[House Report 106-622]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
106th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 106-622
======================================================================
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
2001
_______
May 17, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Wolf, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 4475]
The Committee on Appropriations submits the following
report in explanation of the accompanying bill making
appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related
agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
_______________________________________________________________________
Page number
Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action......................
2
Program, project, and activity.............................
4
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary............................ 2
5
Coast Guard........................................ 6
16
Federal Aviation Administration.................... 10
27
Federal Highway Administration..................... 16
55
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........ 18
75
Federal Railroad Administration.................... 21
87
Federal Transit Administration..................... 24
97
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..... 19
80
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation...... 34
160
Research and Special Programs Administration....... 35
161
Office of Inspector General........................ 37
165
Surface Transportation Board....................... 38
167
Title II--Related Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board............................... 38
168
National Transportation Safety Board............... 39
169
Title III--General Provisions.............................. 39
170
House Report Requirements:
Appropriations not authorized by law...............
180
Changes in existing law............................
173
Comparison with budget resolution..................
180
Constitutional authority...........................
172
Financial assistance to state and local governments
181
Five-year projections of outlays...................
180
Ramseyer...........................................
173
Rescissions........................................
181
Transfers of funds.................................
172
Tabular summary of the bill................................
182
Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill
The accompanying bill would provide $15,764,474,000 in new
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, $389,263,000
less than the $16,153,737,000 requested in the budget. In
total, the bill includes obligational authority (new budget
authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (AIR21), limitations on obligations, and exempt
obligations) of $55,236,650,000. This is $5,209,010,000 more
than the comparable fiscal year 2000 enacted level and
$605,737,000 more than the budget request.
Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill
are:
(1) An appropriation of $12,585,366,000 for the
Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with
provisions of AIR21, an increase of $2,503,871,000, or
25 percent, above fiscal year 2000;
(2) A limitation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid
for airports, as required by provisions of AIR21, and
an increase of $1,250,000,000, or 64 percent, above the
fiscal year 2000 level and the budget request;
(3) An appropriation of $3,192,000,000 for operating
expenses of the Coast Guard, including $557,963,000 for
drug interdiction activities, a 14 percent increase
over last year's level;
(4) An appropriation of $521,476,000 for grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
to cover capital expenses;
(5) A total of $62,109,000 for the office of the
secretary, $7,077,000 below the budget request;
(6) Highway program obligation limitations of
$29,661,806,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21,
and $1,960,456,000 over fiscal year 2000;
(7) Transit program obligations of $6,271,000,000,
consistent with provisions of TEA21, and $485,647,000
over fiscal year 2000; and
(8) A total of $269,194,000 for the recently
established Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration, including $177,000,000 for the national
motor carrier safety program, an increase of
$164,194,000 above fiscal year 2000.
The Effect of Guaranteed Spending
Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget
Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide
two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the
highway category and the mass transit category. Earlier this
year, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21st Century (AIR21) 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, including non-guaranteed
transportation programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast
Guard, and Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, $46.7 billion of
the $55.2 billion in budgetary resources addressed by this
bill--or 85 percent of the bill's total resources--are either
``guaranteed'' by federal legislation and/or protected by
unprecedented legislated points of order passed into law at the
initiative of the authorization committees.
The Committee will continue to do all it can in this
environment to produce a balanced bill which provides
adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly
the expanding 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
the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered
transportation programs and activities, since they must compete
within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues
to be concerned that bills such as TEA21 and AIR21 skew
transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a
banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending
while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, Coast
Guard, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. The
Committee continues to believe that safety--not concrete--
should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility
in the transportation area.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
2000 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
2001 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 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for
fiscal year 2001. These hearings are contained in seven
published volumes. The Committee received testimony from
officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress,
officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state
and local governments, and private citizens.
The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2001 have been
developed after careful consideration of all the information
available to the Committee.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced
Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law
99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained
in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and
activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is
contained in 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, and for acquisition, construction, and
improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each
``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the
budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent
appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports,
conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the
committee of conference.
Safety Programs
In this bill, the Committee has worked hard to protect
funding for essential safety-related programs of the Department
of Transportation and the independent agencies. This has been
difficult, but not impossible, given the budget constraints
faced by the Federal Government this year. In some cases, funds
have been added to the administration's request for safety-
related activities. However, if, in the judgment of
departmental officials any of the Committee's recommendations
would significantly harm transportation safety, or if
unanticipated safety needs arise during the course of the
appropriations process, the Committee welcomes discussions with
the administration to adjust individual funding levels and
provide the funding needed. The bill also allows significant
flexibility through the reprogramming process, which requires
no further legislative action. The Committee will work with
administration officials to reprogram funds for safety programs
if that should be required.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\.................... ($60,852,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\................... 69,186,000
Recommended in the bill \1\............................ (62,109,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.................... +1,257,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................... -7,077,000
\1\ Total amount appropriated in separate accounts.
\2\ Amount requested in this consolidated account.
The bill provides a total of $62,109,000 for the salaries
and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of
the Secretary. The Committee has not approved the consolidated
appropriations request for the various offices within the
office of the secretary and has continued to provide
appropriations for each office within the office of the
secretary. Specific program recommendations are discussed in
this report under the individual appropriations accounts.
Congressional justifications and supporting materials.--The
Committee appreciates the timely submission of the department's
fiscal year 2001 Congressional justifications. The Committee
again directs the department to submit all of the department's
fiscal year Congressional justifications on the first Monday in
February, concurrent with official submission of the
President's budget to Congress.
While the Committee was pleased that the Congressional
justifications were submitted to the Committee concurrent with
the official budget of the President, the Committee was not
satisfied with the timeliness of the submission of responses to
questions for the record and the editing of the transcript.
These materials are as--if not more--important than the
Congressional justifications and the Committee cannot fully
review the budget requests of the department in the absence of
these materials. The Committee expects that the department will
take actions to ensure that the materials submitted to the
Committee for review are completed and submitted on a far more
timely basis.
The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year
2002 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 2001.
In addition, the justification materials for the individual
modal administrations for fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall
include tables detailing a ten-year history of appropriations.
Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the
secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year
2000 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed
in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2001.
Assessments.--The Committee directs that assessments
charged by the office of the secretary to the modal
administrations shall be for administrative activities, not
policy initiatives.
General Provision
Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305),
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 2001 is 104
personnel, which is four more than the level enacted in fiscal
year 2000. This increase reflects the additional political
appointees associated with the creation of the new Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The bill specifies that no
political or Presidential appointee may be detailed outside the
Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this
bill.
Immediate Office of the Secretary
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,867,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (2,031,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,756,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -111,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -275,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary
responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and
control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an
appropriation of $1,756,000 for expenses of the immediate
office of the secretary, which represents a decrease of
$111,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $275,000
below the level assumed in the budget request. The
recommendation assumes the following staffing reductions:
Eliminate second deputy chief of staff.................... -$200,000
Eliminate one scheduling and advance assistant............ -75,000
Staffing reductions.--The Committee recommendation assumes
the elimination of a second deputy chief of staff and a
scheduling and advance assistant in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee believes that a second deputy chief of staff is
unnecessary and that current staffing levels in the immediate
office of the secretary and the resources provided in the bill
are sufficient to enable the secretary to carry out his
legislative agenda, formulate national transportation policy,
and to promote an intermodal transportation system, economic
growth and trade. The positions proposed in the bill for
elimination in fiscal year 2001 are currently vacant.
Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................... (587,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................... 587,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ -13,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ...........
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the
primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in the overall
planning, direction and control of the departmental affairs.
The Committee recommends $587,000 for expenses of the immediate
office of the deputy secretary, which is a decrease of $13,000
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level
assumed in the budget request.
Office of the General Counsel
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $9,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (11,172,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 9,760,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +760,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -1,412,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services
to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the
legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating
administrations. The bill provides an appropriation of
$9,760,000 for expenses of the office of general counsel, which
represents an increase of $760,000 from the fiscal year 2000
enacted level, and $1,412,000 less than the level assumed in
the budget request.
Due to budget constraints, the bill provides limited
resources, $300,000, for the department's ``Accessibility for
all America'' initiative and exclusionary pricing activities.
These resources are expected to support three new positions.
There are several vacancies currently in the office of the
general counsel which may be filled to augment the new staffing
and resources provided by the Committee in this Act.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $2,824,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (3,131,500)
Recommended in the bill................................... 3,131,500
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +308,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the chief domestic
policy officer of the department and is responsible to the
Secretary for analysis, development, communication and review
of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues. For
fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends an appropriation of
$3,131,500 for the office of the assistant secretary for
policy, which represents an increase of $308,000 over the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level as assumed
in the budget request.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $7,650,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (7,702,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 7,182,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -468,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -520,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International
Affairs is responsible for administering economic regulatory
functions regarding the airline industry and provides
departmental leadership and coordination on international
transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade,
technical assistance and cooperative programs.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,182,000 for
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for aviation
and international affairs, which represents a reduction of
$468,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $520,000
below the level assumed in the budget request. The
recommendation assumes the elimination of four transportation
industry specialists (-$400,000) and disallows a proposed new
position of special assistant to the Assistant Secretary for
Aviation and International Affairs (-$120,000). The bill
includes a provision that permits the collection and crediting
to this appropriation of up to $1,250,000 received in user
fees, as requested in the budget.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $6,870,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (7,241,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 7,241,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +371,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... ..............
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is
responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget
resource requirements for the department to the Secretary,
Congress and the Office of Management and Budget.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,241,000 for
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for budget
and programs, which represents an increase of $371,000 over the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level assumed in
the budget request.
Reception and representation expenses.--The Committee has
approved the request to increase to $60,000 the amount to be
available for costs related to reception and representation
expenses.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $2,039,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (2,176,000)
Recommended in the bill................................... 2,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -39,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -176,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental
Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional,
intergovernmental, and consumer activities of the department.
The bill provides an appropriation of $2,000,000 for
expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for
governmental affairs, which represents a decrease of $39,000
from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $176,000 below the
level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes
the elimination of one congressional affairs specialist
(-$76,000) and a general reduction due to budget constraints
(-$100,000).
The bill continues a provision (sec. 329) that has been
carried in previous appropriations Acts that requires the
department to notify the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not less than three business days before any
discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding
grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the
department or its modal administrations from: (1) any
discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration
other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport
improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and
(3) any program of the Federal Transit Administration program
other than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization
programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the
official announcement of the grant is to be made and no such
announcement shall involve funds that are not available for
obligation.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $17,767,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (20,139,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 18,359,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +592,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -1,780,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is
responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various
accounting, procurement, personnel management, and ADP
operations of the department.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,359,000
for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for
administration, which represents an increase of $592,000 from
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $1,780,000 below the
level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes
the following reductions:
Eliminate proposed increases for employee development... -$1,160,000
General reduction due to budget constraints............. -500,000
Eliminate 1 personnel management specialist............. -120,000
Personnel reductions.--The Committee recommendation deletes
funding requested for one personnel management specialist. This
position is currently vacant.
General reduction.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee recommendation reduces the budget request for the
office of administration by $500,000. The Committee directs
that such reductions be taken from non-personnel activities,
such as contractor support, overhead and other related
activities, to avoid personnel reductions not otherwise
directed by the Committee.
Office of Public Affairs
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,714,000)
Recommended in the bill................................... 1,454,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -346,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -260,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news
releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials,
publications, and audio-visual materials of the department.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,454,000 for
expenses of the office of public affairs, which represents a
decrease of $346,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level
and $260,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The
recommendation assumes the elimination of 2 public affairs
specialists (-$160,000), which are currently vacant, and a
proposed new position of special assistant to the associate
director for speech writing (-$100,000).
Executive Secretariat
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,102,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,181,000)
Recommended in the bill................................... 1,181,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +79,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary in carrying out their management functions and
responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and
external written materials.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,181,000 for
expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $79,000 more
than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level
assumed in the budget request.
Board of Contract Appeals
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $520,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................... (496,000)
Recommended in the bill.................................... 496,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ -24,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ...........
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Board of Contract Appeals provides an independent forum
for considering all contract-related claims by or against a
contractor involving any element of the department.
The bill provides an appropriation of $496,000 for expenses
of the Board of Contract Appeals, which is a reduction of
$24,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same
level assumed in the budget request.
Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,222,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,192,000)
Recommended in the bill................................... 1,192,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -30,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization
is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business
participation in the department's procurement and grants
programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of
$1,192,000 for expenses of the office of small and
disadvantaged business utilization, which is a decrease of
$30,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same
level assumed in the budget request.
Office of Intelligence and Security
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,454,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (3,494,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 1,490,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +36,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -2,004,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of Intelligence and Security was created during
fiscal year 1990 to address transportation intelligence and
security issues. The primary purposes of the office are to
provide intelligence and security oversight of the operating
administrations to increase the safety and security of the
traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy
Secretary with current intelligence and security information,
with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats
to transportation interests.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for
expenses of the office of intelligence and security, which is
an increase of $36,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level
and $2,004,000 below the level assumed in the budget request.
The recommendation disallows funding requested in this account
for infrastructure protection activities (-$2,000,000). These
activities are funded, albeit at lower levels, within amounts
provided to the Research and Special Programs Administration.
In addition, funding is provided within the model
administration's budgets for these activities.
Office of the Chief Information Officer
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $5,075,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (6,929,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. 6,279,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +1,204,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -650,000
\1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account.
The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as
the principal advisor to the Secretary on matters involving
information resources and information systems management.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,279,000 for
expenses of the office of the chief information officer, which
is an increase of $1,204,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and $650,000 below the level assumed in the budget
request. The recommendation disallows funding requested to
implement in fiscal year 2002 a pilot project that has yet to
be defined or determined by the department's architecture
working group.
The Committee directs that no major Information Technology
(IT) procurement within the department occur until after a
review by the CIO has been conducted to determine system
deficiencies, vulnerabilities, compatibility with, and relative
need of such systems compared to other departmental systems
requirements. The CIO must direct and approve all IT and
telecommunications infrastructure items and expenditures for
all systems that are non-mode specific (e.g., common grants
systems). The CIO review and concurrence, however, shall not
apply to real-time air traffic control data. In addition, the
Committee expects that each agency of the department shall
appoint a person to carry out that agency's CIO function, who
shall report to the administrator or deputy administrator of
each agency and shall be in control of both implementing IT
policy and running operations. The agency CIO contact shall
report both to the agency and the departmental CIO, where the
agency head and the department CIO shall agree on the
performance plan and performance evaluations.
Office of Intermodalism
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,062,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................ (\1\)
Recommended in the bill................................. (\1\)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -1,062,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... ..............
\1\ Included within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on
administrative expenses.
Funding for the office of intermodalism is recommended
within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on
administrative expenses, consistent with the budget request.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $7,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................... 8,726,000
Recommended in the bill................................... 8,140,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +940,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -586,000
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 a total of $8,140,000 for the
office of civil rights, which represents an increase of
$940,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and $586,000
less than the budget request. The recommendation includes
$300,000 for alternative dispute resolution and three
additional FTEs, as requested in the budget. The recommendation
assumes the following reductions from the budget request due to
budget constraints:
Hold automated tracking system to current level............ -$314,000
Hold section 504 studies and evaluations to $80,000........ -80,000
Hold web site development to current level................. -70,000
Hold reimbursable agreements to current level.............. -44,000
Hold travel to $200,000.................................... -78,000
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $3,300,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................... 5,258,000
Recommended in the bill.................................... 3,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ ...........
Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... -1,958,000
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. 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 $3,300,000 for
transportation planning, research and development, which is the
same level as provided in fiscal year 2000 and $1,958,000 below
the budget request. Adjustments to the budget request include
the following:
Disallow funding for airline profitability modeling and -$1,148,000
associated staffing increases............................
Disallow funding for the dockets management system and -600,000
electronic grant making standards activities.............
Defer lower priority studies and evaluations due to budget -210,000
constraints..............................................
Transportation Administrative Service Center
Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................... ($148,673,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\................. (163,811,000)
Recommended in the bill \3\.......................... (119,387,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2000..................... (-29,286,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001................. (-44,424,000)
\1\ In fiscal year 2000, the limitation on transportation administrative
service center expenses was reduced by $15,000,000.
\2\ Proposed without limitation. Amount reflected is the estimated
program level for non-DOT activities anticipated in fiscal year 2001.
\3\ In fiscal year 2001, the limitation on transportation administrative
service center expenses is also reduced in a general provision (-
$4,000,000).
The transportation administrative service center was
created in fiscal year 1997 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 Committee agreed to create the transportation
administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the
department's request. In agreeing to that request, the
Committee limited: (1) the activities that can be transferred
to the transportation administrative service center to only
those approved by the agency administrator, and (2) special
assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any
program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those
assessments or reimbursable agreements and the basis for them
are presented to and approved by the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued
in fiscal year 2001.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $119,387,000 be
imposed on the transportation administrative service center.
This is a decrease of $29,286,000 from the fiscal year 2000
obligations of $148,673,000 and a reduction of $44,424,000 from
the level anticipated in the budget request. The recommended
reductions from the budget request reflect the following
adjustments:
Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and -$43,963,000
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical
Charting and Cartography to the TASC...................
Disallow request for additional staffing increases...... -461,000
Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting
and Cartography to the TASC.--The budget proposed that the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of
Aeronautical Charting and Cartography (AC&C) be transferred
from the Department of Commerce and placed within the TASC.
While the department believes that the AC&C product offerings
are closely aligned with the services provided by TASC, the
Committee asserts that the aeronautical charting services
ultimately support aviation safety missions within the FAA, and
it is more logical that these services be performed within the
FAA. Moreover, the recent reauthorization for the Federal
Aviation Administration places the AC&C within the FAA.
Consequently, the Committee recommendation includes funding for
this activity within the FAA's appropriation for fiscal year
2001. Accordingly, the TASC obligation limitation has been
reduced by $43,963,000 and staffing reduced by 379 FTE.
General provision.--The Committee has included a general
provision (sec. 323) which provides that amounts budgeted for
the transportation administrative service center in this bill
are reduced, on a pro-rata basis, to a limitation of
$115,387,000. These reductions should be borne by TASC, through
administrative efficiencies, such as reducing its significant
carry-over balances, and not by the modal administrations. The
Committee has included other reductions in the modal
administrations' operating budgets.
Payments to Air Carriers
(airport and airway trust fund)
The essential air service 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. Subsidies, ranging from
$5 to $320, currently support air service to 82 communities and
serve about 700,000 passengers annually. This program was
established to provide a smooth phaseout of federal subsidies
to airlines that serve small airports.
The Federal Aviation 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.
Consistent with the FAA reauthorization legislation enacted
in 1996, this program became a mandatory program in fiscal year
1998.
Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to
streamline the essential air service program and to increase
its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an
easy drive of a major hub airport or where the costs clearly
outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of
communities that receive essential air service funding by
excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are
located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest large
or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of
$200 per passenger, unless such point is more than 210 miles
from the nearest large or medium airport.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Limitation on
Appropriation guaranteed
loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\.... $1,900,000 ($13,775,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001\2\... 1,900,000 (13,775,000)
Recommended in the bill\2\............ 1,900,000 (13,775,000)
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ............... ...............
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ...............
\1\ The fiscal year 2000 limitation on loan authority applies to direct
loans.
\2\ The fiscal year 2001 budget request and Committee recommendation
converts this loan program into guaranteed loans.
The minority business resource center of the office of
small 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.
The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which
provides a limitation on guaranteed loans of $13,775,000 and
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $2,900,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................... 3,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................... 3,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ +100,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ...........
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 serve DOT-wide goals and not just OST
purposes. The Committee has provided $3,000,000, $100,000 more
than provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same level as
requested in the budget.
COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on
January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter
Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by
transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse
Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and
Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary
responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the
high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding
navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining
a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of
the Navy in time of war.
Including funds for national security activities and
retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program
level of $4,616,506,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in
fiscal year 2001. This is $594,453,000 (14.8 percent) above the
fiscal year 2000 program level.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program
levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program ------------------------------------ Committee
2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................................ $2,781,000,000 $3,199,000,000 $3,192,000,000
Acquisition, construction, and improvements............... 389,326,000 520,200,000 515,000,000
Environmental compliance and restoration.................. 17,000,000 16,700,000 16,700,000
Alteration of bridges..................................... 15,000,000 ................ 14,740,000
Retired pay............................................... 730,327,000 778,000,000 778,000,000
Reserve training.......................................... 72,000,000 73,371,000 80,375,000
Research, development, test, and evaluation............... 19,000,000 21,320,000 19,691,000
Across the board rescission............................... -1,600,000 ................ ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 4,022,053,000 4,608,591,000 4,616,506,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\.................... $2,781,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001\2\.................. 3,199,000,000
Recommended in the bill\2\............................ 3,192,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +411,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -7,000,000
\1\ Includes $300,000,000 in funds for national security activities in
budget function 050.
\2\ Includes $341,000,000 in funds for national security activities in
budget function 050.
This appropriation provides funding for the operation and
maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units
strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of
the United States and in selected areas overseas.
