel. The purpose of those audits and
investigations is to: (1) promote the economic, efficient, and
effective administration of the nation's tax laws and to detect
and deter fraud and abuse in IRS programs and operations; and
(2) recommend actions to resolve fraud and other serious
problems, abuses, and deficiencies in these programs and
operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $128,034,000
for the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration, an
increase of $3,836,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and an increase of $128,034,000 above the President's request.
The President's budget request proposed to combine this
function and account with the function and account for the
Office of Inspector General account, creating a new entity.
Such action requires extensive new legislation that has yet to
be enacted. The increase above the fiscal year 2003 enacted
level (+$3,836,000) is for operational support to maintain
current levels of service. The bill includes up to $6,000,000
for official travel and up to $500,000 for unforeseen
emergencies.
Air Transportation Stabilization Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $6,002,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 2,538,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,538,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -3,464,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Air Transportation Stabilization Board was authorized
in the Air Transportation Safety and Stabilization Act to issue
$10,000,000,000 of federal credit instruments to air carriers.
The purpose is ``to compensate air carriers for losses incurred
by the air carriers as a result of the terrorist attacks on the
United States that occurred on September 11, 2001'', providing
among other criteria, that ``such agreement is a necessary part
of maintaining a safe, efficient, and viable commercial
aviation system in the United States''.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,538,000 for
the Air Transportation Stabilization Program, a decrease of
$3,464,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request. The Committee directs the
Department of the Treasury to submit a report 90 days after the
enactment of this Act on the status of this effort, a
description of the credit instruments issued, and the ongoing
management activities of the Air Transportation Stabilization
Board to monitor and review the financial performance of each
borrower.
Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $28,744,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 25,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -3,744,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation funds the repairs, selected
improvements, and construction necessary to renovate and
maintain the Main Treasury, the Treasury Annex, and other
Treasury buildings.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $25,000,000
for Treasury Building and Annex Repair and Restoration, a
decrease of $3,744,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and the same as the President's request.
FINANCIAL CRIMES ENFORCEMENT NETWORK
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $51,416,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 57,571,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 57,571,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +6,155,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) is
responsible for implementing Treasury's anti-money laundering
regulations through administration of the Bank Secrecy Act, 31
U.S.C. section 5311, et seq. (BSA). It also serves as a United
States Government source for the systematic collection and
analysis of information to assist in the investigation of money
laundering and other financial crimes. FinCEN supports law
enforcement investigative efforts by federal, state, local and
international agencies, and fosters interagency and global
cooperation against domestic and international financial
crimes. It also provides U.S. policymakers with strategic
analyses of domestic and worldwide trends and patterns. It
prevents money laundering through its regulatory and outreach
programs, including setting policy for and overseeing BSA
compliance by financial institutions, and by providing BSA
training for law enforcement, bankers, and bank regulators.
Pursuant to the USA Patriot Act of 2001, FinCEN was made a
Treasury Bureau in recognition of its key role in supporting
investigations and other government efforts to identify and
stop the financing of terrorist organizations and activity. The
Patriot Act also gave FinCEN substantial new responsibilities
for collecting, sharing, and managing financial and other
information as part of its counter-terrorism mission.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $57,571,000
for the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, an increase of
$6,155,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request. The Committee has recently
become aware of an issue surrounding the main FinCEN database
that may impact future FinCEN operations; and the Committee
directs Treasury and the bureau to review the current custodial
situation as well as long-range plans, and to spend whatever
level of funding is deemed appropriate from whatever source is
available, including potentially the Treasury Forfeiture Fund,
to begin addressing related location, ownership, and management
issues. The bill includes up to $14,000 for official reception
and representation expenses.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $220,634,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 228,606,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 228,558,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +7,924,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -48,000
The Financial Management Service (FMS) is responsible for
the management of federal finances and the collection of
federal debt. As the Federal Government's central financial
agent, FMS receives and disburses public monies, maintains
government accounts, and reports on the status of the
government's finances. FMS is also accountable for developing
and implementing the most reliable and efficient financial
methods and systems to manage and improve the Government's cash
management, credit management, and debt collection programs.
Pursuant to the Debt Collection Improvement Act of 1996, FMS
became the primary agency for the collecting of federal non-tax
debt that is due and owed to the government. Through FMS, there
is a coordinated effort to collect debt from those who have
defaulted on agreements with the Federal Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $228,558,000
for the Financial Management Service, an increase of $7,924,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of
$48,000 below the President's request. The decrease below the
President's request is for a proposal, first made in the
President's fiscal year 2002 request and retained in the
President's fiscal year 2003 request, to integrate the benefits
and administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been enacted. The bill
includes up to $9,220,000 for information systems modernization
initiatives and up to $2,500 for official reception and
representation expenses.
ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO TAX AND TRADE BUREAU
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $79,480,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 80,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 80,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +520,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) is
responsible for the enforcement of laws designed to eliminate
certain illicit activities and to regulate lawful activities
relating to distilled spirits, beer, wine and nonbeverage
alcohol products, and tobacco. Its responsibilities are focused
on collecting revenue; reducing taxpayer burden and improving
service while preventing diversion; and protecting the public
and preventing consumer deception in certain regulated
commodities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $80,000,000
for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, an increase
of $520,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request. The bill includes up to $6,000
for official reception and representation expenses and up to
$50,000 for cooperative research and development programs.
BUREAU OF ENGRAVING AND PRINTING
The Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP) designs,
manufactures, and supplies Federal Reserve notes, various
public debt instruments, as well as most evidences of a
financial character issued by the United States, such as
postage and internal revenue stamps. The BEP also executes
certain printings for various territories administered by the
United States, particularly postage and revenue stamps.
The operations of the BEP are financed by a revolving fund
established in accordance with the provisions of Public Law
656, August 4, 1950 (31 U.S.C. 181), which requires the BEP to
be reimbursed by customer agencies for all costs of
manufacturing products and services performed. The BEP is also
authorized to assess amounts to acquire capital equipment and
provide for working capital needs. The anticipated work volume
is based on estimates of requirements submitted by agencies
served. The following table summarizes BEP revenue and expense
data for fiscal years 2002 through 2004:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (actual)
2003 (estimate) 2004 (estimate)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total revenue............................................. $391,000,000 $424,000,000 $517,000,000
Revenue from currency................................. 327,000,000 370,000,000 465,000,000
Revenue from stamps................................... 51,000,000 45,000,000 34,000,000
Other revenue......................................... 13,000,000 9,000,000 6,000,000
Cost of operations........................................ 436,000,000 453,000,000 525,000,000
Net revenue \1\ (to Treasury)............................. -45,000,000 -29,000,000 -8,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Capital investments will be less than depreciation, a non-cash expense, in each of these years. In order to
avoid accumulating working capital in excess of Bureau needs, currency prices are set at a level that will
result in an annual loss (on paper). This loss will not exceed the depreciation expense, ensuring the solvency
of the Bureau's revolving fund.
UNITED STATES MINT
United States Mint Public Enterprise Fund
The United States Mint manufactures coins, receives
deposits of gold and silver bullion, and safeguards the Federal
Government's holdings of monetary metals. For fiscal year 1997,
Congress established the United States Mint Public Enterprise
Fund (Public Law 104-52), which authorized the U.S. Mint to use
proceeds from the sale of coins to finance the costs of its
operations and which consolidated all existing Mint accounts
into a single fund. Public Law 104-52 also provides that, in
certain situations, the levels of capital investments for
circulating coins and protective services shall factor into the
decisions of the Congress such that those levels compete with
other requirements for funding.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a spending level for capital
investments by the U.S. Mint for circulating coinage and
protective services of $40,652,000, an increase of $5,752,000
above the fiscal year 2003 spending level and the same as the
level included in the President's request. The Committee has
included language in the bill that would reimburse the General
Accounting Office up to $375,000 for the cost of a contract
study on the potential and cost-effectiveness of expanded,
including full, use of ``blanks'' by the U.S. Mint in the
production of circulating coins. The contract study should
examine the costs and benefits of such expanded use and examine
whether such use would be compliant with Administration's goal
to privatize non-governmental functions. In addition to
including a pure cost-benefit analysis of the issue, the study
should examine the practicality and desirability of such a
change, methods of adopting such a change without negatively
effecting production and with as little an effect on Mint
employees as possible, and the ``blanking'' procedures and
costs of major foreign mints. Among the potential benefits to
be assessed in the contract study are the reduced security
costs and/or concerns, reduced need for external storage and
handling areas as well as potential overall cost savings. The
completed contract study should be provided to both House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations and the appropriate
authorizing committees in a reasonable timeframe. This bill
provides that amounts reimbursed to the Comptroller General for
this work are to be deposited in the appropriate appropriations
of the General Accounting Office where they will remain until
expended. The following table provides basic information on the
revenues, costs, and products of the Mint for fiscal years 2002
through 2004:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commemorative
Circulating coins quarters Numismatic coins Protection
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (actual):
Number of coins............ 11.5 billion....... 3.6 billion....... 17 million........ ..................
Cost of operations......... $156 million....... $172 million...... $376 million...... $29 million.
Revenue.................... $460 million....... $904 million...... $440 million......
Net revenue (to Treasury).. $304 million....... $732 million...... $64 million....... ($29 million).
2003 (est.):
Number of coins............ 13.8 billion....... 4.4 billion....... 16 million........ ..................
Cost of operations......... $206 million....... $226 million...... $439 million...... $35 million.
Revenue.................... $493 million....... $1,098 million.... $451 million...... ..................
Net revenue (to Treasury).. $287 million....... $871 million...... $12 million....... ($35 million).
2004 (est.):
Number of coins............ 13.8 billion....... 4.5 billion....... 16 million........ ..................
Cost of operations......... $208 million....... $237 million...... $440 million...... $36 million.
Revenue.................... $490 million....... $1,125 million.... $454 million...... ..................
Net revenue (to Treasury).. $282 million....... $888 million...... $15 million....... ($29 million).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BUREAU OF THE PUBLIC DEBT
Administering the Public Debt
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $188,833,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 173,698,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 173,652,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -15,181,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -46,000
This appropriation provides funds for the conduct of all
public debt operations and the promotion of the sale of U.S.
securities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a net appropriation of
$173,652,000 for administering the public debt, a decrease of
$15,181,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a
decrease of $46,000 below the President's request. The decrease
below the President's request is for a proposal, first made in
the President's fiscal year 2002 request and retained in the
President's fiscal year 2003 request, to integrate the benefits
and administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation
Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been enacted. The bill
assumes offsetting collections of $4,400,000 from security
issue fees and account maintenance fees. The bill includes up
to $2,500 for official reception and representation expenses
and up to $2,000,000 for systems modernization. The Committee
supports the efforts of the Bureau of Public Debt to modernize
and reduce costs associated with the savings bond program
including the utilization of an internet based system that
permits investors to purchase savings bonds online; the
Committee believes, however, that it may be useful to continue
in the short-term the issuing of printed savings bonds for
those who may not yet access the internet.
SAVINGS BOND MARKETING
The Committee is supportive of plans outlined in the
President's budget for the Bureau of the Public Debt to
discontinue its focused savings bond marketing program, but it
is also aware that a need remains for certain savings bond
customer information support functions, some of which had been
formerly supported by the marketing program. Therefore, the
Committee directs the bureau to submit a report, no later than
45 days after the enactment of this Act, which identifies and
describes those information support functions for savings bond
customers previously conducted by the marketing program, their
staffing levels, budget, and justification for continuance.
COST COMPARISON MODEL
Over the past several years, the Committee has raised
questions concerning the validity of the model used by the
bureau to compare federal borrowing costs among certain debt
instruments. The model results had been used by the bureau to
support its contention that selling paper-based savings bonds
to fund federal debt was more cost effective than selling
marketable securities. In July 2002 the Committee requested
that the General Accounting Office (GAO) examine the model. In
June 2003 the GAO completed a study of the model and reported
that the model contains errors, does not provide valid cost
comparisons, and had not been subject to independent external
review. The bureau, while acknowledging some of the errors,
disagreed with the GAO conclusion that the model's comparisons
were invalid. This disagreement stems from a fundamental
difference regarding the development and use of appropriate and
accurate present value calculations.
The Committee notes that this substantive disagreement,
which strikes at the heart of the Committee's concerns, might
have been resolved years ago had the model been subjected to a
full and rigorous independent external review. The recent GAO
study referenced above does not constitute such a full review,
which would also need to assess the accuracy or completeness of
the input data. The Committee is particularly disappointed in
Treasury's long-standing failure to provide such a basic
external review and its use of the model's results in the
absence of such a review.
Nevertheless, as noted by the bureau in its response to
GAO, even if accurate this model would not provide useful cost
comparisons among the emerging debt instruments of Treasury,
such as electronically based savings bonds. Given that the
development and implementation of electronically based savings
bonds and marketable securities in a single internet accessed
retail system is the current focus of the bureau and the
department, the bureau reports that it plans to ``shelve'' the
existing model. Attempts to construct a new model would serve
little useful purposes, due to the discontinuance of marketing
for savings bonds. The Committee concurs with the view that the
bureau should focus its attention on the transition into an
electronic environment for all Treasury securities issued
directly to the public. However, the Committee does believe
that the transition should include a specific program which
recognizes that a noticeable number of Americans either do not
have access to the internet, or do not want to make electronic
financial transactions.
Therefore, the Committee directs the bureau and the
department to provide to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations within 60 days of the enactment of this Act a
report outlining its plan for achieving an electronic
environment for the retail issuance and servicing of savings
and marketable securities made available directly to the
public, while offering non-electronic options to those
purchasers who prefer them. Furthermore, the Committee fully
expects the department to continue to pursue the policy it has
articulated of financing the public debt at the lowest cost,
over time.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
The Committee notes the recent confirmation of a new IRS
Commissioner and looks forward to growing a strong working
relationship with him. As part of that relationship, the
Committee hopes that the new Commissioner will ensure that the
IRS responds to Committee directives for information in a
timely fashion. In that regard, the Committee notes with
concern that two reports requested by the Committee last year,
updates to earlier reports on IRS compliance and its earned
income tax credit initiative, are months overdue. The Committee
also recognizes the role of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Oversight Board in reviewing the annual budget request of the
IRS. The Committee appreciates its analysis of the IRS budget
and looks forward to strengthening its working relationship
with the Board. The Committee urges the Commissioner of the
IRS, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget to consider the recommendations
of the Board during deliberations on future IRS budgets.
Processing, Assistance, and Management
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $3,930,064,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 4,074,694,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,037,834,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +107,770,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -36,860,000
This appropriation provides for processing tax returns and
related documents; processing data for compiling statistics of
income; assisting taxpayers in correct filing of their returns
and in paying taxes that are due; overall planning and
direction of the Internal Revenue Service; and management of
financial resources and procurement.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,037,834,000
for Processing, Assistance, and Management, an increase of
$107,770,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a
decrease of $36,860,000 below the President's request. Of the
decrease below the President's request, a portion (-$2,560,000)
is for a proposal, first made in the President's FY 2002
request and retained in the President's FY 2003 request, to
integrate the benefits and administrative costs of the Federal
Employees' Compensation Act (FECA) which, to date, has not been
enacted. The remainder of the reduction below the President's
request (-$34,300,000) is a general decrease, but the Committee
notes a number of requested increases (such as enterprise
performance awards, certain service-wide labor costs, and a
variety of corporate expenses) that appear to be of lesser
value and lower priority. The appropriation also includes
$8,000,000 in support of low-income tax clinics, $4,250,000 for
the tax counseling for the elderly program, and up to $25,000
for official reception and representation expenses.
ELECTRONIC TAX FILING AND THE FREE FILE ALLIANCE
The Committee is encouraged by the first-year results of
the Free File Alliance initiative, and commends the IRS and the
tax software industry for the success of their public-private
partnership. The 2.7 million electronic tax returns and e-
filings achieved through this initiative was of great benefit
to the American public, far exceeded expectations, and was
achieved while avoiding cost incurrence to the Federal
government. However, some issues arose suggesting the need for
specific program improvements.
Accordingly, the IRS shall ensure that the mission and
execution of the initiative is first and foremost to provide
electronic federal tax return preparation and e-filing services
at no cost to the working poor, and other disadvantaged and
underserved taxpayers. The IRS Electronic Tax Administration's
related marketing and promotional activities shall be
consistently carried out in a manner to advance this key
mission objective.
The IRS also shall ensure in its agreements with industry,
that program implementation shall be carried out in a manner
that protects the privacy of the taxpayer's return data and
continues the independence from government of the software
service employed. Program implementation shall likewise
continue to provide that the federal tax return and filing
service donations do not require other product or service
purchases from citizens.
The IRS is further directed to work in cooperation with
industry to implement appropriate policies and procedures to
ensure that the sponsored tax software services have the
necessary business credentials, relevant commercial track
records, corporate integrity, and financial and technical
capabilities, in which taxpayers can have confidence.
With these types of governance standards and program focus,
the public-private partnership strategy being pursued by the
IRS will fulfill its great promise, and the Committee looks
forward to regular reports from the IRS on progress being made
to achieve the program objectives and these specific
improvements.
IRS MANUAL SUBMISSIONS PROCESSING
The Committee is concerned that the transition into the
electronic age is not being managed properly by the IRS. As
part of this transition, the specific staffing needs of the
bureau are likely to require extensive modifications including
a reduction in the manual submission processing workforce.
However, the Committee understands that certain downsizing
efforts at manual processing facilities may not be adequately
planned or appropriately thought out prior to the actual
reductions. Therefore, the Committee directs the IRS to submit
a report to the House and Senate Committee on Appropriations no
later than 90 days after the enactment of this Act that
addresses the timing of downsizing efforts at manual processing
facilities, projections for manual processing requirements in
future years and a description of the IRS' plans for achieving
the remaining manual processing requirements in light of the
proposed downsizing plans. Furthermore, the Committee strongly
suggests that the IRS refrain from initiating any premature and
illconsidered reductions in force until such time as the report
stipulated above has been reviewed by the Committees and
adequate and appropriate planning has been completed.
Tax Law Enforcement
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $3,849,884,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 4,227,808,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,221,408,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +371,524,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -6,400,000
This appropriation provides for the examination of tax
returns, both domestic and international; the administrative
and judicial settlement of taxpayer appeals of examination
findings; technical rulings; monitoring employee pension plans;
determining qualifications of organizations seeking tax-exempt
status; examining tax returns of exempt organizations;
enforcing statutes relating to detection and investigation of
criminal violations of the internal revenue laws; collecting
unpaid accounts; compiling statistics of income and compliance
research; securing unfiled tax returns and payments; and
expanded efforts to reduce overclaims and erroneous filings
associated with the earned income tax credit.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,221,408,000
for Tax Law Enforcement, an increase of $371,524,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $6,400,000
below the President's request. The decrease below the
President's request is to be taken against low priority items,
and the Committee suggests that such items might include the
proposed increases related to tax law enforcement related to
exempt organizations (examinations, establishment of a contact
unit, and other compliance issues). The bill includes up to
$1,000,000 for research and up to $10,000,000 to reimburse the
Social Security Administration. The Committee is pleased that
the IRS is taking steps to pre-certify eligibility for persons
seeking payments under the earned income tax credit (EITC), and
that the IRS sought broad input in designing its pre-
certification process. The Committee intends to monitor these
measures closely, and is hopeful that they will significantly
impact the payments of billions of dollars annually in wrongful
EITC payments.
The Committee remains interested and concerned with the
level of progress being made by the IRS to develop and use
actuarial expertise and related computer software and required
hardware to assist in audits involving tax reserves, encourages
the IRS to further explore whether other situations might also
benefit from this effort, and directs that the IRS continue all
aspects of this project at no less level of support than was
identified and provided for fiscal year 2003, $4,000,000. In
support of this effort, a portion of these funds as well as
prior-year funding may be used for travel as it relates to
training, testing, and implementation requirements.
PATENT DONATIONS
The Committee is encouraged by recent compliance efforts
undertaken by the IRS to address abusive tax shelters and
deceptive business practices in the area of patent donations.
Consistent with e-government directives for modernization of
its systems, the IRS should continue its investment in reliable
and reproducible systems to detect, investigate, and quantify
violations of the internal revenue laws in this area, and to
collect unpaid accounts.
PRIVATE COLLECTION AGENCIES
The IRS proposes to contract with the private sector for
assistance in collecting delinquent tax debt. The Committee is
fully supportive of proposed efforts that are in keeping with
safeguards utilized in other federal debt collection and that
will cost-effectively increase compliance and reduce the size
of the budget deficit. The Committee urges the IRS to continue
working with Congress in pursuit of these initiatives to
improve the government's capabilities for tax debt collection
while safeguarding taxpayer data and rights.
Information Systems
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,621,833,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 1,670,039,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,628,739,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +6,906,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -41,300,000
This appropriation provides for Service-wide data
processing support, including the evaluation, development, and
implementation of computer systems (including software and
hardware) requirements.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,628,739,000
for Information Systems, an increase of $6,906,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $41,300,000
below the President's request. The decrease below the
President's request is for certain corporate expenses
(-$1,300,000), legacy investments (-$5,000,000), and a portion
of the tier III hardware/software replacements (-$5,000,000).
The Committee has included an additional decrease of
$30,000,000 to legacy investments.
Business Systems Modernization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $363,621,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 429,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 429,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +65,379,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides for funding of the PRIME
Systems Integration Services Contractor to modernize the
business systems of the Internal Revenue Service.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $429,000,000
for Business Systems Modernization, an increase of $65,379,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
President's request. The release of funding from this account
is governed by the same statutory conditions that governed the
funds appropriated into this account in previous years.
Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $69,545,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 35,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -34,545,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides contractor support to develop
and administer the advance payment option for the health
insurance tax credit included in Public Law 107-210, the Trade
Act of 2002.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,000,000
for health insurance tax credit administration, a decrease of
$34,545,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request.
GENERAL PROVISIONS--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Section 201. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made
available to the IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to
prior Congressional approval.
Section 202. The Committee continues the provision that
requires the IRS to maintain a training program in taxpayer's
rights, dealing courteously with taxpayers, and cross cultural
relations.
Section 203. The Committee continues the provision that
requires the IRS to institute policies and procedures, which
will safeguard the confidentiality of taxpayer information.
Section 204. The Committee continues the provision that
makes funds available for improved facilities and increased
manpower to provide sufficient and effective 1-800 help line
service for taxpayers.