Including $341,000,000 for national security activities,
the Committee recommends a total of $3,192,000,000 for
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001, an
increase of $411,000,000 (14.8 percent) above the fiscal year
2000 appropriation and $7,000,000 below the budget request. The
following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted level,
the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level by
program, project and activity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program, Project & Activity ------------------------------------ Committee
2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. Personnel Resources.................................... $1,779,842,000 $2,069,719,000 $2,068,187,000
A. Military pay & allowances.......................... 1,264,852,000 1,471,495,000 1,470,976,000
B. Civilian pay & benefits............................ 220,631,000 243,119,000 242,946,000
C. Military health care............................... 139,070,000 174,769,000 174,718,000
D. Permanent Change of station........................ 63,528,000 78,103,000 77,734,000
E. Training & education............................... 71,793,000 85,557,000 85,137,000
F. Recruiting......................................... 8,877,000 5,585,000 5,585,000
G. FECA/UCX........................................... 11,091,000 11,091,000 11,091,000
II. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance............ 635,972,000 700,795,000 703,100,000
A. Atlantic area command.............................. 103,366,000 125,702,000 125,702,000
B. Pacific area command............................... 111,740,000 118,891,000 122,691,000
C. District commands..................................
1. 1st district (Boston).......................... 40,429,000 36,566,000 36,566,000
2. 7th district (Miami)........................... 45,454,000 49,043,000 49,043,000
3. 8th district (New Orleans)..................... 28,483,000 28,674,000 28,674,000
4. 9th district (Cleveland)....................... 17,418,000 17,775,000 17,775,000
5. 13th district (Seattle)........................ 13,721,000 13,030,000 13,030,000
6. 14th district (Honolulu)....................... 7,332,000 9,734,000 9,734,000
7. 17th district (Juneau)......................... 20,174,000 20,972,000 20,972,000
D. Headquarters offices............................... 198,871,000 223,413,000 222,972,000
E. Headquarters-managed units......................... 42,096,000 55,342,000 54,288,000
F. Other activities................................... 6,888,000 1,653,000 1,653,000
III. Depot-Level Maintenance.............................. 405,186,000 428,486,000 426,981,000
A. Aircraft maintenance............................... 156,862,000 170,101,000 168,596,000
B. Electronic maintenance............................. 38,079,000 42,395,000 42,395,000
C. Shore maintenance.................................. 101,792,000 105,785,000 105,785,000
D. Vessel maintenance................................. 108,453,000 110,205,000 110,205,000
IV. Account-Wide Adjustments.............................. -40,000,000 ................ -6,268,000
A. Funding previously provided........................ -40,000,000 ................ ................
B. Nonpay COLA........................................ ................ ................ -6,268,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation................................. 2,781,000,000 3,199,000,000 3,192,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed
below:
Repricing of civilian personnel compensation and
benefits.--The President's budget proposed to reduce civilian
full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing by 40 based upon analysis
showing a higher than anticipated lapse rate due to unused FTE.
The reduction in the President's budget would revise upward the
civilian lapse rate assumption, effectively resulting in less
civilian staffing. The Committee believes this is unnecessary,
and undermines the foundation of a strong civilian manpower
base within the Coast Guard just at the time the GAO has
determined the Coast Guard should have more civilian personnel.
A stronger recruiting effort could address any issues over the
lapse rate.
Polar icebreaker reimbursement.--The Committee
recommendation restores $3,800,000 of the $7,800,000 proposed
reduction in polar icebreaking. In hearings this year, the
Commandant of the Coast Guard advised the Committee that he did
not support this proposal.
International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS).--
The International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS) is
a voluntary, non-attribution system which collects data from
the maritime industry, and analyzes it through a commercially-
operated data center to allow the industry to take necessary
steps to prevent marine accidents. While this appears to be a
worthwhile effort of value to ship owners, marine insurers,
shippers, and employee organizations, it appears more
appropriately funded by industry, and not by the Coast Guard.
This results in a reduction of $398,000 below the budget
estimate.
Maritime transportation system leadership and
coordination.--The Committee defers the $801,000 requested for
this new activity due to lack of justification.
Coast Guard workstation support.--The Committee defers the
$750,000 requested for this activity, without prejudice, due to
higher budget priorities.
National Telecommunications and Information Administration
(NTIA) fees.--The Committee deletes the additional $426,000 in
user fees intended for reimbursement of NTIA operations costs
due to lack of justification. The Coast Guard has presented no
information explaining why its frequency spectrum use will need
to rise to the extent indicated by this proposed increase.
Given budget constraints, the Committee believes the Coast
Guard can manage its spectrum usage to maintain within the
current funding level.
``One DOT'' initiatives.--The Committee defers the $304,000
requested due to lack of justification.
Aviation detachment support.--The Committee defers the
$3,904,000 requested for personnel, fuel, and maintenance to
operate 3 additional HH-65 helicopters as a detachment to the
new polar icebreaker during fiscal year 2001. Since initial
funding for the manufacture of these new helicopters is also in
the 2001 budget, the Committee finds it highly unlikely that
the Coast Guard will be ready to operate these assets next
year. Since the service will need time to complete the
contracting, manufacturing, and testing process, the Committee
believes these funds can be deferred.
Non-pay cost of living adjustment (COLA).--The
recommendation allows a non-pay cost of living adjustment of
1.0 percent versus the 1.5 percent in the budget estimate, due
to higher priority needs. This provides funding to cover
general inflation for items other than personnel compensation.
This results in a reduction of $6,268,000 below the budget
estimate.
Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $565,168,000
for drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of
$46,240,000 (8.9 percent) over the estimated expenses for
fiscal year 2000.
Status of Search and Rescue Capabilities
The recent report of the National Transportation Safety
Board into the sinking of the sailboat Morning Dew, considered
with other relevant reports and information, convinces the
Committee that the Coast Guard has not placed adequate
management or budgetary priority on maintaining and improving
the performance of the nationwide network of small boat
stations. In many coastal communities, these stations are the
backbone of the Coast Guard's rescue capability, yet most of
them are understaffed and plagued by inadequate training and
obsolete equipment. While the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001
budget requests an 11.6 percent increase in search and rescue
activities, even this increase will not restore the budget to
the level reached in fiscal year 1999. Combined with these
budgetary pressures, the current economy has resulted in large
percentage increases in the number of new boaters, and
experienced boaters purchasing more complex vessels with which
they have minimal familiarity. It is critical that the Coast
Guard provide an effective safety net to catch those boaters
when distress calls come in. Today that safety net has too many
holes which need to be repaired. The Committee bill makes a
number of initiatives to help address this problem. The
Committee encourages the Coast Guard to allocate to search and
rescue activities at least the level of $383,026,000 included
in the President's budget, and more if possible, during the
coming fiscal year. Furthermore, the Committee expects the
Coast Guard to make whatever personnel and organizational
changes are necessary to ensure that the small boat stations
have an effective voice in resource allocation and staffing
decisions.
Nokomis, FL.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard's
important effort to increase its presence on the West Coast of
Florida and urges the Coast Guard to continue those efforts. In
addition, the Committee would not agree with any decision to
vacate the Nokomis site. The Committee is pleased with the
Coast Guard's plan to use existing operating funds to improve
the existing infrastructure at the Nokomis facility, including
upgrades to the bulkhead and electrical systems. The Committee
is also supportive of the service's plan to increase Auxiliary
presence at this facility. The Committee directs the Coast
Guard to report on the adequacy of coverage by Coast Guard
assets for search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, drug and
alien interdiction and specifically address whether there is
sufficient criminal deterrent for marine crime between Fort
Myers and St. Petersburg, Florida. The Coast Guard is directed
to submit this report to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than sixty days after enactment of this
Act.
Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program.--Consistent
with recommendations elsewhere in the bill, no funding is
provided to continue the Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures
Program.
National ballast water management program.--Of the funds
provided, $3,500,000 is only to continue the national ballast
water management program. This is the same level of funding as
provided for fiscal year 2000.
Southern Lake Michigan air facility.--The Committee bill
fully funds continued operation of the new Coast Guard air
facility to support Southern Lake Michigan in fiscal year 2001.
Oil spill geographic information system.--Of the funds
provided, $2,000,000 is only for development of an oil spill
geographic information system for oil spill planning, response,
and damage assessment in Alabama and Mississippi, including the
state waters within the Gulf of Mexico. A similar system
already developed for the State of Louisiana provides oil spill
managers with timely base maps and related database information
to be used before, during, and after the occurrence of oil
spills.
Bill Language
Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that
$341,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense-
related activities, $41,000,000 above the level enacted for
fiscal year 2000, and the same as the budget estimate.
User fees.--The Committee continues the provision, first
enacted in fiscal year 2000, precluding the Coast Guard from
using funds to plan, finalize, or implement any new user fees
unless legislation signed into law after the date of enactment
of this Act specifically authorizes them.
General Provision
Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San
Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec.
311) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or
implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic
safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa
Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic
separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published
a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the
originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide
fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil
rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this
revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to
oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could
contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The
Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could
increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the
California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language
prohibiting the implementation of this regulation.
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $389,326,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 520,200,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 515,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +125,674,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -5,200,000
The bill includes $515,000,000 for the capital acquisition,
construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for
vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and
related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be
derived from the oil spill liability trust fund.
Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes
language distributing the total appropriation by budget
activity and providing separate obligation availabilities
appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The
Committee continues to believe that these obligation
availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term
unobligated balances.
budget justifications
The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit, with the
fiscal year 2002 budget submission, a three-year funding
profile for each AC&I project requested in the budget. The
current budget justification listing includes only the budget
year.
Committee Recommendation
The following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project and activity:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program Name ---------------------------------- Committee
2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels...................................................... $134,560,000 $257,180,000 $252,640,000
Survey and design--cutters and boats..................... 500,000 500,000 500,000
Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement................... 77,000,000 123,730,000 120,990,000
47-foot motor lifeboat (MLB) replacement project......... 24,360,000 ............... ...............
Buoy boat replacement project (BUSL)..................... 5,000,000 ............... ...............
Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy............................ 1,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Configuration management................................. 3,700,000 3,600,000 3,600,000
Surface search radar replacement project................. 4,000,000 1.150,000 1,150,000
Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program... 4,100,000 4,500,000 4,500,000
Barracuda coastal patrol boat (CPB)...................... 1,000,000 ............... ...............
Mackinaw replacement..................................... 13,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000
87-Foot Patrol Boat (WPB) replacement.................... ............... 7,000,000 7,000,000
Alex Haley Conversion Project--Phase II.................. ............... 3,200,000 1,400,000
Over-The-Horizon Cutter Boats............................ ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000
Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) Conversion Project........ ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Integrated deepwater systems program......................... 44,200,000 42,300,000 42,300,000
Aircraft..................................................... 44,210,000 43,650,000 43,650,00
HC-130 engine conversion................................. 1,100,000 ............... ...............
HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring........................ 3,360,000 ............... ...............
HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement........... 3,650,000 3,650,000 3,650,000
HH-65A engine control program............................ 7,000,000 ............... ...............
HH-65 conversion, AIRFAC Southern Lake Michigan.......... 8,000,000 ............... ...............
Long range search aircraft capability preservation....... 5,900,000 ............... ...............
HU-25 A avionics improvements............................ 2,900,000 ............... ...............
HH-60J navigation upgrade................................ 3,800,000 ............... ...............
SLAR upgrade............................................. 2,500,000 ............... ...............
C-130H oil debris detection/burnoff technology........... ............... ............... ...............
HU-25 re-engining........................................ 6,000,000 ............... ...............
HH-65 LTS-101 Engine Life Cycle Cost Reduction........... ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000
Aviation Simulator Modernization Project................. ............... 3,000,000 3,000,000
Coast Guard Cutter Healy Aviation Support................ ............... 36,000,000 36,000,000
Other Equipment.............................................. 51,626,000 60,313,000 60,113,000
Fleet logistics system................................... 6,000,000 5,500,000 5,500,000
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)................ 4,500,000 8,100,000 6,100,000
Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE) 10,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000
Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS). 2,700,000 1,100,000 1,100,000
National distress system modernization................... 16,000,000 22,000,000 23,800,000
Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system............. 4,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Local notice to mariners automation...................... ............... 600,000 600,000
Defense message system implementation.................... 3,477,000 2,471,000 2,471,000
Commercial satellite communications...................... 4,049,000 5,459,000 5,459,000
Human resources information system....................... ............... ............... ...............
Loran-C continuation..................................... ............... ............... ...............
Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)....... ............... 3,083,000 3,083,000
Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project....... ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000
Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation...................... 63,800,000 61,606,000 61,606,000
Survey and design--shore projects........................ 6,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000
Minor AC&I shore construction projects................... 6,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Housing.................................................. 7,800,000 12,400,000 12,400,000
Waterways ATON projects.................................. 5,000,000 4,706,000 4,706,000
Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hangar.................. 8,300,000 8,200,000 8,200,000
Air Station Elizabeth City, NC--ramp improvements........ 3,800,000 ............... ...............
Air Station Miami, FL--renovate fixed wing hangar........ 3,500,000 ............... ...............
Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT--educ. Facilities.... 5,000,000 ............... ...............
Base San Juan, PR--patrol boat maintenance facility...... 3,100,000 ............... ...............
Station Shinnecock, NY--modernize........................ 3,500,000 ............... ...............
MOS/Station Cleveland OH--relocate....................... 1,000,000 ............... ...............
Drug interdiction assets--homeporting.................... 2,800,000 ............... ...............
Unalaska, AK--pier....................................... 8,000,000 ............... ...............
Transportation improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda, ............... 8,000,000 8,000,000
CA......................................................
Coast Guard MEC Waterfront Improvements--Portsmouth, VA.. ............... 2,400,000 2,400,000
Modernize Coast Guard Facilities--Phase 1--Cape May, NJ.. ............... 5,800,000 5,800,000
Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI--Phase 1..... ............... 1,300,000 1,300,000
Modernize Air Station Port Angeles Hangar, Port Angeles, ............... 3,800,000 3,800,000
WA......................................................
Personnel and Related Support................................ 50,930,000 55,151,000 54,691,000
Direct personnel costs................................... 50,180,000 54,151,000 53,691,000
Core acquisition costs................................... 750,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total appropriation.................................... 389,326,000 520,200,000 515,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels
The Committee recommends $252,640,000 for vessels, an
increase of $118,080,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2000 and $4,540,000 below the administration's request.
Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained
below.
Seagoing buoy tender replacement.--The Committee
recommendation provides $120,990,000 for the seagoing buoy
tender (WLB) replacement program, an increase of $43,990,000
above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $2,740,000 below
the budget estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this
funding level will be sufficient to acquire three WLBs, as
proposed in the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget
constraints.
Alex Haley conversion project, phase II.--The Committee
recommends $1,400,000 for this project, a reduction of
$1,800,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to
budget constraints and the need to fund other high priority
initiatives.
Integrated deepwater systems program
The Committee recommends $42,300,000 for the integrated
deepwater systems program, the same as the budget estimate and
$1,900,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000.
aircraft
The Committee recommends $43,650,000 for aircraft, the same
as the budget estimate and $560,000 less than the amount
provided for fiscal year 2000.
other equipment
The Committee recommends $60,113,000 for other equipment, a
reduction of $200,000 below the budget estimate and $8,487,000
above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. Specific
adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below.
Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee
recommendation allows a 35.5 percent increase in this program
instead of the 80 percent increase requested. The Committee
believes the expansion of this program to other ports can
proceed at a slower pace given other high priority needs.
National distress and response system (ND&RS)
modernization.--The Committee recommends $23,800,000 for this
program, an increase of $1,800,000 above the budget estimate
and 48.8 percent above the level appropriated for fiscal year
2000. The increased funding is specifically for the Coast Guard
to conduct a test of digital selective calling (DSC) technology
and its impact on ND&RS system requirements. The Coast Guard
should conduct this test expeditiously, in order to consider
these important requirements without impacting the overall
ND&RS program schedule.
shore facilities and aids to navigation
The Committee recommends $61,606,000 for shore facilities
and aids to navigation, the same as the budget estimate and
$2,194,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000.
This amount includes $12,400,000 for construction of Coast
Guard family and unaccompanied personnel housing, an increase
of almost 60 percent above fiscal year 2000.
personnel and related support
The Committee recommends $54,691,000 for personnel and
related support, an increase of $3,761,000 (7.4 percent) above
the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and $460,000 below the
administration's request. The reduction is due to higher
budgetary priorities.
Bill Language
Capital investment plan.--The Committee is disappointed
that the administration flagrantly violated a provision in the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2000 which called for submission of a five-
year capital investment plan no later than the date of initial
submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The
President's budget was initially submitted on February 7, 2000.
As of the date of this report--three months later--the report
has not been submitted. This has severely inhibited the
Committee's review of Coast Guard capital programs during the
budget process. The Committee does not request reports lightly,
and this particular report should pose no unusual difficulties
in research or administration. To provide a more effective
mechanism for timely completion of this report next year, the
bill includes a provision rescinding this appropriation by
$100,000 per day for each day the report has not been submitted
to the Congress after initial submission of the fiscal year
2002 President's budget. If this is not sufficient to compel
adherence to the law, the Committee will consider taking
stronger actions next year. A similar provision has been
provided in the Federal Aviation Administration section of the
bill.
Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision
crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease
of the Coast Guard's surplus real property, and provides that
up to $10,000,000 of such receipts are available for obligation
in fiscal year 2001, only for the national distress and
response system (ND&RS) modernization project. The bill does
not include proposed language which would have reduced the
appropriation as asset sale receipts were credited. The
Committee believes such language would provide a disincentive
for timely disposal of unneeded assets.
Navigation user fees.--The bill does not include proposed
bill language regarding offsetting collections from new
navigation user fees, contingent upon authorization by the
Congress. These fees have not been authorized.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001......................... 16,700,000
Recommended in the bill................................... 16,700,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -300,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... ............
This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and
environmental regulations; conducting facilities response
plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization
strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and
conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the
continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental
problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks
containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program
focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes
third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed
to environmental problems.
The recommended funding level of $16,700,000 is the same as
the budget estimate and $300,000 below the fiscal year 2000
enacted level.
Of the funds provided, $200,000 is only for asbestos
removal activities at a former Coast Guard facility in Traverse
City, Michigan.
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $15,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... 14,740,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -260,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +14,740,000
The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed
a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act.
The Committee does not agree with the approach of the
administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination
rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal
Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and
notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA21
conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to
improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not
to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since
in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway
beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural
condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to
address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program.
The Committee recommends $14,740,000 for four bridges. The
Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $5,740,000 shall
be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick,
Georgia; $1,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile
Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $3,000,000
shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in
Morris, Illinois; and $5,000,000 shall be allocated to the
Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New
Orleans, Louisiana. These bridges have each received funding in
prior years.
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $730,327,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 778,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 778,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +47,673,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. ................
This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military
personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also
included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse
Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's
family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as
payments for medical care of retired personnel and their
dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act and 15 year
career status bonus payments under the National Defense
Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000.
The bill provides $778,000,000, the same as the budget
estimate and $47,673,000 (6.5 percent) above the fiscal year
2000 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation
in the Congressional budget process.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $72,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 73,371,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 80,375,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +8,375,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +7,004,000
This appropriation provides for the training of qualified
individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or
national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in
the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall
into the following categories:
1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training
for three categories of non-prior service trainees.
2. Continued training.--The training of officer and
enlisted personnel.
3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The
day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training
facilities.
4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve
forces program.
The bill includes $80,375,000 for reserve training. This
will support a Selected Reserve level of 8,000, which is
approximately the current level. The President's budget
proposed to reduce the reserves to a level of 7,300. However,
in this year's hearing, the Commandant stated, ``One of the
concerns that I have, sir, is that the RT [Reserve Training]
appropriation appears to fund only 7,300 reserves for the year.
We have recruited to an 8,000 point, and I would like very much
to stay there. So my concern is that there is about a
$7,000,000 shortfall in the reserve training appropriation, and
I would ask you to take note of that.'' The Committee has taken
note, and agrees with the Commandant that the reserves should
not be reduced.
Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The
recommendation continues a provision which limits to
$21,500,000 the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which may
be transferred to ``Operating expenses''. Given the small size
of the reserve training appropriation, the Committee wants to
ensure the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to
the Coast Guard operating budget. The bill also maintains the
provision relating to the assessment of ``direct charges''
which were not in effect during fiscal year 1997.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $19,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 21,320,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 19,691,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +691,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -1,629,000
The bill includes $19,691,000 for applied scientific
research and development, test and evaluation projects
necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for
the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this
amount, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This
is $691,000 (3.6 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal
year 2000. The reduction is due to budget constraints. The
Committee believes that some of this work can be appropriately
conducted under the operating account.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible
for the safety and development of civil aviation and the
evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the
activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations
in fiscal year 2001. The grants-in-aid for airports program,
however, will be financed under contract authority with the
program level established by a limitation on obligations
contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes
continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related
aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2001 and assumes
no new user fees.
The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year
2001 totals $12,585,366,000, including a $3,200,000,000
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is
$2,503,871,000 (24.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000
enacted level and $1,363,765,000 (12.2 percent) above the
President's request. Since submission of the President's budget
estimate, Public Law 106-181 was enacted, authorizing and
guaranteeing higher appropriations than contemplated in the
President's budget. This bill complies with the guaranteed
funding levels of P.L. 106-181.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program
levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program --------------------------------------------------------
2000 enacted \1\ 2001 estimate 2001 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations............................................. $5,900,000,000 $6,592,235,000 $6,544,235,000
Facilities and equipment............................... 2,075,000,000 2,495,000,000 2,656,765,000
Research, engineering and development.................. 156,495,000 184,366,000 184,366,000
Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \2\................... 1,950,000,000 1,950,000,000 3,200,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................ 10,081,495,000 11,221,601,000 12,585,366,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $84,362,000 in rescissions and across-the-board reductions.
\2\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority.
Operations
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $5,900,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 6,592,235,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 6,544,235,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +644,235,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -48,000,000
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,
airports, medical, engineering and development programs.
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) administration of the civil aviation security
program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff
offices; and (8) development, printing, and distribution of
aeronautical charts used by the flying public.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $6,544,235,000 for FAA operations,
an increase of $644,235,000 (10.9 percent) above the level
provided for fiscal year 2000. The recommended level compares
to $6,592,235,000 in the President's budget request.
A breakdown of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Budget Activity --------------------------------------------------------
2000 enacted 2001 estimate 2001 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic services................................... $4,666,766,000 $5,210,434,000 $5,183,177,000
Aviation regulation & certification.................... 667,416,000 691,979,000 694,979,000
Civil aviation security................................ 138,642,000 144,328,000 144,328,000
Research and acquisition............................... 168,305,000 196,497,000 189,988,000
Commercial space transportation........................ 6,838,000 12,607,000 12,607,000
Financial Services..................................... 42,054,000 ................. 48,707,000
Human Resources........................................ 48,736,000 ................. 58,364,000
Regional Coordination.................................. 97,831,000 ................. 99,347,000
Staff offices.......................................... 78,789,000 336,390,000 112,738,000
Account-wide adjustments............................... -15,377,000 ................. .................