Section 205. The Committee continues the provision that
allows the Department of the Treasury to purchase uniforms,
insurance, and motor vehicles without regard to the general
purchase price limitation, and enter into contracts with the
State Department for health and medical services for Treasury
employees in overseas locations.
Section 206. The Committee continues with modifications a
provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between
Departmental Offices--Salaries and Expenses, Office of the
Inspector General, Financial Management Service, Alcohol and
Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement
Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt appropriations under
certain circumstances.
Section 207. The Committee continues the provision that
authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal
Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration under certain circumstances.
Section 208. The Committee continues the provision that
prohibits the Department of the Treasury from undertaking a
redesign of the $1 Federal Reserve note.
Section 209. The Committee continues the provision that
provides for transfers from and reimbursements to the Salaries
and Expenses appropriation of the Financial Management Service
for the purposes of debt collection.
Section 210. The Committee continues the provision that
requires Congressional approval for the construction and
operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
Section 211. The Committee includes a new provision
establishing a permanent, indefinite appropriation to allow the
Department of the Treasury to reimburse financial institutions
directly for services they provide as depositaries and
financial agents of the United States. Use of this
appropriation will generally replace the compensating balance
mechanism for funding these services.
Section 212. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting contracts with certain foreign incorporated
entities.
TITLE III--POSTAL SERVICE
Payment to the Postal Service Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $76,120,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 60,014,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 60,014,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -16,106,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
Funds provided to the Postal Service in the Payment to the
Postal Service Fund include the costs of revenue forgone on
free and reduced-rate mail for the blind and overseas voters;
reconciliation adjustments for amounts appropriated for free
and reduced rate mail and the actual amounts required; and
partial reimbursement for losses which the Postal Service
incurred as a result of insufficient appropriations in fiscal
years 1991 through 1993 and the additional revenues it would
have received between 1993 and 1998 in the absence of certain
rate phasing provisions of the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $60,014,000 in
fiscal year 2004 for Payment to the Postal Service Fund, a
decrease of $16,106,000 from amounts appropriated in fiscal
year 2003 and the same as the President's request. Of the funds
provided for fiscal year 2004, the Committee includes
$29,000,000 as reimbursement for prior year shortfalls due to
insufficient appropriations and the rate phasing provisions of
the Revenue Forgone Act of 1993. The balance of $31,014,000 of
fiscal year 2004 funds reflects the advance appropriation for
free mail for the blind and overseas voters for 2004 provided
in the Treasury and General Government appropriations act for
fiscal year 2003. The Committee also recommends an advance
appropriation of $36,521,000 for fiscal year 2005 for free mail
for the blind and overseas voters, to be made available on
October 1, 2004; this is the same amount as requested by the
President.
LEVERAGED LEASING
The Committee is aware that given its financial outlook,
the U.S. Postal Service needs to find ways to reduce its costs.
The Committee encourages the Postal Service to use innovative
cost reduction techniques and has recently learned of one such
technique currently employed in the transportation industry,
particularly within transit agencies, referred to as leveraged
leasing. Leveraged leases have been implemented over a variety
of capital assets in the public transit sector, such as rolling
stock, buses, and rail signal equipment. The Committee
understands that overseas, similar transactions have been
structured over an even broader range of assets, including
postal sorting equipment.
The Committee believes that leveraged leasing might prove
to be an effective cost reduction tool and directs the Postal
Service to report to the Committee, no later than 180 days
following enactment of this act, the Postal Service's
experience with similar transactions (if any) in the past five
years, the Postal Service's initial evaluation of leveraged
leasing, areas of Postal Service operations and types of
capital assets where its use might be applicable, the
feasibility for the Postal Service to implement a leveraged
leasing pilot program, the estimated level of financial benefit
that could be generated by leveraged leasing, the level of
private sector participation in leveraged leasing, and the
potential impact of leveraged leasing on the Postal Service's
financial status, control and reporting responsibilities.
IRRADIATION OF THE MAIL
The Committee is aware that the U.S. Postal Service, in
order to help protect the mail from bioterrorist threats, is
having mail destined for Federal Government operations in the
Washington, DC area irradiated at a facility in Bridgeport, New
Jersey. The Committee is also aware that the location of this
facility results in delays of mail delivery, and that the
original intended purpose of this facility, for irradiating
materials other than mail, sometimes results in damage to the
mail processed there. The Committee highly encourages the
Postal Service to seek a long term solution to its mail
irradiation requirements using a facility that is tailored to
irradiating mail and is within or closer to the Washington, DC
metro area. The Committee directs the Postal Service to provide
it with a report, no later than 60 days after enactment of this
Act, which describes the Postal Service's plan for addressing
this issue.
RIVER ROUGE, MICHIGAN
The Committee is concerned for the postal needs of the
citizens of River Rouge, Michigan, and supports the U.S. Postal
Service's decision to assign a high priority to the
construction of a new postal facility there. Progress on the
new facility has been slowed because of the freeze imposed on
new construction and rehabilitation. The Committee encourages
the Postal Service to continue working with the community of
River Rouge to address the city's needs for a new facility, and
directs the Postal Service to report to the Committee on the
status of this facility no later than 90 days after enactment
of this Act.
PAHOA, HAWAII
The Committee is aware of concerns that the current postal
facility in Pahoa, in the district of Puna on the Island of
Hawaii, is inadequate to meet current needs, much less future
needs in what is one of the most rapidly growing areas of the
state. The Committee is also aware of concerns that the current
structure cannot be remodeled and that a new facility must be
built, and directs the Postal Service to report on the
feasibility of building such a facility no later than 90 days
after the enactment of this Act.
KAHULUI, HAWAII
The Committee is concerned about the situation regarding
the Kahului Airport Postal Facility on the Island of Maui. The
Postal Service has already engaged in relocating principal mail
operations from the current facility to a location closer to
Kahului International Airport in order to make the reception
and distribution of mail more efficient for the entire Island
of Maui. The Committee directs the Postal Service to report on
its plans regarding the situation at Kahului no later than 90
days after enactment of this Act.
TITLE IV--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT
These funds provide for the compensation of the President
as well as official expenses of the Executive Office of the
President, as authorized by Title 3 U.S.C.
Compensation of the President
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $450,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 450,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 450,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
These funds provide for the compensation of the President,
including an expense allowance as authorized by 3 U.S.C. 102.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $450,000 for
Compensation of the President, including an expense allowance
of $50,000. These are the same as amounts appropriated for
fiscal year 2003 and the same as requested by the President.
The bill specifies that none of the funds for official expenses
shall be considered as taxable to the President, and any unused
amount shall revert to the Treasury consistent with 31 U.S.C.
1552.
White House Office
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $50,385,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\ \2\.............. 70,268,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 66,057,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +15,672,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -4,211,000
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
\2\ Includes $8,331,000 for the Office of Homeland Security, funded in
fiscal year 2003 under a separate appropriation.
The Salaries and Expenses account of the White House Office
supports staff and administrative services necessary for the
direct support of the President, including costs for the
Homeland Security Council. This account also includes
reimbursements to the White House Communications Agency.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $66,057,000
for the White House Office, a reduction of $4,211,000 below the
amounts requested by the President. The Committee's
recommendation reduces funding for the Homeland Security
Council (formerly the Office of Homeland Security) from
$8,331,000 to $4,120,000, as discussed below.
Homeland Security Council.--On October 8, 2001, the
President signed Executive Order 13288, establishing the Office
of Homeland Security (OHS). As identified by Executive Order
13288, the primary responsibilities of OHS are to coordinate
the executive branch's efforts to detect, prepare for, prevent,
protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks
within the United States. The Order established broad areas of
functional responsibility for OHS, including the development of
a national strategy; prioritizing and coordinating detection
efforts; coordinating national preparedness efforts;
coordinating prevention efforts; coordinating efforts to
protect critical infrastructure; coordinating efforts to
respond to and promote response and recovery; coordinating
incident management response efforts; reviewing plans and
preparations for the continuity of government; coordinating the
executive branch strategy for communications and public
affairs; encouraging the cooperation of state and local
governments and private entities; reviewing legal authorities;
and reviewing agency and department budgets for homeland
security efforts. It is clear that most of these
responsibilities have now been assumed by the Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security. Although the Administration
has changed the ``Office of Homeland Security'' to the
``Homeland Security Council'', it is not clear what work
remains that cannot be effectively performed by the Department
of Homeland Security. Although the Committee understands the
President's need for policy support and advice, it is not clear
why that would require 66 staff, given the existence and
support of the Department of Homeland Security. In addition,
after submission of the fiscal year 2004 budget, the
President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board was
eliminated. The Committee recommendation assumes savings from
that action of $1,100,000.
White House tours.--In the statement of the managers
accompanying the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2003, the Committee directed the Executive Office of the
President to report on the ``status of efforts underway to
safely reopen public tours of the White House.'' On March 24,
2003, the Executive Office of the President provided a cursory,
four-sentence ``report'' that said very little about the status
of efforts in this regard. The Committee reiterates its concern
over the administration's apparent disinterest in resuming
anything beyond very limited tours of the White House. In 2002,
according to the National Park Service data, only 178,092
visitors passed through the White House. Data through mid-May
of this year indicates that even fewer people will tour the
White House in 2003. (Only 43,434 had visited as of May 14th).
Although the security considerations are certainly different
today, the Committee notes that nearly 1 million fewer visitors
will get to tour the White House annually under the current
tour policy. The Committee notes that the White House has
historically been maintained, at extra expense to taxpayers, in
a manner befitting its role as a destination for visiting
citizens as well as its role as the principal residence and
office of the Chief Executive. The Committee again requests,
within 30 days of enactment of this Act, a detailed report on
the status of efforts to safely resume public tours of the
White House.
Renovations of the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.--
On repeated occasions, the Committee has sought specific
answers to questions about the use of non-federal funds for
renovating and furnishing GSA facilities occupied by agencies
of the Executive Office of the President. In particular, the
Committee believes more information is needed on the use of
non-federal funding for renovation and furnishing efforts for
the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, for which $65,757,000
is included in this bill. The Committee directs EOP to review
and report on the use of non-federal funds for renovation and
furnishings in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building. The
report should be submitted to the House and Senate Committees
on Appropriations no later than November 15, 2003, and should
identify the federal agency that coordinated the work funded by
non-federal sources, the specific sources and amounts of non-
federal funding used, a description of each project, and an
explanation of why non-federal funds were used in each specific
instance. Finally, the report should determine which agency's
gift authority was used to accept the contribution of non-
federal funds and whether this authority was used properly.
Given EOP's reluctance to provide information on this subject
thus far, a provision is included in the bill prohibiting the
obligation of more than $35,000,000 on this project until this
report is submitted to the Congress.
Executive Residence at the White House
OPERATING EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $12,149,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 12,501,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 12,501,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +352,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
These funds provide for the care, maintenance, and
operation of the Executive Residence.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $12,501,000
for the operating expenses of the Executive Residence, an
increase of $352,000 from the amounts appropriated in fiscal
year 2003 and the same as the amounts requested by the
President. The bill includes the same restrictions on
reimbursable expenses for use of the Executive Residence as
were enacted for fiscal year 2003.
White House Repair and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,192,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 4,225,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,225,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +3,033,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
To provide for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
the Executive Residence at the White House, a separate account
was established in fiscal year 1996 to program and track
expenditures for capital improvement projects at the Executive
Residence at the White House.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,225,000 for
White House Repair and Restoration, an increase of $3,033,000
above the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as
the amount requested by the President. These funds will finance
the ongoing restoration of the east and west wing exterior
($3,500,000), replacement or repair of various electrical,
mechanical, and control system components ($530,000), and
replacement of computer servers and backup power supplies
($195,000).
Council of Economic Advisers
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $3,739,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 4,502,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +261,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
The Council of Economic Advisers analyzes the national
economy and its various segments, advises the President on
economic developments, recommends policies for economic growth
and stability, appraises economic programs and policies of the
Federal Government, and assists in preparation of the annual
Economic Report of the President to Congress.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,000,000 for
the Council of Economic Advisers, an increase of $261,000 from
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as
requested by the President.
Office of Policy Development
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $3,230,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 4,109,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,109,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +879,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
The Office of Policy Development supports the National
Economic Council and the Domestic Policy Council in carrying
out their responsibilities to advise and assist the President
in the formulation, coordination, and implementation of
economic and domestic policy. The Office of Policy Development
also provides support for other domestic policy development and
implementation activities, as directed by the President.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,109,000 for
the Office of Policy Development, an increase of $879,000 above
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as
requested by the President.
National Security Council
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $7,770,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 10,551,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,230,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -1,551,000
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
The National Security Council advises the President on the
integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies
relating to national security.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $9,000,000 for
the National Security Council, an increase of $1,230,000 from
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and $1,551,000
below the amount requested by the President.
Office of Administration
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $90,910,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 77,164,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 82,826,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -8,084,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +5,662,000
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
The Office of Administration is responsible for providing
cost-effective, administrative services to the Executive Office
of the President. These services, defined by Executive Order
12028 of 1977, include financial, personnel, library and
records services, information management systems support, and
general office services.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $82,826,000
for the Office of Administration, a decrease of $8,084,000 from
the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and an increase of
$5,662,000 above the amount requested by the President. The
Committee's recommendation maintains funding to continue the
core enterprise pilot program in this account (+$8,258,000) and
acknowledges program savings for security guard services
provided to the Office of Science and Technology Policy
(-$1,096,000) and for information technology contract services
provided to the Homeland Security Council (-$1,500,000).
PILOT PROJECT ON CENTRALIZED PROCUREMENT OF COMMON GOODS AND SERVICES
In fiscal year 2003, Congress authorized the EOP to begin a
pilot project to determine whether economies of scale could be
achieved through centralized procurement of certain common
goods and services. The Committee transferred and consolidated
funding from several EOP agencies to establish a pilot project
for centralized procurement and management of information
technology, rent, printing and reproduction, supplies and
materials and equipment. To date, this project is still in the
formative stages, and no conclusions can be drawn. For that
reason, the Committee recommends a continuation of the project
at this time. The Committee continues to believe that this
activity is best suited for the Office of Administration, not
the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore, funds have been
transferred back to this office.
Office of Management and Budget
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $62,394,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 77,417,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 62,772,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +378,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -14,645,000
The Office of Management and Budget assists the President
in the discharge of budgetary, economic, management, and other
executive responsibilities.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $62,772,000
for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), essentially the
same as the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2003 and
$14,645,000 below the amount requested by the President.
Report on competitive sourcing targets.--The statement of
the managers accompanying the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2003 directed OMB to ``provide a report to
the Committees on Appropriations no later than 30 days
following the announcement of those [competitive sourcing]
goals, targets, or quotas, specifically detailing the research
and sound analysis that was used in reaching the decision.''
Although the 15 percent competitive sourcing target has been
reiterated on several occasions since the enactment of that
Act, OMB's position is that the reporting requirement has not
been triggered because no new target has been announced. The
Committee notes that the 15 percent target is government-wide,
and separate targets could be established for individual
agencies depending on their circumstances. To the extent that
OMB establishes individual agency targets in its internal
guidance, the agency is directed, within 30 days of
establishing such targets, to submit a report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations that indicates each
agency's competitive sourcing target. The report should
specifically detail the research and analysis that was used in
determining each agency's individual target, goal or quota. To
the extent that such targets change over time, OMB is directed
to maintain an up-to-date record of such changes and convey the
changes periodically to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations and the appropriate legislative committees.
Report on association dues.--The Committee directs OMB to
submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, not later than April 1, 2004, detailing the
amount of federal funds used by federal grantees to pay dues,
fees, or other types of membership costs to national
associations or other types of professional organizations.
Core enterprise pilot project.--As discussed under ``Office
of Administration'', the recommendation transfers $8,258,000
back to the Office of Administration, where the project was
funded in fiscal year 2003.
Discretionary initiatives.--The Committee defers proposed
discretionary initiatives, without prejudice, due to budget
constraints. This results in a savings of $2,387,000.
Staffing reduction.--The recommendation assumes 20 fewer
staff years than budgeted, reflecting estimated reductions in
fiscal year 2003 base staffing. This results in savings of
$1,500,000.
Reception and representation expenses.--The bill limits
reception and representation expenses to $1,500, a reduction of
$1,500 below the budget estimate. The Committee believes this
will be adequate, based upon a review of spending from previous
years.
Office of information and regulatory affairs.--The
Committee bill includes a reduction of $2,500,000 in proposed
funding for the office of information and regulatory affairs.
Program assessment rating tool.--The Committee is impressed
with OMB's development of the program assessment rating tool
(PART) to rate the effectiveness of federal programs. The
Committee believes this kind of analysis is critical to
ensuring that federal programs do not received continued
funding simply because of inertia--that programs must
continually justify their need for resources. In that regard,
the Administration's efforts must be linked with the oversight
of Congress to maximize the utility of the PART process. If the
Administration treats as privileged or confidential the details
of its rating process, it is less likely that Congress will use
those results in deciding which programs to fund. The OMB
Director testified the following before the Subcommittee this
year:
The PART process that we operate is very interactive
between OMB and the agencies at every step. It will not
be effective if not. We cannot be sitting there like
school marms passing judgment and grading everybody.
There has to be very much a mutuality about it * * *
Could we evolve quickly and further to involve Members
of Congress? I would open the door to that. I am very
excited when I trip over Members stall who want to get
serious about this process, and we would be glad to
look for ways to have that interaction as well.
The Committee appreciates the (now-former) Director's
testimony, and expects OMB to involve the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations in the development of PART ratings
at all stages in the process. This involvement will be a
significant change from past OMB practices, but the Committee
believes the funds provided for the PART process are not well
spent without this involvement
OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $26,284,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 27,290,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 28,790,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +2,506,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +1,500,000
The Office of National Drug Control Policy, established by
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, is charged with developing
policies, objectives and priorities for the National Drug
Control Program as defined by the Act and Executive Order
12880, and by the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1998.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $28,790,000
for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), an
increase of $2,506,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level
and $1,500,000 above the President's request. The $1,500,000
increase above the President's request is for the National
Alliance for Model State Drug Laws (NAMSDL), for which the
President requested no funds. NAMSDL received $994,000 in
fiscal year 2003 through this account. The bulk of the
remaining $1,006,000 increase above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level is for 10 additional FTE for functions previously
performed by detailees from the Department of Defense who have
been withdrawn. The Committee directs ONDCP to report within
180 days of the enactment of this Act on new hires to replace
these detailees, including (1) the number of detailees that
have been withdrawn and the offices to which they were
detailed; and (2) the number of hires or expected hires, the
offices to which they will be assigned, and the pay levels at
which they were hired or are expected to be hired.
Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $47,688,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 40,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -7,688,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
Pursuant to the Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 1998 (title VII of Division C of Public
Law 105-277), the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center
serves as the central counterdrug research and development
organization for the United States Government.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,000,000
for the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center, $7,688,000
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
President's request. Included in the appropriation are
$18,000,000 for counternarcotics Technology Research and
Development, and $22,000,000 for the Technology Transfer
Program. The Committee has included continued funding for
neuroimaging studies and genomic research into the relationship
between genetic predisposition and environmental factors
bearing upon drug addiction in the amount for counternarcotics
Technology Research and Development.
Federal Drug Control Programs
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $224,879,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 206,350,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 226,350,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,471,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +20,000,000
The High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) Program
was established by the Director of ONDCP pursuant to section
1005 of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, and now as
reauthorized by section 707 of the Office of National Drug
Control Policy Act of 1998 to provide assistance to Federal and
State and local law enforcement entities operating in those
areas most adversely affected by drug trafficking.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $226,350,000
for the HIDTA Program, an increase of $1,471,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $20,000,000
above the President's request. The increase above the
President's request is to meet requirements to fully fund
existing HIDTA program activity, to expand existing HIDTAs
where such expansion is justified, to fund new HIDTAs as
appropriate, and to fund HIDTA activities through the Central
Priority Organization Targets (CPOT) initiative, formerly known
as the National Priority Targeting Project. The Committee
directs that HIDTAs existing in fiscal year 2003 shall receive
funding at least equal to the fiscal year 2003 initial
allocation level, which does not include funding provided
through the CPOT initiative.
The Committee supports a vigorous HIDTA program and is
aware of areas facing increased drug trafficking that may be
appropriate candidates for designation as a HIDTA, inclusion in
an existing HIDTA, or increased funding. As ONDCP reviews
candidates for new HIDTA funding, the Committee recommends that
it consider the following: increased funding for the Central
Florida, Central Valley, Lake County, and Midwest (Platte and
Madison counties, Nebraska) HIDTAs; and expansion of the
Appalachian HIDTA (Letcher County, Kentucky). The Committee
urges ONDCP to ensure that the Executive Board of the Southwest
Border HIDTA treats all of its five partnerships (Arizona,
California Border Alliance Group, New Mexico, South Texas, and
West Texas) fairly and equitably in all of its budgeting and
programming decisions. The Committee recognizes the strong
pressure to add new HIDTAs and expand those currently existing,
and underscores the need for performance-based management to
ensure that HIDTAs demonstrating both effectiveness and need
are provided adequate resources. The Committee wishes to
emphasize that the HIDTA program does not exist to serve as an
entitlement for State and local law enforcement, and that both
performance measures and the CPOT initiative are important
tools for maintaining the HIDTA program's proper focus on drug
trafficking areas that have a significant national impact.
Other Federal Drug Control Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $221,749,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 250,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 230,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +8,251,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -20,000,000
The Committee has changed the name of the Special
Forfeiture Fund account to Other Federal Drug Control Programs
as requested by the President, reflecting the fact that this
account receives no forfeiture funds but only direct
appropriations. The Special Forfeiture Fund was established by
the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, as amended, to be administered
by the Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy.
While the fund was originally authorized to receive deposits
from the Department of Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and the
Treasury Forfeiture Fund, its current and sole source of
funding is direct appropriations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $230,000,000
for Other Federal Drug Control Programs, an increase of
$8,251,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level for the
equivalent Special Forfeiture Fund account and a decrease of
$20,000,000 from the President's request. The recommended
appropriation includes $150,000,000 for the National Youth
Anti-Drug Media Campaign, $70,000,000 for the Drug Free
Communities Support Program, $4,500,000 for the Counterdrug
Intelligence Executive Secretariat, $2,000,000 for Performance
Measures Development, $1,500,000 for the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency, $1,000,000 for the National Drug Court Institute, and
$1,000,000 for dues to the World Anti-Doping Agency. Within the
amount provided for the Media Campaign, the Committee
encourages ONDCP to explore options for using alternative media
in schools as a way of utilizing traditional learning tools in
non-traditional ways, such as children's books tailored with an
anti-drug message, provided that such media can be utilized in
a manner consistent with the goals and parameters of the Media
Campaign.