Total............................................ 5,900,000,000 6,592,235,000 6,544,235,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User Fees
The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees
in fiscal year 2001 that were not Congressionally authorized
for collection during fiscal year 2000. The FAA estimates that
$22,100,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during
fiscal year 2001. However, these funds will not be available to
augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these
receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for
the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. Should
the FAA experience a shortfall in overflight fee collections
necessitating a transfer of FAA budgetary resources to the EAS
program during fiscal year 2001, the Committee directs that
those transfer resources be derived from unobligated balances
of the F&E appropriation.
trust fund share of faa budget
The bill derives $4,403,869,000 of the total appropriation
from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current
law. The balance of the appropriation ($2,140,366,000) will be
drawn from the general fund of the Treasury.
The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity
are discussed below.
Air Traffic Services
The Committee recommends $5,183,177,000 for air traffic
services, an increase of $516,411,000 (11.1 percent) above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level. As the following chart
indicates, this is well above the estimated increase in FAA's
air traffic workload for fiscal year 2001.
Changes to the budget estimate are as follows:
Contract security guard services........................ -$1,725,000
ADTN 2000 (telecommunications).......................... -5,000,000
NADIN (telecommunications).............................. -1,750,000
FTS 2001 (telecommunications)........................... -3,550,000
LINCS (telecommunications).............................. -6,295,000
PCS maintenance personnel............................... -1,000,000
Regional administrative telecommunications.............. -7,948,000
Infrastructure maintenance.............................. -7,739,000
Centennial of Flight Commission......................... +750,000
Contract tower cost sharing............................. +5,000,000
MARC.................................................... +2,000,000
RTCA support.--The Radio Technical Commission for
Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.) serves as a ``utilized'' federal
advisory committee subject to the legal requirements and
oversight of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Many years
ago, Congress enacted the Advisory Committee Act to bring about
more oversight, openness, and accountability for advisory
committees. RTCA is unusual among federal advisory committees,
since it is one of only two ``utilized'' advisory committees,
and since a primary source of funding is the dues paid largely
by industry members. Last year, Congress directed the Office of
Inspector General to conduct a review of the FAA's arrangement
with RTCA, to determine whether procedures were adequate to
ensure openness, a balance of viewpoints, and an ``arms
length'' relationship with industry. The Inspector General's
review, recently completed, raises a number of serious concerns
which require attention of the FAA. The Inspector General found
that FAA's presence at RTCA meetings is so extensive that there
is an appearance the agency is providing advice to itself. The
Committee agrees with the IG that FAA must take steps to reduce
its participation in the RTCA Policy Board, the Free Flight
Steering Committee, and related working groups and task forces.
Secondly, FAA needs to establish procedures to ensure that
potential conflicts of interest are identified, as recommended
by the IG. Thirdly, FAA needs to take steps to open the
activities of the Free Flight committees and working groups, to
provide more open and documented information on the
deliberations of these important groups and to reduce the
perception that companies represented on Free Flight panels are
gaining a competitive advantage over those not represented.
Fourthly, the FAA should discontinue using RTCA for
coordination or review of safety and certification issues,
which are inherently governmental. The Committee is pleased
that the OIG affirmed the valuable contribution of RTCA to air
traffic control modernization, and believes that these
necessary changes in the FAA-RTCA advisory committee
relationship will make that contribution even more valuable.
Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested
$268,363,000 for new program initiatives or expanded programs
in air traffic services. While providing the full amount of
base funding, the Committee bill provides $233,256,000 for new
initiatives, a reduction of $35,007,000 from the budget
estimate. Even with the reduction, in each of these cases more
funding is provided than is available for the current year, and
in some cases, very significant increases are provided. The
Committee believes such a high rate of growth in these
administrative programs and activities can be deferred without
impacting the agency's ability to meet its critical missions. A
comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the
President's budget request, and the Committee recommendation
for those programs reduced is shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
------------------------------------------------------
Activity 2000 Change to
enacted 2001 2001 budget
level estimate recommended estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contract security guard services......................... ........... $6,725,000 $5,000,000 -$1,725,000
ADTN 2000................................................ $13,510,000 24,248,000 19,248,000 -5,000,000
NADIN.................................................... 1,334,000 4,715,000 2,965,000 -1,750,000
FTS 2001................................................. ........... 8,550,000 5,000,000 -3,550,000
LINCS.................................................... 75,846,000 84,641,000 78,346,000 -6,295,000
Permanent change of station--maintenance personnel....... 6,650,000 10,650,000 9,650,000 -1,000,000
Regional administrative telecommunications............... 10,900,000 22,848,000 14,900,000 -7,948,000
Infrastructure maintenance............................... 8,843,000 26,843,000 19,104,000 -7,739,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating
support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC)
in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years.
Inclusion of Boca Raton, Florida in the contract tower
program.--The Committee bill recommends $5,000,000 above the
budget estimate for the contract tower cost-sharing program.
The Committee understands that, based on FAA analysis, the Boca
Raton Airport in Florida is eligible, and should receive
consideration, for inclusion in the contract tower program in
fiscal year 2001.
Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes
$750,000 for continued activities of the Centennial of Flight
Commission.
Runway incursions.--The Committee continues to be disturbed
over the excessive number of runway incursions at our nation's
airports. At the Committee's urging, the FAA this year
announced a National Summit on Runway Incursions, to be held
this summer. The summit is being preceded by a series of
workshops, in each FAA region, where experts focus on the
unique characteristics of airports and air traffic to come up
with individualized plans of action. The summit will integrate
these local plans into a unified plan of national action. The
Committee is also pleased that FAA has requested increased
funding for runway incursion prevention systems in the fiscal
year 2001 budget. The Committee bill goes even further by
including the following initiatives: (1) providing additional
funding for production of low-cost ASDE systems and directing
FAA to accelerate the program; and (2) making AIP funds
eligible for runway prevention systems and devices, and
directing FAA to give such grant requests the highest priority
for discretionary funding.
The Committee also believes that FAA has not adequately
utilized the runway incursion expertise and services of the
NASA Langley Research Center, and directs the FAA to more fully
utilize that center in addressing the runway incursion problem.
Airspace redesign.--The Committee directs the FAA to spend
$5,800,000 to further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York
metropolitan airspace. Further, the Committee directs the FAA
to complete the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign in an
expeditious manner.
Aviation Regulation And Certification
The Committee recommends $694,979,000 for aviation
regulation and certification, $3,000,000 above the budget
request and an increase of $27,563,000 (4.1 percent) above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
Training initiative.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for
implementation of the safety and security training program
developed by the George Washington University/Virginia Campus
Aviation Institute and the George Mason University Institute
for Public Policy. This program, recommended for funding last
year by the Committee, will prepare the workforce for careers
in aviation safety and security management and will train civil
aviation personnel in category II and category III countries,
as rated by FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment
(IASA) program, to assist in raising the country's safety level
to category I.
Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service
conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP),
which produces and distributes safety educational programs and
materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority
of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation
accidents, the Committee believes this is a valuable program
and should not be reduced in funding below the fiscal year 2000
level.
Civil Aviation Security
The Committee recommends $144,328,000 for civil aviation
security, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of
$5,686,000 (4.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level.
The Committee is extremely disappointed over management
issues which continue to plague the civil aviation security
program. Many of these issues have been unresolved for some
time. For example:
--Although FAA has paid for, and assisted in, the
deployment of advanced security technologies such as
explosive detection systems (EDS) and computer-based
training aids, the agency continues to allow industry
to underutilize these systems with impunity. Even
though Congress required air carriers to certify in
fiscal year 1999 that usage rates were being increased,
the IG found that the increases in that year were
largely insignificant, and that bulk EDS systems are
still taking a full day to screen as many bags as these
machines are capable of screening in an hour. This low
utilization rate affects the proficiency of screeners,
who continue to have high failure rates in FAA tests.
--In response to Congressional and departmental
criticism that EDS systems were underutilized, FAA
agreed in 1998 to conduct a study to determine the
minimum utilization rates needed to maintain operator
proficiency. However, the study was never conducted.
--Although recommended by the Gore Commission and
mandated by Congress in 1996, FAA has still not
promulgated a rule requiring the certification of
baggage screening companies.
--FAA has not modified its background investigation
requirements for access to secure airport areas, even
though access control has been a major problem at our
nation's airports; and FAA has failed to develop a
strategic plan for pursuit of its civil aviation
security program, even though the Inspector General
recommended such a plan in 1998.
The Committee has provided substantial budgetary increases
for FAA's civil aviation security program over the past few
years, and is unsure whether these additional resources are
paying off in significantly improved security. The Committee is
reluctant to reduce these appropriations, but expects the FAA
to address the recommendations of the Inspector General and the
General Accounting Office expeditiously.
Certification of baggage screening firms.--The Committee
reiterates to the FAA that improvements in the performance of
baggage screening personnel are seriously needed at our
nation's airports. The agency's continued delay in promulgation
of a final rule requiring the certification of baggage
screening companies allows these serious security weaknesses to
continue. This rule was recommended by the Gore Commission over
3\1/2\ years ago and subsequently mandated by Congress in
Public Law 104-264. Testimony over many years has discussed the
high turnover rates, low pay, and inadequate training which
lead to the inadequate performance all too often seen. Although
Congress directed FAA to expedite this rulemaking last year, to
the Committee's disappointment, the agency did not do so. A
final rule is now expected during fiscal year 2001.
Research And Acquisition
The Committee recommends $189,988,000 for research and
acquisition, a reduction of $6,509,000 below the budget request
and $21,683,000 (12.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2000
enacted level. This activity finances the planning, management,
and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs.
Next generation e-mail.--The Committee recommends
$6,082,000 for upgrades to the FAA's e-mail systems, an
increase of $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level, but $5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee
believes a smaller rate of growth for administrative activities
will be sufficient for next year.
Telecommunications bandwidth.--The Committee defers the
$1,509,000 requested for upgrades to the bandwidth of certain
telecommunications systems. The Committee believes this can be
deferred without substantial impact on the agency's mission.
Commercial Space Transportation
The Committee recommends $12,607,000 for the Office of
Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), the same as the budget
request and $5,769,000 (84.4 percent) above the fiscal year
2000 enacted level.
Financial Services
The Committee recommends $48,707,000 for financial
services, an increase of $6,653,000 (15.8 percent) above the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $14,556,000 below the budget
estimate.
Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested
significant funding for new program initiatives or expanded
programs in financial services under ``staff offices''. While
providing the full amount of base funding, the Committee bill
provides a lesser amount for new initiatives. These reductions
are due to budget constraints. Even with the reduction, in all
but one of these cases significantly more funding is provided
than is available for the current year. The Committee believes
a higher rate of growth in these administrative programs and
activities can be deferred without impacting the agency's
ability to meet its critical missions. A comparison of the
fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the President's budget request,
and the Committee recommendation for those programs reduced is
shown below:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Change to
2000 enacted 2001 estimate 2001 budget
level recommended estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DELPHI implementation........................... $100,000 $10,800,000 $3,800,000 -$7,000,000
Cost accounting system.......................... 1,296,000 8,296,000 6,296,000 -2,000,000
Asset management................................ 2,516,000 8,072,000 2,516,000 -5,556,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Human Resources
The Committee recommends $58,364,000 for human resources,
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate and $9,628,000 (19.8
percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The
recommendation provides $4,314,000 for replacement of the
integrated personnel and payroll system (IPPS), a reduction of
$2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The amount provided is
still a large increase above the $50,000 provided for this
activity in fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes a smaller
rate of growth will be sufficient, given the need to fund other
priorities. The President's budget requested these funds under
``Staff offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting
approach enacted in fiscal year 2000. Consistent with other
recommendations in the bill, none of the funding under this
appropriation may be used to continue the Garrett Morgan
Transportation Futures Program.
Regional Coordination
The Committee recommends $99,347,000 for regional
coordination, the same as the budget estimate and $1,516,000
(1.5 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000.
The President's budget requested these funds under ``Staff
offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting approach
enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Staff Offices
The Committee recommends $112,738,000 for staff offices,
which is $678,000 below the level requested for comparable
activities, and $33,949,000 (43.1 percent) above the level
enacted for fiscal year 2000.
Office of chief counsel.--The Committee deletes the
$453,000 requested to increase staffing in this office. The
Committee believes the existing staffing level is sufficient to
handle high priority activities.
Employee development.--The Committee deletes the $225,000
requested for additional employee development activities. The
Committee believes the existing level of funding is adequate.
English language proficiency.--The Committee continues to
strongly support the activities of FAA, the Department of
State, and the International Civil Aviation Organization at
improving the English language proficiency of foreign
flightcrews and air traffic controllers around the globe. The
FAA is encouraged to advise the Committee promptly if funding
concerns arise in this program during fiscal year 2001.
International Civil Aviation Organization support.--Section
103(a) of Public Law 106-181 authorizes $9,100,000 in FAA
payments for U.S. membership obligations in the International
Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). While the Committee is
unable to provide a specific appropriation for this purpose,
the Committee continues to support FAA's involvement and
participation in ICAO activities, and encourages the agency to
identify additional resources for ICAO during the coming fiscal
year.
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 2001.
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 2000, and as requested by the
administration in the fiscal year 2001 President's budget.
O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill does not include
the general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995
related to slot allocations for international operations at
O'Hare Airport. The comprehensive amendments to the slot rules
in Public Law 106-181 supercede this limitation.
Restriction on multiyear leases.--The bill maintains a
restriction on multiyear leases as enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill includes a
provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to
conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities
through the transportation administrative services center
(TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of these
activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move
which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this work
should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively
delegated to the TASC.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $2,075,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 2,495,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 2,656,765,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +581,765,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +161,765,000
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 $2,656,765,000
for this program, an increase of $581,765,000 (28 percent)
above the level provided for fiscal year 2000 and $161,765,000
above the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required by
Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the total amount
recommended, $2,334,112,400 is available for obligation until
September 30, 2003, and $322,652,600 (the amount for personnel
and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2001.
These obligation availabilities are consistent with past
appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request. The
bill does not include the requested advance appropriations,
because the administration has done little to justify the
requirement and because many of the systems are still in
development, where advance appropriations are inappropriate.
The following table shows the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this
appropriation:
Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation
The Committee recommends $655,833,500 for engineering,
development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget
request are explained below.
Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends
$173,800,000 for continued development of free flight phase one
technologies. This is $3,000,000 above the budget estimate. The
bill includes $3,000,000 to implement the departure spacing
program (DSP) in support of Dulles International Airport,
Virginia. Last year, $2,000,000 was provided for DSP under this
program. A comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted, the
President's budget, and the recommended levels is as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project Fiscal year Fiscal year 2001
2000 enacted 2001 budget recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
User request evaluation tool (URET)............................. $79,000,000 $87,600,000 $87,600,000
Center/tracon automation system (CTAS).......................... .............. 57,900,000 57,900,000
Traffic management advisor (TMA)/passive final approach spacing 59,825,000 .............. ..............
tool (pFAST)...................................................
Collaborative decision-making................................... 29,400,000 13,800,000 13,800,000
Surface movement advisor........................................ 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Free flight phase one integration............................... 5,400,000 8,600,000 8,600,000
Departure spacing program....................................... 2,000,000 .............. 3,000,000
Independent operational test and evaluation..................... .............. 900,000 900,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total..................................................... 179,625,000 170,800,000 173,800,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free flight phase two.--While remaining strongly supportive
of free flight phase one, the Committee cannot support such a
large expansion of this program to additional sites in fiscal
year 2001. FAA budget justifications indicate that several
critical development milestones are yet to be reached in this
program. A program expansion of the magnitude proposed would
result in unnecessary technical and cost risk, jeopardizing the
successful completion of program milestones. The Committee
notes that the agency has had problems in past years with
excessive concurrency between development and implementation,
and recommends that the expansion proceed at a slower pace. The
Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program.
Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The
Committee recommendation of $50,000,000 includes $40,620,000
for items in the President's budget request a reduction of
$228,000, $7,380,000 for airport-related research which was
proposed for funding under the ``Grants-in-aid for airports''
program, and $2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement
program authorized under section 905 of Public Law 106-181.
Oceanic automation program.--The bill provides $75,000,000
for this program, which is $23,030,000 above the budget
estimate. The additional funding is necessary to accelerate
this important program, which has already experienced
significant delay.
Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The Committee
recommends $31,000,000 for continued development of the local
area augmentation system (LAAS). This is $21,700,000 above the
budget estimate. The Committee believes this is a critical new
technology and should be accelerated.
Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee
recommends total funding of $75,000,000 for continued research
into, and development of, the wide area augmentation system
(WAAS). The FAA requested $111,000,000 for this program.
However, since submission of the budget request, this program
experienced additional technical difficulties. While no formal
budget amendment has been submitted, the FAA has acknowledged
that a lower level of funding will be adequate. The Committee
believes the FAA will require no more than $75,000,000 for this
program next year, and has provided that amount in the bill.
Evidence to date indicates that much of this funding will be
used by university researchers and personnel at national
laboratories to conduct research into the basic principles of
this technology and to help determine what ultimate
requirements are possible.
Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment
The bill includes $1,172,796,294 for the procurement of air
traffic control facilities and equipment.
En route communications and control facilities
improvement.--The Committee recommends $7,631,000 for this
program, compared to the budget estimate of $5,031,606. Of the
amount provided, $3,200,000 is only for relocation of RTR-A and
RTR-D systems at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in
Missouri.
Airport surface detection equipment.--The Committee
recommends $4,000,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above the
budget estimate. Of the additional funding, $500,000 is only
for FAA to conduct a test and evaluation of roll ring
technology for the current ASDE radar system. The Committee is
aware of the unique capabilities and qualities of new roll ring
technology for ASDE radar systems. The current ASDE antenna
system uses slip rings--rotating bearings through which
electrical current passes. This technology requires periodic
maintenance, during which time the radar system is out of
service. New technology roll rings, by contrast, are virtually
maintenance free, which would reduce FAA operating costs and
allow for uninterrupted usage of ASDE and AMASS. The Committee
directs FAA to use these additional funds to conduct a side-by-
side evaluation of roll rings and slip rings. Evaluation
testing shall be conducted in an apparatus with an accelerated
rotation rate, in order to verify specified operating life
within a test period of five months. The tests shall apply full
electrical current and voltage of the ASDE-3 specifications to
all channels of the slip ring and roll ring continuously and
provide measurements of performance, including torque and
electrical resistance and noise of each circuit. No maintenance
or parts replacement of the slip ring or roll ring shall be
performed during the test period. The FAA shall provide the
results of this testing to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations no later than March 1, 2001. The remaining
$2,000,000 of the increase is for ASDE-3 issues at Washington
Reagan National Airport, as discussed below.
Runway incursion technology, Washington Reagan National
Airport, VA.--The Committee is very concerned to learn of
potentially lengthy delays in commissioning of the ASDE-3 and
AMASS runway safety systems at Washington Reagan National
Airport in Virginia. Last year, the FAA expected to commission
the ASDE-3 in November 1999 and the AMASS in March 2000 at this
airport. Currently, the agency has no schedule estimate due to
recently-discovered radar difficulties. Especially given the
high volume and complexity of traffic at this airport, the
prevention of runway incursions must remain a high priority.
The FAA is directed to address this situation as soon as
possible, and to submit a report to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations no later than August 31, 2000
detailing the problem, the proposed resolution, and a
corresponding program schedule leading to system commissioning
at the earliest possible date. The bill includes $2,000,000 to
address this problem.
Airport surface detection equipment-X (ASDE-X).--The
Committee recommends $15,000,000 for this program, an increase
of $6,600,000 above the budget estimate and $7,400,000 above
the level provided last year. The Committee directs that these
funds be used only for one or more contracts, on a firm fixed-
price basis, to procure at least 10 systems involving
multilateration technology which can be delivered, installed,
and commissioned by September 30, 2002. The Committee believes
FAA's proposed schedule is excessive, especially given the
seriousness of the runway incursion problem in the United
States.
Terminal voice switch replacement.--The Committee
recommends $15,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the
budget estimate and $4,100,000 above the level provided for
fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes this is a critically
needed upgrade worthy of acceleration.
Potomac metroplex.--The Committee recommends $32,100,000
for this program.
Airport surveillance radar.--The Committee recommends
$11,122,000, an increase of $6,400,000 above the budget
estimate. Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is specifically for
a transportable/shelterized ASR-9 radar system with a co-
mounted integrated monopulse secondary surveillance radar for
Palm Springs Regional Airport, California. The Committee notes
the serious radar coverage problems which have been experienced
at Palm Springs, and the unacceptably long schedule of FAA's
current proposal to resolve the issue. The Committee believes
the ASR-9/MSSR system, as proposed by the prime contractor,
will provide the best near-term solution to this critical
problem.
Cherry Capital Airport, Michigan.--The Committee is
concerned about the effect of ``lake effect'' weather on the
ability of air traffic controllers to manage air traffic at the
Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City, Michigan, and urges
the FAA administrator to reassess the airport's air traffic
control needs with regard to an upgraded radar system.
Control tower/Tracon facilities improvement.--The
$1,500,000 added to this program is to continue the cable loop
relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport
in Missouri. In addition, $2,400,000 of the funding is provided
only for removal and relocation of the existing ASR-9 radar at
Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.
Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The
Committee recommends $140,000,000 for this program, an increase
of $61,100,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and
$35,000,000 above the budget estimate. These funds are to be
distributed as follows:
Location Amount
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... $5,200,000
Albert Whitted, FL...................................... 75,000
Dayton International, OH................................ 4,725,000
WK Kellogg, MI.......................................... 3,000,000
Sky Harbor, AZ.......................................... 10,000,000
Cleveland, OH........................................... 4,000,000
Richmond, VA............................................ 5,767,500
Martin State, MD........................................ 2,000,000
Stewart Airport, Newburgh, NY........................... 1,000,000
Oakland, CA............................................. 25,912,347
LaGuardia, NY........................................... 25,440,000
Boston, MA.............................................. 24,944,308
Savannah, GA............................................ 7,741,015
Topeka, KS.............................................. 4,361,840
St. Louis, MO........................................... 3,317,000
Newark, NJ.............................................. 2,407,500
Roanoke, VA............................................. 2,140,000
Birmingham, AL.......................................... 1,359,540
Pt. Columbus, OH........................................ 1,000,000
Wilkes Barre, PA........................................ 959,200
Houston Hobby, TX....................................... 818,550
Champaign, IL........................................... 749,000
Little Rock, AR......................................... 642,000
Bedford, MA............................................. 535,000
Merrill Field, AK....................................... 321,000
Wilmington, DE.......................................... 305,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 267,500
N. Las Vegas, NV........................................ 214,000
Orlando, FL............................................. 177,900
Atlanta, GA............................................. 167,900
Chantilly, VA........................................... 75,000
Gulfport, MS............................................ 75,000
Kalamazoo, MI........................................... 75,000
Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 75,000
Broomfield, CO.......................................... 75,000
Miami, FL............................................... 51,900
Seattle, WA............................................. 25,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 140,000,000
Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends
$69,690,000 for continued production of the digital airport
surveillance radar system (ASR-11). This is a reduction of
$38,560,000 from the budget estimate. Through fiscal year 2000,
FAA has financed the procurement of 18 radars, and the fiscal
year 2001 budget requested funds for an additional 16 systems.