NATIONAL YOUTH ANTI-DRUG MEDIA CAMPAIGN
The Committee's recommended appropriation of $150,000,000
for the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign is an increase
of $975,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a
decrease of $20,000,000 from the President's request. The
results of the ongoing evaluation of the Media Campaign,
conducted under the auspices of the National Institute on Drug
Abuse, continue to show no demonstrable impact on youth drug
use as a specific result of the Media Campaign, although
current youth drug use data show a downward trend.
The Director of ONDCP has instituted several changes in the
management and direction of the Media Campaign, such as
reforming the creative/review process, ensuring the testing of
all advertisements prior to airtime, shifting the age range
focus toward older teens, putting a greater emphasis on the
negative consequences of drug use, increasing the allocation of
media buys to youth-oriented messages as opposed to parent-
oriented messages, and specifically targeting marijuana use.
The Committee hopes that these changes will produce the
demonstrable results that have so far failed to emerge.
The Director has informed the Committee of his intention to
extend the current evaluation of the Media Campaign for one
year beyond December 2003, which is when the final report of
the current series of data collection ``waves'' is to be
issued. It is the Committee's understanding that the
methodology of the evaluation, in the Director's estimation,
fails to provide the prompt information ONDCP needs to judge
the effectiveness of the changes that the Director has
initiated. Specifically, the Director has identified the
evaluation's inability to detect changes in drug use that are
less than three percentage points in any given time period as a
major shortcoming of the evaluation, given the changes
inaugurated by the Director in the past year and the need to
gauge the effect of those changes. The Committee understands
the Director's need for prompt and usable information that is
relevant to the management of the Media Campaign. The Committee
also believes that without a convincing demonstration that the
Media Campaign has had an impact on youth drug use that can be
at least somewhat differentiated from the general trends in
such use, any increase in funding for the Media Campaign cannot
be justified at this time. The Committee further directs that
the Director submit to the Committees on Appropriations an
evaluation plan for the Media Campaign covering fiscal years
2004-2008 no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act.
In addition, to ensure that a minimum of Media Campaign funds
are spent for their primary purpose, the Committee has included
a provision requiring that no less than 77 percent of funds be
spent on advertising time and space.
Unanticipated Needs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $993,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 1,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +7,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
These funds enable the President to meet unanticipated
exigencies in support of the national interest, security, or
defense.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,000,000, which is $7,000 more
than appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and the same as the
budget estimate.
SPECIAL ASSISTANCE TO THE PRESIDENT AND THE OFFICIAL RESIDENCE OF THE
VICE PRESIDENT
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $4,040,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 4,461,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,461,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +421,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
These funds support the official duties and functions of
the Office of the Vice President.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,461,000 for
the Office of the Vice President, an increase of $421,000 above
the amount enacted for fiscal year 2003 and the same as
requested by the President.
Operating Expenses
(INCLUDING TRANSFER OF FUNDS)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $322,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004 \1\.................. 331,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 331,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +9,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
\1\ Proposed in a consolidated appropriation titled ``The White House''.
These funds support the care and operation of the Vice
President's residence and specifically support equipment,
furnishings, dining facilities, and services required to
perform and discharge the Vice President's official duties,
functions and obligations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $331,000 for
the Operating Expenses of the Vice President's residence, an
increase of $9,000 above the amount enacted for fiscal year
2003 and the same as requested by the President.
TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $5,160,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 5,401,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,401,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +241,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
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 American 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.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,401,000 for
the operations of the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, the funding level requested by the
administration.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $71,979,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 71,480,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 76,679,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +4,700,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +5,199,000
Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of
Transportation.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $76,679,000
for salaries and expenses of the National Transportation Safety
Board, an increase of $4,700,000 above the fiscal year 2003
enacted level and $5,199,000 above the President's request.
This includes funding to support 440 FTE and the operations of
the NTSB Academy.
NTSB ACADEMY
The NTSB Academy facility in Ashburn, Virginia is scheduled
for completion by August 2003. NTSB has communicated to the
Committee its intention to make the Academy self-sufficient,
excluding capital costs, at some point in the future by relying
on tuition, fees, rental of classroom space to other agencies,
and other revenue-generating options, rather than direct
appropriations. The Committee supports this intention and
directs NTSB to submit to the Committees on Appropriations a
proposal and timetable for making the NTSB Academy self-
sufficient in its general operations no later than 120 days
after the enactment of this Act.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY DATA
The NTSB has called for improvements in the Department of
Transportation's data collection programs in order to better
monitor accident risks, support the analysis of risk factors
and evaluate the effectiveness of accident prevention
strategies. NTSB has issued 233 recommendations for
improvements in data quality and analysis and the NTSB Database
Study from September 2002 cites the need for a long-term
program to improve the collection of data describing the
exposure to transportation risks. Multiple databases across the
transportation modes are currently used for accident and
incident investigations. The Committee believes that this
diffusion of information may constrain progress on
transportation safety issues. The Committee therefore directs
NTSB to report to the Committees on Appropriations on the
required resources and projected timeframe for a comprehensive
study to evaluate the benefits and determine the costs and
feasibility of centralizing, streamlining, and enhancing all
relevant transportation safety data bases. The Committee
directs NTSB to report no later than 120 days after enactment
of this Act.
DEPLOYABLE FLIGHT INCIDENT RECORDERS
The Committee is aware of technology that makes flight data
recorders, cockpit voice recorders, and Emergency Locator
Transmitters more survivable and recoverable, such as through
systems that integrate these devices into one unit combined
with crash sensors, allowing them to eject automatically from
an aircraft upon impact and thus delivering them safely away
from the impact site. The Committee encourages the National
Transportation Safety Board to investigate and consider
recommending the incorporation of such a system into the
commercial air traffic fleet. The Committee directs the NTSB to
report to the Committee within 180 days of enactment of this
Act on the merits and feasibility of using such technology.
Emergency Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... $600,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 600,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $600,000 to
the Emergency Fund, the same as the President's request. These
funds are available only to the extent necessary to restore the
fund to a balance of $2,000,000. The Committee directs that
this fund should continue to be used only for accident
investigation expenses when investigations would otherwise be
hindered for lack of funding.
COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR SEVERELY DISABLED
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $4,628,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 4,629,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 4,725,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +97,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +96,000
The Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or
Severely Disabled was established by the Wagner-O'Day Act of
1938, as amended. Its primary objective is to increase the
employment opportunities for people who are blind or have other
severe disabilities and, whenever possible, to prepare them to
engage in competitive employment.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $4,725,000 for
the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or
Severely Disabled, an increase of $97,000 over the fiscal year
2003 enacted level and an increase of $96,000 above the
President's request to maintain current services.
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $49,542,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 50,440,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 50,440,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +898,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Commission administers the disclosure of campaign
finance information, enforces limitations on contributions and
expenditures, supervises the public funding of Presidential
elections, and performs other tasks related to Federal
elections.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $50,440,000
for the Federal Election Commission (FEC), an increase of
$898,000 from amounts appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and the
same as the President's request. The appropriated amount
includes the requested funding to continue the implementation
of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act.
ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $2,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 10,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 5,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +3,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -5,000,000
The Election Assistance Commission was established by the
Help America Vote Act of 2002 and is charged with implementing
provisions of that Act relating to the reform of Federal
election administration throughout the United States, including
the development of voluntary voting systems guidelines, the
certification and testing of voting systems, studies of
election administration issues, and the implementation of
election reform payments to states as well as grant programs
related to election reform.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $5,000,000 for
the Election Assistance Commission, an increase of $3,000,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level (appropriated in
Division N of Public Law 108-007) and a decrease of $5,000,000
from the President's request. These funds are being provided as
a separate appropriation, consistent with Public Law 108-007,
rather than being combined with Election Reform Programs as
requested by the President. The Committee to date has received
no justification for the President's request for the
Commission, but has provided funding for the eventuality of the
Commission's establishment.
Election Reform Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $833,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 490,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 495,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -338,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +5,000,000
This appropriation provides for election reform
requirements payments to states under Section 127 of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002, as well as other grant programs
authorized by that Act.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $495,000,000
for Election Reform Programs, a decrease of $338,000,000 from
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of
$5,000,000 above the President's request. Funds for Election
Reform Programs for fiscal year 2003 were provided in Division
N of Public Law 108-007, and these funds will remain available
in fiscal year 2004. The Committee notes that the expenditure
of these funds remains contingent upon the establishment of the
Election Assistance Commission, and urges the Administration to
move swiftly to establish this Commission once nominations have
been approved, in order that states and localities may receive
funds in a timely fashion to move forward with mandated reforms
for the 2004 Federal election cycle. The Committee also
encourages the Help America Vote Foundation, for which funds
were provided in Public Law 108-007, to enter into a
cooperative agreement with Kids Voting USA in order to promote
increased civic involvement and voter turnout.
FEDERAL LABOR RELATIONS AUTHORITY
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $28,762,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 29,611,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 29,611,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +849,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), established
by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, serves as a neutral
party in the settlement of disputes that arise between unions,
employees, and agencies on matters outlined in the Federal
Service Labor Management Relations statute, decides major
policy issues, prescribes regulations, and disseminates
information appropriate to the needs of agencies, labor
organizations, and the public. Establishment of the FLRA gives
full recognition to the role of the Federal Government as an
employer. Pursuant to the Foreign Service Act of 1980, FLRA
also supports the Foreign Service Impasse Disputes Panel and
the Foreign Service Labor Relations Board.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $29,611,000
for the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA), an increase
of $849,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request.
FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION
SALARIES AND EXPENSES
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $16,591,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 18,471,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 18,471,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,880,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) was established in
1961 as an independent government agency, responsible for the
regulation of shipping in the foreign trades of the United
States. Specifically, the Commission protects shippers,
carriers and others engaged in the foreign commerce of the U.S.
from restrictive rules and regulations of foreign governments
and from the practices of foreign-flag carriers that have an
adverse effect on shipping in U.S. trades; investigates, upon
its own motion or upon filing of a complaint, discriminatory,
unfair, or unreasonable rates, charges, classifications, and
practices of ocean common carriers, terminal operators, and
freight forwarders operating in the foreign commerce of the
U.S.; receives agreements among ocean common carriers or marine
terminal operators and monitors them to assure that they are
not substantially anticompetitive or otherwise violate the
Shipping Act of 1984; reviews tariff publications under the
access and accuracy standards of the Shipping Act of 1984;
regulates rates, charges, classifications, rules, and
regulations contained in tariffs of carriers controlled by
foreign governments and operating in U.S. trades to ensure that
such matters are just and reasonable; licenses U.S.-based
international ocean transportation intermediaries; and issues
passenger vessel certificates showing evidence of financial
responsibility of vessel owners or charterers to pay judgments
for personal injury or death or to repay fares for the
nonperformance of a voyage or cruise.
While the Commission's jurisdiction encompasses many facets
of the maritime industry, it has no jurisdiction over vessel
operations, navigation, vessel construction, vessel
documentation, vessel inspection, licensing of seafaring
personnel, or the maintenance of navigational aids or dredging.
The principal shipping statutes administered by the FMC are the
Shipping Act of 1984 (46 U.S.C. app. 1710 et seq), the Foreign
Shipping Practices Act of 1988 (46 U.S.C. app. 1701 et seq),
and section 19 of the Merchant Marine Act, 1920 (46 app. 876).
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,471,000
for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), an increase of
$1,880,000 (11.33 percent) above the fiscal year 2003
appropriation and equal to the budget request. This
considerable increase is intended to fund significant
information technology improvements, a workforce of 137 full
time equivalent staff years, and provide for unexpected rent
escalations. The Committee supports and recognizes FMC's use of
information technology and encourages continued, effective
development in this regard. While substantial information
technology improvements are long overdue, the Committee
believes that savings can be realized through the consolidation
and integration of many of the FMC's proposed technology
initiatives. The FMC is directed to submit a report to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than
November 30, 2003, summarizing the FMC's current information
technology improvement initiatives and long-term technology
improvement plan. Specifically, the Committee is interested in
the FMC's ability to realize greater efficiency through
interoperability among the many technology needs of its
offices.
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Federal Buildings Fund
Appropriations:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003..................... $373,269,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................ 217,000,000
Recommended in the bill......................... 247,350,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................. -125,919,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004................ +30,350,000
Limitations on Availability of Revenue
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 (6,567,332,000)
enacted to date....................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, (6,634,193,000)
fiscal year 2004...................................
Recommended in the bill......................... (6,557,518,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to (-9,814,000)
date...............................................
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 (-76,675,000)
estimate...........................................
The Federal Buildings Fund (FBF) finances the activities of
the Public Buildings Service, which provides space and services
for federal agencies in a relationship similar to that of
landlord and tenant. The FBF, established in 1975, replaces
direct appropriations by using income derived from rent
assessments, which approximate commercial rates for comparable
space and services. The Congress makes funds available through
a process of placing limitations on obligations from the FBF as
a way of allocating funds for various FBF activities. The
Congress may also appropriate funds into the FBF as a way of
covering the difference between the total revenues coming into
the FBF and the total limitation on the expenditure from the
FBF.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a direct appropriation of
$247,350,000 into the Federal Buildings Fund, a decrease of
$125,919,000 below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an
increase of $30,350,000 above the President's request.
Construction and Acquisition
Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted ($717,488,000)
to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal (400,568,000)
year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill............................. (406,168,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to (-311,320,000)
date...............................................
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 (+5,600,000)
estimate...........................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $406,168,000 for
construction and acquisition, a decrease of $311,320,000 below
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of
$5,600,000 above the President's request. Changes to the
President's request include an increase of $10,600,000 for
building purchase and relocation costs associated with
providing additional office space in an annex adjacent to the
Elbert P. Tuttle building in Atlanta, Georgia, and decreases of
$4,000,000 for the Champlain Border Station (these funds were
provided for fiscal year 2003) and $1,000,000 for non-
prospectus construction.
COURTHOUSE CONSTRUCTION
The President's budget request for fiscal year 2004 did not
include any funds for courthouse construction. While the
Committee notes that it was able to provide $392,364,000 in
funds for 12 courthouse construction projects for the current
fiscal year, the Committee is unable to include any courthouse
construction funding in its recommendation for fiscal year 2004
due to budget constraints. The Committee is aware of the needs
identified by the Administrative Office of the Courts in its
most recent 5-year plan, which totals almost $1 billion worth
of courthouse construction projects ready to be awarded in
fiscal year 2004. The Committee appreciates the actions of the
courts to submit a priority ranking of courthouse construction
project needs to the Committee and, without negating its
continued concerns regarding courthouse project costs,
reiterates its intention to follow this priority ranking in its
future recommendations and its expectation that this ranking is
sufficiently robust to accurately reflect all security concerns
as well as any extenuating circumstances.
CHATTANOOGA, TN, COURTHOUSE
The Committee understands that GSA and the City of
Chattanooga have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
concerning a site for a new courthouse and that the city has
exercised an option on the property and begun an environmental
assessment. The Committee notes that this progress will allow
the project to adhere to the dates set by the Five-Year
Courthouse Project Plan, which reflects priorities approved by
the Judicial Conference of the United States. GSA is urged to
keep this project on schedule with site acquisition and design
slated for fiscal year 2005 and construction in fiscal year
2007. As part of the overall effort, the existing Solomon
Building is to be renovated and used by the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court currently in leased space. The Committee, therefore,
directs GSA to begin any necessary preliminary studies and
plans so that the repairs to the existing building can move
forward in a timely fashion to best serve the needs of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court.
AMBASSADOR BRIDGE BORDER STATION
The President has proposed providing $25,387,000 for
completing a construction project for expanded inspection
facilities at Ambassador Bridge in Detroit, MI. Ambassador
Bridge is the busiest international commercial crossing in
North America, and these improvements are much needed to speed
commerce, improve safety, and enhance security. Consequently,
the Committee fully supports the President's request for this
project and directs GSA to move ahead in a timely and effective
way. The Committee urges GSA not to delay the project for
enhancing federal inspection booths, providing additional truck
parking facilities at the bridge, constructing office space for
new inspectors, and assisting the implementation of the gateway
highway project designed to connect major access highways in
Detroit to the Ambassador Bridge and facilitate the flow of
truck traffic across the bridge.
The Committee directs GSA to immediately work with the
Homeland Security inspection services, the appropriate highway
administrations, and the Ambassador Bridge Corporation to
resolve any outstanding issues regarding facility enhancements
and to move immediately to ensure that the much-needed
improvements are made quickly, including all steps necessary to
implement critical interim improvements. These improvements
must allow the Homeland Security bureaus to fulfill their
obligations to protect the country and facilitate trade. GSA is
also directed to take all steps necessary to expedite the
implementation of integrated border inspection areas, such as
reverse inspection sites, at the Ambassador Bridge once
agreements have been reached between the United States and
Canada and operational details established by the respective
border agencies.
EL PASO, TX, BRIDGE AND INSPECTION FACILITY
The Committee remains interested in plans concerning a new
international bridge and related border inspection facilities
at Fabens, near El Paso, in Texas. On March 27, 2003, the Texas
Transportation Commission gave approval to El Paso County to
proceed with the Presidential Permit application process, and
GSA has been asked by the Department of State to review the
application and submit its comments by June 30, 2003. In
conjunction with the U.S. review, a review of the application
by the Mexican government is progressing.
The Committee urges GSA to continue working closely with
the federal inspection service agencies through the Border
Station Partnership Council on capital investments plans to
ensure that it appropriately incorporates the anticipated needs
at Fabens. GSA is encouraged to proceed with the necessary
planning studies once a permit has been issued and to seek
design authorization and funding at that time.
Repairs and Alterations
Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted ($951,529,000)
to date.............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal (1,012,729,000)
year 2004...........................................
Recommended in the bill.............................. (1,010,454,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to date (+58,925,000)
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 (-2,275,000)
estimate............................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,010,454,000 for
repairs and alterations, an increase of $58,925,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $2,275,000
below the President's request. Changes to the President's
request include an increase of $6,725,000 in design funds for
altering two buildings adjacent to the Elbert P. Tuttle
building in Atlanta, Georgia, to provide additional office
space and a decrease of $9,000,000 for repairing the Rogers
building in Denver, Colorado (these funds were provided for
fiscal year 2003).
REPAIRS AND ALTERATION BUDGET
The Committee is concerned about the long-term implications
of the repair status of Federal buildings. Despite a
significant repair and alteration budget requested by the
President, GSA has responded to the Committee in questions for
the record (1) that the current size of the repair workload
inventory is $5.6 billion (up from $4 billion for FY 1999), (2)
that the Federal Buildings Fund cannot produce sufficient
revenues from building rents to meet all of these requirements,
and (3) that 1,190 buildings out of a total of 1,900 buildings
in the inventory have clearly identified repair needs. (Of
these, 875 buildings have repair needs below the prospectus
threshold requirement of about $2 million, while 315 buildings
have repair needs above the prospectus requirement.)
One of the long-term consequences of this continuing
massive backlog of repair needs is that as building conditions
worsen, tenant agencies vacate the space and the asset becomes
an even greater drain on the other revenue-generating buildings
in the inventory. For instance, GSA reports that for fiscal
year 2003 it will spend $13.6 million for operating expenses in
non-performing assets available for disposal. This rise in the
amount of vacant space is addressed in another part of this
report.
The redesigned portfolio strategy and its focus on the
disposal of unneeded and non-performing assets will help
improve the physical shape of the buildings in the inventory
and the financial position of the Federal Buildings Fund. The
Committee further directs that of the total funds made
available for the basic repairs and alteration program,
$1,300,000 is to be immediately spent on acquiring the parking
lot adjacent to and behind the Solomon Courthouse in
Chattanooga, TN, in advance of further repair and alteration
requirements being sought for this building.
Installment Acquisition Payments
Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted ($178,960,000)
to date..............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal (169,745,000)
year 2004............................................
Recommended in the bill............................... (169,745,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to date. (-9,215,000)
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 estimate ................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $169,745,000 for
installation acquisition payments, a decrease of $9,215,000
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
President's request.
Rental of Space
Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted ($3,113,211,000)
to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal (3,388,187,000)
year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill............................. (3,308,187,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to (+194,976,000)
date...............................................
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 (-80,000,000)
estimate...........................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $3,308,187,000 for
rental of space, an increase of $194,976,000 above the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $80,000,000 below the
President's request.
The Committee finds it disappointing that the GSA abandoned
several leases in the Savannah, Georgia, area mid-term rather
than allowing those leases to expire as prescribed in the lease
agreements. The Committee is concerned that such actions caused
the GSA to waste taxpayer money and incur unnecessary costs
when the leases were prematurely terminated and new properties
were leased.
The Committee requests that the GSA investigate how the
decisions were made and on what basis. The GSA investigation
should report back to the Committee the results of the
investigation and should determine:
The total cost of the GSA's actions in terminating
the leases.
The total cost GSA and other government agencies
incurred when new properties were leased.
Building Operations
Limitations on Availability of Revenue (not an
appropriation):
Limitation on availability, fiscal year 2003 enacted ($1,526,459,000)
to date............................................
Limitation on availability, budget estimate, fiscal (1,608,708,000)
year 2004..........................................
Recommended in the bill............................. (1,608,708,000)
Bill compared with:
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2003 to (+82,249,000)
date...............................................
Availability limitation, fiscal year 2004 ..................
estimate...........................................
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends a limitation of $1,608,708,000 for
building operations, an increase of $82,249,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's
request. The Committee notes that this activity used to fund
the Federal Protective Service, which has been transferred from
GSA to the Department of Homeland Security.
VACANT SPACE
On April 2, 2003, the Committee held a hearing on the cost
drivers of the Federal buildings program of GSA. GSA controls
about 335 million square feet of space, roughly 10 percent of
the total Federal property inventory and 40 percent of Federal
office space. It provides workspace for almost one million
Federal employees in about 2,000 Federally owned buildings and
in 6,400 leased locations. A variety of factors have
contributed to a steady increase in costs associated with these
buildings.
The Committee is particularly concerned about the amount of
vacant space included in the GSA inventory of Federal property.
For fiscal year 2002, GSA has estimated that more than 26
million square feet of its inventory--about 7.8 percent of its
total inventory--did not generate any revenue and about 3.5
percent was vacant. The bulk of this non-revenue-generating
space is in its inventory of owned buildings (about 21 million
square feet, or about 11.8 percent of the total owned
inventory). This is a sizeable number, which appears to have
grown substantially over the past decade.
The consistently large amount of non-revenue-generating
space in GSA's inventory warrants serious attention and creates
substantial costs. In responses to questions asked by this
Committee, GSA estimated that during fiscal year 2003 it will
spend $13.6 million in operating expenses for 73 non-performing
assets (containing about 3 million square feet) made available
for disposal. These 73 assets represent 46 percent of the total
non-performing assets (159) that were more than 40 percent
vacant at the start of fiscal year 2003 and 42 percent of the
total non-performing assets (172) that were more than 20
percent vacant as of May 2003.
The Committee is familiar with many of the reasons that
have contributed to the size and growth of the unused inventory
(such as changing space needs and workforce requirements as
well as a lack of modern tools for managing the portfolio). One
of the contributing factors is that many Federal buildings in
the inventory are old (the average age is about 50 years) and
in serious need of repair. Insufficient revenues have gone to
keeping these buildings in good shape, and their dilapidated
conditions have contributed to agency tenants relocating and
abandoning specific buildings.
The Committee directs GSA to provide a report to the House
and Senate Committees on Appropriations within 120 days of the
enactment of this Act that describes its action plan for
reducing the amount of truly vacant and non-performing assets
in its inventory. The action plan shall fully describe the
current building inventory, any actions needed to improve its
data, and assign responsibilities for inventory improvements
and maintenance. The action plan shall include a timeline with
specific milestones and targeted performance measures for
determining progress towards reducing vacancies and non-
performing assets. The action plan shall define the roles and
responsibilities within GSA for adhering to the plan. The
action plan shall note those factors external to GSA and the
Public Building Service important to the effort and the
relevant responsible parties.
USGS COASTAL AND MARINE FACILITY
The Committee remains interested in ongoing deliberations
between GSA, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the
University of California at Santa Cruz concerning plans to
establish a Pacific Science Center in Santa Cruz, California.
The Committee understands that the most viable alternative at
this time for establishing such a center at the University
involves GSA entering into a long-term lease for a facility to
house the USGS coastal and marine program and to be built and
owned by the University. The Committee encourages GSA to pursue
the lease option with the appropriate Committees of
jurisdiction with all speed, directs GSA to continue working
with all interested parties, and expects GSA to fully assist
the USGS in the development, planning, design, environmental
reviews, and other facility-related aspects associated with the
science center.
The Committee understands independent investigations of MCI
WorldCom have led GSA into a current investigation of the
company. This investigation is a result of the largest
corporate fraud in American history, constituting an $11
billion misstatement of profits, and the disclosures by KPMG
and Bankruptcy Examiner Richard Thornburgh that adequate
internal controls are still not in place at MCI WorldCom. On
July 17, 2003, the Committee met with the General Services
Administration (GSA) to discuss the issue of MCI WorldCom's
fitness to receive federal government contracts. At that time,
the GSA agreed to complete a full investigation of MCI WorldCom
within weeks.
The Committee instructs the GSA to complete its internal
investigation and provide a detailed report to the Committee
outlining MCI WorldCom's status on federal contracts by August
30, 2003. This detailed report should comment specifically on
the GSA stated debarment and suspension regulations that
require contractors to have a credible ``record of business
integrity and business ethics, necessary organization,
accounting and operational controls.'' The report must also
specifically evaluate MCI WorldCom's ability to provide audited
financial statements by certified accountants. Depending on the
results of the investigation, the Committee expects GSA to
outline specific actions it will take to ensure federal
agencies are safeguarded from any potential liability that
could arise from an agency's present or future contracts with
MCI WorldCom and to also report these plans to the Committee by
August 30, 2003.
The Committee also suggests the GSA immediately and
formally contact all federal agencies to alert the agencies
that a formal investigation is being conducted into MCI
WorldCom.
The Committee also directs the General Accounting Office to
perform a detailed study of GSA's treatment to date of MCI
WorldCom. The study is to explain GSA's actions over the last
year since MCI WorldCom's fraud was first disclosed and explain
why GSA has failed to suspend MCI WorldCom. The study should
also consider what precedent GSA's treatment of WorldCom has
set and what impact it has had on the larger telecommunications
industry.
The Committee expects GSA to comply with these reporting
requirements by the dates specified and, if necessary, the
Committee will revisit the issue in future action.
GENERAL ACTIVITIES
Policy and Citizen Services
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $65,873,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... ................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -65,873,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriations account provides for Government-wide
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative
services; Government-wide policy support responsibilities
relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information
technology management, and related technology activities;
providing Internet access to Federal information and services;
and services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends no appropriation for Policy and
Citizen Services, a decrease of $65,873,000 below the fiscal
year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's
request. The Committee notes that the mission and functions of
this account are proposed to be provided through other GSA
accounts.
Governmentwide Policy
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... $74,031,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 56,383,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +56,383,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -17,648,000
This appropriations account provides for Government-wide
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative
services; Government-wide policy support responsibilities
relating to acquisition, telecommunications, information
technology management, and related technology activities; and
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $56,383,000
for Governmentwide Policy, an increase of $56,383,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $17,648,000
below the President's request. Decreases to the President's
request include $12,250,000 for Government-wide Interagency
Council Support (the Committee recommends maintaining the
general provision through which these functions were supported
for the current and prior years), $2,500,000 for the Federal
Enterprise Architecture (previously supported through funds
made available through the same general provision), $2,120,000
for the extensible markup language registry, and $778,000 for
the E-Travel/Governmentwide Travel Management Office.
The Committee notes that several of these disallowed items
had been supported in past years through a different funding
mechanism--a general provision proposed to be deleted by the
President for fiscal year 2004--and that the Committee
recommends that this provision be continued. While continuation
of this general provision allows the Administration some
flexibility in determining which efforts might receive support
during fiscal year 2004, the Committee has serious concerns and
reservations about several of the efforts as described in GSA's
budget justification and through responses to Committee
questions and expects the administration will fully review
these and all efforts before assigning any fiscal year 2004
funds made available through the general provision.
GSA TRAVEL SERVICES
The GSA budget request for fiscal year 2004 includes a
proposed increase of $2,778,000 in this account for eTravel and
a governmentwide travel management office. The Committee
funding recommendation for this account expressly denies a
portion of this increase. In addition, the Committee includes a
new general provision for GSA that prohibits the use of any
funds in the Act for a mandatory purpose, if exclusive of
exceptions, specifically included in the proposed increase.
The proposed increase would be used in part to establish a
standard booking engine as well as a consistent travel and
voucher system for the Federal Government. Use of this standard
booking engine and travel and voucher system would be made
mandatory for all agencies, raising serious questions
concerning competition within the private sector and its impact
on small businesses. This competition concern is exacerbated by
the fact that the eTravel Service procurement could result in a
single Computer Reservation System/Global Distribution System,
which may seriously impact the ability of small businesses to
gain government business. In addition, GSA has not issued final
eTravel standards and guidance; the eTravel Service project has
not been verified or validated.
The recent evolution of the activities of the General
Service Administration has been from mandatory to optional
participation on the part of agencies. A prime example has been
the offering of long-distance telephone service, in which
previously all agencies were required to participate in the GSA
contract. Now, agency participation in the GSA-operated long-
distance telephone contract is optional. This has forced GSA to
be cost conscious in its long-distance service contract and has
contributed to substantial savings throughout the government.
Similarly, the multiple award schedules have encouraged price
competition among vendors, allowed broad private-sector
business participation, and led to significant cost reductions
on a voluntary basis throughout the Federal Government. The
Committee applauds these developments and their impacts on
competition and urges GSA to continue stressing agency choices
and options in its services.
GSA SENIOR FEDERAL TRAVEL REPORT
The Committee is concerned regarding the data contained in
and public availability of the GSA Senior Federal Travel
Report. OMB circular A-126 requires all agencies that use
government aircraft to report to GSA semi-annually on all non-
mission travel by senior federal officials. These reports are
to include the name of each such traveler, the official purpose
of the trip, destination(s), and under certain circumstances
the appropriate allocation of the full operating cost and the
corresponding commercial cost. While GSA is afforded some
leeway in establishing and revising the specific format of the
data, the agencies themselves are required to maintain specific
documentation regarding the tail number of each plane used, the
date(s) of each trip, the purpose(s) of the flight, the
route(s) flown, and the names of all passengers on the trip.
The Committee cautions GSA to maintain effective and
appropriate data standards that allow for consistent and
continuing analysis of government aircraft usage. In addition,
the Committee notes with alarm that several agencies failed to
initially submit any data for the reporting periods between
October 2001 and September 2002. The Committee directs GSA to
continue its semi-annual reporting of these data, capturing all
the data elements that are critical to monitoring the use of
government-owned aircraft by senior federal officials. These
reports, including an accounting of all agencies that refuse to
comply with reporting requirements, should be made publicly
available.
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $72,027,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 85,083,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 79,110,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +7,083,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -5,973,000
This appropriations account provides for Government-wide
activities associated with the utilization and donation of
surplus personal property; disposal of real property;
telecommunications, information technology management, and
related technology activities; agency-wide policy direction and
management; ancillary accounting, records management, and other
support services; services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; and
other related operational expenses.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $79,110,000
for Operating Expenses, an increase of $7,083,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of $5,973,000
from the President's request. Changes to the request level
include a decrease of $5,450,000 in savings realized by the
non-recurrence of five fiscal year 2002 items (disallowed as
part of the final fiscal year 2003 deliberations but whose
funding was retained in the President's request for fiscal year
2004) and a reduction of $1,123,000 associated with the
President's pending proposal to integrate the benefits and
administrative costs of the Federal Employees' Compensation Act
(also disallowed as part of the final fiscal year 2003
deliberations, but the funding for which was retained in the
President's request for fiscal year 2004). Changes to the
request level also include an increase of $600,000 as a
transfer to Web Wise Kids to further implement an out-of-school
time Internet safety program. The Committee directs the General
Services Administration to transfer, within available funds,
$250,000 to the New York Historical Society for exhibitions on
the enslaved north.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $37,670,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 39,169,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 39,169,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,499,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit and
investigative functions to identify and correct GSA management
and administrative deficiencies that create conditions for
existing or potential instances of fraud, waste, and
mismanagement. The audit function provides internal audit and
contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional
advice to GSA contracting officials on accounting and financial
matters relative to the negotiation, award, administration,
repricing, and settlement of contracts. Internal audits review
and evaluate all facets of GSA operations and programs, test
internal control systems, and develop information to improve
operating efficiencies and enhance customer services. The
investigative function provides for the detection and
investigation of improper and illegal activities involving GSA
programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $39,169,000
for the Office of Inspector General, an increase of $1,499,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
President's request.
Electronic Government Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $4,968,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 45,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -3,968,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -44,000,000
The appropriation provides support for interagency
Electronic Government (E-Gov) initiatives that utilize the
Internet or other electronic methods as a means to increase
Federal Government accessibility, efficiency, and productivity.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000 for
the electronic government fund, a decrease of $3,968,000 below
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of
$44,000,000 below the President's request.
Allowances and Office Staff for Former Presidents
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $3,317,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 3,393,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 3,393,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +76,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides support consisting of pensions,
office staffs, and related expenses for former Presidents
Gerald R. Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George Bush and
Bill Clinton and for pension and postal franking privileges for
the widow of former President Lyndon B. Johnson. Also, this
appropriation is authorized to provide funding for security and
travel related expenses for each former President and the
spouse of a former President pursuant to Section 531 of Public
Law 103-329.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,393,000 for
allowances and office staff of former Presidents, an increase
of $76,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the
same as the President's request. The following table describes
the distribution of the funds:
FISCAL YEAR 2004 BUDGET ALLOWANCES AND OFFICE STAFF FOR FORMER PRESIDENTS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ford Carter Reagan Bush Clinton Widows Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal Compensation..................... 96 96 96 96 113 0 497
Personnel Benefits........................ 24 6 34 52 56 0 172
Benefits for Former Presidents............ 175 175 175 175 180 20 900
Travel.................................... 50 2 2 55 41 0 150
Rental Payments to GSA.................... 120 120 145 174 445 0 986
Communications, Utilities and
Miscellaneous Charges:
Telephone............................. 20 25 26 14 72 0 157
Postage............................... 18 20 10 14 10 2 74
Printing.................................. 4 5 12 14 8 0 43
Other Services............................ 10 62 26 67 138 0 303
Supplies and Materials.................... 16 6 13 13 17 0 65
Equipment................................. 2 9 2 14 19 0 46
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Obligations................... 535 508 541 688 1,099 22 3,393
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GENERAL PROVISIONS--GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION
Section 501. The Committee continues the provision that
provides that costs included in rent received from government
corporations for operation, protection, maintenance, upkeep,
repair and improvement shall be credited to the Federal
Buildings Fund.
Section 502. The Committee continues the provision
providing authority for the use of funds for the hire of motor
vehicles.
Section 503. The Committee continues the provision, with
technical modification, providing that funds made available for
activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred
between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress.
Section 504. The Committee continues the provision, with
technical modification, prohibiting the use of funds for
developing courthouse construction requests that do not meet
GSA standards and the priorities of the Judicial Conference.
Section 505. The Committee continues the provision
providing that no funds may be used to increase the amount of
occupiable square feet, provide cleaning services, security
enhancements, or any other service usually provided, to any
agency which does not pay the requested rent.
Section 506. The Committee continues the provision
providing for Information Technology Fund repayment from
sponsored projects that realize program savings.
Section 507. The Committee continues the provision that
permits GSA to pay small claims (up to $250,000) made against
the government.
Section 508. The Committee includes a new provision
limiting the use of funds by GSA to develop or implement a
mandatory system for federal agencies with respect to
electronic travel services unless the system allows exceptions.
This limitation is extended to the Department of
Transportation.
Section 509. The Committee includes a new provision giving
the General Services Administration temporary authority to
distribute election reform funds under Title II, subtitle D of
the Help America Vote Act.
Section 510. The Committee includes a new provision
relating to the establishment of a quick response team
processing center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $31,819,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 35,503,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 32,877,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,058,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -2,626,000
The Merit Systems Protection Board performs the
adjudicatory functions necessary to maintain the civil service
merit system. These include hearing appeals on adverse actions,
reduction-in-force actions, and retirement. The Board reports
to the President on whether merit systems are sufficiently free
from prohibited personnel practices to protect the public
interest.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $32,877,000
for the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), an increase of
$787,000 above the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2003 and
a decrease of $2,626,000 below the President's request. The
decrease from the President's request reflects the Committee's
decision to continue the practice of appropriating funds to
MSPB from the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
rather than discontinuing this practice as requested by the
President; this request has not been adequately justified. The
Committee has instead made available the amount of no more than
$2,626,000 for adjudicated appeals through an appropriation
from the trust fund consistent with past practice.
MORRIS K. UDALL SCHOLARSHIP AND EXCELLENCE IN NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL
POLICY FOUNDATION
Morris K. Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Trust Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,983,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 372,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -683,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +928,000
Public Law 102-259 established the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Trust Fund. Federal payments to that fund are invested in
Treasury securities. Interest earnings from the investments are
used to carry out the activities of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Foundation. The Foundation awards scholarships, fellowships,
and grants and funds activities of the Udall Center for Studies
in Public Policy. Public Law 106-568 (section 817) established
the Native Nations Institute as part of the Morris K. Udall
Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental Policy
Foundation. The purpose of the Native Nations Institute is to
provide management and leadership training to Native American
tribal leaders.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends $1,300,000 for the activities of
the Morris K. Udall Foundation, a decrease of $683,000 below
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $928,000
above the President's request. The Committee includes, as
proposed, bill language specifying that $100,000 shall be used
to conduct financial audits. The Committee also modifies bill
language to allow a higher percentage of the appropriation to
be used for the Native Nations Institute.
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 700,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +600,000
Public Law 105-156 established the United States Institute
for Environmental Conflict Resolution as part of the Morris K.
Udall Scholarship and Excellence in National Environmental
Policy Foundation. It also established in the Treasury an
Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund to be available to
establish and operate the Institute. The purpose of the
Institute is to conduct environmental conflict resolution and
training.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,300,000 for
the Environmental Dispute Resolution Fund, the same as the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $600,000
above the President's request.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $248,251,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 294,105,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 255,191,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +6,940,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -38,914,000
This appropriations provides the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA) with funds for its basic
operations dealing with management of the Government's archives
and records, operation of Presidential libraries, and for the
review for declassification of classified security information.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $255,191,000
for the operating expenses of NARA, an increase of $6,940,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and a decrease of
$38,914,000 below the President's request. The decrease from
the request is mainly a reflection of the creation of a new
account for the electronic records archive. In addition to the
decrease associated with the new account, the Committee
recommends a further reduction of $3,000,000 from the
President's request. The Committee has resisted identifying
specific items in the request that are not to be funded in
order to allow NARA some flexibility in managing its operating
expenses, but would note that several proposed current and new
items (such as development of a ``hot'' site, expansion of
records services staff, and certain information technology
efforts) appear to be of less priority. In this regard, the
Committee directs NARA to report back to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations within 90 days of the enactment of
this Act on how it intends to achieve this reduction. In
addition, the Committee encourages NARA to continue working
closely with the private sector in the focused review and
appropriate modification of standards for the storage of
Federal records.
Electronic Records Archive
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... $35,914,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +35,914,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +35,914,000
The electronic records archive appropriations supports all
direct NARA actions and activities associated with this major
project for preserving digitally created records for archival
purposes, storing and managing them electronically, and
ensuring appropriate long-term access. The appropriation
supports a program office, research partnerships, and
information technology analysis and design.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $35,914,000
for the electronic records archive of the National Archives and
Records Administration (NARA), an increase of $35,914,000 above
the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of
$35,914,000 above the President's request. This function had
been funded in past years as part of the operating expense
account of NARA; this function received $13,614,000 for fiscal
year 2003, and the President's request for fiscal year 2004 was
$35,914,000 for this effort in that account. By placing the
funding for this effort in a separate account, the Committee
raises the visibility and strengthens the financial structure,
accountability, management, and oversight of the electionic
records archive project. A portion of the funds, $22,000,000,
is made available for three years.
ELECTRONIC RECORDS ARCHIVE (ERA) PROJECT ACTIONS
The Committee urges NARA to further strengthen its ERA
management capabilities by fully implementing an information
technology investment management process, developing and
refining an enterprise architecture, improving information
security, and fully and appropriately staffing the ERA effort.
As stated in the Committee's report for fiscal year 2003, NARA
is directed to submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations quarterly reports on the cost, schedule, and
performance of the ERA project. These quarterly reports should
provide information on the status of the project's schedule,
budget, and expenditures as measured against a reported
baseline; a prioritization of project risks and their
mitigation efforts; and corrective actions taken to manage
identified schedule slippages, cost overruns, or quality
problems should they occur.
Repairs and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $14,116,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 6,458,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,458,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -7,658,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides for the repair, alteration, and
improvement of Archives facilities and Presidential libraries
nationwide. It enables the National Archives to maintain its
facilities in proper condition for visitors, researchers, and
employees, and also maintain the structural integrity of the
buildings.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,458,000 for
repairs and restoration, a decrease of $7,658,000 below the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's
request.
National Historical Publications and Records Commission
Grants Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $6,458,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 5,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +3,542,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +5,000,000
This program provides for grants funding that the
Commission makes, nationwide, to preserve and publish records
that document American history. Administered within the
National Archives and Records Administration, which preserves
Federal records, the NHPRC helps state, local, and private
institutions preserve non-Federal records, helps publish the
papers of major figures in American history, and helps
archivists and records managers improve their techniques,
training, and ability to serve a range of information users.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,000,000
for the National Historical Publications and Research
Commission grants program, an increase of $3,542,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and an increase of $5,000,000
above the President's request.
OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $10,488,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 10,738,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 10,738,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +250,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Office of Government Ethics (OGE), established by the
Ethics in Government Act of 1978, provides overall direction of
executive branch policies designed to prevent conflicts of
interest and insure high ethical standards. The OGE discharges
its responsibilities to preserve and promote public confidence
in the integrity of executive branch officials by developing
rules and regulations pertaining to conflicts of interest, post
employment restrictions, standards of conduct, and public and
confidential financial disclosure in the executive branch. It
monitors compliance with public and confidential financial
disclosure requirements of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978
and the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, to determine possible
violations of applicable laws or regulations and recommending
appropriate corrective action. OGE also consults with and
assists various officials in evaluating the effectiveness of
applicable laws and the resolution of individual problems, and
prepares formal advisory opinions, informal letter opinions,
policy memoranda, and Federal Register entries on how to
interpret and comply with the requirements on conflicts of
interest, post employment, standards of conduct, and financial
disclosure. Finally, OGE issues and amends regulations
implementing the procurement integrity provisions relating to
negotiating for employment, post employment, and gratuities in
the Office of Federal Procurement Policy Act Amendments of
1988, P.L. 100-679.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $10,738,000
for the Office of Government Ethics, an increase of $250,000
above the enacted fiscal year 2003 level and the same as the
President's request.
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $128,644,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 118,748,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 119,498,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -9,146,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. +750,000
The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is the Federal
Government agency responsible for management of Federal human
resources policy and oversight of the merit civil service
system. Although individual agencies are increasingly
responsible for personnel operations, OPM provides a
Governmentwide policy framework for personnel matters, advises
and assists agencies (often on a reimbursable basis), and
ensures that agency operations are consistent with requirements
of law, with emphasis on such issues as veterans preference.
OPM oversees examining of applicants for employment, issues
regulations and policies on hiring, classification and pay,
training, investigations, and many other aspects of personnel
management, and operates a reimbursable training program for
the Federal Government's managers and executives. OPM is also
responsible for administering the retirement, health benefits
and life insurance programs affecting most Federal employees,
retired Federal employees, and their survivors.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $119,498,000
for the Office of Personnel Management, a decrease of
$9,146,000 from the enacted fiscal year 2003 level and $750,000
above the President's request. The Committee's recommendation
includes $2,000,000 for Enterprise HR Integration, $2,500,000
for payroll modernization, and $2,500,000 for program
evaluation. The increase of $750,000 above the President's
request is to provide additional funding for the ongoing
``retirement readiness'' project being done by OPM in
conjunction with the International Foundation for Retirement
Education (InFRE). The outline of this project was provided in
the joint explanatory statement accompanying Pubic Law 108-007.