Air Force operational tests completed in February 2000
indicated several serious development problems with the ASR-11
system. Problems included generation of false weather cells,
loss of aircraft detection capability close to the airport, and
a shortfall in computer processor capability which would limit
the system's ability to handle future requirements. The Air
Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center recommended that
these deficiencies be corrected prior to the fielding of low
initial production units. Congress appropriated $76,100,000 for
the production of 13 systems in fiscal year 2000. The delivery,
testing, and commissioning of these systems is likely to
experience significant delay because of the current problems.
The Committee does not believe that further low rate production
is justified until the development issues are resolved.
Automated observation of visibility for cloud height and
cloud coverage (AOVCC).--To address the issues of weather-
related accidents at airports, the Committee believes it is
critical to upgrade the existing automated weather information
programs. Therefore, the conferees expect FAA to implement
product improvements and upgrades to the current systems and to
report to Congress on the agency's plans to accelerate the
deployment of upgrade technology upon successful demonstration
of the automated observation of visibility for cloud height and
cloud coverage (AOVCC) system.
Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee
recommends $62,000,000, to be distributed as follows:
Location Amount
Items included in budget................................ $16,000,000
National replacement program (I/II/III)................. 25,000,000
Lonesome Pine Airport, VA............................... 1,000,000
Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA............................... 855,000
Lafayette Regional Airport, LA.......................... 1,000,000
Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, GA................... 1,797,000
Buffalo Niagara International, NY (ILS/MALSR)........... 3,848,000
Searcy Airport, AR...................................... 2,000,000
Dulles International, VA (DME).......................... 300,000
Wichita MidContinent Airport, KS........................ 1,100,000
Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS........................ 1,100,000
Cleveland Hopkins International, OH..................... 6,000,000
Orlando International, FL (install category III)........ 2,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 62,000,000
Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends
$3,000,000 for acquisition and installation of transponder
landing systems at Leesburg Executive Airport, Virginia;
Hayward Municipal Airport, Wisconsin; Ely Municipal Airport,
Minnesota; and Grand Marais Municipal Airport in Minnesota.
Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends
$9,000,000, including $6,000,000 for continued acquisition of a
next generation runway visual range system. The budget request
included $3,000,000 for RVR installations.
Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).--
The Committee recommends $26,100,000, to be distributed as
follows:
Location Amount
Items included in budget................................ $1,040,000
ALSF-2 acquisition...................................... 9,575,000
MALSR acquisition....................................... 3,500,000
ALSIP Newport & North Bend, OR.......................... 4,000,000
ALSF-2 Cleveland International, OH...................... 3,000,000
MALSR Starkville, MS.................................... 560,000
MALSR, Millington Airport, TN........................... 425,000
MALS Salt Lake City, UT (installation runway 34L)....... 3,000,000
MALSR/REIL, Monroe Municipal, Union County, NC.......... 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 26,100,000
Precision approach path indicators (PAPI).--The Committee
recommends $6,000,000 for acquisition of additional precision
approach path indicators (PAPI), including $600,000 for a PAPI
system at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Ohio.
Loran-C upgrade and modernization.--The Committee
recommends $25,000,000 for this program, an increase of
$5,000,000 above the budget estimate. In recent years, the
Committee has taken numerous actions and provided sustantial
new resources for Loran-C system improvements. The Committee
continues to believe that Loran is a well-proven, cost-
effective technology.
ANICS.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for
continuation of the Alaskan NAS interfacility communication
system (ANICS), which is $2,500,000 above the budget estimate.
Procurement of Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment
The Committee recommends $240,852,606 for the acquisition
of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment.
Explosive detection systems.--The Committee recommends
$136,417,606 for this program. A comparison of the Committee
recommendation to the budget estimate is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2001 budget Committee
Activity estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bulk EDS systems.................... $31,200,000 $57,100,000
Trace detection systems............. 15,200,000 20,000,000
Threat image projection (TIP) 25,320,000 25,320,000
systems............................
Threat containment units............ 750,000 ................
Computer-based training (CBT) ................ 8,000,000
systems............................
System integration.................. 25,030,000 25,997,606
-----------------------------------
Total......................... 97,500,000 136,417,606
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee is very disappointed at FAA's lack of
progress in improving airport security through the utilization
of advanced technology. Since fiscal year 1997, Congress has
appropriated over $550,000,000 in research and acquisition
funds for advanced explosive detection systems. Despite the
abundance of funding, recent testimony of the DOT Inspector
General highlighted a number of weaknesses in FAA's management
of this effort. FAA is directed to address expeditiously the
recommendations of the Inspector General.
In addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has not
been successful at developing a viable second source for the
acquisition of bulk EDS systems, several years after the
program was initiated. The Committee believes that competition
among vendors is critical for minimizing government costs and
lowering technical risk. FAA's lack of enthusiasm for second
source development continues to be disappointing to the
Committee. If the air carrier industry continues to
underutilize these systems, and costs remain high due to lack
of a second source, the continued viability of this program may
be threatened.
Mission Support
The recommendation provides $264,630,000 for mission
support activities. Funding of $222,500,000 was provided in
fiscal year 2000. Adjustments to the budget estimate are
explained below.
FAA systems architecture.--The Committee recommends
$1,000,000 for this program, the same level as enacted for
fiscal year 2000, and a reduction of $2,534,000 from the budget
estimate. The Committee does not believe this program is
sufficiently justified or of high enough priority to merit
expansion.
Center for advanced aviation system development.--The
Committee recommends $67,000,000 for the center for advanced
aviation system development (CAASD) at the Mitre Corporation.
This is a 10 percent increase above the level provided for
fiscal year 2001. CAASD provides valuable and broad-based
support for the F&E program. Since the F&E appropriation
increases 28.6 percent in this bill, the Committee believes
additional resources are required for CAASD as well. The
President's budget proposed $63,400,000, an increase of 3.8
percent.
Personnel and Related Expenses
The recommendation provides $322,652,600, an increase of
$27,652,600 (9.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation
finances the installation and commissioning of new equipment
and modernization of FAA facilities.
Capital Investment Plan
The Committee is disappointed that the administration
flagrantly violated a provision in the Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000
which called for submission of a five-year capital investment
plan no later than the date of initial submission of the
President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The President's budget was
initially submitted on February 7, 2000. As of the date of this
report--three months later--the report has not been submitted.
This has severely inhibited the Committee's review of FAA
capital programs during the budget process. The Committee does
not request reports lightly, and this particular report should
pose no unusual difficulties in research or administration. To
provide a more effective mechanism for timely completion of
this report next year, the bill includes a provision rescinding
this appropriation by $100,000 per day for each day the report
has not been submitted to the Congress after initial submission
of the fiscal year 2002 President's budget. If this is not
sufficient to compel adherence to the law, the Committee will
consider taking stronger actions next year. A similar provision
has been provided in the Coast Guard section of the bill.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport And Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $156,495,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 184,366,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 184,366,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +27,871,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. ................
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.
national center of excellence in aviation operations research
Under the authority of Public Law 101-508, the FAA awarded
a long-term cooperative agreement to a consortium consisting of
the University of California at Berkeley, the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, the University of Maryland, the
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and 12
affiliated institutions, for the National Center of Excellence
in Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR). FAA has not proposed
a specific budget line item for this center, but made the
agreement available for any FAA program that needs NEXTOR's
capabilities and can provide the needed funding. The Committee
is advised that some FAA programs would like to use NEXTOR to
perform research, but the agency has suspended such action
until Congressional intent is clarified. The agency is not
clear whether Congress intends for RE&D appropriations to be
used for purposes such as NEXTOR, since similar activities were
transferred to the F&E appropriation a few years ago. The
Committee clarifies its intent that either F&E (budget activity
one) or RE&D appropriations may be used for the NEXTOR
cooperative agreement. When the Committee recommended transfer
of these activities, the Committee did not intend that any
activity be terminated or blocked as a result. According to the
agency, NEXTOR is the only center of excellence for which the
FAA has found significant difficulty in locating an appropriate
funding source.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $184,366,000, an increase of
$27,871,000 (17.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and the same as the President's budget request.
A table showing the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the
fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation follows:
System Development and Infrastructure
The Committee recommends $17,425,000 for system development
and infrastructure, an increase of $286,000 (1.7 percent) above
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level.
Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation holds
funding to the fiscal year 2000 level due to budget
constraints, a reduction of $2,356,000 below the budget
estimate.
Information security.--The Committee recommendation deletes
this new initiative due to budget constraints, a reduction of
$5,500,000 below the budget estimate. Significantly increased
funding for information security initiatives has been provided
in the operating and capital appropriations.
Weather
The Committee recommends $27,789,000 to address the effects
of hazardous weather on aviation, an increase of $8,489,000 (44
percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and the
same as the budget estimate.
Aircraft Safety Technology
The Committee recommends $58,880,000 for aircraft safety
technology, $9,500,000 above the budget estimate and
$14,423,000 above the level provided last year.
Propulsion and fuel systems.--Although the United States
has been very successful in reducing airborne lead pollution,
general aviation aircraft still rely heavily on leaded fuel.
The FAA has an ongoing research program to develop a minimum
octane benchmark for the U.S. piston aircraft fleet; however,
this research is currently limited by a lack of appropriate
testing facilities. The Committee recommends an additional
$2,500,000 to advance this program and provide the necessary
facilities.
Aging aircraft.--Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only
for equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation
Research and $2,000,000 is only for upgrades to wind tunnels at
Langley Research Center for the furtherance of aeronautical and
aircraft research and testing.
System Security Technology
The Committee recommendation provides $49,374,000 for
system security technology, the same as the budget estimate.
Human Factors and Aviation Medicine
The Committee recommendation provides $26,050,000, an
increase of $951,000 (3.8 percent) above the budget request and
$4,079,000 (18.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level. The additional funding provides a 24 percent increase
for research at the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) instead
of the 4.6 percent increase requested. The Committee continues
to value the work performed by CAMI and believes a greater
level of effort is justified.
Environment and Energy
The recommendation provides $4,848,000, an increase of
$1,367,000 (39.2 percent) above the level provided last year
and a reduction of $2,595,000 from the budget estimate. This
program researches ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise
around the country. The Committee believes a 39 percent
increase is adequate to further this area of research.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000. $1,750,000,000 ($1,950,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1,960,000,000 (1,950,000,000)
2001...........................
Recommended in the bill......... 3,200,000,000 (3,200,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year +1,450,000,000 (+1,250,000,000)
2000...........................
Budget estimate, fiscal year +1,240,000,000 (+1,250,000,000)
2001...........................
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$3,200,000,000 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
$1,240,000,000 above the level requested in the President's
budget, and is necessary to support the $1,250,000,000 in
additional obligation authority supported by this bill.
Limitation On Obligations
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. This is $1,250,000,000
(64.1 percent) above the President's budget request and the
same amount above the fiscal year 2000 level. This level of
funding is required by Public Law 106-181 and protected by
points of order in the House.
A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to
the fiscal year 2000 levels and the President's budget request
follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Recommended in
enacted estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements.............................................. $1,100,434,505 $1,127,704,636 $1,943,417,033
Primary airports...................................... 556,348,911 566,769,374 1,056,383,909
Cargo airports (3%)................................... 55,519,140 55,850,610 93,350,610
Alaska supplemental................................... 10,672,557 10,672,557 21,345,114
States (20%).......................................... 342,368,030 344,412,095 622,337,400
Carryover entitlement................................. 135,525,867 150,000,000 150,000,000
Small Airport Fund........................................ 142,204,990 146,461,513 274,936,625
Non hub............................................... 81,259,994 83,692,293 157,106,643
Non commercial service................................ 40,629,997 41,846,147 78,553,321
Small hub............................................. 20,314,999 20,923,073 39,276,661
Discretionary Set Asides.................................. 231,039,432 223,257,924 345,362,670
Noise (34% of discretionary).......................... 206,719,492 199,757,089 303,733,336
Reliever (0.66% of discretionary)..................... ................ ................ 5,896,000
Military airport program (4% of discretionary)........ 24,319,940 23,500,835 35,733,334
Other Discretionary....................................... 376,959,073 364,262,927 583,280,672
Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................ 282,719,305 273,197,195 410,978,004
Remaining discretionary............................... 94,239,768 91,065,732 172,302,671
Administration............................................ 45,000,000 53,003,000 53,000,000
Airport Research.......................................... ................ 7,380,000 ................
Essential Air Service..................................... ................ 27,900,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total limitation on obligations..................... 1,895,638,000 1,950,000,000 3,200,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
third chicago airport, chicago, illinois
The Committee urges FAA to expeditiously conclude its
negotiations with state and local officials regarding aviation
forecasts for a proposed Chicago third airport, and initiate
promptly the environmental impact statement.
Discretionary Grants
Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill,
$900,743,342 is available for discretionary grants to airports.
This is approximately $293,000,000 (48 percent) more than
provided for fiscal year 2000. Within this obligation
limitation, the Committee directs that priority be given to
grant applications involving further development of the
following airports:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Location Project description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AK................... Atka Airport............ Upgrade airport and
expand.
AL................... Dothan Regional Airport. Acquire rescue
firefighting vehicle;
rehab lighting control
cables to ATCT;
replace electronic
vault equipment.
AL................... Huntsville Airport...... Taxiway, runway
extension, noise
mitigation/land
acquisition.
AL................... Mobile Regional and Construct parallel
Mobile Downtown runway, international
Airports. concourse according to
master plan.
AL................... Monroe County Airport... Reseal runway, restripe
markings and legends,
install AWOS, other
improvements.
AL................... Bay Minette Municipal Extend runway,
Airport. construct aircraft
turnaround, construct
apron area, install
AWOS, funding for
airport master plan,
other improvements.
AL................... Decatur Pryor Field..... New terminal.
AL................... Dothan Regional Airport. Repave and repair
taxiways A, B, and E;
demolition/disposal of
existing terminal and
apron; new apron,
safety fencing;
vehicle access/
construction.
AL................... Birmingham International Purchase approximately
208 properties within
the expansion
corridor.
AL................... Montgomery Regional Extend runway, widen
Airport. taxiway, extend
taxiway, and sealcoat;
new passenger terminal/
cargo facilities.
AL................... Gadsen Airport Resurfacing and
Industrial Park. lighting.
AL................... Walker County Airport... Automated observation
system and runway
extension.
AR................... Benton Airport.......... Airport relocation.
AR................... Searcy Airport.......... Runway extension.
AR................... Dexter Memorial Field... Provide AWOS III
system.
AZ................... Williams AFB............ Support conversion from
military to civilian
airport.
CA................... San Bernardino Various improvement
International Airport. projects.
CA................... Napa County Airport..... Runway, taxiway, and
ramp maintenance;
master plan; taxiway
project.
CA................... Jack McNamara Field, Del Resurface runways.
Norte County.
CA................... Fresno Yosemite Design and construct
International Airport. midfield air cargo
taxiways, design and
construct midfield air
cargo apron, design
and construct airfield
drainage imrpovements,
design and construct
midfield air cargo
access road.
CA................... General William J. Fox Extend the existing
Field Airport, county airport runway.
Lancaster.
CA................... Stockton Metropolitian Lengthen runway.
Airport.
CA................... Bishop Airport, Inyo Facility, utility and
County. infrastructure
improvements.
CA................... Ontario International Grove Corridor
Airport. improvements;
structure and ramp
improvements; right-of-
way acquisition; cargo
demand study.
CA................... Mammoth/Yosemite Upgrade airport to
Airport, Mammoth Lakes. handle jets.
CA................... Meadows Field Airport, New terminal, ramp and
Bakersfield. access road.
CA................... Gnoss Field Airport, Runway extension.
Marin County.
CA................... Sacramento Mather Runway, taxiway, and
Airport. apron pavement
rehabilitation and
runway/taxiway
lighting.
CA................... March Air Reserve Base.. Civilian refueling
system.
CA................... Southern California Runway extension.
Logistics Airport.
CNMI................. Rota International Resurface main runway.
Airport, CNMI.
CT................... Greater Rockford Airport Reimbursement for costs
associated with runway
extension and
adjustments to the
belt line road.
CT................... Freeport Albertus Runway construction and
Airport. safety area.
FL................... Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Mega-zone transport
International. study.
FL................... St. Petersburg- Runway expansion and
Clearwater other improvements.
International.
FL................... Orlando International Runway construction.
Airport.
IN................... Monroe County Airport, Land acquisition.
Bloomington.
IN................... Freeman Municipal Runway and taxiway
Airport, Seymour. reconstruction.
IN................... Perry County Municipal Runway extension.
Airport, Tell City.
IN................... Gary Regional Airport... Maintenance facility.
KS................... Lawrence Municipal Various improvements.
Airport.
KS................... Newton City-County Various improvements.
Airport.
KY................... Louisville International Noise mitigation.
KY................... Caldwell County Airport. Runway extension and
overlay.
KY................... Madisonville Municipal Various improvements.
Airport.
KY................... Marion/Crittenden County Master plan development
Airport. and engineering.
KY................... Cynthiana Airport, Apron overlay and
Harrison County. taxiway; runway
extension.
KY................... Estill County Airport... Feasibility study for
new airport.
LA................... Lakefront Airport, New Repair and restoration
Orleans. Airport/Lake
Pontchartrain
retaining wall.
LA................... Baton Rouge Noise mitigation;
Metropolitian. taxiway and runway
reconstruction;
overlay and construct
runways; perimeter
road; ARFF vehicle.
LA................... Lafayette Airport....... Rubber removal, seal
coating, grooving, and
mark and strip the
runway. Construct
bridge over Bayou,
correct grade
differential, and
extend the runway
safety area.
MI................... Southwest Michigan Runway extension.
Regional Airport,
Benton Harbor.
MI................... Lenawee County Airport.. Extend the runway and
shift the threshold;
airport expansion.
MI................... Cherry Capital Airport, New passenger terminal.
Traverse City.
MI................... Oakland Pontiac Various improvements.
International.
MI................... Detroit City Airport.... Land acquisition for
expansion.
MO................... Lee's Summit Municipal, Land acquisition to
Kansas City. extend runway and
creation of required
runway protection
zone.
MS................... Starkville Airport...... Runway extension.
MS................... Jackson International Design and construction
Airport. of air cargo apron.
MS................... Olive Branch Airport.... Various improvements.
MS................... Iuka Airport............ Various improvements.
MS................... Ackerman Airport........ Various improvements.
MT................... Helena Regional Airport. Taxiway construction.
NC................... Piedmont Triad Runway construction and
International Airport. related improvements.
NC................... Concord Regional Runway extension,
Airport, Cabarrus runway protection zone
County. completion, ramp/ILS
zone, Construction to
lower a road.
NC................... Stanly County Airport... Perimeter security
fencing, airfield
lighting, access
roads.
NC................... Rockingham-Hamlet Parallel taxiway,
Airport, Richmond eastern half; apron
County. expansion.
NC................... Monroe Municipal Terminal area apron
Airport, Union County. expansion; land
acquisition.
ND................... Minot Municipal Airport. Safety and security
needs.
NY................... Niagara Falls Rehabilitation of
International Airport. taxiway D.
NY................... Buffalo Niagara Runway improvements and
International Airport. extension; east access
improvements;
expansion of east
terminal apron phase
II; acquisition and
demolition.
NY................... LaGuardia International. Noise mitigation.
OH................... Port Columbus Terminal apron
International Airport. reconstruction and
glycol retention/
treatment facility.
OH................... Fairfield County Airport Airport master plan.
OH................... Ohio University Airport, Extend runway.
Athens.
OH................... Toledo Express Airport.. Expansion of taxiway
and apron capacity.
OH................... Rickenbacker Airport.... Various infrastructure
needs.
OH................... Akron-Canton Regional Expansion of runway 1/
Airport. 19 safety upgrade.
OH................... Pickaway County Airport. Runway and taxiway
extension.
OK................... Stillwater Airport...... Runway lengthening.
OK................... McAlester Airport....... Runway extension and
strengthening.
OK................... Will Rogers World Extension of runway
Airport, Oklahoma City. protection zone;
relocation of
MacArthur Boulevard.
OR................... Roberts Field/Redmond Expand commercial
Municipal. terminal ramp.
PA................... Erie International Extend main runway
Airport. 1,000 ft.
PA................... Jimmy Stewart Airport, Runway expansion and
Indiana County. related improvements.
RI................... T.F. Green Airport, Various improvements.
Providence.
TN................... Memphis Shelby County Extend taxiway;
Airport. construct aircraft
apron; reconstruct
taxiways; and
reconstruct runway.
TN................... Millington Airport...... Infrastructure
improvements.
TN................... Chattanooga Metropolitan Shift taxiway to meet
Airport. design standards.
TX................... Abilene Regional........ Terminal expansion/
taxiway upgrade.
TX................... George Bush New runway and
International, Houston. associated projects.
TX................... Alliance Airport........ Runway extension; cargo
apron; noise
compatibility program.
TX................... Sugar Land Municipal Property acquisition
Airport. and taxiway
construction.
TX................... Laredo Airport.......... Noise compatibility
program.
TX................... Robert Gray Army Support joint use
Airfield, Fort Hood. development.
USVI................. Henry E. Rohlsen Runway extension and
Airport, St. Croix. terminal expansion.
UT................... Wendover Airport........ Expansion of commercial
service ramp.
UT................... Salt Lake City Expand cargo facilities
International. to handle Olympic
demand; expand and
modernize terminals.
VA................... Danville Regional Apron expansion, fillet
Airport. widening, taxiway
lighting, apron
overlay.
VA................... Lee County Airport...... Replace airport.