The Committee directs OPM to award this money to InFRE as a
grant or contract, and to report to the Committee on the
progress of this project no later than 60 days after enactment
of this Act.
BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
The President has proposed that the Department of Defense
transfer the investigative functions of the Defense Security
Service (DSS) to OPM, a proposal involving approximately 1,855
FTE. This proposal requires authorizing legislation and would
not, according to OPM, have any net budgetary impact. The
Committee is concerned, however, that transfer of DSS
functions, which have had numerous problems in recent years
involving both the timeliness and quality of background
investigations, could have a negative impact on OPM's current
investigation caseload. OPM reported that in 2002 the agency
slipped below its 90 percent standard for timely turnaround on
background investigations, largely as a result of the
establishment of the Transportation Security Administration. As
a result, OPM's caseload was more than twice what was
projected. The Committee urges the Director of OPM to certify
that any transfer of DSS functions to OPM will not have a
detrimental impact on the ability of OPM to handle its current
caseload.
PHARMACY BENEFIT MANAGERS
The Committee notes with approval the announced intention
of OPM to increase oversight of pharmacy benefit managers
(PBMs) who provide services to enrollees in the Federal
Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP). Effective oversight
of PBMs, through which roughly $6,000,000,000 of FEHBP
expenditures on prescription drugs pass, is crucial for
ensuring that the 8.3 million people covered by FEHBP continue
to receive high quality coverage. The Committee directs OPM to
keep the Committees on Appropriations informed of ongoing
activities to enhance oversight of PBMs, as well as the results
of any audits or studies of PBMs. The Committee also encourages
OPM to go beyond oversight and explore options for empowering
Federal employee health care consumers to make more informed
decisions when choosing among similar pharmaceuticals. The
Committee further directs OPM to (1) notify the Committees if
any research, audit, or investigation regarding PBMs has been
delayed or terminated at the formal or informal request of
another Federal agency; and (2) obtain a written letter of
request from any such agency and provide a copy of such letter
to the Committees. The Committee directs OPM to report on any
such requests by September 1, 2003.
FEHEP COVERAGE MANDATES
The Committee is concerned by the potential impact and cost
of coverage mandates under the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program. By driving up premiums, such mandates can
have a significant financial effect on both beneficiaries and
taxpayers. The Committee is aware that the Director of OPM has
already initiated a comprehensive outside audit to discern the
true cost of mandated services. The Committee encourages OPM to
complete this audit and promptly submit a report of the results
to the Committee. The Committee further directs that this audit
include any mandates or potential mandates resulting from the
FEHB Program Carrier Letter of April 18, 2003.
UNINSURED FEDERAL WORKERS
The Committee notes that while it is known that there is a
certain segment of the Federal workforce that does not have
health insurance through either the Federal Employees Health
Benefits Program (FEHBP) or any other health insurance program,
no current data exist on this particular uninsured population.
The Committee therefore directs the Office of Personnel
Management to conduct a study in both the aggregate and by
State to: (1) determine the approximate number of Federal
employees and retirees who are eligible to participate in the
FEHBP, but who are not covered by this program or by any other
health insurance program; (2) the principal reasons why these
individuals do not obtain health insurance; and (3) by which
agencies these people are employed and at which pay grades,
levels, or rates of pay. The results of this study shall be
submitted to the Committees on Appropriations no later than
September 30, 2004.
HAMPSHIRE/HAMPDEN COUNTIES, MASSACHUSSETTS
The Committee is aware that Federal agencies located in
Hampshire and Hampden counties, Massachusetts have been denied
inclusion into the Hartford Locality Pay Area. The Committee is
concerned about the difficulties some Federal agencies have
documented in retaining and attracting Federal employees in the
Connecticut River Valley area. Accordingly, the Committee
directs OPM to consider Hampshire and Hampden counties for
inclusion into the Hartford Locality Pay Area.
Office of Inspector General
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $1,509,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 1,498,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 1,498,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... -11,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides agency-wide audit,
investigative, evaluation, and inspection functions to identify
management and administrative deficiencies, which may create
conditions for fraud, waste and mismanagement. The audits
function provides internal agency audit, insurance audit, and
contract audit services. Contract audits provide professional
advice to agency contracting officials on accounting and
financial matters regarding the negotiation, award,
administration, repricing, and settlement of contracts.
Internal audits review and evaluate all facets of agency
operations, including financial statements. Evaluation and
inspection services provide detailed technical evaluations of
agency operations. Insurance audits review the operations of
health and life insurance carriers, health care providers, and
insurance subscribers. The investigative function provides for
the detection and investigation of improper and illegal
activities involving programs, personnel, and operations.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,498,000 for
the Office of Inspector General of the Office of Personnel
Management, a decrease of $11,000 from the fiscal year 2003
enacted level and the same as the President's request.
Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Health Benefits
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $6,853,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 7,219,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 7,219,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +366,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation covers: (1) the Government's share of
the cost of health insurance for 1,851,000 annuitants as
defined in sections 8901 and 8906 of title 5, United States
Code; (2) the Government's share of the cost of health
insurance for about 12,000 annuitants (who were retired when
the Federal employees health benefits law became effective), as
defined in the Retired Federal Employees Health Benefits Act of
1960; and (3) the Government's contribution for payment of
administrative expenses incurred by the Office of Personnel
Management in administration of the act.
Government Payment for Annuitants, Employees Life Insurance
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $34,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 35,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 35,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation finances the Government's share of
premiums, which is one-third the cost, for basic life insurance
for annuitants retiring after December 31, 1989, and who are
less than 65 years old.
Payment to Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $9,410,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 9,987,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 9,987,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +577,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
This appropriation provides for payment of annuities,
including the payment of annuities under special acts for
persons employed on the construction of the Panama Canal or
their widows and widows of employees of the Lighthouse Service;
payment of the government share of retirement costs of the
unfunded liability resulting from any statute authorizing new
or liberalized benefits, extension of retirement coverage, or
pay increases; transfers for interest on unfunded liability and
payment of military service annuities covering interest on the
unfunded liability and annuity disbursements for military
service; payments for spouse equity providing survivor
annuities to eligible former spouses of annuitants who died
between September 1978 and May 1986 and did not elect survivor
coverage; and transfers for payment of FERS supplemental
liability covering annual amortization payments financing
supplemental liabilities for FERS.
Human Capital Performance Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... $500,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +2,500,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. -497,500,000
This appropriation provides for the establishment of a
Human Capital Performance Fund within the Office of Personnel
Management. Allotments from this fund will be transferred to
other Federal agencies in amounts as may be determined by the
Director of OPM within the guidelines established by
authorizing legislation, provided that such agencies submit a
performance pay plan for the Director's approval. Awards to
individual employees from this fund for performance will become
part of those employees' base pay.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $15,000,000
for the Human Capital Performance Fund, obligation of which is
contingent upon authorizing legislation. In order to ensure the
continuation of proper oversight and control over agency
personnel budgets, the Committee has included language
directing OPM to notify the relevant subcommittees of
jurisdiction of the Committees on Appropriations of any
performance pay plan that has been approved for any agency,
including the amounts to be obligated or transferred, and that
funds for any plan shall not be obligated or transferred
without those subcommittees' prior approval. The Committee
further directs OPM to report annually to the Committees on
Appropriations on the performance pay plans that have been
approved, and the amounts that have been obligated or
transferred.
OFFICE OF SPECIAL COUNSEL
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $12,368,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 13,504,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 13,504,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +1,136,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The Office of Special Counsel: (1) investigates Federal
employee allegations of prohibited personnel practices
(including reprisal for whistleblowing) and, when appropriate,
prosecutes before the Merit Systems Protection Board; (2)
provides a channel for whistleblowing by Federal employees; and
(3) enforces the Hatch Act. The Office may transmit
whistleblower allegations to the agency head concerned and
require an agency investigation and a report to the Congress
and the President when appropriate.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $13,504,000
for the Office of Special Counsel, an increase of $1,136,000
above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the
President's request.
UNITED STATES TAX COURT
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $37,063,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 40,187,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 40,187,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +3,124,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The bulk of the Court's work is the trial and adjudication
of controversies involving deficiencies in income, estate, and
gift taxes. The Court also has jurisdiction to redetermine
deficiencies in certain excise taxes; to issue declaratory
judgments in the areas of qualification of retirement plans,
exemption of charitable organizations and the status of certain
governmental obligations; and to decide certain cases involving
disclosure of tax information by the Commissioner of Internal
Revenue.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $40,187,000
for the U.S. Tax Court, an increase of $3,124,000 above the
fiscal year 2003 enacted level and the same as the President's
request. The bulk of this increase is for replacement and
upgrade of the Tax Court's automation equipment ($1,471,000)
and upgrade of the Tax Court's security system ($1,100,000).
WHITE HOUSE COMMISSION ON THE NATIONAL MOMENT OF REMEMBRANCE
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003....................... $248,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004...................... 250,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2003................... +2,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2004.................. ................
The White House Commission on the National Moment of
Remembrance, established by Public Law 106-579, was created to
(1) sustain the American spirit through acts of remembrance,
not only on Memorial Day, but throughout the year; (2)
institutionalize the National Moment of Remembrance; and (3) to
enhance the commemoration and understanding of Memorial Day.
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $250,000, an
increase of $2,000 above the fiscal year 2003 enacted level and
the same as the level requested by the President.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS
This Act
Section 601. The Committee continues the provision for the
Department of Transportation allowing funds for aircraft; motor
vehicles; liability insurance; uniforms; or allowances, as
authorized by law.
Section 602. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 603. The Committee continues the provision for the
Department of Transportation limiting appropriations for
services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the rate for an
Executive Level IV.
Section 604. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and
Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail
outside the Department of Transportation or an independent
agency funded in this Act.
Section 605. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 606. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided
herein.
Section 607. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 608. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of
title 23, U.S.C.
Section 609. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act to
release personal information, including a social security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the withholding of funds provided in this Act for any
grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this provision.
Section 610. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
from states, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training may be credited to each agency's respective accounts.
Section 611. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock
sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 612. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in Title I of this Act unless the Secretary
of Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three full business days before
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administrations.
Section 613. The Committee continues the provision
designating the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part
of the Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area for fiscal
year 2004.
Section 614. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
Congressional notification.
Section 615. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act to be transferred without express
authority.
Section 616. The Committee includes a new provision for the
Department of Transportation allowing funds received from
certain sources to be credited to appropriations using fair and
equitable criteria.
Section 617. The Committee includes a new provision
allowing that amounts from improper payments to a third party
contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of
Transportation shall be available to cover expenses incurred in
recovery of such payments.
Section 618. The Committee includes a new provision for the
Secretary of Transportation authorizing the transfer of
unexpended sums from ``Minority Business Outreach'' to ``Office
of the Secretary, Salaries and expenses''.
Section 619. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds to engage in activities that would
prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act.
Section 620. The Committee continues the provision
concerning employment rights of Federal employees who return to
their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces.
Section 621. The Committee continues the provision
concerning compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 622. The Committee continues the provision
providing that fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain
available for certain purposes.
Section 623. The Committee continues the provision
restricting the use of funds for the White House to request
official background reports without the written consent of the
individual who is the subject of the report.
Section 624. The Committee continues a provision regarding
non-foreign area cost of living allowances.
Section 625. The Committee continues a provision
prohibiting the use of funds by any person or entity convicted
of violating the Buy American Act.
Sections 626 and 627. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for abortions under the
FEHBP unless the life of the mother is in danger or the
pregnancy is a result of an act of rape or incest.
Section 628. The Committee includes a new provision
directing the Secretary of Transportation, working with
affected states, to develop and implement a fair competitive
bid procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed
competition to demonstrate whether competition will provide
higher quality rail service at reasonable prices.
Section 629. The Committee includes a new provision that
establishes limitations on the reprogramming of funds made
available in this Act.
Section 630. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds to require a state or local government to
post a traffic control device or variable message sign, or any
other type of traffic sign, in a language other than English,
except in certain specified situations.
Section 631. The Committee includes a new provision waiving
restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles,
materials, and supplies in the case of acquisition by the
Federal Government of information technology.
Section 632. The Committee includes a new provision
providing a sense of the House of Representatives that
empowerment zones within cities should have the necessary
flexibility to expand to include relevant communities so that
empowerment zone benefits are equitably distributed.
Section 633. The Committee includes a new provision
providing a sense of the House of Representative that all
census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, either fully or
partially, should be equitably accorded the same benefits.
Section 634. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to
the determination that real estate brokerage is a financial
activity.
Section 635. The Committee includes a new sense of the
Congress provision related to reimbursements to general
aviation ground support services at Reagan Washington National
Airport.
Section 636. The Committee includes a new sense of the
House of Representatives provision related to public private
partnerships for highway and transit projects.
TITLE VII--GENERAL PROVISIONS
Departments, Agencies, and Corporations
Section 701. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing agencies to pay costs of travel to the United
States for the immediate families of federal employees assigned
to foreign duty in the event of a death or a life threatening
illness of the employee.
Section 702. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure
that all of its workplaces are free from the illegal use of
controlled substances.
Section 703. The Committee continues the provision
regarding price limitations on vehicles to be purchased by the
Federal Government.
Section 704. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds made available to agencies for travel, to also be used
for quarters allowances and cost-of-living allowances.
Section 705. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the government, with certain specified exceptions,
from employing non-U.S. citizens whose posts of duty would be
in the continental U.S.
Section 706. The Committee continues the provision ensuring
that agencies will have authority to pay GSA bills for space
renovation and other services.
Section 707. The Committee continues the provision allowing
agencies to finance the costs of recycling and waste prevention
programs with proceeds from the sale of materials recovered
through such programs.
Section 708. The Committee continues the provision
providing that funds may be used to pay rent and other service
costs in the District of Columbia.
Section 709. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting payments to persons filling positions for which
they have been nominated after the Senate has voted not to
approve the nomination.
Section 710. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting interagency financing of groups absent prior
statutory approval.
Section 711. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Postal Service to employ guards and give them
the same special police powers as certain other federal guards.
Section 712. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds for enforcing regulations
disapproved in accordance with the applicable law of the U.S.
Section 713. The Committee continues the provision limiting
the pay increases of certain prevailing rate employees.
Section 714. The Committee continues the provision limiting
the amount of funds that can be used for redecoration of
offices under certain circumstances.
Section 715. The Committee continues the provision to allow
for interagency funding of national security and emergency
telecommunications initiatives.
Section 716. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies to certify that a Schedule C appointment was
not created solely or primarily to detail the employee to the
White House.
Section 717. The Committee continues the provision
requiring agencies to administer a policy designed to ensure
that all workplaces are free from discrimination and sexual
harassment.
Section 718. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the payment of any employee who prohibits,
threatens or prevents another employee from communicating with
Congress.
Section 719. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting Federal training not directly related to the
performance of official duties.
Section 720. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for implementation of
agreements in nondisclosure policies unless certain provisions
are included.
Section 721. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting propaganda, publicity and lobbying by executive
agency personnel in support or defeat of legislative
initiatives.
Section 722. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting any federal agency from disclosing an employee's
home address to any labor organization, absent employee
authorization or court order.
Section 723. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds to be used to provide non-public information
such as mailing or telephone lists to any person or
organization outside the government without the approval of the
Committees on Appropriations.
Section 724. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds for propaganda and publicity
purposes not authorized by Congress.
Section 725. The Committee continues the provision
directing agency employees to use official time in an honest
effort to perform official duties.
Section 726. The Committee continues the provision, with
technical modifications, authorizing the use of funds to
finance an appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management
Improvement Program.
Section 727. The Committee continues the provision, with
technical modifications, authorizing agencies to transfer funds
to the Governmentwide Policy account of GSA to finance an
appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement
Program and other purposes.
Section 728. The Committee continues the provision that
permits breast feeding in a federal building or on federal
property if the woman and child are authorized to be there.
Section 729. The Committee continues the provision that
permits interagency funding of the National Science and
Technology Council and provides for a report on the budget and
resources of the National Science and Technology Council. The
report should include the entire budget of the National Science
and Technology Council.
Section 730. The Committee continues the provision
requiring documents involving the distribution of federal funds
to indicate the agency providing the funds and the amount
provided.
Section 731. The Committee continues the provision with
modification to extend the authorization for franchise fund
pilots for one year in order to allow the Administration to
evaluate their results and make a decision regarding permanent
authority.
Section 732. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds to monitor personal information
relating to the use of federal internet sites to collect,
review, or create any aggregate list that includes personally
identifiable information relating to access to or use of any
federal internet site of such agency.
Section 733. The Committee continues the provision
requiring health plans participating in the FEHBP to provide
contraceptive coverage and provides exemptions to certain
religious plans.
Section 734. The Committee continues the provision
providing recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency as the
official anti-doping agency.
Section 735. The Committee continues the provision
requiring a report by the Inspectors General detailing policies
and procedures for implementing portion of the Rural
Development Act, 1972.
Section 736. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring agencies to evaluate the creditworthiness of an
individual before issuing the individual a government travel
charge card and limits agency actions accordingly.
Section 737. The Committee includes a new provision that
permits interagency funding of the National Oceanographic
Partnership Program Office and the Coastal America program and
requires a report.
Section 738. The Committee includes a new provision
extending the Federal Election Commission's administrative fine
program through December 31, 2005.
Section 739. The Committee includes a new provision
allowing for the timely filing of reports with the Federal
Election Commission using overnight delivery, priority, or
express mail.
Section 740. The Committee continues a provision, with
modification, providing that the adjustment in rates of basic
pay for employees under statutory pay systems taking effect in
fiscal year 2004 shall be an increase of 4.1 percent.
Section 741. The Committee includes a new provision
requiring a report from each agency on competitive sourcing
activities.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
Constitutional Authority
Clause 3(d)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives states:
Each report of a committee on a bill or joint
resolution of a public character, shall include a
statement citing the specific powers granted to the
Congress in the Constitution to enact the law proposed
by the bill or joint resolution.
The Committee on Appropriations bases its authority to
report this legislation from clause 7 of section 9 of Article I
of the Constitution of the United States of America which
states:
No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in
consequence of Appropriations made by law . . .
Appropriations contained in this Act are made pursuant to
this specific power granted by the Constitution.
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following table lists the
appropriations in the accompanying bill that are not authorized
by law:
[Dollars in thousands]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriations in
Last year of Authorization level last year of Appropriations
authorization authorization in this bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I--Department of
Transportation
Federal Aviation Administration:
Operations.................. 2003................ $7,591,000......... $7,022,648......... $7,532,000
Facilities & Equipment...... 2003................ 2,981,022.......... 2,961,645.......... 2,900,000
Grants in Aid for Airports.. 2003................ 3,400,000.......... 3,377,900.......... 3,500,000
Research, Engineering, and 2002................ 249,000............ 244,839............ 108,000
Development.
Federal Highway Administration: 2003................ 30,245,605......... 31,593,300......... 33,385,000
Federal-aid Highways.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration:
Motor Carrier Safety NA.................. NA................. NA................. 47,000
Operations and Programs.
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration:
Operations & Research-- NA.................. NA................. NA................. 134,178
General Fund.
Operations & Research--Trust 2003................ 72,000............. 71,532............. 72,000
Fund.
National Driver Register.... 2003................ 2,000.............. 1,987.............. 3,600
Highway Traffic Safety 2003................ 225,000............ 223,537............ 225,000
Grants.
Federal Railroad Administration:
Safety and Operations....... NA.................. NA................. NA................. 130,992
Capital Grants to Amtrak.... 2002................ 955,000............ 826,476............ 580,000
Federal Transit Administration:
Administrative Expenses..... 2003................ 73,000............. 72,526............. 72,500
Formula Grants.............. 2003................ 3,839,000.......... 3,764,372.......... 3,839,000
University Transportation 2003................ 6,000.............. 5,961.............. 1,200
Research.
Transit Planning and 2003................ 122,000............ 121,207............ 122,000
Research.
Job Access and Reverse 2003................ 150,000............ 104,318............ 85,000
Commute.
Capital Investment Grants... 2003................ 3,036,000.......... 3,110,647.......... 3,106,500
Maritime Administration:
Operations and Training..... 2003................ 93,132............. 92,093............. 105,897
Ship Disposal............... 2003................ 20,000............. 11,088............. 14,000
Title II--Department of the
Treasury
Department Wide Systems and NA.................. NA................. NA................. 36,653
Capital Investments.
Air Transportation Stabilization NA.................. NA................. NA................. 2,538
Program.
Treasury Building and Annex NA.................. NA................. NA................. 25,000
Repair and Restoration.
Financial Crimes Enforcement NA.................. NA................. NA................. 57,571
Network.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and NA.................. NA................. NA................. 80,000
Trade Bureau.
Title IV--Executive Office of
the President
Compensation of the President... NA.................. NA................. NA................. 450,000
White House Office, Salaries and NA.................. NA................. NA................. 66,057,000
Expenses.
Executive Residence, Operating NA.................. NA................. NA................. 12,501,000
Expenses.
Executive Residence, White House NA.................. NA................. NA................. 4,225,000
Repair and Restoration.
Council of Economic Advisors.... NA.................. NA................. NA................. 4,000,000
Office of Policy Development.... NA.................. NA................. NA................. 4,109,000
National Security Council....... NA.................. NA................. NA................. 10,551,000
Office of Administration........ NA.................. NA................. NA................. 82,826,000
Office of Management and Budget. NA.................. NA................. NA................. 62,772,000
Unanticipated Needs............. NA.................. NA................. NA................. 1,000,000
Special Assistance to the NA.................. NA................. NA................. 4,461,000
President, Salaries and
Expenses.
Special Assistance to the NA.................. NA................. NA................. 331,000
President, Operating Expenses.
Office of National Drug Control
Policy (ONDCP):
ONDCP, Salaries and Expenses 2003................ NA................. 26,284............. 28,790
ONDCP, Salaries and NA.................. NA................. NA................. 1,500
Expenses, Model State Drug
Laws.
ONDCP, Counterdrug 2003................ NA................. 21,857............. 18,000
Technology Assessment
Center, Counterdrug
Research and Development.
ONDCP, Counterdrug NA.................. NA................. NA................. 22,000
Technology Assessment
Center, Technology Transfer.
ONDCP, High Intensity Drug 2003................ NA................. 224,879............ 226,350
Trafficking Areas Program.
ONDCP, Other Federal Drug NA.................. NA................. NA................. 10,000
Control (except Drug-Free
Communities).
ONDCP, Other Federal Drug 2002................ 195,000............ 180,000............ 150,000
Control, Media Campaign.
Title V--Independent Agencies
National Transportation Safety 2002................ 72,000............. 68,650............. 76,679
Board, Salaries and Expenses.
Federal Election Commission..... 1981................ 9,400.............. 9,662.............. 50,440
Office of Government Ethics..... 1999................ Such sums.......... 8,492.............. 10,738
OPM, Human Capital Performance NA.................. NA................. NA................. 2,500
Fund.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers of Funds
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.
The Committee recommends the following transfers:
Under the Department of the Treasury, a number of transfers
are allowed: (1) under Departmental Offices--Salaries and
Expenses, $3,393,000 is allowed to be transferred to other
Treasury offices for financial statement audits, (2) under
Departmentwide Systems and Capital Investments Programs,
$36,653,000 is allowed to be transferred to other offices in
pursuit of specific projects, and (3) a number of General
Provisions allow certain transfers among Treasury offices with
the advance approval of the Committee.
Under the Executive Office of the President, a number of
transfers are allowed: (1) $1,350,000 may be transferred by the
Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP) to other federal
departments from the salaries and expenses account, (2) the
ONDCP Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center may transfer
$22,000,000 to other federal departments and $26,000,000 to
state and local entities, (3) the ONDCP High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Area Program may transfer $226,350,000 to federal
departments and to state and local entities, and (4) the ONDCP
Other Federal Drug Control Programs may transfer funds to
federal departments.
Under Independent Agencies, a number of transfers are
allowed: (1) The GSA Federal Buildings Fund may transfer
$54,256,000 to the Federal Financing Bank to repay the
principal on incurred debt, (2) the GSA Allowances and Office
Staff for Former Presidents account may transfer $895,000 to
the Department of the Treasury for certain pension benefits,
(3) the GSA Electronic Government Fund may transfer $5,000,000
to federal departments in pursuit of program goals, (4) certain
trust funds may transfer money to the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) and its Inspector General, (5) OPM may
transfer $15,000,000 from the Human Capital Performance Fund to
other federal departments and agencies, and (6) the Civil
Service Retirement and Disability Fund may transfer money to
the Merit System Protection Board.
Under general provisions:
Title I, Sec. 161. The Committee continues the provision
that allows funds for discretionary grants of the Federal
Transit Administration for specific projects, except for fixed
guideway modernization projects, not obligated by September 30,
2005, and other recoveries to be used for other projects under
49 U.S.C. 5309.
Title I, Sec. 162. The Committee continues the provision
that allows transit funds appropriated before October 1, 2002,
that remain available for expenditure to be transferred.
Title II, Sec. 201. The Committee continues the provision
that allows the transfer of 5 percent of any appropriation made
available to the IRS to any other IRS appropriation, subject to
prior Congressional approval.
Title II, Sec. 206. The Committee continues with
modifications a provision that authorizes transfers, up to 2
percent, between Departmental Offices--Salaries and Expenses,
Office of the Inspector General, Financial Management Service,
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Financial Crimes
Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of the Public Debt
appropriations under certain circumstances.
Title II, Sec. 207. The Committee continues the provision
that authorizes transfer, up to 2 percent, between the Internal
Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General for Tax
Administration under certain circumstances.
Title V, Sec. 503. The Committee continues the provision,
with technical modification, providing that funds made
available for activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be
transferred between appropriations with advance approval of the
Congress.
Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the following is a statement of
general performance goals and objectives for which this measure
authorizes funding:
The Committee on Appropriations strongly considers program
performance, including a program's success in developing and
attaining outcome-related goals and objectives, in developing
funding recommendations. This includes a review of agency and
departmental performance plans, audits, and investigations of
the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Departments of
Transportation and Treasury Offices of Inspector General, and
other performance-related information. The Committee's goal is
to provide adequate, but not excessive, resources for the
programs covered by this Act, consistent with funding
allocations provided by the Congressional budget process.
Compliance With Rule XIII, Cl. 3(e) (Ramseyer Rule)
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
SECTION 1105 OF THE INTERMODAL SURFACE TRANSPORTATION EFFICIENCY ACT OF
1991
SEC. 1105. HIGH PRIORITY CORRIDORS ON NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM.
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Identification of High Priority Corridors on National
Highway System.--The following are high priority corridors on
the National Highway System:
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(42) The portion of Corridor V of the Appalachian
development highway system from Interstate Route 55
near Batesville, Mississippi, to the intersection with
Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway
system near [Fulton, Mississippi, and the portion of
Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway
system from near Fulton, Mississippi, to the
intersection with Interstate Route 65 near Birmingham,
Alabama.] Fulton, Mississippi.
* * * * * * *
(45) The United States Route 78 Corridor from
Memphis, Tennessee, to Corridor X of the Appalachian
development highway system near Fulton, Mississippi,
and Corridor X of the Appalachian development highway
system extending from near Fulton, Mississippi, to near
Birmingham, Alabama.
* * * * * * *
(e) Provisions Applicable to Corridors.--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) Inclusion of certain route segments on interstate
system.--
[(A) In general.--The portions of the routes
referred to in subsection (c)(1) subsection
(c)(3) (solely as it relates to the Kentucky
Corridor), in clauses (i), (ii), and (except
with respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of
subsection (c)(5)(B), in subsection (c)(9), in
subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), in subsection
(c)(36), in subsection (c)(37), in subsection
(c)(40), and in subsection (c)(42) that are not
a part of the Interstate System are designated
as future parts of the Interstate System.] (A)
In general.--The portions of the routes
referred to in subsection (c)(1), subsection
(c)(3) (relating solely to the Kentucky
Corridor), clauses (i), (ii), and (except with
respect to Georgetown County) (iii) of
subsection (c)(5)(B), subsection (c)(9),
subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20), subsection
(c)(36), subsection (c)(37), subsection
(c)(40), subsection (c)(42), and subsection
(c)(45) that are not a part of the Interstate
System are designated as future parts of the
Interstate System. Any segment of such routes
shall become a part of the Interstate System at
such time as the Secretary determines that the
segment--
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(B) Routes.--
(i) Designation.--The portion of the
route referred to in subsection (c)(9)
is designated as Interstate Route I-99.
The routes referred to in subsections
(c)(18) and (c)(20) shall be designated
as Interstate Route I-69. A State
having jurisdiction over any segment of
routes referred to in subsections
(c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs
identifying such segment that is
consistent with the criteria set forth
in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and
(e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69,
including segments of United States
Route 59 in the State of Texas. The
segment identified in subsection
(c)(18)(D)(i) shall be designated as
Interstate Route I-69 East, and the
segment identified in subsection
(c)(18)(D)(ii) shall be designated as
Interstate Route I-69 Central. The
State of Texas shall erect signs
identifying such routes as segments of
future Interstate Route I-69. The
portion of the route referred to in
subsection (c)(36) is designated as
Interstate Route I-86. The Louie B.
Nunn Parkway corridor referred to in
subsection (c)(3) shall be designated
as Interstate Route 66. A State having
jurisdiction over any segment of routes
and/or corridors referred to in
subsections (c)(3) shall erect signs
identifying such segment that is
consistent with the criteria set forth
in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and
(e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route 66.
Notwithstanding the provisions of
subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and
(e)(5)(A)(ii), or any other provisions
of this Act, the Commonwealth of
Kentucky shall erect signs, as approved
by the Secretary, identifying the
routes and/or corridors described in
subsection (c)(3) for the Commonwealth,
as segments of future Interstate Route
66. The Purchase Parkway corridor
referred to in subsection (c)(18)(E)
shall be designated as Interstate Route
69. A State having jurisdiction over
any segment of routes and/or corridors
referred to in subsections (c)(18)
shall erect signs identifying such
segment that is consistent with the
criteria set forth in subsections
(e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as
Interstate Route 69. Notwithstanding
the provisions of subsections
(e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii), or any
other provisions of this Act, the
Commonwealth of Kentucky shall erect
signs, as approved by the Secretary,
identifying the routes and/or corridors
described in subsection (c)(18) for the
Commonwealth, as segments of future
Interstate Route 69. The route referred
to in subsection (c)(45) is designated
as Interstate Route I-22.
* * * * * * *
----------
SECTION 1602 OF THE TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21st CENTURY
SEC. 1602. PROJECT AUTHORIZATIONS.
Subject to section 117 of title 23, United States Code, the
amount listed for each high priority project in the following
table shall be available (from amounts made available by
section 1101(a)(13) of the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century) for fiscal years 1998 through 2003 to carry out
each such project:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Dollars
No. State Project description in
millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Georgia I-75 advanced 1.7
transportation
management system in
Cobb County.........
* * * * * * *
4. Michigan Construct bike path 3.75
[between Mount
Clemens and New
Baltimore] for the
Macomb Orchard Trail
in Macomb County....
* * * * * * *
230. New York [Monroe County 6
transportation
improvements on Long
Pond Road,
Pattonwood Road, and
Leyll road] Route
531/Brockport-
Rochester Corridor
in Monroe County,
New York............
* * * * * * *
476. Louisiana [Expand Perkins Road 6.15
in Baton Rouge]
Feasibility study,
design, and
construction of a
connector between
Louisiana Highway
1026 and I-12 in
Livingston Parish...
* * * * * * *
1149. New York [Traffic Mitigation 3
Project on William
Street and Losson
Road in Cheektowaga]
Study and implement
mitigation and
diversion options
for William Street
and Broadway Street
in Cheektowaga, I-90
Corridor Study;
Interchange 53 to
Interchange 49, PIN
552830 and
Cheektowaga Rails to
Trails, PIN 575508..
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE IV--INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
PART A--RAIL
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 111--OPERATIONS
* * * * * * *
SUBCHAPTER II--CAR SERVICE
* * * * * * *
Sec. 11123. Situations requiring immediate action to serve the public
(a) When the Board determines that shortage of equipment,
congestion of traffic, unauthorized cessation of operations,
failure of existing commuter rail passenger transportation
operations caused by a cessation of service by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other failure of traffic
movement exists which creates an emergency situation of such
magnitude as to have substantial adverse effects on shippers,
or on rail service in a region of the United States, or that a
rail carrier providing transportation subject to the
jurisdiction of the Board under this part cannot transport the
traffic offered to it in a manner that properly serves the
public, the Board may, to promote commerce and service to the
public, for a period not to exceed 30 days--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) prescribe temporary through routes; [or]
(4) give directions for--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) movement of traffic under permits[.]; or
(5) in the case of a failure of existing freight or
commuter rail passenger transportation operations
caused by a cessation of service by the National
Railroad Passenger Corporation, direct the continuation
of the operations and dispatching, maintenance, and
other necessary infrastructure functions related to the
operations.
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3) [When] (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), when a
rail carrier is directed under this section to operate the
lines of another rail carrier due to that carrier's cessation
of operations, compensation for the directed operations shall
derive only from revenues generated by the directed operations.
(B) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter
rail passenger transportation operations caused by a cessation
of service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the
Board shall provide funding to fully reimburse the directed
service provider for its costs associated with the activities
directed under subsection (a), including the payment of
increased insurance premiums. The Board shall order complete
indemnification against any and all claims associated with the
provision of service to which the directed rail carrier may be
exposed.
(c)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(4) In the case of a failure of existing freight or commuter
rail passenger transportation operations caused by cessation of
service by the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, the
Board may not direct a rail carrier to undertake activities
under subsection (a) to continue such operations unless--
(A) the Board first affirmatively finds that the rail
carrier is operationally capable of conducting the
directed service in a safe and efficient manner; and
(B) the funding for such directed service required by
subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(3) is provided in
advance in appropriations Acts.
* * * * * * *
(e) For purposes of this section, the National Railroad
Passenger Corporation and any entity providing commuter rail
passenger transportation shall be considered rail carriers
subject to the Board's jurisdiction.
(f) For purposes of this section, the term ``commuter rail
passenger transportation'' has the meaning given that term in
section 24102(4).
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE V--RAIL PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
PART C--PASSENGER TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 243--AMTRAK
* * * * * * *
Sec. 24301. Status and applicable laws
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(c) Application of Subtitle IV.--Subtitle IV of this title
shall not apply to Amtrak, except for sections 11123, 11301,
11322(a), 11502, and 11706. Notwithstanding the preceding
sentence, Amtrak shall continue to be considered an employer
under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, the Railroad
Unemployment Insurance Act, and the Railroad Retirement Tax
Act.
* * * * * * *
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
SUBTITLE III--GENERAL AND INTERMODAL PROGRAMS
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5323. General provisions on assistance
(a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(j) Buy America.--(1) The Secretary of Transportation may
obligate an amount that may be appropriated to carry out this
chapter for a project only if the steel, iron, and manufactured
goods used in the project are produced in the United States.
The term ``manufactured goods'' as used in this paragraph means
each individual item specified in each line item of a
procurement. If the individual items to be procured are listed
in the bill of materials and specifications rather than a line
item, the term ``manufactured goods'' shall apply to each such
item. The definition of ``manufactured goods'' shall not be
applicable to the procurement of rolling stock as set forth in
paragraph (2)(C).
* * * * * * *
(3) When issuing a waiver based upon a public interest
determination under paragraph (2)(A), the Secretary shall
produce a detailed written justification as to why the waiver
is in the public interest. The Secretary shall publish this
justification in the Federal Register and provide the public a
reasonable period for notice and comment.
[(3)] (4) In this subsection, labor costs involved in final
assembly are not included in calculating the cost of
components.
[(4)] (5) The Secretary of Transportation may not make a
waiver under paragraph (2) of this subsection for goods
produced in a foreign country if the Secretary, in consultation
with the United States Trade Representative, decides that the
government of that foreign country--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(5)] (6) A person is ineligible under subpart 9.4 of chapter
1 of title 48, Code of Federal Regulations, to receive a
contract or subcontract made with amounts authorized under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(Public Law 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914) if a court or department,
agency, or instrumentality of the Government decides the person
intentionally--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(6)] (7) The Secretary of Transportation may not impose any
limitation on assistance provided under this chapter that
restricts a State from imposing more stringent requirements
than this subsection on the use of articles, materials, and
supplies mined, produced, or manufactured in foreign countries
in projects carried out with that assistance or restricts a
recipient of that assistance from complying with those State-
imposed requirements.
[(7)] (8) Opportunity to correct inadvertent error.--
The Secretary may allow a manufacturer or supplier of
steel, iron, or manufactured goods to correct after bid
opening any certification of noncompliance or failure
to properly complete the certification (but not
including failure to sign the certification) under this
subsection if such manufacturer or supplier attests
under penalty of perjury that such manufacturer or
supplier submitted an incorrect certification as a
result of an inadvertent or clerical error. The burden
of establishing inadvertent or clerical error is on the
manufacturer or supplier.
(9) Application of waivers.--The Secretary may grant
a waiver under paragraph (2) for a microprocessor, but
not for microcomputer equipment. For purposes of this
paragraph ``microprocessor'' means a computer processor
on a microchip.
(10) Administrative review.--A party adversely
affected by an agency action under this subsection
shall have the right to seek review under section 702
of the Administrative Procedure Act, title 5, United
States Code.
* * * * * * *
Changes in the Application of Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3(f)(1)(A) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following statements are
submitted describing the effect of provisions proposed in the
accompanying bill which may be considered, under certain
circumstances, to change the application of existing law,
either directly or indirectly. The bill provides that
appropriations shall remain available for more than one year
for a number of programs for which the basic authorizing
legislation does not explicitly authorize such extended
availability. The bill provides, in some instances, for funding
of agencies and activities where legislation has not yet been
finalized. In addition, the bill carriers language, in some
instances, permitting activities not authorized by law, or
exempting agencies from certain provisions of law, but which
has been carried in appropriations acts for many years.
The bill includes limitations on official entertainment,
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of
Transportation and the National Transportation Safety Board.
Similar provisions have appeared in many previous
appropriations Acts. The bill includes a number of limitations
on the purchase of automobiles, motorcycles, or office
furnishings. Similar limitations have appeared in many previous
appropriations Acts. Language is included in several instances
permitting certain funds to be credited to the appropriations
recommended.
In Title V of the bill, in connection with the General
Services Administration, certain limits on availability of
revenue in the Federal Buildings Fund and certain legislative
provisions have been carried forward from last year.
The bill continues a number of general provisions applying
to agencies covered by the bill as well as certain provisions
applying Government-wide. These provisions have been carried in
the prior year appropriations bill, and some have been carried
for many years. Additionally, the Committee includes a number
of new general provisions.
TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $2,500,000 in user fees.
Language is included under the Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' limiting the use of funds available
for the position of Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses'' specifying certain amounts for
individual offices of the Office of the Secretary and
specifying transfer authority among offices.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Minority business outreach'' specifying that funds may be
used for business opportunities related to any mode of
transportation.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Working Capital Fund for the Department
of Transportation and limits special assessments or
reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or
activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or
reimbursable agreements that are presented to and approved by
the House and Senate Appropriations Committee.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' limiting funds for certain
aviation program activities.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds to plan,
finalize, or implement any regulation that would promulgate new
aviation user fees not specifically authorized by law after the
date of enactment of this Act.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that credits funds received from
States, counties, municipalities, foreign authorities, other
public authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred
in the provision of agency services.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that provides $6,000,000 for the
contract tower cost sharing program.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' permitting the use of funds to
enter into a grant agreement with a nonprofit standard-setting
organization to develop aviation safety standards.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits the use of funds
for Sunday premium pay unless an employee actually performed
work during the time corresponding to the premium pay.
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Operations'' that prohibits funds for
conducting and coordinating activities on aeronautical charting
and cartography through the Working Capital Fund.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations'' prohibiting funds to operate a manned auxiliary
flight service station in the United States.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations'' requiring the Secretary of Transportation to
issue regulations pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 8335 relating to
mandatory retirement for air traffic controllers.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations'' providing $4,000,000 only for costs to raise the
level of air traffic control supervisors at the agency to the
level of 1,726.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations'' prohibiting funds to sign, revise, execute, or
implement a memorandum of understanding or agreement unless
such document is filed in a central registry in FAA
headquarters.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations'' prohibiting funds for any FAA employee to
purchase a store gift card or gift certificate through use of a
government-issued credit card.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Payments to air carriers'' that prohibits funds to approve,
revise, or execute any contract that would cause federal
obligations to exceed the $41,500,000 under this heading.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Payments to air carriers'' that prohibits funds to subsidize
any air service to a point less than 210 highway miles from the
nearest hub airport.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' providing $7,000,000 for contract
audit services provided by the Defense Contract Audit Agency
and $20,000,000 for the Houston area air traffic system.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that prohibits funds to implement
section 106 of H. R. 2115 as it passed the House of
Representatives on June 12, 2003.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' allowing funds to be used for
implementation of section 203 of Public Law 106-181
(authorizing the small community air service development pilot
program).
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' providing $20,000,000 for the
small community air service development pilot program.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``General Provisions'' allowing airports to transfer to FAA,
without consideration, certain navigation and lighting systems
that were procured or assisted by a federal airport grant.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``General Provisions'' limiting technical staff years at the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development to 350 during
fiscal year 2004.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``General Provisions'' relating to the provision of without-
cost space, construction, maintenance, utilities, or other
expenses to FAA at airports.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``General Provisions'' allowing FAA to receive funds from an
airport sponsor under certain conditions relating to capacity
enhancement projects.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``General Provisions''
Language is included under the Federal Aviation
Administration, ``Facilities and equipment'' that allows
certain funds received for expenses incurred in the
establishment and modernization of air navigation facilities to
be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Facilities and equipment'' that requires the Secretary of
Transportation to transmit a comprehensive capital investment
plan for the Federal Aviation Administration.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Research, engineering, and development'' that allows certain
funds received for expenses incurred in research, engineering
and development to be credited to the account.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that limits funds available for
the planning or execution of programs with delegations in
excess of $3,400,000,000,
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Grants-in-aid for airports'' that provides not more than
$62,820,000 for administration.
Language is included prohibiting the use of funds to change
weight restrictions or prior permission rules at Teterboro
Airport in Teterboro, New Jersey.
Language is included allowing the use of funds for
participation in the fractional aircraft ownership pilot
program.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Limitation on Administrative Expenses'' that
provides limitation on administrative expenses of the FHWA.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Federal-aid Highways'' that provides a
limitation on obligations for the Federal-aid Highways program
and a limitation on research programs.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Liquidation of Contract Authorization'' that
provides liquidating cash.
Language is included under the Federal Highway
Administration, ``Public Private Partnership Pilot Program''
that provides funding for this program.
Section 110 distributed obligation authority among the
Federal-aid highway programs.
Section 111 specifies an administrative take-down for the
Federal Highway Administration.
Section 112 provides that funds received by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics may be credited to the Federal-aid
Highways account.
Section 113 designates a future Interstate in Mississippi
and Alabama.
Section 114 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
carry out 23 U.S.C. 133(d)(2).
Section 115 allows changes to be made to the table in
section 1602 of the Transportation Equity ACt for the 21st
Century with regard to plans in New York and Louisiana.
Section 116 that amends the Transportation Equity Act for
the 21st Century and allows ITS funds already appropriated to
the State of Wisconsin in prior laws to be used for the
installation of intelligent transportation infrastructure
elements in the metropolitan areas of Wausau and Superior.
Section 117 allows ITS funds already appropriated for use
in specified locations within Wisconsin to be spent in
additional locations within the state.
Section 118 requires the Department of Transportation to
restructure an existing loan with ACTA to allow financing of a
1.7 mile truck expressway linking the ports of Long-Beach and
Los Angeles to Alameda Street.
Section 119 requires the Secretary to enter into an
agreement to provide a method of funding for the Hoover Dam
Bypass Bridge.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Motor Carrier Safety'' that provides funding
for motor carrier safety.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``National Motor Carrier Safety Program'' that
provides a limitation on obligations and liquidation of
contract authorization.
Language is included under the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, ``Border Enforcement Program'' that provides
funding for truck inspection stations on the Southern border.