VA................... Lonesome Pine Airport, Construct parallel
Wise County. taxiway.
VA................... Mountain Empire Airport, Construct security
Smyth County. fence, parallel
taxiway, move fuel
farm, relocate
windsock, and install
beacon.
VA................... Virginia Highlands Construct apron.
Airport, Abingdon.
VA................... Charlottesville- Extend runway safety
Albemarle Airport. area.
VA................... New River Valley Environmental review of
Airport, Dublin. an overlay.
WI................... Rock County Airport..... Reconstruction and
extension of runway
facilities.
WI................... Chippewa Valley Regional Runway and taxiway.
Airport.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson International Airport, MS.--The Committee is aware
that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has undertaken the
phased construction of a new air cargo park at the Jackson
International Airport, for which $7,000,000 in FAA, EDA and
local funding has already been committed. Consistent with the
priority designation of this project in the House and Senate
committee reports and the conference report last year, and in
order to meet the schedule requirements for final design and
construction of segment 1 of the project, the Committee
encourages FAA to give priority consideration to requests by
the Jackson International Airport for discretionary funding to
complete construction of the air cargo apron and related
improvements, including the paving of the taxiway connection to
Runway 16R/34L.
Alliance Airport, TX.--The Committee encourages the FAA to
give full and immediate consideration to the City of Fort
Worth's application for a letter of intent for a runway
extension project at Alliance Airport in Texas. The Committee
believes that FAA's review of grant and LOI applications should
not discriminate against cargo airport projects by relying too
heavily on formal benefit-cost analyses. The FAA's benefit-cost
procedures rely heavily on passenger air service. While
appropriate in many instances, if used inflexibly to make award
decisions, such a process could unfairly place a low priority
on a balanced national aviation system, which includes general
aviation and cargo aviation requirements.
Abilene Regional Airport, TX.--The Committee is aware of
plans for essential infrastructure improvements to enhance
competition, capacity and safety at the Abilene Regional
Airport. Given the economic potential and immediate needs of
this regional facility, the Committee encourages FAA to give
priority consideration to requests for discretionary funding
that will assist the Abilene Regional Airport with various
capital improvements such as a terminal expansion, taxiway
extension and emergency response vehicle procurement.
St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FL.--The
Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate
consideration to a letter of intent for runway expansion and
other improvements at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater
International Airport in Florida.
Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.--The Committee
encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to
the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a letter
of intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and
related improvements described in the authority's application,
which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing
facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety,
capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion
of this project.
DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport, IL.--The Committee
encourages FAA to give priority consideration to a request for
discretionary funding for reconstruction of the east-west
taxiway, replacement of airfield lighting, and acquisition of
land for placement of an ODAL system.
Akron-Canton Regional Airport, OH.--The Committee urges the
FAA to give priority consideration to requests for
discretionary funding for the safety upgrades and extension of
runway 1/19 at Akron-Canton Regional Airport in Ohio.
Louisville International Airport, Kentucky.--The Committee
is aware of Louisville International Airport's ambitious
relocation program associated with a major expansion of the
airport. Currently, Louisville is limited to receiving
$5,000,000 per year in noise mitigation funds due to an
administrative policy of the FAA. Under this bill, funds for
noise mitigation activities will increase from $206 million in
fiscal year 2000 to $347 million in fiscal year 2001. The
Committee understands that, given the substantially higher
funding level next year, the FAA intends to discontinue the
administrative cap and review each case on its merits. The
Committee believes the FAA should review each airport's need
without regard to an administrative cap, and should give strong
consideration to Louisville International's noise mitigation
needs for fiscal year 2001.
administration
The bill provides that, within the overall obligation
limitation, $53,000,000 is available for administration of the
airports program by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2000, these
expenses were included in the FAA's operating budget. The
recommended amount is $8,000,000 (17.8 percent) above the level
provided for fiscal year 2000 and essentially the same as the
budget estimate. Since overall AIP program funding is raised by
64.1 percent pursuant to Public Law 106-81, it is imperative
that administrative costs be raised also, so that grant
requests can be reviewed thoroughly and executed in a timely
manner. In addition, the airports office must review and
approve requests for letters of intent and for additional
passenger facility charges, both of which are expected to
increase in the coming year. Airport-related research remains
funded under ``Facilities and equipment.''
bill language
Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.--
Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181, 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.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
(Rescission of Contract Authorization)
The bill includes a rescission of $579,000,000 in contract
authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L.
106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2000. However, since
such funds are above the obligation limitation for that year,
they are not available for obligation and are therefore
available for rescission. This recommendation will have no
programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently
available for use in the AIP program. Furthermore, since AIP
authorized funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 is
guaranteed by law and cannot be reduced in the appropriations
process, the fiscal year 2000 funds will also not be needed to
address any shortfalls in those years.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
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.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional
discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway
category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid
highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants
funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development
funding. The highway category obligations are capped at
$27,158,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. If appropriations action
forces highway obligations or outlays to exceed this level, the
difference and the resulting outlays are charged to the non-
defense discretionary spending category. In addition, if
highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA21,
automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease
obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly.
The Committee's recommendation fully comports with and does
not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA21. The following table
summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway
Administration for fiscal year 2000 enacted, the fiscal year
2001 budget request and the Committee's recommendation:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal Year--
Program ------------------------------------ Recommended in
2000 enacted \1\ 2001 request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways...................................... $26,245,000,000 $26,603,806,000 $26,603,806,000
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)................... 1,456,350,000 3,058,000,000 3,058,000,000
RABA transfer............................................. ................ -598,000,000 ................
Adjustment................................................ ................ 255,000,000 ................
Exempt obligations........................................ 1,206,702,000 1,039,576,000 1,039,576,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 28,908,052,000 30,358,382,000 30,701,382,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $105,260,000 in across-the-board rescissions, but includes $76,058,000 in administrative expenses
for motor carriers.
Limitation on Administrative Expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\...................... ($376,072,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... (315,834,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (290,115,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... (-85,957,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. (-25,719,000)
\1\ Includes $76,058,000 for administrative expenses of the office of
motor carriers. In fiscal year 2001, funding for motor carrier
administrative expenses is included as a separate limitation in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Comparable amounts for
FHWA administrative expenses for fiscal year 2000 total $300,014,000.
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. In the past, this
limitation included a number of contract programs, such as
highway research, development and technology; however, the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) created
a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly,
in fiscal year 2001 costs related to highway research,
development and technology are included under a separate
limitation.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $290,115,000. This
level is sufficient to fund 2,437 FTEs. This limitation
excludes funding for the operations of the office of motor
carriers, which is now provided in the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration, consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999.
Legislated set-asides.--The budget request included a
number of legislated set-asides within this limitation. The
Committee has not included these items in the bill, but has
instead addressed them in this accompanying report.
The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to
the budget request:
Undistributed reduction in GOE administrative expenses.. -$6,004,000
Defer information technology increases pending CIO
review.............................................. -2,400,000
Defer increases for workforce development............... -4,330,000
Delete funding requested for rural transportation
planning initiatives................................ -1,000,000
Eliminate funding for climate change center............. -1,000,000
Deny funding for national rural development partnership
program............................................. -500,000
Delete funding for the Garrett A. Morgan program........ -688,000
Delete funding for 2 new FTE for small and disadvantaged
business activities................................. -230,000
Deny funding for development of regional transportation
plan for the Mississippi River Delta Initiative..... -1,000,000
Delete funding for ``working better together''
activities.......................................... -500,000
Provide $1,000,000 for the office of intermodalism...... -317,000
Deny increases for technology transfer and sharing
activities.......................................... -5,000,000
Disallow funds for the national personal transportation
survey.............................................. -4,750,000
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake
Winter Olympic Games (Section 1223 of TEA21)........ +2,000,000
Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses.--The
Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $6,004,000 in
administrative expenses and provides FHWA the flexibility to
allocate that reduction among such expenses as ADP, permanent
change of station, travel, transportation and non-mandatory
bonuses and incentives. The Committee notes that the FHWA is
now approximately 200 FTE below the fiscal year 2000 authorized
employment level, and therefore should be able to accommodate
this reduction with little, if any, disruption.
Information technology activities.--The Committee has
deferred increases in information technology activities
totaling $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2001 pending a review of the
need and compatibility by the department's chief information
officer of the proposed new systems and enhancements and a
determination of outyear costs.
Workforce development.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000
for workforce development activities.
Rural transportation planning initiative.--The Committee
has not provided the $1,000,000 requested to establish an
entity in two universities to support transportation planning
in rural areas. This proposed activity is redundant of those
activities funded within the local and rural technical
assistance programs of the Federal Highway Administration and
the Federal Transit Administration, respectively.
Climate change center.--The Committee has denied the
administration's request to establish a climate change center,
which would conduct and coordinate the department's research on
environmental strategies (-$1,000,000). The Committee has
provided sufficient funds within the FHWA's research and
technology program to conduct environmental research and does
not believe such a center to be necessary.
National rural development program support.--The Committee
has deleted funding requested for the department's share of the
national rural development program (-$500,000). This program is
a government-wide initiative/partnership, led by the Department
of Agriculture, and is a network of rural development leaders
and officials committed to the vitality of rural areas. The
Committee has deleted funds for this activity the last several
years.
Garrett A. Morgan program.--The Committee has deleted funds
requested within this account for the Garrett A. Morgan
transportation futures program (-$688,000), consistent with
recommendations elsewhere in the bill.
Small and disadvantaged business.--The Committee has
deleted funds requested to support two new full time equivalent
employees related to small and disadvantaged business
activities due to budget constraints (-$230,000). Additional
staff may be allocated for these activities within the current
FTE authorization ceiling.
Delta initiative.--The Committee has deleted funding
requested to develop a regional transportation plan related to
the delta initiative (-$1,000,000). This activity is
unauthorized and includes plans to develop a tourism marketing
strategy which will highlight the region's cultural and
historical significance. This is an activity more appropriate
for the Department of Commerce than the Department of
Transportation.
``Working better together'' activities.--The Committee has
deleted $500,000 for ``working better together'' activities due
to a lack of justification.
Technology sharing and transfer activities.--The Committee
has not provided the $5,000,000 requested to encourage greater
sharing among the department's modal administrations and their
constituencies of research and technology. Sufficient funding
of $14,000,000 is provided for training and education
activities in fiscal year 2001 in the highway research and
technology programs to support these activities.
National personal transportation survey.--The Committee has
not provided the $4,750,000 under this heading for activities
related to the national personal transportation survey. The
Committee recognizes the need for such data and has included
limited funds for this activity within funds provided for
policy research and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake Winter
Olympic Games.--The Committee recommendation includes
$2,000,000 for transportation management planning for the Salt
Lake Winter Olympic Games, as authorized by section 1223(c) of
TEA21. These funds shall be available for planning activities
and transportation projects based on the transportation
management plan approved by the Secretary.
International trade data systems.--The Committee has
provided $1,620,000, as requested, for an international trade
data system, which is intended to create a single federal
database and information system to process international trade
and transportation transactions. Funding is included to upgrade
the current tag/reader system for trucks and to include a
railroad electronic notification and clearance process. The
Committee directs, however, that the Department of
Transportation provide the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations by February 1, 2001 a detailed cost estimate for
the development and deployment of the complete system,
including cost sharing by other participating federal, state
and local agencies, and a schedule for full deployment.
Research and development administrative expenses.--The
Committee's recommendation for general operating expenses
includes funding to support various administrative activities
related to research and development activities that were
requested within the research and technology programs.
Specifically, $400,000 is provided to support innovative
financing administration; $200,000 for strategic planning;
$400,000 for research and technology activities conducted by
the resource centers; $645,000 for computer support for
research and development activities; and $200,000 for the
development of improved performance measures.
Four Bears Bridge, North Dakota.--The bill does not provide
$5,000,000 requested from funds made available under section
104(a) of TEA21 for the design and preliminary engineering of
the Four Bears Bridge in North Dakota.
Child passenger protection grants.--Of the funds available
pursuant to section 104(a) of TEA21, the Committee has included
$7,500,000 for child passenger protection grants.
Limitation on Transportation Research
Limitation, fiscal year 2000\1\....................... ................
Budget request, fiscal year 2001\1\................... ................
Recommended in the bill............................... ($437,250,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... (+437,250,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. (+437,250,000)
\1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year
2001 are assumed within the federal-aid highways obligation
limitation.
This limitation controls spending for the transportation
research and technology contract programs of the Federal
Highway Administration. This limitation includes a number of
contract programs including intelligent transportation systems,
surface transportation research, technology deployment,
training and education, and university transportation research.
In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part
from the limitation on general operating expenses and from
contract authority provided in permanent law. The
recommendation includes an obligation limitation for
transportation research of $437,250,000. This limitation is
consistent with the provisions of TEA21 and mirrors the House-
passed fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Committee
recommendation does not provide an additional $221,500,000 for
research and technology programs requested in the budget to be
funded from an increase in contract authority.
TEA21 authorizes $437,250,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the
following transportation research programs:
Surface transportation research......................... $98,000,000
Technology deployment program........................... 45,000,000
Training and education.................................. 18,000,000
Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 31,000,000
ITS standards, research, operational tests, and
development......................................... 100,000,000
ITS deployment.......................................... 118,000,000
University transportation research...................... 27,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal............................................ 437,250,000
Within the funds provided for surface transportation
research, the accompanying bill provides funding for the
following activities in the specified amounts, consistent with
the provisions of TEA21:
Technology assessment and deployment.................... $14,000,000
International activities................................ 500,000
Research and technology support......................... 7,500,000
Highway research and development........................ 66,000,000
Long term pavement performance.......................... 10,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 98,000,000
Within the funds provided for surface transportation
research, the Committee recommends that $66,000,000 be
allocated for highway research and development for the
following activities in the specified amounts:
Highway research and development:
Safety.............................................. $15,000,000
Pavements........................................... 15,000,000
Structures.......................................... 15,000,000
Environment......................................... 6,200,000
Policy.............................................. 4,600,000
Planning and real estate............................ 4,100,000
Advanced research................................... 900,000
Highway operations asset management................. 5,200,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 66,000,000
The Committee has allocated the surface transportation
research and development account in the same manner as it has
historically, rather than in the new configuration proposed by
FHWA. This allocation will not interfere with the performance-
based approach required under GPRA, but will ensure that the
flow of federal investments can be monitored easily. The
Committee's allocation concentrates funds in the three
foundations of FHWA's research and development program: safety,
pavements, and structures. To respond to the pressing
challenges of today's highway environment, increased funds also
have been made available for highway operations and asset
management.
The Committee also seeks to ensure that FHWA continues to
focus on research and development, and therefore does not
approve the use of any funds specified under highway research
and development to support technology deployment, assessment,
or other programmatic purposes as proposed by FHWA. Instead,
under the surface transportation research and development
subaccount, the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be allocated
for technology deployment and assessment activities to expedite
the transfer of advanced technologies to state and local
governments. Next year, FHWA should be prepared to show how
funds to advance research and development were tracked
separately from funds spent on technology deployment and
assessment functions.
In the fiscal year 2002 budget justification, the Committee
expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface
transportation research and development funds using the same
categorical basis displayed in this report. The FHWA also is
expected to document how it proposes to allocate the technology
assessment and deployment funds by specific projects or
activities to be conducted by the core business units, state
division offices, or resource centers. The justification will
include a separate discussion of how the technology deployment
program funds will be integrated with the surface
transportation R&D funds.
Safety.--The safety research and technology program
develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment,
roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information
materials that will significantly contribute to the reduction
of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee recommends
$15,000,000 for safety research and development activities.
FHWA is required to implement a comprehensive research and
technology program that will ensure safety R&D and deployment
activities receive at least the same total amount of funds that
were provided in fiscal year 2000. The Committee commends FHWA
for the development of various safety-oriented technologies and
its assistance to states to reduce run-off-the road crashes,
increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve roadside design
and hardware, reduce hazards in work zones, advance safety and
speed management systems, and further highway safety
information systems.
The Committee has increased funds above the requested
amount to allow FHWA to expand its efforts to improve traffic
safety at various types of intersections. Almost 25 percent of
all fatal motor vehicle crashes are intersection-related.
Intersection safety is a concern in both urban and rural
areas--44 percent of intersection-related fatal crashes occur
in rural areas and 56 percent in urban areas. Providing
increased funds for this area of research is consistent with
the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies
improving the design and operation of highway intersections as
one of its 22 strategies to reduce highway deaths and injuries.
FHWA should identify the most common and severe safety problems
at intersections and compile information on effective
applications and design of innovative infrastructure
configurations and treatments at both signalized and
unsignalized intersections and interchanges.
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. For fiscal year 2001, the
Committee recommends $15,000,000 for pavements research and
development, including work on asphalt, cement concrete
pavements, and recycled materials. This increase in funding
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, along with the funds
provided for long term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to
undertake research projects to improve the nation's
infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is
encouraged to support research into aggregates production and
utilization, polymer additives, and the production of asphalt
modifiers using rubber and waste oil.
Structures.--The structures research and technology program
develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to
maintain efficiently and renew the aging transportation
infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance,
and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery
after major disasters. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee
recommends $15,000,000 for structures research and development.
These funds will help FHWA make progress towards its
performance goal to reduce deficiencies on national highway
system bridges from 25% to 20% and reduce deficiencies on all
bridges from 31.4% to 25% by 2007. This funding will ensure
continued progress on high performance materials and
engineering applications to design, repair, rehabilitate, and
retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is
encouraged to support research into advanced wood composites,
research into the use of lithium technologies to mitigate
damage from alkali silica reactions, and research into the use
of high resolution imaging in non-destructive evaluations.
Environment research.--The environment research and
technology program develops improved tools for assessing
highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the
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 Committee recommends $6,200,000
for research on environmental issues affecting highway
operations and construction. Further, within the funds provided
for highway research and development, the department shall make
available $250,000 for furtherance of the PM-10 study.
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 enhancements to highway program contributions to economic
productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. For fiscal
year 2001, the Committee recommends $4,600,000 for policy
research. For several years, the Committee has provided funds
for the department's truck size and weight study, which has
been financed primarily from FHWA's policy research budget.
This study has been in draft format for several years and has
received considerable criticism. The Committee's allowance does
not include any funds to continue or revise this study. The
Committee will reconsider the need for updating this study when
debate over highway reauthorization legislation draws closer.
This savings of $450,000 and the additional funds recommended
above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will allow continued
work on the National Personal Transportation Survey, which is
funded under this category and not under the limitation on
administrative expense as requested by the FHWA. Because of
budgetary constraints, the Committee has deleted funds for
research cooperation with various international organizations
and expects to be consulted before future international
agreements that are likely to require financial support are
consummated.
Planning and real estate research.--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 recommends $4,100,000 for
planning and real estate research, including an increase of
$100,000 in the real estate services portion of the planning
R&D budget above the amount specified last year. These
additional funds will help FHWA respond to requests from AASHTO
and other groups for increased research in the real estate
service area.
Advanced research.--The advanced research program addresses
longer-term, higher risk research that shows potential benefits
for improving the durability, efficiency, environmental impact,
productivity and safety of highway systems. The Committee
provides $900,000 for advanced research.
Highway operations 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. The Committee
recommends $5,200,000 for highway operations and asset
management. Funds provided under this category support a
variety of research projects seeking to improve highway
operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform
traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies
that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather
conditions, and freight management operations. Of the $600,000
provided for asset management, the Committee has not included
any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality
Initiative. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics.
R&T technical support.--The Committee has limited funds for
R&T technical support to $7,500,000. Funding for other agency-
wide initiatives requested under the category ``Agency R&T
Programs'' have not been approved, unless otherwise specified
under the limitation on general operating expenses.
R&T partnership initiative.--The Committee continues to
support FHWA's participation in the national R&T partnership
initiative. As part of this partnership, five working groups
have been formed to advance a national research agenda in the
areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and
mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and
systems monitoring. Key partners and stakeholders, including,
state DOTs, academia, local governmental officials, and private
sector representatives are participating along with FHWA as
part of this effort. The products of this initiative will
provide input to the FHWA and other participants in shaping R&D
directions and priorities, and increase opportunities for
collaborative approaches to conducting high-priority R&T
activities. The Committee notes that the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) has taken a significant role in
facilitating this effort, and that the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has voiced
strong support and participates actively in this effort. The
Committee encourages FHWA's continued support of this
partnership initiative and appreciates the involvement of TRB,
AASHTO, and others to advance the overall highway R&T program.
Advanced vehicle consortia program.--The Committee has not
included funds for the advanced vehicle consortia program. The
budget request had proposed to provide $20,000,000 for the
program by diverting revenue aligned budget authority for this
purpose. Last year the Committee directed the department to
include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a report that:
delineates a detailed strategic spending plan outlining the
scope and direction of each of the planned research,
development, demonstration, and deployment projects expected to
be funded as part of the program during the next five years;
demonstrates that the activities to be conducted by the
participating consortia will be coordinated and integrated into
a cohesive program; provides documentation that the projects to
be funded do not in any way overlap with other FTA, FRA, or
Department of Energy activities; and demonstrates a financial
participation of other federal departments. At the time of the
writing of this report, the Committee had yet to receive the
report. The Committee, therefore, has deferred future funding
requests for this program until the reporting requirement is
satisfied, the department is able to indicate how the disparate
array of projects will be joined together to form a
strategically designed program, and the Committee has had an
opportunity to review the report fully.
Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) distribution.--The
Committee directs that any RABA funds distributed under current
law for surface transportation research and development be
allocated only among the core research programs for pavements,
structures or safety. None of the distributed RABA funds are to
be used for activities originally requested under agency-wide
R&T initiatives.
ITS standards, research, operational tests and
development.--The Committee recommends the $100,000,000
provided in TEA21 for ITS research be allocated in the
following manner:
Research and development................................ $48,680,000
Operational tests....................................... 11,820,000
Evaluation.............................................. 7,750,000
Architecture and standards.............................. 13,750,000
Integration............................................. 9,000,000
Program support......................................... 9,000,000
CVO research.--The Committee's allowance includes
$7,300,000 for commercial vehicle research. The additional
funds provided above the request shall be used to develop and
test advanced technology for roadside identification. This
technology is needed to identify commercial carriers and
vehicles without transponders in advance of their approach to
an inspection site. This technology will ensure that maximum
use of the SAFER, ASPEN, Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target
file, and ISS2 systems is facilitated. Advancement of
technology to promote the transfer of information from NLETS to
MCSAP officers, including improved communications between the
NLETS bridge and the PRISM target file and other information
systems, should also be supported with the additional funds
provided.