Section 130 specifies an administration takedown for the
FMCSA.
Section 131 prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
apply Docket No. FMCSA-97-2350 to operators of utility service
vehicles.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
Section 132 subjects funds appropriated or limited in this
Act to the terms and conditions of Public Law 107-87.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants'' limiting
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants''
prohibiting the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation
or remodeling costs or for office furniture for state, local,
or private buildings.
Language is included under the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration, ``Highway traffic safety grants''
limiting the amount of funds available for technical assistance
to the states under section 410.
Section 140 allows states to use funds provided under
section 402 of title 23, U.S.C., to produce and place highway
safety public service messages.
Section 141 prohibits the use of funds for the purpose of
enforcing compliance with 49 CFR section 579.24 with respect to
trailers of a certain weight.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Safety and operations'' that provides funding
for safety and operations.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Railroad research and development'' that
provides funding for railroad research and development.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' authorizing
the Secretary to issue fund anticipation notes necessary to pay
obligations under sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad
Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Railroad rehabilitation and improvement program'' that
prohibits new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments using
federal funds for credit risk premium under section 502 of the
Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act.
Language is included under the Federal Railroad
Administration, ``Next generation high speed rail that provides
funding for this program.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation'' that
provides quarterly apportionment for capital funding and
requires non-federal entities to provide payments on lines that
have a greater than $200 passenger loss based on procedures
developed by the Secretary of Transportation.
Section 150 amends Section 11123 of title 49, U.S.C., to
ensure that emergency rail service is continued if Amtrak
should cease operations.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that reimburses $2,000,000 to the
Department of Transportation's Inspector General for costs
associated with the audit and review of new fixed guideway
systems.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that allows funds to remain
available until expended for the National transit database.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Administrative expenses'' that the Secretary of
Transportation will transmit to Congress the annual report on
new starts.
Language is included under the Federal Transit
Administration, ``Formula grants'' reducing funds for each day
that the annual report on new starts is not submitted to
Congress.
Section 160 exempts previously made transit obligations
from limitations on obligations.
Section 161 allows funds for discretionary grants of the
Federal Transit Administration for specific projects, except
for fixed guideway modernization projects, not obligated by
September 30, 2005, and other recoveries to be used for other
projects under 49 U.S.C. 5309.
Section 162 allows transit funds appropriated before
October 1, 2002, that remain available for expenditive to be
transferred.
Section 163 prohibits funds for design or construction of a
light rail system in Houston, Texas, unless certain specified
conditions are met.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration
requiring a review of maritime policy and the agency's mission
and long-term goals within the reorganized Department of
Transportation.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' that requires that additional funds
provided for the United States Merchant Marine Academy salaries
and benefits above the budget request, totaling $1,019,000 be
spent on filling vacancies directly related to the Academy's
mission.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' requiring the agency to submit a
report of justification for the annual target for new
reservists in relation to documented emergency requirements
that cannot be met from other sources.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' directing the agency to submit an
assessment of interoperability among the information technology
resources at the fourteen U.S. strategic commercial ports.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Operations and Training'' directing the agency to submit a
report on the performance of the intermodal system with respect
to the efficiency of the most congested ports.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Ship Disposal'' directing the agency to submit a report
detailing the agency's competitive bid process on ship disposal
contracts.
Language is included under the Maritime Administration,
``Maritime Guaranteed Loan Account'' allowing the agency to
draw upon the supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 108-
11 for administrative expenses up to $4,498,000 without
certification of such administrative costs by the Department of
Transportation Inspector General.
Section 170 allows the Maritime Administration to apply
payments received for services as a credit to the Treasury.
Section 171 allows the Maritime Administration to draw upon
the supplemental appropriation provided in P.L. 108-11 for
administrative expenses up to $4,498,000.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs'' which would
allow up to $1,200,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C.
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs'' that credits
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and
other activities.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants'' specifying
the Secretary of Transportation or his designee may obligate
funds provided under this head.
Language is included under Office of Inspector General,
``Salaries and expenses'' that provides the Inspector General
with all necessary authority to investigate allegations of
fraud by any person or entity that is subject to regulation by
the Department of Transportation. Language is also included
under Office of inspector General, ``Salaries and expenses''
that authorizes the office of Inspector General to investigate
unfair or deceptive practices and unfair methods of competition
by domestic and foreign air carriers and ticket agents.
Language is included under Surface Transportation Board,
``Salaries and expenses'' allowing the collection of $1,050,000
in fees established by the Chairman of the Surface
Transportation Board; and providing that the sum appropriated
from the general fund shall be reduced on a dollar-for-dollar
basis as such fees are received.
TITLE II--DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Language has been included for Departmental Offices,
Salaries and Expenses, that provides funds for operation and
maintenance of the Treasury Building and Annex; hire of
passenger motor vehicles; maintenance, repairs, and
improvements of, and purchase of commercial insurance policies
for real properties leased or owned overseas; official
reception and representation expenses; unforeseen emergencies
of a confidential nature; grants to state and local law
enforcement groups to help fight money laundering; and
Treasury-wide financial audits and the transfer of these funds.
Language has been included for the Departmentwide Systems
and Capital Investments Program that provides funds for the
development and acquisition of automated data processing
equipment, software, and services; and providing transfer
authority.
Language has been included for the Office of Inspector
General that provides funds to carry out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978, the hire of vehicles, official
travel expenses, and unforeseen emergencies.
Language has been included for the Treasury Inspector
General for Tax Administration that provides for the purchase
and hire of motor vehicles, services by 5 U.S.C. 3109, travel
expenses, and unforeseen emergencies.
Language has been included for the Financial Crime
Enforcement Network that provides funds for hire of vehicles
and official reception and representation expenses; the travel
of non-federal personnel attending conferences or meetings
involving financial law enforcement, intelligence, and
regulation; the purchase of personal services contracts; and
assistance to federal law enforcement agencies with or without
reimbursement.
Language has been included for the Financial Management
Service that provides multiple year availability for systems
modernization funds and funds for official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included for the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax
and Trade Bureau that provides funds for the hire of passenger
motor vehicles; official reception and representation expenses;
cooperative research and development; and laboratory assistance
to state and local agencies with or without reimbursement.
Language has been included for the U.S. Mint that
identifies the source of funding for the operations and
activities of the U.S. Mint; specifies the level of funding for
circulating coinage and protective service capital investments;
and provides reimbursement to the General Accounting Office for
a contract study.
Language has been included for the Bureau of the Public
Debt that provides funds for reception and representation
expenses. Language also has been included that provides that
appropriations from the General Fund will be reduced as fees
are collected, and that a portion of the funds are to be
derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for
administration of the Fund.
Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service
processing, assistance, and management that provides funds for
management services, rent and utilities, services authorized by
5 U.S.C. 3109, and official reception and representation
expenses. Language also has been included that provides funds
for the Tax Counseling for the Elderly program and for low-
income taxpayer clinic grants.
Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service tax
law enforcement that provides funds for the purchase and hire
of vehicles; services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109; research;
and reimbursement of the Social Security Administration.
Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service
information systems that provides fund for the hire of motor
vehicles.
Language has been included for Internal Revenue Service
business systems modernization that provides for the capital
asset acquisition of information technology, including
management and related contractual costs of said acquisitions,
including contractual costs associated with operation
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 and that restricts the use of the
funds.
Language has been included for the Internal Revenue Service
health insurance tax credit administration to implement the
health insurance tax credit included in the Trade Act of 2003
(Public Law 107-210).
Section 201 allows the transfer of 5 percent of any
appropriation, made available to the IRS, to any other IRS
appropriation with prior Congressional approval.
Section 202 requires the IRS to maintain a training program
in taxpayer's rights, dealing courteously with taxpayers, and
cross cultural relations.
Section 203 requires the IRS to institute policies and
procedures, which will safeguard the confidentiality of
taxpayer information.
Section 204 requires the IRS to maintain and improve a 1-
800 help line service for taxpayers.
Section 205 allows the Department of the Treasury to
purchase uniforms, insurance, and motor vehicles without regard
to the general purchase price limitation, and enter into
contracts with the State Department for health and medical
services for Treasury employees in overseas locations.
Section 206 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between
Departmental Offices, Office of the Inspector General,
Financial Management Service, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade
Bureau, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, and the Bureau of
the Public Debt appropriations under certain circumstances.
Section 207 authorizes transfers, up to 2 percent, between
the Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Inspector General
for Tax Administration under certain circumstances.
Section 208 prohibits the Department of the Treasury from
undertaking a redesign of the $1 Federal Reserve note.
Section 209 provides for transfers from and reimbursements
to the Salaries and Expenses appropriation of the Financial
Management Service for the purposes of debt collection.
Section 210 requires authorization for the construction and
operation of a museum by the United States Mint.
Section 211 establishes a permanent indefinite
appropriation for reimbursing financial institutions in their
capacity as depositaries and financial agents of the United
States.
Section 212 prohibits contracts with certain foreign
incorporated entities.
TITLE III--POSTAL SERVICE
The Committee has continued language that prohibits funds
made available to the Postal Service from being used to close
or consolidate certain post offices, from charging employees of
local and child support agencies a fee for information,
provides funds for free mail for the blind and overseas voters,
and for six day mail delivery and rural delivery of mail at
existing levels. The Committee continues language regarding the
availability of funds.
TITLE IV--EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT AND FUNDS APPROPRIATED TO
THE PRESIDENT
The Committee has continued language that mandates that
unused amounts of the President's expense allowance will revert
to the Treasury and not be taxable to the President and which
provides funds for service authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109,
subsistence expenses, hire of vehicles, newspapers,
periodicals, teletype news service, travel, and official
entertainment expenses. The Committee has continued language
making funds available for reimbursement to the White House
Communications Agency.
The Committee has included new language that provides funds
for the Office of Homeland Security, pursuant to Executive
Order 13288.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for operation and maintenance of the White House for Official
entertainment expenses; language specifying the authorized use
of funds; language specifying that reimbursable expenses are
the exclusive authority of the Executive Residence to incur
obligations and receive offsetting collections; language
requiring the sponsors of political events to make advance
payments; language requiring the national committee of the
political party of the President to maintain $25,000 on
deposit; language requiring the Executive Residence to ensure
that amounts owed are billed within 60 days of a reimbursable
event and collected within 30 days of the bill notice; language
authorizing the Executive Residence to charge and assess
interest and penalties on late payments; language authorizing
all reimbursements to be deposited into the Treasury as a
miscellaneous receipt; language requiring a report to the
Committee on the reimbursable expenses within 90 days of the
end of the fiscal year; language requiring the Executive
Residence to maintain a system for tracking and classifying
reimbursable events; and language specifying that the Executive
Residence is not exempt from the requirements of subchapter I
or II of chapter 37 of title 31, United States Code.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the repair, alteration, and improvement of the Executive
Residence at the White House.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for operation and maintenance of the official residence of the
Vice President, the hire of vehicles, official entertainment
expenses and provides for the transfer of funds as necessary.
The Committee has continued language that enables the Vice
President to provide assistance to the President, services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, subsistence, and the hire for
vehicles.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the expenses of the Council of Economic Advisers.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the Office of Policy Development.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the National Security Council.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the Office and the hire of vehicles and funds
for a capital investment plan that provides for the continued
modernization of the information technology infrastructure. The
Committee has continued and modified language regarding
information technology within the Executive Office of the
President, requiring the submission of a report that includes a
current description of (1) the Enterprise Architecture, as
defined in OMB Circular A-130 and Federal Chief Information
Officer guidance; (2) the Information Technology (IT) Human
Capital Plan; (3) the capital investment plan for implementing
the Enterprise Architecture; and (4) the IT capital planning
and investment control process. The Committee has continued and
modified language requiring that this report be reviewed and
approved by OMB and reviewed by the General Accounting Office.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses, the hire of vehicles, carrying out provisions of
chapter 35 of 44 U.S.C., directs that funds shall be applied
only to items for which appropriations were made, prohibits the
review of agricultural marketing orders and the alteration of
certain testimony. The Committee has continued language funding
a representational allowance and has continued language
prohibiting the use of funds for the purpose of OMB
calculating, preparing, or approving any tabular or other
material that proposes the sub-allocation of budget authority
or outlays by the Committees on Appropriations.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses, research, official reception and representation
expenses, participation in joint projects, and allows for the
acceptance of gifts. The Committee has continued language
providing funds for model state drug law conferences and policy
research and evaluation and making these funds available until
expended.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for counternarcotics research and development and the
technology transfer program.
The Committee has continued language that provides a
certain level of funding for State, local and Federal drug
control efforts, and requires obligation of funds within a
specified period of time. The Committee continues language
regarding the availability of funds.
The Committee has continued language that provides a
certain level of funding for the Drug-Free Media Campaign Act,
for the Drug-Free Communities Act, and to provide a grant to
the National Drug Court Institute, and for the Counterdrug
Intelligence Executive Secretariat and the US Anti-Doping
Agency. The Committee has continued language providing funding
for performance measures development and for membership dues to
the World Anti-Doping Agency.
Language is included providing that a minimum amount of
Media Campaign funds be spent on advertising time and space.
TITLE V--INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
Language is included under Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and expenses'' that
provides that funds received for publications and training may
be credited to the appropriation. The bill contains a number of
general provisions that place limitations or funding
prohibitions on the use of funds in the bill and which might,
under some circumstances, be construed as changing the
application of existing law.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the Committee for Purchase.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the Federal Election Commission and specifying
a level of funding for internal automated data processing
systems and reception and representation expenses.
The Committee has continued language providing that no
territory shall receive more than a certain percentage of
election reform funds.
Language is included under the Federal Maritime Commission
directing the agency to submit a report summarizing current
information technology improvement initiatives and the
Commission's long-term technology improvement plan.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the expenses of the authority, including authorized
services, hire of experts and consultants, hire of passenger
motor vehicles, and rental of conference rooms in the District
of Columbia and elsewhere. The Committee has also continued
provisions on compensation for public members of the Federal
Service Impasse Panel and of the use of fees charged to
participants at labor-management relations conferences.
Language has been included for the General Services
Administration Federal Buildings Fund that specifies the
conditions under which funds made available can be used and
designates certain projects that can be undertaken. Many
technical provisions have been included regarding use of funds
in the Federal Buildings Fund that are not specifically
authorized by law. Language has been included that limits
project funds available for construction and repair and
alteration of buildings not authorized by law. A more detailed
analysis of the Federal Buildings Funds can be found in the
General Services Administration chapter of this report.
Language has been included for General Services
Administration government-wide policy that provides funds for
policy and evaluation activities associated with the management
of real and personal property assets and certain administrative
services; support responsibilities relating to acquisition,
telecommunications, information technology management, and
related technology activities; and services authorized by 5
U.S.C. 3109.
Language has been included for General Services
Administration operating expenses that provides funds for
expenses for activities associated with personal and real
property; technology management and activities; information
access activities; agency-wide policy direction and management;
other support services; and official reception and
representation expenses.
Language has been included for the GSA Office of Inspector
General that provides funds for information and detection of
fraud; and for awards in recognition of efforts that enhance
the office.
Language has been included for the GSA electronic
government fund that allows these funds to be transferred.
Language has been included for allowances and office staff
for former Presidents that allows a portion of these funds to
be transferred.
Section 501 provides that costs included in rent received
from government corporations for operation, protection,
maintenance, upkeep, repair and improvement shall be credited
to the Federal Buildings Fund.
Section 502 authorizes the use of funds for the hire of
motor vehicles.
Section 503 provides that funds made available for
activities of the Federal Buildings Fund may be transferred
between appropriations with advance approval of the Congress.
Section 504 prohibits the use of funds for developing
courthouse construction requests that do not meet GSA standards
and the priorities of the Judicial Conference.
Section 505 provides that no funds may be used to increase
the amount of occupiable square feet, provide cleaning
services, security enhancements, or any other service usually
provided, to any agency which does not pay the requested rent.
Section 506 provides for Information Technology Fund
repayment from sponsored projects that realize program savings.
Section 507 permits GSA to pay small claims (up to
$250,000) made against the government.
Section 508 prohibits GSA from developing or implementing a
mandatory system requiring agencies to use a specific
electronic travel solution or the eTravel Service. This
limitation is extended to the Department of Transportation.
Section 509 provides the General Services Administration
with temporary authority to distribute election reform funds
under Title II, subtitle D of the Help America Vote Act.
Section 510 prohibits the establishment of a quick response
team processing center in Chattanooga, Tennessee.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the Merit Systems Protection Board, including the rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and the direct procurement of
survey printing.
Language has been included for the Morris K. Udall
scholarship and excellence in national environmental policy
trust fund that provides for financial audits and provides for
transfers related to the Native Nations Institute.
Language has been included for the environmental dispute
resolution fund pursuant to the Environmental Policy and
Conflict Resolution Act of 1998.
Language has been included for National Archives and
Records Administration operating expenses for the hire of
passenger motor vehicles; authority to use excess funds for
holding storage; and preservation of the records of the
Freedmen's Bureau.
Language has been included for the electronic records
archive that provides for all direct project costs associated
with its development.
Language has been included for repairs and alterations that
provides funds for the repair, alteration, and improvement of
archives facilities and presidential libraries.
Language has been included for national historical
publications and records commission grants that provides for
activities authorized by 44 U.S.C. 2504.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the Office of Government Ethics, including the rental of
conference rooms in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, the
hire of passenger motor vehicles, and official reception and
representation expenses.
The Committee has continued language that provides for
expenses of the Office of Personnel Management, services
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, medical examinations under certain
conditions, rental of conference rooms, hire of passenger motor
vehicles, official reception and representation expenses,
advances for reimbursement per diem and/or subsistence
allowances for employees affected by Voting Rights Act
activities, transfers to appropriate funds, prohibition of
funds for the Legal Examining Unit, authority to accept
donations for the White House Fellows program, and making funds
available until expended for automating retirement record
keeping. The Committee has continued language making funding
available until expended for a government-wide human resources
data network and for a government-wide payroll modernization
initiative. The Committee has included new language making
funding available for two fiscal years for program evaluation.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for expenses of the Office, audit of the retirement and
insurance programs, and the rental of conference rooms. The
Committee has continued language that provides funds for the
payment of government contributions.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the payment of government contributions.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the payment of government contributions.
The Committee has included new language providing for the
establishment of a human capital performance fund, contingent
upon authorizing legislation. The Committee has included new
language allowing the transfer of funds to the appropriate
federal agencies. The Committee has included new language
providing for the notification and prior approval of the
appropriate Congressional subcommittees prior to the obligation
or transfer of funds.
The Committee has continued language that provides funds
for the Office of Special Counsel, including the payment of
fees and expenses for witnesses, rental of conference rooms,
and the hire of passenger motor vehicles.
The Committee has continued language for the U.S. Tax Court
that provides funds for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109
and language which provides that travel expenses of the judges
shall be paid upon written certification of the judge.
The Committee has included language funding the White House
Commission on the National Moment of Remembrance.
TITLE VI--GENERAL PROVISIONS-THIS ACT
Section 601. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds for aircraft; motor vehicles; liability insurance;
uniforms; or allowances, as authorized by law.
Section 602. The Committee continues the provision
requiring pay raises to be funded within appropriated levels in
this Act or previous appropriations Acts.
Section 603. The Committee continues the provision limiting
appropriations for services authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109 to the
rate for an Executive Level IV.
Section 604. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act for salaries and expenses of more
than 110 political and Presidential appointees in the
Department of Transportation, and prohibits political and
Presidential personnel to be assigned on temporary detail
outside the Department of Transportation or an independent
agency funded in this Act.
Section 605. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting pay and other expenses for non-Federal parties in
regulatory or adjudicatory proceedings funded in this Act.
Section 606. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting obligations beyond the current fiscal year and
prohibits transfers of funds unless expressly so provided
herein.
Section 607. The Committee continues the provision limiting
consulting service expenditures of public record in procurement
contracts.
Section 608. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the implementation of section 404 of
title 23, U.S.C.
Section 609. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting recipients of funds made available in this Act to
release personal information, including a social security
number, medical or disability information, and photographs from
a driver's license or motor vehicle record without express
consent of the person to whom such information pertains; and
prohibits the Secretary from withholding funds provided in this
Act for any grantee if a state is in noncompliance with this
provision.
Section 610. The Committee continues the provision allowing
funds received by the Federal Highway Administration, Federal
Transit Administration, and the Federal Railroad Administration
from States, counties, municipalities, other public
authorities, and private sources for expenses incurred for
training may be credited to each agency's respective accounts.
Section 611. The Committee continues the provision
authorizing the Secretary of Transportation to allow issuers of
any preferred stock to redeem or repurchase preferred stock
sold to the Department of Transportation.
Section 612. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act unless the Secretary of
Transportation notifies the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three full business days before
any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full
funding grant agreement totaling $1,000,000 or more is
announced by the department or its modal administration.
Section 613. The Committee continues a provision
designating the city of Norman, Oklahoma, to be considered part
of the Oklahoma City Transportation Management Area for fiscal
year 2004.
Section 614. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds for the Office of the Secretary of
Transportation to approve assessments or reimbursable
agreements pertaining to funds appropriated to the modal
administrations in this Act, unless such assessments or
agreements have completed the normal reprogramming process for
Congressional notification.
Section 615. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting funds in this Act to be transferred without express
authority.
Section 616. The Committee includes a new provision
allowing funds received from said sources to be credited to
appropriations using fair and equitable criteria.
Section 617. The Committee includes a new provision
allowing that amounts from improper payments to a third party
contractor that are lawfully recovered by the Department of
Transportation shall be available to cover expenses incurred in
recovery of such payments.
Section 618. The Committee includes a new provision
authorizing the transfer of unexpended sums from ``Minority
Business Outreach'' to ``Office of the Secretary, Salaries and
expenses''.
Section 619. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds to engage in activities that would
prohibit the enforcement of section 307 of the 1930 Tariff Act.
Section 620. The Committee continues the provision
concerning employment rights of Federal employees who return to
their civilian jobs after assignment with the Armed Forces.
Section 621. The Committee continues the provision
compliance with the Buy American Act.
Section 622. The Committee continues the provision that
fifty percent of unobligated balances may remain available for
certain purposes.
Section 623. The Committee continues the provision
restricting the use of funds for the White House to request
official background reports without the written consent of the
individual who is the subject of the report.
Section 624. The Committee continues the provision
regarding non-foreign area cost of living allowances.
Section 625. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds by any person or entity convicted
of violating the Buy American Act.
Section 626. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the expenditure of funds for abortions under FEHBP
or the administrative expenses in connection with any health
plan under the FEHBP that provides any benefits or coverage for
abortions.
Section 627. The Committee continues the provision for an
exemption from Section 626 where the life of the mother is
endangered or the pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or
incest.
Section 628. The Committee includes a new provision
directing the Secretary of Transportation, working with
affected states, to develop and implement a Fair Competitive
Bid Procedure to assist states in introducing carefully managed
competition to demonstrate whether competition will provide
higher quality rail service at reasonable prices.
Section 629. The Committee includes a new provision that
establishes limitations on the reprogramming of funds made
available in this Act.
Section 630. The Committee includes a new provision
prohibiting funds to require a state or local government to
post a traffic control device or variable message sign, or any
other type of traffic sign, in a language other than English,
except in certain specified situations.
Section 631. The Committee includes a new provision waiving
restrictions on the purchase of non-domestic articles,
materials, and supplies in the case of acquisition by the
Federal Government of information technology.
Section 632. The Committee includes a new provision
providing a sense of the House of Representatives that
empowerment zones within cities should have the necessary
flexibility to expand to include relevant communities so that
empowerment zone benefits are equitably distributed.
Section 633. The Committee includes a new provision
providing a sense of the House of Representatives that all
census tracts contained in an empowerment zone, either fully or
partially, should be equitably accorded the same benefits.
Section 634. The Committee continues the provision
prohibiting the use of funds for a proposed rule relating to
the determination that real estate brokerage is a financial
activity.
TITLE VII--GOVERNMENTWIDE GENERAL PROVISIONS
Section 701 authorizes agencies to pay costs of travel to
the United States for the immediate families of Federal
employees assigned to foreign duty in the event of a death or a
life threatening illness of the employee.
Section 702 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all of its workplaces are free from the
illegal use of controlled substances.
Section 703 establishes price limitations on vehicles to be
purchase by the Federal Government.
Section 704 allows funds made available to agencies for
travel, to also be used for quarters allowances and cost-of-
living allowances.
Section 705 prohibits the government, with certain
specified exceptions, from employing non-U.S. citizens whose
posts of duty would be in the continental U.S.
Section 706 ensures that agencies will have authority to
pay GSA bills for space renovation and other services.
Section 707 allows agencies to finance the costs of
recycling and waste prevention programs with proceeds for the
sale of materials recovered through such programs.
Section 708 provides that funds may be used to pay rent and
other service costs in the District of Columbia.
Section 709 prohibits payments to persons filing positions
for which they have been nominated after the Senate has voted
not to approve the nomination.
Section 710 prohibits interagency financing of groups
absent prior statutory approval.
Section 711 authorizes the Postal Service to employ guards
and give them the same special policy powers as other federal
guards.
Section 712 prohibits the use of funds for enforcing
regulations disapproved in accordance with the applicable law
of the U.S.
Section 713 limits the pay increase of certain prevailing
rate employees.
Section 714 limits the amount of funds that can be used for
redecoration of offices under certain circumstances.
Section 715 allows for the interagency funding of national
security and emergency telecommunications initiatives.
Section 716 requires agencies to certify that a Schedule C
appointment was not created solely or primarily to detail the
employee to the White House, with exceptions.
Section 717 requires agencies to administer a policy
designed to ensure that all workplaces are free from
discrimination and sexual harassment.
Section 718 prohibits the payment of any employee who
prohibits, threatens or prevents another employee from
communicating with Congress.
Section 719 prohibits Federal training not directly related
to the performance of official duties.
Section 720 prohibits the expenditure of funds for
implementation of agreements in nondisclosure policies unless
certain provisions are included.
Section 721 prohibits propaganda, publicity and lobbying by
executive agency personnel in support or defeat of legislative
initiatives.
Section 722 prohibits any Federal agency from disclosing an
employee's home address to any labor organization, absent
employee authorization or court order.
Section 723 prohibits funds from being used to provide non-
public information such as mailing or telephone lists to any
person or organization outside the government without the
approval of the Committees on Appropriations.
Section 724 prohibits the use of funds for propaganda and
publicity purposes not authorized by Congress.
Section 725 directs agency employees to use official time
in an honest effort to perform official duties.
Section 726 authorizes the use of funds to finance an
appropriate share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement
Program.
Section 727 authorizes agencies to transfer funds to the
Governmentwide Policy account of GSA to finance an appropriate
share of the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program and
other purposes.
Section 728 permits breastfeeding in a Federal building or
on Federal property if the woman and child are authorized to be
there.
Section 729 permits interagency funding of the National
Science and Technology Council and requires a report on the
budget and resources of the council.
Section 730 requires documents involving the distribution
of Federal funds to indicate the agency providing the funds and
the amount provided.
Section 731 extends the authorization for franchise fund
pilots for one year.
Section 732 prohibits the use of funds to monitor personal
information relating to the use of Federal internet sites to
collect, review, or create any aggregate list that includes
certain personally identifiable information.
Section 733 requires health plans participating in the
FEHBP to provide contraceptive coverage and provides exemptions
to certain religious groups.
Section 734 provides recognition of the U.S. Anti-Doping
Agency as the official anti-doping agency.
Section 735 requires a report by the Inspector General
detailing policies and procedures for implementing portion of
the Rural Development Act, 1972.
Section 736 requires each agency to evaluate the
creditworthiness of an individual before issuing the individual
a government travel charge card.
Section 737 permits interagency funding of the National
Oceanographic Partnership Program Office and the Coastal
American program and requires a report on their budget and
resources.
Section 738 allows for the extension of the Federal
Election Commission's administrative fine program for an
additional two years, through the end of calendar 2005.
Section 739 allows for the timely filing of reports with
the Federal Election Commission using overnight delivery,
priority, or express mail.
Section 740 provides that the adjustment in rates of basic
pay for employees under statutory pay systems, including
prevailing rate employees, taking effect in fiscal year 2004
shall be an increase of 4.1 percent.
Section 741 requires each agency to report on competitive
sourcing activities.
Comparison With the Budget Resolution
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an explanation of compliance with
section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, which requires that the report accompanying a bill
providing new budget authority contain a statement detailing
how that authority compares with the reports submitted under
section 302 of the Act for the most recently agreed to
concurrent resolution on the budget for the fiscal year from
the Committee's section 302(a) allocation. This information
follows:
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays
-----------------------------------------------
Committee Amount of Committee Outlays of
allocation bill allocation bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comparison of amounts in the bill with Committee allocations to
its subcommittees of amounts in the House Budget Resolution for
2004: Subcommittee on Transportation and Treasury:
General purpose discretionary............................... $27,502 $27,501 $71,360 \1\ $71,35
8
Mandatory................................................... 17,518 17,518 17,516 17,516
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In compliance with section 308(a)(1)(B) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the following table contains
five-year projections associated with the budget authority
provided in the accompanying bill as provided to the Committee
by the Congressional Budget Office:
Projection of outlays associated with the recommendation:ons of dollars]
2004.....................................................\2\ $47,349
2005...................................................... 7,034
2006...................................................... 2,550
2007...................................................... 1,508
2008 and future years..................................... 1,656
\2\ Excludes outlays from prior-year budget authority.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974
(Public Law 93-344), as amended, the Congressional Budget
Office has provided the following estimates of new budget
authority and outlays provided by the accompanying bill for
financial assistance to state and local governments:
[In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget authority Outlays amount
amount of bill of bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Financial assistance to State and $1,965 $10,671
local governments for 2004.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rescissions
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(f)(2) of rule XIII
of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the following
table is submitted describing the rescissions recommended in
the accompanying bill:
Federal Highway Administration.......................... $137,000,000
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 3(b) of rule XIII of
the Rules of the House of Representatives, the results of each
rollcall vote on an amendment or on the motion to report,
together with the names of those voting for and those voting
against, are printed below:
ROLLCALL NO. 1
Date: July 24, 2003.
Measure: Departments of Transportation and Treasury and
Independent Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2004.
Motion by: Mr. Olver.
Description of motion: To maintain the Transportation
Enhancement set-aside under the Surface Transportation Program
and ensure that funds could only be used for that program.
Results: Rejected 29 yeas to 33 nays.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Berry Mr. Aderholt
Mr. Bishop Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Boyd Mr. Crenshaw
Mr. Clyburn Mr. Culberson
Mr. Cramer Mr. Cunningham
Ms. DeLauro Mr. Doolittle
Mr. Dicks Mrs. Emerson
Mr. Edwards Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Farr Mr. Goode
Mr. Fattah Ms. Granger
Mr. Hinchey Mr. Hobson
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Istook
Mr. Jackson Mr. Kingston
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kirk
Mr. Kennedy Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Kilpatrick Mr. Kolbe
Mr. LaHood Mr. Latham
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Lewis
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Moran Mr. Peterson
Mr. Obey Mr. Regula
Mr. Olver Mr. Rogers
Mr. Price Mr. Sherwood
Mr. Rothman Mr. Sweeney
Ms. Roybal-Allard Mr. Taylor
Mr. Sabo Mr. Tiahrt
Mr. Serrano Mr. Vitter
Mr. Simpson Mr. Walsh
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Wamp
Dr. Weldon
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HONORABLE DAVID R. OBEY AND HONORABLE JOHN W. OLVER
The bill reported out by the Transportation, Treasury and
Independent Agencies Subcommittee would have devastated
transportation programs in cities across the nation. Under the
terms of the Subcommittee reported bill, fifteen communities
across the nation in areas such as Altoona, PA, Jamestown, NY,
Burlington, IA and Johnstown, PA, stood to lose both their
passenger rail service and their commercial air service on the
same day. Thousands of other communities, including several of
the fifteen who would lose air and rail service, could also
lost funding for transportation enhancement projects such as
bike and pedestrian trails, streetscape renovations and rail-
to-trail conversions.
The bill adopted by the Committee is certainly an
improvement over the original Transportation. Treasury and
Independent Agencies Subcommittee reported bill. However,
serious and significant problems remain that will need to be
addressed as the process moves forward.
Specifically,
The Amtrak funding level threatens to either
bankrupt the nation's passenger rail system or put it on a path
to bankruptcy by denying capital and structural improvements
that are necessary to ensure the safety and reliability of the
system.
Transportation enhancement projects lose the
funding guarantee that was put in place a dozen years ago.
Funds are not provided, as requested by the Bush
Administration, to begin hiring additional Air Traffic
Controllers in advance of the eminent wave of retirements.
New IRS enforcement resources are
disproportionately tilted toward cracking down on the working
poor while too few resources are requested or attacking other
high-yielding tax schemes like offshore accounts and credit
cards, corporate tax avoidance and individual expatriates.
AMTRAK
Amtrak is funded at $900 million, $250 million, or almost
22%, below the fiscal year 2003 level and only half of what
Amtrak says is necessary to ensure reliable service and to
begin to address the years of neglect of capital priorities.
At the $900 million funding level contained in the
committee bill, Amtrak will teeter on the brink of bankruptcy
for another year. Potentially even worse, without the funding
needed to address the capital backlog, Amtrak will continue to
be one catastrophe--such as a bridge or switch failure--away
from an event that could shut down Amtrak operations and impact
the operations of commuter rail trains that run on Amtrak's
bridges and tracks in the Northeast corridor.
No one should believe the Committee reported funding level
for Amtrak is sufficient. Transportation Inspector General Mead
recently wrote of a $900 million funding level, ``Because there
would not be any funds remaining for other capital investments,
operational reliability likely would suffer without substantial
funding from other sources. None of the backlog of capital
needs could be addressed at this funding level.''
The report accompanying the bill says that ``for over
thirty years, Amtrak has operated in the red at the expense of
American taxpayers.'' This flawed argument is based on the idea
that national passenger transportation systems are supposed to
turn a profit. To argue that Amtrak should ``make a profit'' is
inconsistent with expectations we hold for other modes of
transportation and unreasonable given privatization efforts
that have failed in other countries.
The report also argues for reducing the number of routes
Amtrak currently operates. But, the report does not mention
that reducing routes to only those that have a potential of
becoming ``profitable'' would most likely result in the layoff
of 10,000-12,000 of Amtrak's current workforce, with first year
severance obligations totalling as much as $1 billion. These
severance costs would continue for several years.
In the correspondence mentioned above, Transportation
Inspector General Mead recently pointed out that these
severance payments would have to be met through an ``external''
source of financing. Without an external source of additional
funds, Amtrak's only option would be to declare bankruptcy.
Amtrak is widely supported by Members of Congress and the
general public. Recently more than 220 House Members from both
parties signed a letter supporting full funding for Amtrak. The
Amtrak reauthorization bill also provides full funding at the
Amtrak request level of $1.8 billion. The public supports
Federal funding for a national rail passenger system as well. A
Washington Post poll taken last Summer found 71% support for
continued or increased Federal funding of Amtrak.
Even a recent George Will column supporting Amtrak and the
efforts of Amtrak's new President David Gunn said ``support for
Amtrak is strong among all regions, ages, education levels and
income groups.''
Given the broad support and the overwhelming needs, it is
important to cast aside the myths about Amtrak that are
perpetuated in the Committee report. In order to balance the
critical needs of Amtrak with limited resources for which all
programs must compete, $1.4 billion should be provided for
Amtrak in fiscal year 2004. This funding level will allow
Amtrak to begin to address the backlog of capital needs and to
shore up vital components of the infrastructure.
TRANSPORTATION ENHANCEMENTS
The Committee reported bill eliminates funding specifically
dedicated for Transportation Enhancements (TE) that has been in
existence since 1991 when ISTEA was enacted. The TE program was
designed to help communities expand transportation choices.
Congress, in both ISTEA and TEA-21, determined that a small
portion--about 2%--of our $31+ billion highway program should
go to TE projects. TE funds can be used for safe bicycle and
pedestrian facilities, the conversion to trails of abandoned
railroad rights of way, renovating streetscapses, scenic
routes, beautification, and other investments that increase
recreation opportunity and access.
The bill adopted by the Committee would eliminate the
dedicated funding Congress provided to TE projects over the
past twelve years. This is contrary to the request of the Bush
Administration which proposed to continue the TE programs in
its' highway reauthorization proposal.
The States of Wyoming, Alaska, Arkansas, Minnesota,
Vermont, North Dakota, Oklahoma, New Hampshire and Delaware
have obligated the most TE funding from 1998 to 2003. All of
these states have obligated more than 90% of the TE funding
they received, exceeding the nation-wide averages for all of
the core highway programs. To date bicycle and pedestrian
facilities, combined with rail-trails, comprise over half of
the state TE obligations.
A 2000 report determined that TE projects have both social
and economic benefits. For example, a Union Station
rehabilitation project in Meridian, Mississippi funded by TE,
was determined to have spurred $10 million in private
investment in the depot district. The Kentucky Cabinet for
Economic Development estimated that visitors to the River
Heritage Museum, funded by TE, will bring in $20.1 million to
the Paducah area over five years.
The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recently said in support of
TE funding, ``This program is popular with many States because
it contributes to projects that add to the quality of life and
directly affects projects in localities. To date over fifteen
thousand projects which range from bike paths to historic
bridges have been built at the community level. It is one of
the most popular TEA-21 programs.''
The future of the TE program is more appropriately left to
the Authorizing Committee, as it debates the highway
reauthorization. That is where Members should address any
issues they have with this program.
An amendment Mr. Olver offered in Committee to keep funding
for the TE program as it is today was defeated by a vote of 33-
29. We continue to believe that Section 114 of the Committee
bill should be removed so that funding continues to be
dedicated for these vital TE projects.
AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
The Committee passed bill fails to provide $14 million
requested by the Administration for the hiring of 328
additional air traffic controllers. This decision is short-
sighted given the rash of Air Traffic Controller (ATC)
retirements that are expected in the next few years.
Because of the large scale hiring of ATC's that took place
during the 1980's, a bubble of ATC's are about to become
eligible for retirement in the next few years. The recent GAO
study entitled ``Air Traffic Control: FAA Needs to Better
Prepare for Impending Wave of Controller Attrition'' found that
controller retirements will increase dramatically beginning in
2003 and continuing through 2010.
The Committee report argues that we should not be concerned
about eminent retirements because ``Attrition in the controller
workforce has been very low for the past five years,'' and that
``This trend does not provide compelling evidence of an
impending surge in retirements.'' However, it is important to
remember that the demographics of the workforce dictate that
attrition rates would be low until 2003 when the post-strike
ATC hires began to reach retirement eligibility. On this point,
the GAO report said ``approximately 5,000 controllers may leave
in the next 5 years, a figure that is more than two times
higher than that for the past 5 years.''
Because of the length and complexity of training, it is
important to begin hiring now to address the eminent wave of
retirements. Funding for hiring new Air Traffic Controllers
should be provided at the administration's request level of $14
million.
MISPLACED TAX COMPLIANCE RESOURCES
It is common knowledge that we continue to lose an
increasing amount of tax revenues each year because of tax
avoidance schemes. The difference between revenues collected
and revenues lost each year due to tax avoidance schemes is
often referred to the ``tax gap.''
At the same time we're seeing increased non-compliance,
we've had fewer and fewer revenue officers and agents dedicated
to compliance activities. Since 1996, the number of Revenue
Agents has dropped from 14,949 to 11,752 in 2002. The number of
Collections Revenue Officers has dropped from 5,537 in 1996 to
3,495 in 2002.
The previous IRS Commissioner summed it up quite well when
he said that under funding the IRS enforcement efforts ``is
systemically undermining one of the most important foundations
of the American economy'' and that ``basically, the demands and
resources are going in the opposite direction.'' He also said
that another $2 billion was needed annually to staff up the IRS
to meet the real enforcement needs.
Clearly, stronger enforcement measures are needed. It is
estimated that the Treasury loses $132 billion per year from
individual taxpayers, $70 billion form offshore accounts, and
$46 billion from corporations through non-compliance and tax
avoidance schemes.
That is why it is particularly appalling that while
enforcement has slipped in areas such as those mentioned above,
the IRS has decided to go after the working poor for alleged
overpayments in the EITC program, which are quite small by
comparison.
The IRS budget proposes a new $100 million initiative aimed
at EITC error rates and only $133 million for all other new
compliance initiatives. That is about a 70% increase to the
EITC compliance account and a 3% increase to the tax
enforcement account. That is certainly a disproportionate use
of resources.
Additionally, without any new authority or approval from
Congress, the IRS is moving rapidly to implement sweeping
changes that could adversely impact the lives of millions of
hard working, low income Americans. Under the IRS' new $100
million EITC pre-certification initiative, certain filers
subject to pre-certification will be required to provide a new
form and documents in summer or fall months to avoid delay or
denial of their EITC the following year.
The IRS has estimated that between 75%-85% of all EITC-
eligible filers currently claim the credit each year. This is
an admirable participation rate when compared to other federal
programs and we should take every step possible to ensure
comparable participation rates are maintained.
At the time the pre-certification initiative was proposed,
the IRS had no way of estimating the impact of this proposal on
EITC participation rates. And, this additional paperwork burden
will come at a time in the year when low-income tax preparation
sites and commercial tax preparers are generally not open to
provide assistance.
Currently the IRS is undertaking a pilot of the pre-
certification proposal using 45,000 EITC claimants. As part of
the evaluation of the pilot, the IRS must ensure that any steps
taken to reduce overpayments do not negatively impact the
current participation rate. If the IRS finds that the pre-
certification requirements discourage participation among
eligible claimants, we feel strongly that the $100 million
provided for the pre-certification initiative should be
withheld until corrections and improvements can be implemented.
OTHER CONCERNS AND CONCLUSION
In addition to the concerns outlined above, this bill
contains too little funding for job Access and Reverse Commute
programs that help the working poor get to and from their jobs.
Specifically, the bill only provides $85 million, $65 million
below the fiscal year 2003 enacted level. Furthermore, no
funding is provided in this bill for courthouse construction
despite the nearly $1 billion, multi-year backlog of
construction needs at sites across the nation.
In conclusion, many changes are needed to address the
critical problems that remain in the Committee reported bill.
We will continue to seek the improvements outlined above as
this bill moves through the Congress.
Dave Obey.
John Olver.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF THE HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV SABO
Across the federal government, the experienced workforce is
fast graying and approaching retirement age. Nowhere is this
concern more evident than in Federal Aviation Administration
air traffic control (ATC) services.
Over a number of years, I have closely monitored this FAA
workforce and urged the FAA and General Accounting Office to
analyze trends and making policy recommendations to ensure
viable federal ATC operations for years to come. The safety
consequences of an inadequate ATC workforce are simply
unacceptable.
According to the most recent GAO analysis of FAA air
traffic control needs, thousands of the FAA's more than 20,000
air traffic controllers will be eligible for retirement by
2011.
Of the 8,200 en-route air traffic controllers, many are
already eligible for retirement. By 2006, 26 percent of these
en-route controllers will be eligible to retire. By 2011, that
percentage will increase to 65.
It takes time and resources to train experienced and
trustworthy workers in this critical, high stress job. We must
take the long view to ensure an adequate supply of quality air
traffic controllers, regardless of whether the commercial
aviation industry is experiencing a short-term economic
downturn.
A very cost-effective source for well-trained en-route air
traffic controllers is the Mid-America Aviation Resource
Consortium. Not only is the MARC program the only post-graduate
school in the country specializing in training en-route air
traffic controllers, it has a fine reputation of recruiting
women and minorities into this workforce. Further, the federal
retention rate for MARC en-route controller graduates is very
high.
For 13 years, the committee explicitly funded the MARC
program. Unfortunately, that support is absent from the bill
this year. Therefore, I offered an amendment in full committee
to provide $2 million to continue operations support for the
MARC school.
During committee discussion, the Chairman noted a
distinction between air traffic controllers' eligibility for
retirement and actual retirements. There is room for honest
debate about the retirement rate. However, no one should
dispute that there is a bow wave of retirements coming for FAA
air traffic controllers, and we will continue to need to train
new ones in the near and long term.
The MARC air traffic control school is a great success
story--for Minnesota and the nation. It cost-effectively trains
talented young men and women to keep us safe every time we fly.
While I withdrew my amendment in committee, it would be
shortsighted to allow this vital program to lapse, and I will
continue to press for MARC funding as the bill moves forward.
Martin Olav Sabo.