IVI research.--The Committee's allowance includes
$30,000,000 for the intelligent vehicle program. No less than
$5,000,000 of those funds shall be used for the initial phase
of an operational test to advance collision avoidance
technologies in the light vehicle platform. This project should
be designed so that it is completed before the end of fiscal
year 2003. The solicitation shall encourage the participation
of at least one light vehicle manufacturer or a tier I
supplier. The department shall solicit projects that will
address run-off-the road crashes and unsafe lane or
intersection movements. Because of the importance of this
initiative, the department is encouraged to employ innovative
mechanisms, (such as cooperative agreements or other funding
arrangements) that would facilitate an appropriately-sized test
for the purpose of evaluating safety benefits and costs, while
protecting proprietary technology.
Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the
Committee that the following projects contribute to the
integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation
systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under
section 5208 of TEA21 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 are
to be available as follows:
Amount
Alameda-Contra Costa, California........................ $1,000,000
Baton Rouge, Louisiana.................................. 2,000,000
Bay County, Florida..................................... 2,000,000
Bloomingdale Township, Illinois......................... 400,000
Calhoun County, Michigan................................ 500,000
Carbondale, Pennsylvania................................ 2,000,000
Charlotte, North Carolina............................... 1,000,000
College Station, Texas.................................. 1,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas................................... 1,000,000
DuPage County, Illinois................................. 850,000
Houston, Texas.......................................... 2,000,000
Huntington Beach, California............................ 2,500,000
Inglewood, California................................... 1,000,000
Jackson, Mississippi.................................... 1,000,000
Jefferson County, Colorado.............................. 5,400,000
Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania............................... 2,000,000
Lake County, Illinois................................... 450,000
Montgomery County, Pennsylvania......................... 4,000,000
North Las Vegas, Nevada................................. 2,000,000
Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, California................ 1,000,000
Oakland and Wayne counties, Michigan.................... 2,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.............................. 1,000,000
Puget Sound, Washington................................. 3,000,000
Rensselaer County, New York............................. 1,000,000
Rochester, New York..................................... 1,500,000
Sacramento County, California........................... 1,750,000
Sacramento, California.................................. 1,000,000
Shreveport, Louisiana................................... 2,000,000
Southhaven, Mississippi................................. 150,000
Spokane County, Washington.............................. 1,000,000
St. Louis, Missouri..................................... 1,000,000
State of Arizona........................................ 1,000,000
State of Delaware....................................... 1,500,000
State of Iowa........................................... 2,000,000
State of Maryland....................................... 2,000,000
State of Minnesota...................................... 10,000,000
State of Nebraska....................................... 1,500,000
State of North Carolina................................. 2,000,000
State of North Dakota................................... 1,000,000
State of Ohio........................................... 3,000,000
State of South Carolina................................. 4,000,000
State of Utah........................................... 5,000,000
Commonwealth of Virginia................................ 8,000,000
Washington, DC area..................................... 2,500,000
Wayne County, Michigan.................................. 8,000,000
Federal-Aid Highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................ ($26,000,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001............... (28,000,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................ (28,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............ +2,000,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001........... .......................
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $28,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over
the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and is needed to pay the
outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at
levels provided in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and
has no scoring effect.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS
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 945,000 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.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other
surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA21
builds on programs and other initiatives established in the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of
1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface
transportation programs.
Under TEA21, 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 75 percent
of commercial truck traffic and 40 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 46,000-mile Dwight D.
Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program
finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and
reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges,
interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate
routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity
other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes.
All remaining federal funding to complete the initial
construction of the interstate system has been provided through
previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to
States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of
prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no
remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer
any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate
maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on
Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish
interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and
transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate
maintenance program.
Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation
program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by
the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that
are not functionally classified as local or rural minor
collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as
Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are
not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public
road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this
program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the
transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee
funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds.
Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used
according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety
construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50
percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and
remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of
the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts
reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor
collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent
with a 4-year availability period.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for
bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for
high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges.
Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to
the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is
deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's
apportionment formula for the following year.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air
quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range
of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT,
after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help
meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides
greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and
expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to
reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate
matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state
has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be
used as if they were STP funds.
On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be
appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both
sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ
program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile
source control techniques.
Federal lands highways.--This program provides
authorizations through three major categories--Indian
reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands
highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways
category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public
roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife
Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for
improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads.
Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year
2001 shall be available for the following activities:
Amount
14th Street bridge, Washington DC/Virginia.............. $5,000,000
Acadia National Park.................................... 1,000,000
Broughton Bridge, Clay County, Kansas................... 100,000
Clark Fork River bridge replacement, phase 2, Idaho..... 3,000,000
Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge access road,
Nebraska............................................ 1,000,000
Cumberland Gap, Kentucky................................ 900,000
Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky.......................... 1,000,000
Historic Kelso depot, Mojave National Preservation,
California.......................................... 5,400,000
Hoover Dam bypass, Arizona.............................. 10,000,000
Lake Tahoe Binwall repair and drainage improvement...... 1,000,000
Lowell National Historic Park, western canal walkway
improvements........................................ 500,000
Manassas Battlefield access............................. 500,000
Mongaup Visitor Center--Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River.................................. 900,000
Mount Saint Helen's National Park access from Coldwater
visitor's Center to US 12, Randall, Washington...... 100,000
Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge visitor's center,
Clark County, Washington............................ 400,000
Route 600, Virginia..................................... 3,100,000
SD 240 loop, Badlands National Monument................. 1,700,000
Second Access road for Fort Eustis, Virginia............ 3,500,000
Soldier Hallow, Utah.................................... 2,400,000
Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Florida...... 900,000
Traffic circle at Mount Vernon, Virginia................ 500,000
Upgrade US Hwy 26, Oregon............................... 3,000,000
Utah Trail, Joshua Tree National Park, California....... 1,500,000
Widen US 95, Nevada..................................... 2,000,000
The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to
be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program,
and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service's
regions.
Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of
funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are
distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional
amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee
provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5
percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of
the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each
fiscal year, $2.8 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. TEA21 restates the
program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds
can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential
highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting
from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect
the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds
are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds
from other highway programs.
High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority
projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects
totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified
percentage of the project funds made available each year.
Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21
high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid
obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated
with the projects does not expire.
Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes
funds available to construct highways and access roads under
section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of
1965. Under TEA21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended and
distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete
estimate.
National corridor planning and border infrastructure
programs.--TEA21 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.
Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of
TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats
and ferry terminal facilities. TEA21 also included a new
requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999
through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are
part of the National Highway System for use by the states of
Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2001, TEA21
provides $38,000,000.
Transportation and community and system preservation pilot
program.--TEA21 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 2001 shall be
available for the following activities:
Project Amount
Arkansas River, Wichita, Kansas pedestrian
transportation facility............................. $1,000,000
Boca Raton, Florida traffic calming measures............ 500,000
Buckeye Greenbelt parkway beautification, Toledo, Ohio.. 250,000
Central Florida commuter rail........................... 1,000,000
City of Bedminister, New Jersey bike path............... 500,000
City of Ferndale, Michigan traffic signals.............. 50,000
City of Sulphur Springs, Texas mobility improvements.... 750,000
Clark County, Indiana mobility improvement project...... 750,000
Community and environmental transportation acceptability
process............................................. 1,000,000
Decatur, Illinois mobility improvements................. 750,000
Development of Mitchell Marina, Greenport, New York..... 250,000
El Segundo, California intermodal facility improvements. 1,000,000
Ellenboro and Harrisville, West Virginia mobility
improvements........................................ 250,000
Elwood bicycle/pedestrian bridge, County of Santa
Barbara, California................................. 250,000
Fort Worth, Texas trolley study......................... 750,000
High capacity transportation system study, Albuquerque,
New Mexico.......................................... 500,000
Humboldt Greenway project, Hennepin County, Minnesota... 1,000,000
Lafayette Street access improvement project, Norristown,
Pennsylvania........................................ 500,000
Lodge freeway pedestrian overpass, Detroit, Michigan.... 900,000
Madison County, Kentucky................................ 400,000
Mercer County, Illinois mobility improvements........... 750,000
Mobility improvement study, Fayette, Lamar, Tuscaloosa,
Marion and Franklin Counties, Alabama............... 500,000
New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania rail corridor study... 1,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana intermodal transportation
research............................................ 750,000
North Metro region improvement project, Minnesota....... 750,000
North Spokane, Washington trade corridor improvements
and enhancements.................................... 500,000
NW 7th Avenue corridor improvement project, Miami,
Florida............................................. 100,000
Ohio and Erie Canal corridor trail development.......... 1,000,000
Pedestrian and bicycle route projects, Henderson, Nevada 250,000
Pedestrian improvements, Lake Cumberland Trail, Kentucky 100,000
Revitalization project, Fitchburg, Massachusetts........ 1,000,000
Rockville, Maryland Town Center accessibility
improvement plan.................................... 250,000
Soundview Greenway in the Bronx, New York, New York..... 1,000,000
South Kingshighway business district pilot program, St.
Louis, Missouri..................................... 100,000
Street revitalization, Clovis, New Mexico............... 750,000
Town of South Brunswick, New Jersey..................... 250,000
Traffic calming and mitigation, South Pasadena,
Pasedena, El Serano, California..................... 1,000,000
Uptown transportation management program, New Mexico.... 500,000
Van Buren and Russelville, Arkansas environmental
assessments and improvements........................ 1,000,000
Walkable edgewater initiative, Chicago, Illinois........ 100,000
West Baden Springs preservation project, Indiana........ 1,000,000
Federal-Aid Highways
(HIGHWAY TRUST FUND)
Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... ($27,701,350,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.............. (29,318,806,000)
Recommended in the bill \2\....................... (29,661,806,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 2000.................. (+1,960,456,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.............. (+343,000,000)
\1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $3,058,000,000
associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which
$598,000,000 is transferred to other modal administrations. The
request also includes $255,000,000 in additional obligation authority.
\2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,603,806,000 in guaranteed
obligations, and $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue
aligned budget authority, consistent with current law.
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 2001 federal-aid highways obligations to $29,661,806,000,
an increase of $1,960,456,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted
level and $343,000,000 over the budget request. The recommended
level is the level assumed in TEA21. These funds are guaranteed
under the highway category and protected by points of order in
the House.
The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways
program included in this bill includes $3,058,000,000 in
obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority.
TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the federal-aid
highways program budget authority and obligation authority in
any budget year in which projected income to the highway
account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income
to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted.
Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so-
called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's
budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget
authority to be distributed proportionately among federal-aid
highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the
overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an
equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the
motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of
increased income, and therefore, budget authority and
obligations for fiscal year 2001 is $3,058,000,000.
The budget request--in contravention of provisions of
TEA21--proposed to allocate this additional obligation
authority in fiscal year 2001 to other programs, including
NHTSA's operations and research program; FTA's job access and
reverse commute program; high speed rail activities; and the
commercial drivers license program. The accompanying bill
allocates the additional obligation authority consistent with
the provisions of TEA21.
In addition, the budget request included several proposals
which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These
proposals included: (1) a set aside of $1,200,000 from funds
made available for administrative expenses for training on
Indian reservations; (2) an additional $25,000,000 for the
transportation and community and system preservation program;
(3) an additional $140,000,000 for the national corridor
planning and border infrastructure program; (4) an additional
$221,500,000 for transportation research programs; and (5)
$398,000,000 to implement an emergency relief reserve fund.
These proposals have not been approved by the Committee as they
are unauthorized and if adopted would have required
corresponding reductions in the states' apportionments and
their obligation authority in fiscal year 2001.
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 $29,661,806,000 provided by
this Act and additional resources made available by permanent
law:
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001
Programs actual estimate estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
Surface transportation $6,226,536 $6,216,069 $6,731,321
program.....................
National highway system...... 4,888,225 5,318,526 5,761,790
Interstate maintenance....... 3,357,000 4,419,470 4,788,822
Bridge program............... 2,565,202 3,784,695 4,105,706
Congestion mitigation and air 1,145,000 1,509,389 1,636,014
quality improvement.........
Minimum guarantee............ 2,167,156 1,762,941 2,000,000
Safety incentive grants for 54,137 80,148 98,758
use of seat belts...........
Safety incentive to prevent 43,029 69,680 78,833
operation of motor carrier
by intoxicated persons......
ITS standards, research and 75,122 98,068 96,821
development.................
ITS deployment............... 70,938 124,315 114,249
Transportation research...... 208,076 220,214 216,127
Federal lands highways....... 339,287 652,820 673,305
National corridor planning 118,307 121,964 135,550
and coordinated border
infrastructure..............
Administration............... 330,657 304,355 290,115
Other programs............... 2,162,020 432,209 589,212
High priority projects....... 581,338 1,560,397 1,631,221
Woodrow Wilson memorial 1,064 138,650 193,642
bridge......................
Transportation infrastructure 48,006 100,583 106,503
finance and innovation......
Appalachian development 318,658 393,950 388,253
highway system..............
Emergency Relief............. ........... ........... 9,229
Motor Carrier Administration. ........... ........... 16,335
--------------------------------------
Total subject to obligation 24,699,758 \1\ 27,308, \2\ 29,661,
limitation................ 443 806
======================================
Emergency relief program......... 128,866 111,151 100,000
Minimum allocation/guarantee..... 857,868 702,364 664,345
Demonstration projects........... 247,570 393,188 275,231
--------------------------------------
Total exempt programs...... 1,234,304 1,206,703 1,039,576
Emergency relief supplemental.... 97,074 14,668 ...........
--------------------------------------
Grand Total, Federal-aid 26,031,136 28,529,814 30,701,382
highways (direct).........
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the obligation
limitation ($27.520 billion) adjusted for RABA, enacted transfers to
the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and enacted reduction
in fiscal year 2000.
\2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $29.677 billion
will be obligated in fiscal year 2001.
The following table reflects the estimated distribution of
the federal-aid limitation by state:
ESTIMATED FY 2001 OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimated
FY 2001 FY 2001 Appalachian Change from FY
State formula minimum development Total 2000
limitation guarantee highways
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama................................ $421,012 $35,455 $42,749 $499,216 +$39,101
Alaska................................. 230,277 64,220 ........... 294,497 +23,460
Arizona................................ 378,708 43,559 ........... 422,268 +33,924
Arkansas............................... 296,154 26,842 ........... 322,996 +25,435
California............................. 2,171,962 149,017 ........... 2,320,978 +183,462
Colorado............................... 282,577 13,662 ........... 296,239 +23,695
Connecticut............................ 325,049 48,080 ........... 373,129 +29,519
Delaware............................... 106,679 7,772 ........... 114,541 +9,252
Dist. of Col........................... 99,053 292 ........... 99,345 +7,892
Florida................................ 1,047,364 159,429 ........... 1,206,792 +96,253
Georgia................................ 766,647 96,200 17,084 881,931 +69,778
Hawaii................................. 116,161 10,601 ........... 126,762 +9,990
Idaho.................................. 163,274 18,931 ........... 182,205 +14,121
Illinois............................... 778,026 46,500 ........... 824,526 +64,769
Indiana................................ 527,367 57,447 ........... 584,814 +46,226
Iowa................................... 286,598 11,172 ........... 297,769 +23,546
Kansas................................. 282,037 7,839 ........... 289,876 +22,896
Kentucky............................... 375,794 32,240 39,216 447,249 +35,129
Louisiana.............................. 362,538 27,771 ........... 390,309 +30,646
Maine.................................. 121,892 9,683 ........... 131,575 +10,466
Maryland............................... 375,212 27,701 6,685 409,598 +32,441
Massachusetts.......................... 419,046 35,486 ........... 454,533 +35,747
Michigan............................... 737,157 71,202 ........... 808,359 +63,806
Minnesota.............................. 343,656 19,628 ........... 363,284 +28,449
Mississippi............................ 286,918 18,581 4,794 310,293 +24,485
Missouri............................... 570,885 39,297 ........... 610,182 +48,096
Montana................................ 223,135 31,859 ........... 254,995 +20,580
Nebraska............................... 193,224 6,921 ........... 200,145 +16,109
Nevada................................. 163,714 18,647 ........... 182,362 +14,588
New Hampshire.......................... 114,570 9,838 ........... 124,408 +9,728
New Jersey............................. 614,547 42,281 ........... 656,828 +51,625
New Mexico............................. 222,845 21,952 ........... 244,796 +19,402
New York............................... 1,152,626 89,349 9,214 1,251,189 +98,004
North Carolina......................... 609,668 67,217 25,169 702,054 +55,488
North Dakota........................... 157,838 10,617 ........... 168,455 +13,562
Ohio................................... 789,757 53,858 19,278 862,893 +67,952
Oklahoma............................... 367,971 19,332 ........... 387,303 +30,787
Oregon................................. 283,192 12,755 ........... 295,947 +23,192
Pennsylvania........................... 1,016,899 69,324 104,528 1,190,751 +91,783
Rhode Island........................... 137,343 14,296 ........... 151,639 +12,172
South Carolina......................... 373,501 46,298 2,094 421,894 +33,720
South Dakota........................... 164,077 13,093 ........... 177,170 +14,036
Tennessee.............................. 485,985 37,823 47,927 571,735 +44,810
Texas.................................. 1,711,357 201,194 ........... 1,912,551 +152,417
Utah................................... 187,408 11,779 ........... 199,187 +15,700
Vermont................................ 109,720 6,767 ........... 116,487 +9,338
Virginia............................... 590,566 52,352 10,074 652,992 +51,789
Washington............................. 422,504 14,356 ........... 436,859 +34,318
West Virginia.......................... 199,319 8,714 59,441 267,475 +20,210
Wisconsin.............................. 442,536 49,535 ........... 492,071 +38,978
Wyoming................................ 167,114 11,239 ........... 178,353 +14,347
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal......................... 22,775,551 2,000,000 388,253 25,163,805 +1,987,198
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Special Limitation:
High Priority Projects............. ........... ........... ........... 1,631,219 +73,782
Woodrow Wilson Bridge.............. ........... ........... ........... 193,643 +54,993
Allocation Reserves................ ........... ........... ........... 2,673,139 +25,801
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total Limitation................. ........... ........... ........... 29,661,806 +2,141,774
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston,
Massachusetts.--For more than five years, this Committee has
been concerned about the management and ever increasing cost of
Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Originally
estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985, the Project is now
estimated to top over $13,100,000,000. As part of its
continuing oversight of this Project, the Committee asked both
the General Accounting Office and the Department of
Transportation's office of inspector general to review and
report on the status of the Project.
In May 1999, the Inspector General (IG) questioned the
Project's use of an $826,000,000 credit that it planned to
obtain by overpaying for insurance and investing the excess
until 2017. The Project was carrying the credit as an offset to
current costs. In October 1999, the IG issued a draft report
which identified $142,000,000 of cost overruns and suggested
that the cost could increase by another $942,000,000. The IG
also identified that the Project's finance plans did not
adequately disclose costs on the Project. Both FHWA and Project
management officials vehemently disagreed with the IG's warning
that Project's costs could rise.
In January 2000, Project officials submitted a revised
finance plan to the FHWA. Ignoring the IG's earlier warnings
that costs could rise and finance plans were incomplete, FHWA
approved the revised finance plan on February 1, 2000. Later
that same day, the Project surprised FHWA by announcing a
$1,400,000,000 cost increase. Project officials have since
acknowledged that they were well aware of cost escalation when
they replied to the IG. Project management deliberately
withheld that information from the federal government.
The withholding of information by Project officials,
however egregious, does not excuse FHWA. FHWA had not performed
its oversight duties and was unaware of the cost increases
until they were announced by the Project. The Secretary of
Transportation later termed the actions ``unconscionable'' and
promised to reform FHWA's major project oversight. The
Committee accepts the conclusions and recommendations of the
department's task force but remains skeptical that they will be
implemented effectively. FHWA's long established approach to
``partnering'' on all large highway projects must include
strong and effective verification mechanisms to prevent the
recurrence of situations similar to those on the Central
Artery.
In order to ensure that changes are made, the Committee
directs the following actions:
(1) The Secretary of Transportation is to submit to
the Committee a quarterly report showing the progress
and status of all recommendations in the task force
report. The IG is to validate the accuracy of all
actions reported as complete.
(2) The FHWA has initiated a ``major projects team''
to improve headquarters administration and oversight of
large construction projects. The Secretary is to
provide the Committee with information on the specific
responsibilities of the team and to whom it reports.
(3) The Committee also directs that an annual summary
of the reports and assessments issued by the major
projects team. This submission is to include a listing
of all highway projects costing over $1,000,000,000.
For each project listed, the current cost estimate, a
summary of the finding sources available to complete
the project, and a description of significant cost
trends in the last year shall be submitted.
(4) By December 31, the Secretary is to provide the
Committee with a listing of all highway projects
totaling over $10,000,000, for which the estimated cost
has increased over the original estimate by 25 percent
of more. For each project, please provide the original
cost estimate and the current cost estimate. Also for
each project, provide a short description of the
reasons for the cost increases.
At the time of consideration of this bill by the Committee,
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had yet to submit an
acceptable finance plan detailing the costs to complete the
Project and the manner in which the state proposed to pay for
it. Specifically, the finance plan:
(1) failed to identify new funding sources to cover
cost increases on the project. The state legislature
has not acted to make funding sources available to
cover the cost of the project, including the cost
increase and adequate contingencies, nor has the
governor signed such actions into law;
(2) failed to provide specific actions on establishing
and demonstrating a statewide program funding
commitment and identification of appropriate funding
resources for a statewide road and bridge program;
(3) failed to provide adequate information on the
insurance program; and
(4) failed to include funding resources to cover
additional shortfalls totaling between $300,000,000 to
$400,000,000 identified by FHWA in excess of the
state's announced $1,400,000,000 increase.
In the absence of an acceptable finance plan and continuing
mismanagement of the Project, the Committee had no alternative
other than to include in the bill a provision (sec. 338) that
prohibits any federal official from authorizing any project
approvals or advance construction authorities for the Central
Artery project during fiscal year 2001.
FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier
Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the
Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor
carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal
Highway Administration. For the two years prior to the passage
of this legislation, the office of motor carriers was severely
criticized for not doing enough to prevent trucking accidents
and fatalities, and being too close to the industry that it
regulated. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA)
sought to address these criticisms by forming a new
administration that placed truck and bus safety on par with
other modes of transportation and by strengthening the
commercial driver's license program.
The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve 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 the commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and
sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely
in partnership with federal, state, and local enforcement
agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety
organizations, and individual citizens.
MCSIA and TEA21 provide funding authorizations for FMCSA,
including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and
technology, the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP)
and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives
(ISSSI).
Motor Carrier Safety
(Highway Trust Fund)
The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the
salaries, expenses and research funding for the Federal Motor
Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section 104(a)(1) of
title 23 to provide one-third of one percent to be made
available to administer motor carrier safety programs and motor
carrier research.
Limitation on
administrative
expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\................... ($76,058,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... (92,194,000)
Recommended in the bill............................... (92,194,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +16,136,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................
\1\ Provided under FHWA's limitation on administrative expenses in
fiscal year 2000. This amount includes funding for administrative
expenses and research and technology initiatives.
The Committee has provided a total of $92,194,000 for
operating expenses and research for the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration. This is the same amount as requested and
$16,136,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of this
total, $83,525,000 is for operating expenses and $8,669,000 is
for research. The following adjustments are recommended to the
budget request:
High-risk, intrastate carrier information............. -$500,000
Contract for vision exemption program................. -638,000
Personnel adjustments................................. +144,000
Crash collection data................................. +1,500,000
Operation Respond..................................... +375,000
Research and technology............................... -881,000
High-risk, intrastate carrier information.--The Committee
has deleted funding for the high-risk intrastate carrier
information program under the operating expense account and
recommends funding for this activity under the MCSAP program
because of its direct relevance to state motor carrier safety
(-$500,000).
Contract vision exemption program.--FMCSA requested
$638,000 to administer a new contract for a vision exemption
program. Typically it is more expensive to hire contractors
than to have in-house employees administer the program. For
example, RSPA recently converted three contract positions to
in-house positions and realized cost savings of almost $150,000
without impacting the quality of the program. The Committee has
denied funding for this new contract program. Instead, funding
has been provided to hire three employees to perform this work
in-house. Processing vision exemption applications should be
conducted by federal officials trained in motor carrier safety
regulations associated with the exemption program. The three
new positions should be sufficient to monitor and review the 50
to 55 applications that FMCSA receives each month and assist
the agency in developing improved regulations that set the
minimum medical standards for commercial drivers.
Personnel adjustments.--A total of 120 new full-time
employees has been approved for fiscal year 2001, two more than
requested. The Committee has added four FTEs: three vision
exemption specialists and one additional information systems
analyst. The additional information systems analyst is
necessary because, over the past three years, the office of
motor carriers has decreased the number of computer specialists
from 11 to 4; however the administration has been given
additional information systems responsibilities. This new
position should be used to assist in the development of
improved information systems and to provide technical
assistance to field operations on new computer systems. The
Committee has denied two of the new positions requested: one
international specialist because of the delays in implementing
the trucking provisions contained in NAFTA and one technology
specialist. The Committee has approved the other three
technology specialists contained in the budget request and
notes that FMCSA has ample employees currently working to
advance the CVO and PRISM programs.
Crash collection data.--The Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 provides $5,000,000 for crash data
collection (section 225e); however, FMCSA has requested
$2,750,000 for these efforts. The Committee has provided
$1,500,000 above the request to ensure that FMCSA improves data
collection on motor carrier crashes; strengthens data analysis;
links driver citation information with other information
databases; helps train state employees and motor carrier safety
enforcement officials; and ensures an increased focus on
problem drivers through the integration of driver and crash
data.
Operation Respond.--Consistent with actions in previous
years, $375,000 shall be made available for Operation Respond.
Motor carrier research.--A total of $8,669,000 has been
provided for motor carrier research. This is an increase of 55
percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Within this
total, the Committee denies funding for the highway watch
program. This activity is not research-oriented and its need
for federal support has been substantially reduced given the
rise in cellular communications.
School transportation study.--FMCSA shall continue funding
the school transportation study required by section 4030 of
TEA21 at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2000.
National Motor Carrier Safety Program
(Highway Trust Fund)
(Liquidation of
contract (Limitation on
authorization) obligations)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ($105,000,000) ($105,000,000)
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. (187,000,000) (187,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........... (177,000,000) (177,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year (+72,000,000) (+72,000,000)
2000.............................
Budget request, fiscal year (-10,000,000) (-10,000,000)
2001.............................
The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program was
authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major
areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and
the information systems and strategic safety initiatives
(ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to
develop and implement national programs for the uniform
enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations
concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is
to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving
commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states
for the development of programs to enforce the federal motor
carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the
Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program
is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both
interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic.
ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor
carrier programs.
The Committee recommends $177,000,000 in liquidating cash
for this program. This is an increase of $72,000,000 above the
level enacted in fiscal year 2000.
Limitation on Obligations
The Committee recommends a $177,000,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level
authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of
1999, which amended TEA21. None of this funding is derived from
revenue aligned budget authority due to lack of authorization.
The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as
follows:
Motor carrier safety assistance program: $160,000,000
Basic motor carrier safety grants................ (130,684,375)
Performance based incentive grant program........ (6,878,125)
Border assistance................................ (7,750,000)
High priority activities......................... (7,750,000)
State training and administration................ (1,937,500)
Crash causation database (section 224f).......... (5,000,000)
Information systems and strategic safety initiatives: 17,000,000
Information systems.............................. (3,700,000)
Motor carrier analysis........................... (2,300,000)
Implementation of PRISM.......................... (5,000,000)
Driver programs.................................. (1,000,000)
Data collection and analysis (section 225f)...... (5,000,000)
Commercial driver's license program (CDL).--The Committee
has denied diverting $10,000,000 from revenue aligned budget
authority to the commercial driver's license program. These
funds were to be awarded to states to enhance their driver
records information systems to speed the entry of convictions
onto driving record and ensure that driver records are
complete. The Committee does not believe this denial will have
a negative impact on the CDL program because the new motor
carrier legislation insured that if more highway gas tax is
collected than anticipated by TEA21, the motor carrier safety
grants program would receive a portion of this increase.
According to FHWA, if Congress does not divert any RABA funds
to other programs, the motor carrier safety program will
receive $16,335,000. This funding will more than amply fund the
agency's commercial driver's license program in fiscal year
2001.
Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should
work with the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead
MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to establish a working
group to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition,
FMCSA should consider sponsoring one or two pilot projects
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. FMCSA shall submit a letter to the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2001 summarizing
efforts to increase quality control in the CDL program and
efforts taken to provide technical and training assistance to
the states.
High risk, intrastate carrier information.--Within the base
program or the RABA allocation, $500,000 shall be provided for
the high-risk, intrastate carrier information program. Funding
for this program had been deleted from the operating budget
because this activity is of direct relevance to state motor
carrier safety.
Automated brake testing equipment.--According to 1999 data,
the most common out-of-service violations were brake related
(37 percent). Virginia has been researching and exploring
opportunities to use infrared brake inspection equipment and
has found one new technology that could significantly help to
identify brake deficiencies in a timely manner. Within the high
priority allocation, sufficient funding should be provided for
the commonwealth to install and test infrared brake inspection
equipment (both fixed and hand held) at several weigh stations.
Covert operations.--Within funding provided to the high
priority activities, $500,000 shall be used to conduct covert
operations and survey the extent to which commercial vehicle
operators violate their out-of-service notices by getting back
on the road without fixing their vehicle or before completing
an eight-hour rest period. The Committee expects a report on
the survey results by May 1, 2001, outlining the extent to
which out-of-service notices are being violated. This survey
should be conducted on a sufficiently large sample size so the
Committee can fully appreciate the scope and nature of the
challenge.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
was established as a separate organizational entity in the
Department of Transportation in March 1970. 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.
The administration's current programs are authorized in
four 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 (MVICS) Act, (Part C for
subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21).
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
drunk driving prevention programs.
The third law (MVICS) 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 MVICS established automobile content
labeling requirements.
The fourth law (TEA21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA
programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. 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); and highway safety
data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA21
also reauthorized highway safety research, development and
demonstration programs (section 403) to include research
measures that may deter drugged driving, educate the motoring
public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor
vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for police.
Finally, TEA21 adopts 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.
Traffic Safety Trends
In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of
highway fatalities since 1962--39,250--despite an increasing
amount of travel on the roadways. This trend reversed itself
since then. However, the annual number of fatalities have been
decreasing slightly over the past three years. The latest NHTSA
data indicate fatalities in 1999 were 41,345, which is similar
to the 41,471 fatalities in 1998. However, not all highway
fatalities are decreasing. Motorcycle fatalities increased 8
percent between 1997 and 1998, and this trend is continuing in
1999, with an additional 11 percent increase. In comparing 1999
to 1998, the number of police-reported crashes and the number
of injured persons related to those crashes have remained
fairly constant at an estimated 6,289,000 and 3,200,000
respectively, for 1999.
The fatality rate has decreased to 1.5 deaths per 100
million vehicles miles traveled (VMT). This compares to a rate
of 1.6 in 1998. During this time period, the VMT increased
about 2 percent. The following graphs show these safety trends:
The number of fatalities in traffic crashes involving
alcohol decreased slightly in 1999 to an estimated 15,794
people. In comparison, 15,936 people were killed in alcohol-
related crashes in 1998.
Operations and Research
Appropriation (Highway Trust
(General Fund) Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $87,400,000 $74,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... ............... 286,475,000
Recommended in the bill............... 107,876,000 74,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +20,476,000 ...............
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. +107,876,000 -212,475,000
TEA21, as amended, authorized a total appropriation level
of $181,876,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities
in fiscal year 2001. This total consists of three separate
authorizations. First, the bill includes $72,000,000 of
contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to finance
NHTSA's operations and research activities from title 23 U.S.C.
403. This funding is included within the firewall guarantee for
highway spending and is not subject to an appropriation.
Second, TEA21, as amended, includes an authorization, subject
to appropriation, of $107,876,000 for operations and research
activities under chapter 301 of title 49 U.S.C. and part C of
subtitle VI of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the bill includes an
authorization from the Highway Trust Fund of $2,000,000 for the
National Driver Register. This funding is subject to
appropriations.
For fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested a total
of $286,475,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities.
Funding was to be allocated as follows: $72,000,000 in
guaranteed funds for activities eligible under title 23 U.S.C.
403; $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register; $142,475,000
from the highway trust fund; and $70,000,000 from revenue
aligned budget authority (RABA).
The Committee is extremely disappointed with this budget
request. First, it is 58 percent higher than the amended
authorized funding, which was approved less than one year ago.
At that time, Congress approved a $20,476,000 increase in
NHTSA's authorized level to assure that motor vehicle and
highway safety issues were adequately funded. Since enactment
of this legislation, there has been no major program or
rulemaking that would justify an additional 58 percent increase
in funding. In fact, some of NHTSA's key programs, such as air
bag rulemakings, are winding down. Second, under this budget
request, 24 percent of NHTSA's funding would be derived from
excess gasoline taxes (RABA). Doing so places critical safety
programs in jeopardy because RABA increases cannot be assured
in future years.
The Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$181,876,000, a 13 percent increase above fiscal year 2000.
None of this funding is from revenue aligned budget authority.
The Committee has worked with NHTSA to revise its 2001
budget request to comply with the levels authorized and
recommends that the full amount be distributed as follows:
Salaries and benefits................................. $55,880,000
Travel................................................ 1,176,000
Operating expenses.................................... 20,810,000
Contract programs:
Safety performance................................ 7,347,000
Safety assurance.................................. 11,482,000
Highway safety programs........................... 40,236,000
Research and analysis............................. 54,950,000
General administration............................ 645,000
Grant administration reimbursements................... -10,650,000
-----------------
Total........................................... $181,876,000
Within the increased funding, priority should be given to
the following NHTSA programs: safety standards, new car
assessment programs, vehicle safety compliance, biomechanics,
the crash injury research and engineering network, statistical
programs (i.e. FARS, NASS, data, state data), and simulator
research on driver distractions and blood alcohol levels.
Within thirty days, NHTSA shall provide its recommendations to
the House Committee on Appropriations as to how reductions from
the budget request shall be distributed.
New staff positions.--The Committee has denied half-year
funding for 29 new positions requested in the budget. Because
the Committee has held NHTSA to the authorized level and has
not approved the transfer of RABA funding, funding for these
new positions and the new programs they would support is not
available.
Operating expenses.--Due to budget constraints, operating
expenses have been held at $20,810,000, or $3,454,000 less than
requested. Within this amount, computer support is funded at
the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee believes this level
of funding is adequate and urges NHTSA to adopt a more cost
effective approach to managing computer support expenses. The
Committee also requests that NHTSA provide a detailed report of
fiscal year 2000 computer support expenditures by the end of
December 2000.
National driver register.--Within the $2,000,000 provided
for the national driver register, up to $250,000 may be used
for the technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of
TEA21.
New car assessment program.--The Committee has fully funded
the 2001 budget request for the new car assessment program,
including some funding for consumer information. Consistent
with prior years, the Committee has deleted funding for a
separate consumer information program.
Hotline.--Funding for the hotline has been held at last
year's level because of concerns with the management of this
program.
Safe/livable communities.--Consistent with actions taken
for the past two years, the Committee has not provided funding
for the safe/livable communities program.
Emergency medical services.--Within the funding for highway
safety, a total of $2,250,000 has been provided for emergency
medical services. Within this funding, $750,000 should be
provided for the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) to continue
phase three of the guidelines for pre-hospital management of
traumatic brain injury. BTF should continue to use Inova
Fairfax Hospital as a center of excellence for data collection.
Crash injury research and engineering network (CIREN).--
Funding for the CIREN program should not be reduced below the
fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee is very supportive of the
work done by these centers and is encouraged that private
sector interests have agreed to fund two additional centers.
Because of this commitment, no federal funding should be
provided to expand the number of federally funded centers in
fiscal year 2001.
Special crash investigations.--The Committee is pleased to
learn that the private sector has agreed to fund 300 special
crash investigations per year, to collect and analyze real
world crash data as proposed by the NTSB. This will double the
number of investigations conducted in 2000. However, it is
critical that, because of contributions from the private sector
for this work, the results be treated as public data and no
conditions be attached to their release.
Aggressive driving research.--The Committee continues to be
concerned about the frequent occurrence of aggressive driving,
especially in the Washington capital region. To address this
issue the Committee again has included $1,000,000 for the
Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MD MVA) to continue
their regional aggressive driving program on behalf of
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. So that other
communities may benefit from this innovative program, it is
important that the various components of the program (public
education, enforcement, and driver modification) be carefully
evaluated to determine their relative effects on crash
reduction. Thus, the Committee directs that these funds be used
for program evaluation efforts. In addition, the Committee
directs NHTSA to work with the MD MVA to ensure that methods
are developed to measure and track the incidence of aggressive
driving and to determine the impact of the regional program on
its occurrence.
Bill language.--The Committee continues to carry two
provisions in the bill, consistent with prior year actions.
First is a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act
from planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which
would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their
low rolling resistance. Second is a general provision (sec.
318) that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe, or
promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for
automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The
limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation,
in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from
preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for model
year 2003 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard
established for such automobiles for model year 2002.
The Committee has deleted language requested by the
administration that sets aside $1,000,000 for Native American
programs due to budgetary constraints.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
(Liquidation of
(Limitation on contract
obligations) authorization)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $206,800,000 $206,800,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... 213,000,000 213,000,000
Recommended in the bill............... 213,000,000 213,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +6,200,000 +6,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ...............
TEA21 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 $213,000,000 for the liquidation of
contract authorization, which is a 3 percent increase above the
2000 enacted level. This funding is mandatory and has no
scoring implications.
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 included within the highway guarantee. The bill
includes separate obligation limitations with the following
funding allocations:
Highway safety programs............................... $155,000,000
Occupant protection incentive grants.................. 13,000,000
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.............. 36,000,000
State highway safety data grants...................... 9,000,000
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 $155,000,000 is included in the
bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national
occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total.
Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding
available for federal grants administration from this program
to $7,750,000 for NHTSA.
The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use
of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs
or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or
private buildings of structures.
Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has
fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at
$13,000,000. States may qualify for this new 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 $650,000.
In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant
program, TEA21 established a safety incentive grant program
(section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage.
The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years.
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.--These grants
will 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 implement 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) graduated licensing law with nighttime
driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high
blood alcohol-content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce
impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) an effective
system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of drivers in
fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in
alcohol-involved fatality rates in each of the last three years
for which FARS 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 $36,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2001.
Language is included in the bill that limits funding available
for federal grants administration from this program to
$1,800,000.
In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant
program, TEA21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years
for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law
(section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this
criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which
they receive 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, etc.).
This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce
significant anti-drunk driving legislation.
State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has
provided $9,000,000 for the state highway safety data
improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a
state has three options: (1) establish a multi-disciplinary
highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee;
complete a highway safety data and traffic records assessment
or audit within the last five years; and initiate development
of a multi-year highway safety data and traffic records
strategic plan; (2) certify that it has met the first two
criteria in option 1, submit a data and traffic records multi-
year plan, and certify that the coordinating committee
continues to operate and support the plan; (3) the Secretary
may award grants of up to $25,000 for one year to any state
that does not meet the criteria for option 1. States that
receive first year grants then would be eligible for subsequent
grants by: submitting or updating a data and traffic multi-year
plan; certifying that the coordinating committee continues to
support the multi-year plan; and reporting annually on the
progress made to implement the plan. Language is included in
the bill that limits funding available for federal grants
administration from this program to $450,000.
Child passenger protection education grants.--TEA21
authorized $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to
implement a new child passenger protection program under
section 2003(b). This program is designed to prevent deaths and
injuries to children, educate the public concerning the proper
installation of child restraints, and train safety personnel on
child restraint use. Last year, this program was funded by the
Federal Highway Administration, and administered by NHTSA.
Consistent with last year's action, the Committee has provided
$7,500,000 for these grants within funds available to the
Federal Highway Administration.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program
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.
The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal
year 2001 is $689,263,000, which is $366,424,000 less than
requested. In large part, this reduction results from the
Committee not approving the use of revenue aligned budget
authority for a new intercity passenger rail program. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels,
the fiscal year 2001 program requests and the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program 2000 enacted Fiscal year Recommended in
level \1\ 2001 request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety and operations........................................ $94,288,000 $103,211,000 $102,487,000
Safety and operations user fees.............................. ............... -77,300,000 ...............
Railroad research and development............................ 22,464,000 26,800,000 26,300,000
Railroad research and development user fees.................. ............... -25,500,000 ...............
Rhode Island rail development................................ 10,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000
Next generation high speed rail.............................. 27,200,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
Alaska railroad.............................................. 10,000,000 ............... ...............
Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation............ 571,000,000 521,476,000 521,476,000
Expanded intercity rail passenger service fund (limitation on ............... (468,000,000) ...............
obligations)................................................
--------------------------------------------------
Total $734,952,000 $1,055,687,000 $689,263,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $179,000 in across-the-board rescissions and $436,000 in TASC reductions.
Safety and Operations
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $94,288,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................. 103,211,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 102,487,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +8,199,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. -724,000
\1\ Of this total, $77,300,000 was to be offset from new railroad
safety user fees.
The safety and operations account provides support for
FRA's rail safety, passenger and freight program activities.
Funding also supports all salaries and expenses and other
operating costs related to FRA staff and programs.
A total of $102,487,000 has been allocated to safety and
operations, which is almost 9 percent above the 2000 enacted
level. The following adjustments have been made to the budget
request:
Approve 7 new positions instead of 10................. -$170,000
Decrease new employee development funding............. -360,000
Slight reduction in information technology initiative. -294,000
Reduce funding for travel............................. -250,000
Deny new outreach initiative.......................... -500,000
Operation Lifesaver................................... +350,000
Valley trains and tours............................... +500,000
New positions.--The Committee has funded seven of the ten
new positions requested (-$170,000). Over the past three years,
Congress has approved 24 new positions; however, FRA currently
has 34 vacancies. It is premature to continue increasing staff
at the level the Committee has done in the past because of the
large number of unfilled positions.
Employee development.--FRA has requested $660,000 for
employee development. Because of budget constraints, this new
budget item has been reduced to $300,000.
Information technology initiative.--The Committee has
denied funding for two components under FRA's information
technology initiative--the data mart and the legal web site.
The web site should be developed as part of FRA's broader
internet site enhancements, not separately. Funding for the
data mart should be postponed until 2002 because this activity
is in its infancy. FRA should do more planning in fiscal year
2001 and identify what data sets it plans to put into the data
mart. This additional work should prevent catastrophies that
other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, had in
procuring new, cutting edge information technologies.
Travel.--Due to budget constraints, only half of the
requested travel increase has been approved.
New outreach program.--Funding for the new outreach program
has been denied. This funding was to be used to develop new
grade crossing safety messages. This duplicates federal funding
for Operation Lifesaver, which is in the process of developing
a number of new grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention
announcements.
Operation Lifesaver.--An additional $350,000 has been
provided for Operation Lifesaver to continue developing and
disseminating new grade crossing safety and trespasser
prevention programs. This work has been highly successful in
the past. With this supplement, a total of $950,000 has been
provided to Operation Lifesaver for fiscal year 2001.
Valley trains and tours.--A total of $500,000 has been
provided to support scenic passenger rail service in Shenandoah
County, Virginia. This funding is contingent upon an agreement
with Norfolk Southern Railway on track usage and support by the
Commonwealth of Virginia.
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's
request to collect $77,300,000 in user fees for railroad safety
activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such
authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund
railroad safety activities in the traditional manner.
Bill language.--The Committee has rescinded a total of
$60,000,000 in advanced appropriations for the Pennsylvania
Station redevelopment project, of which $20,000,000 was to be
available in fiscal year 2001. These advance appropriations
were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal
year 2000. The Inspector General recently released a report on
this project and found that: (1) the project design is only 15
percent complete, although it has been in the planning stages
since 1992; (2) costs continue to escalate from $315,000,000 in
1992 to $788,400,000 currently; and (3) the project's current
completion date of 2005 could be delayed substantially because
Amtrak and the United States Postal Service have not yet
approved project design or agreed on the sequence of work to be
performed. The Inspector General has questioned the
corporation's ability to contain the redevelopment costs,
particularly without detailed design work completed yet. The
report also identified $295,000,000 in unsecured funding
necessary to complete the project that will not be available
until after lease agreements have been finalized and signed
with the principal tenants. Without a more complete project
design and signed lease agreements, the Committee believes that
it is premature to expend $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 on
this project. For future consideration of this project, the
Committee directs the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment
Corporation (PSRC) to submit annually to FRA a comprehensive
finance plan for this project, which establishes cost-
containment strategies and realistic project milestones,
identifies how PSRC will secure sufficient funding to meet
expected costs, and provide contingency plans to resolve any
funding shortfalls. In addition, FRA should closely monitor
PSRC's progress in implementing its cost containment strategies
and achieving its project completion date.
Other programs.--A total of $3,500,000 is provided within
the maglev program for FRA to administer the magnetic
levitation program, Operation Lifesaver, Alaska Railroad
liabilities, and track inspection activities, as requested.
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $22,464,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................. 26,800,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 26,300,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +3,836,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -500,000
\1\ Of this total, $25,500,000 was to be offset from new railroad
research and development user fees.
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.
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,300,000,
which is $500,000 less than requested. Funding to evaluate
methods for developing performance-based regulations has been
denied.
Higher capacity rail cars on light density tracks.--Within
the funds provided, FRA should continue to conduct a study on
track and bridge requirements for the handling of 286,000-pound
rail cars. As these higher capacity rail cars are phased into
the industry to increase productivity and improve equipment
utilization, there is a need for additional information on the
effects that heavier axle loads are currently having on main
line tracks, the current condition of the short line railroads,
and the economic impact of handling heavier axle loads on light
density tracks. Recognizing that the investments needed to
upgrade a line to handle heavier axle loads are very site
specific, the study should develop unit costs that would enable
such calculations to be made. FRA should work with the American
Short Line and Regional Railroad Association on this analysis
because it will provide substantial benefit to the short line
industry.
User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's
request to collect $25,500,000 in user fees for railroad
research and development activities. These fees are not
authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will
fund railroad research and development activities in the
traditional manner.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program
TEA21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement
financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid
principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5
billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion 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 2001, as requested.
Rhode Island Rail Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $10,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 17,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 17,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +7,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................
The Rhode Island rail development project will construct a
third track along portions of the Northeast Corridor between
Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This third track
will prevent mixing freight and high-speed passenger rail
service and will provide sufficient clearance to accommodate
double-stack freight cars.
The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Rhode Island
rail development project, as requested. This funding is matched
on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the state. Since fiscal year
1995, a total of $38,000,000 has been appropriated in federal
funds to construct a third track. With this appropriation, the
federal commitment to this project will be completed.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $27,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 22,000,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 22,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -5,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................
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 TEA21.
The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the next
generation high-speed rail program, the amount requested. Total
program funding is allocated as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee
2000 enacted 2001 request recommendation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train control systems........................................ $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000
Illinois project......................................... (6,500,000) (7,000,000) (7,000,000)
Alaska railroad.......................................... (5,000,000) (--) (--)
Michigan project......................................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)
Transportation safety research alliance.................. (500,000) (--) (--)
Non-electric locomotives..................................... 7,000,000 6,800,000 6,800,000
ALPS..................................................... (4,000,000) (3,800,000) (3,800,000)
Prototype locomotive..................................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000)
Grade crossings & Innovative technologies: 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000
N.C. sealed corridor..................................... (400,000) (400,000) (400,000)
Mitigating hazards....................................... (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000)
Low-cost technologies.................................... (1,100,000) (1,100,000) (1,100,000)
Track and structures......................................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. 27,200,000 22,000,000 22,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.--Under section
1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is
made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing
hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for
these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,000,000 shall be used
to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Washington D.C. and
Richmond, Virginia; $1,000,000 shall be used between Mobile,
Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,000,000 shall be used in
Salem, Oregon; $1,000,000 shall be used in Portage, Indiana;
$750,000 shall be available for the Minneapolis/St. Paul to
Chicago corridor; $250,000 shall be used between Atlanta and
Macon, Georgia; and $250,000 shall be used along the eastern
San Fernando Valley in California.
Grade crossing program.--A general provision (sec. 333) is
included in the bill that would remove the requirement for
state or local governments to provide matching funds on rail-
highway hazard elimination projects funded from the surface
transportation program. Many states have difficulty expending
these funds, and as a result, some states have several years of
unobligated balances. For example, the State of Georgia has an
unobligated balance of $9,630,879, which is approximately two
years of apportionments. Similarly, the State of North Carolina
has an unobligated balance of $7,451,146, or two years of
apportionments. Tragic accidents like the one that occurred
recently on the Tennessee-Georgia border do not have to occur
if states are more willing--and able--to spend their grade
crossing funds. The Committee anticipates that by deleting the
non-federal match, states should be able to reduce these
unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade
crossing hazards than previously planned. The table below
indicates the current unobligated balances by state and the
anticipated fiscal year 2001 apportionments.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rail-highway crossing
---------------------------------
Estimated
State fiscal year Unobligated as
2001 of 9/30/99
apportionment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... $3,220,384 $4,093,347
Alaska................................ 2,439,186 4,483,688
Arizona............................... 1,576,081 4,610,050
Arkansas.............................. 2,457,429 2,882,097
California............................ 10,182,716 576,532
Colorado.............................. 2,202,728 2,921,334
Connecticut........................... 1,047,610 648,685
Delaware.............................. 504,776 578,887
District of Columbia.................. 210,728 842,912
Florida............................... 4,686,707 5,549,668
Georgia............................... 4,696,264 9,630,879
Hawaii................................ 391,793 783,586
Idaho................................. 1,429,320 996,436
Illinois.............................. 7,926,261 5,980,632
Indiana............................... 4,962,375 4,170,266
Iowa.................................. 3,795,673 3,227,419
Kansas................................ 4,870,650 557,685
Kentucky.............................. 2,535,034 5,201,538
Louisiana............................. 3,176,113 512,253
Maine................................. 938,057 2,686,174
Maryland.............................. 1,427,286 3,826,624
Massachusetts......................... 2,011,267 4,795,022
Michigan.............................. 5,352,187 5,048,102
Minnesota............................. 4,041,936 3,233,347
Mississippi........................... 2,240,007 1,401,195
Missouri.............................. 3,998,022 153,512
Montana............................... 1,613,567 3,384,540
Nebraska.............................. 2,661,323 1,879,034
Nevada................................ 783,990 850,394
New Hampshire......................... 612,960 435,493
New Jersey............................ 2,691,259 3,233,825
New Mexico............................ 1,205,846 1,437,350
New York.............................. 6,020,444 651,458
North Carolina........................ 3,981,325 7,451,146
North Dakota.......................... 2,769,040 2,123,231
Ohio.................................. 6,301,744 424,607
Oklahoma.............................. 3,300,832 481,040
Oregon................................ 2,194,099 5,237,851
Pennsylvania.......................... 5,804,391 731,201
Rhode Island.......................... 445,013 963,418
South Carolina........................ 2,584,926 388,042
South Dakota.......................... 1,654,832 2,981,778
Tennessee............................. 3,267,384 2,429,896
Texas................................. 10,906,280 5,059,100
Utah.................................. 1,152,999 403,252
Vermont............................... 618,631 3,137,370
Virginia.............................. 2,731,204 6,131,344
Washington............................ 2,717,360 6,883,435
West Virginia......................... 1,708,309 1,326,238
Wisconsin............................. 3,929,021 3,607,523
Wyoming............................... 912,318 477,472
---------------------------------
Total........................... 154,889,487 141,501,908
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
(Amtrak)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $571,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 521,476,000
Recommended in the bill............................... 521,476,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -49,524,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................
The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a
private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger
Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the
District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger
system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971.
Status of Amtrak
In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and
Accountability Act, which among other things, required Amtrak
to reach operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. Three
years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some savings;
however, a significant amount of work needs to be done in the
next two years to reach this goal. On the positive side, Amtrak
has topped $1 billion in revenue, has achieved record
ridership, is continuing to grow its mail and express
opportunities, and has completed its market-based network
analysis that identified a number of new revenue opportunities.
On the negative side, the railroad has delayed its highly
touted high-speed rail service between New York and Boston by
at least 7 months, has continued to experience growing cash
losses, will not be able to implement a number of its growth
strategies until at least fiscal year 2001, and only then if
the freight railroads agree, and are involved in another round
of labor negotiations that could be quite costly.
In March, the Committee heard testimony from Amtrak, the
Department of Transportation Inspector General, and the General
Accounting Office (GAO) about Amtrak's ability to meet this
mandate. Amtrak was quite positive that it would meet or exceed
this goal. However, the Inspector General and the GAO were more
cautious. The Inspector General testified that, while it is
possible to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003, Amtrak
still needs to make major improvements to achieve this mandate.
GAO testified, ``Amtrak has made only modest progress in its
quest towards reducing its need for federal operating
subsidies. During the past five years, Amtrak reduced its need
for operating subsidies by $78,000,000. During the next two and
a half years, Amtrak must make further reductions totaling over
$290,000,000. This is nearly four times as much as it has
achieved in the past four years.''
However, even if Amtrak meets the self-sufficiency mandate,
it will have difficulty maintaining this status without a
significant infusion of federal funding each year, for Amtrak
has substantial capital needs. For example, Amtrak recently
estimated that approximately $12,500,000,000 will be needed
over the next 25 years to modernize the infrastructure on the
Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City.
In addition, Amtrak requires about $300,000,000 per year to
replace its capital assets, such as its facilities and
equipment.
At the Committee hearing, the Inspector General and the GAO
testified that even if Amtrak reaches operational self-
sufficiency Congress will need to appropriate between
$500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 per year to keep Amtrak
operating. However, the GAO testified that funding would need
to be above $1,000,000,000 per year if Amtrak wanted to expand
and make significant improvements to its current
infrastructure. This is well above any funding level Congress
has provided Amtrak since 1982.
Committee Recommendation
As a result of the 1997 mandate, appropriations for Amtrak
have been decreasing. In fiscal year 2000, Amtrak received
$571,000,000 in capital grants. For fiscal year 2001, the
administration requested $521,476,000 for capital needs and an
additional $468,000,000 for intercity passenger rail services.
The intercity passenger rail services funding would be used to
improve rail service throughout the United States by shortening
rail travel times. Since Amtrak is the only intercity rail
provider in the United States at this time, these additional
funds should be viewed as an additional federal subsidy to
Amtrak. In comparison, Amtrak requested $989,000,000 for
capital needs.
The Committee recommendation fully funds the
administration's capital request of $521,476,000. This is the
fourth installment of a five year, $5 billion plan to re-
energize and recapitalize Amtrak. However, the Committee has
disapproved funding for the intercity passenger rail service
fund financing, which was to be derived from higher than
anticipated receipts in the highway trust fund. Instead, the
Committee has included a general provision (sec. 334) that
allows the states the opportunity to flex any additional RABA
revenue allocated to the state's congestion mitigation and air
quality program and surface transportation program for
intercity rail services. This proposal would allow states to
spend additional funds on rail, such as upgrading track or
installing grade crossing devices, that could directly affect
Amtrak.
Bill language.--Consistent with actions taken last year,
the Committee has included bill language that prohibits Amtrak
from obligating more than $208,590,000 prior to September 30,
2001.
Fire and life safety needs.--The Committee is greatly
concerned about the pressing fire and life safety improvements
needed in six tunnels beneath the Hudson and East Rivers and
the areas beneath the existing Pennsylvania Station and Farley
buildings. Amtrak, the Long Island Railroad, and the New Jersey
Transit Corporation have identified $804,000,000 in fire and
life safety needs, of which $654,000,000 is unfunded. Amtrak
has testified that, due to the age of the infrastructure (circa
1910) and the number of riders traveling through these tunnels
(more than half a million per year), the potential for a
catastrophic accident exists at Pennsylvania Station unless
critical life safety improvements are made. These improvements
include new ventilation shafts to improve airflow within the
tunnels, new emergency access and egress, and improved
communications and lighting in the tunnels. The Committee
understands that Amtrak is having difficulty placing its new
ventilation shafts and that the tunnels and station areas are
heavily used, which reduces the times available to conduct
needed improvements. However, fire and life safety repairs must
be expedited. A fire in the tunnels, as currently configured,
would be devastating and would likely result in a tragic loss
of life.
Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.--The Committee
recognizes that Amtrak continues to make progress in enhancing
safety along the tracks where high-speed rail will be
operating. However, it is possible that installation of
perimeter fencing in some areas that have been identified by
municipal governments as potentially dangerous may not be
complete before the high speed trains are fully operational.
Amtrak should continue to work closely with affected Northeast
Corridor communities, including the towns of Mansfield and
Foxboro, Massachusetts, where the need for additional perimeter
fencing has been identified, to ensure that the fencing is
installed as rapidly as possible. The Committee notes that on
March 15, 2000, the President of Amtrak made a commitment to
complete the installation of the fencing that has been
requested by Mansfield and Foxboro before high-speed rail is
operational. It is our understanding that once the fencing is
in place, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority will maintain
it.
Rail service in western Virginia.--Amtrak shall provide the
Commonwealth of Virginia with equipment necessary to provide
regularly scheduled service between Washington, D.C., Bristol,
and Richmond, Virginia. Such equipment will be made available
for this service once an agreement is signed between Amtrak,
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the appropriate freight
railroads.
Trenton train station.--Amtrak should work closely with New
Jersey Transit to assure that improvements made to the Trenton
train station satisfy the needs of Amtrak's one million riders
who use this station each year. Initial funding for this
rehabilitation has been allocated from funds provided under
section 5309 in the Federal Transit Administration.
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund
(Liquidation of
(Limitation on contract
obligations) authorization)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... ............... ...............
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... $468,000,000 $468,000,000
Recommended in the bill............... ............... ...............
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ............... ...............
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. -468,000,000 -468,000,000
The budget proposes a new grant program to improve
intercity rail service nationwide. Under the proposed program,
the Secretary of Transportation would award fifty percent
matching grants to Amtrak and/or a partner state or state
consortium to implement capital projects to enhance intercity
passenger rail service. Eligible projects must generate a
positive financial contribution for Amtrak and public benefits
in excess of public costs. Amtrak must recover from the project
all variable and attributable fixed/overhead costs associated
with the new service. Funding for this program is to be derived
from higher than anticipated receipts to the highway trust
fund.
Funding for the intercity rail passenger service fund has
been denied. The Committee opposes altering the distribution of
revenue-aligned budget authority to any program outside of
those authorized under TEA21. The rail fund is one of many
diversions proposed by the administration.
Bill language.--The Committee has included bill language
that would make revenue aligned budget authority available from
the congestion mitigation and air quality program (CMAQ) and
the surface transportation program (STP) available for rail
service. This provision allows states the option to flex their
CMAQ and STP funds, if they chose to do so, for intercity
passenger rail service. In fiscal year 2001, approximately
$186,000,000 would be available in CMAQ funding and
$785,000,000 in STP funding. The Committee has included this
language for two purposes: (1) to provide states with more
flexibility to fund newly proposed high-speed rail programs
outside of the Northeast Corridor; and (2) to provide states
with additional funding for grade crossing activities outside
of the designated high-speed rail corridors. The Committee has
received $210,000,000 in requests for funding grade crossing
closures, realignments, and other activities. The increased
flexibility is intended to provide additional revenues to the
states to mitigate safety hazards in rail corridors. Given
these needs, the states should utilize this flexibility
provision and provide sufficient funding to immediately address
these serious hazards.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM
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.
The current authorization for the programs funded by the
Federal Transit Administration is contained in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21
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 mass transit category
obligations are capped at $6,271,000,000 and outlays are capped
at $4,994,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. Any additional
appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed
for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could be
appropriated from general funds authorized under section
5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary
category.
The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2001 is
$6,271,000,000, including $1,254,400,000 direct appropriations
and $5,016,600,000 limitations on contract authority. The total
recommended is $485,647,000 over the 2000 enacted level,
$50,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the
same level as guaranteed in TEA21. The following table
summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year
2001 budget request, and the fiscal year 2001 program levels:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
Program 2000 enacted 2001 request the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses...................................... $60,000,000 $64,000,000 $64,000,000
Formula grants............................................... 3,098,000,000 3,345,000,000 3,345,000,000
University transportation research........................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000
Transit planning and research................................ 107,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000
Capital investment grants.................................... 2,457,000,000 2,646,000,000 2,646,000,000
Job access and reverse commute grants \1\.................... 75,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.................................................. \2\ 5,803,000,0 6,321,000,000 6,271,000,000
00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The budget request included a proposal to transfer $50,000,000 in obligation authority resulting from
revenue aligned budget authority.
\2\ Excludes reduction of $483,000 for TASC and $17,647,000 in across-the-board rescissions pursuant to section
301 of P.L. 106-113.
Administrative Expenses
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations
(General fund) (Trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $12,000,000 $48,000,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... 12,800,000 51,200,000
Recommended in the bill............... 12,800,000 51,200,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +800,000 +3,200,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ...............
The bill provides a total appropriation of $64,000,000 for
FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $4,000,000
above the 2000 enacted level and the same level as the budget
request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit
funding category. The recommended appropriation of $64,000,000
is comprised of an appropriation of $12,800,000 from the
general fund and $51,200,000 from limitations on obligations
from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund.
Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has
not provided an increase in 10 FTE in fiscal year 2001, noting
that similar FTE increases approved and anticipated for fiscal
year 2000 have not occurred. Therefore, the Committee's
recommendation provides for an FTE level of 495 in fiscal year
2001. New hires expected to meet the current FTE authorized
level of 495 shall include general engineers and financial
auditors who are capable of reviewing and analyzing in-house
financial data of proposed projects and financial management
oversight reports submitted to the FTA.
Information technology and other administrative
activities.--The Committee recommendation deletes funds
requested for several information technology programs pending
the office of the Secretary's chief information officer review
and full identification of out-year costs (-$650,000) and
provides half of the requested increases for workforce planning
and training (+$250,000) and equipment and office renovation
activities (+$90,000).
National Transit Database.--The Committee's recommendation
includes funding for the continued operation of the National
Transit Database within this account, rather the transit
planning and research account. The activities associated with
the operation of the National Transit Database are
administrative in nature and should be budgeted here rather
than in the agency's research and development account.
Moreover, the Committee has not approved the use of project
management oversight funds for redesign of the National Transit
Database. Funds for such activity may be derived from funds
made available for the transit cooperative research program.
Project management oversight activities.--The Committee
directs that funding made available for the project management
oversight function, section 23, shall include at least
$21,900,000 for project management oversight reviews and
$4,500,000 for financial management oversight reviews. The
Committee believes it is imperative that the FTA understand
more fully the financing proposals of major transit projects
authorized in TEA21 before entering into full funding grant
agreements and to identify critical funding deficiencies or
inadequate financing plans before such funding shortfalls
materialize. The experience to date with several projects in
FTA's current portfolio suggests that a more aggressive
approach is warranted by the FTA. The Committee further directs
that the FTA submit to the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations, the Inspector General and the General
Accounting Office the quarterly financial management oversight
and project management oversight reports for each project with
a full funding grant agreement.
The Committee has included bill language requiring the FTA
to transfer $1,000,000 from funds made available for project
management oversight to the Inspector General for reimbursement
of audits and reviews of major transit projects. 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 such oversight
activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal
year 2001.
Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--The FTA is directed
to notify in writing the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations not later than 60 days before issuing a new full
funding grant agreement or executing a scope change in existing
full funding grant agreements. Correspondence regarding new
full funding grant agreements shall include: (1) a copy of the
proposed FFGA; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations
required for that particular project; (3) yearly and total
federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or
anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003;
and (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current
and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization. The
Committee further directs that such correspondence include a
financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability
to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent
examiner. This independent evaluation shall contain pertinent
information, including an assessment of the capital cost
estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all
public- and private-sector financial instruments; the project's
operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue
and ridership forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks
associated with the project. 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, and shall include any
proposed change in rail car procurements.
Formula Grants
Limitation on
Appropriation obligations
(General fund) (Trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..... $619,600,000 $2,478,400,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001.... 669,000,000 2,676,000,000
Recommended in the bill............. 669,000,000 2,676,000,000
Bill compared to:
Appropriation, fiscal year 2000. +49,400,000 +197,600,000
Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................ ................
The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,345,000,000
for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above
the 2000 enacted level of $3,098,000,000 and is guaranteed
under the transit category.
The recommended program level of $3,345,000,000 is
comprised of an appropriation of $669,000,000 from the general
fund and $2,676,000,000 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 (U.S.C. sec.
5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly
individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec.
5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas
(U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds
are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to
finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility
costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger
operations.
Within the total funding level of $3,345,000,000, the
Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution:
Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307)......................... $2,946,019,961
Oversight............................................. 15,837,796
Clean fuels (sec. 5308)............................... 50,000,000
Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)...................... 77,890,801
Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311)....................... 205,701,492
Rural transportation accessibility incentive program.. 4,700,000
Alaska railroad....................................... 4,849,950
Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program............. 40,000,000
Section 3007 of the TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized
formula grants by striking the authorization to utilize these
funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision
allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized
areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, 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. All
urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are
statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula
grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art,
bicycle storage, and connections to parks.
Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D).--
The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula
funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be
used, among other activities, for preliminary engineering and
design of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee asserts
that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways
should use these funds for PE&D activities rather than seek
section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee
expects the FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment
of a given project, to consider the extent to which the
project's sponsors have used the appreciable increases in the
formula grants apportionments for preliminary engineering and
design activities of proposed new systems.
Clean fuels program.--TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be
set aside from funds made available under the formula grants
program to fund a new clean fuels program. 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 identified designated
recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the
bus program of the capital investment grants account.
Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program.--The Committee
recommends that $40,000,000 be set-aside from the formula
grants program to fund the Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus
program. Funds shall be available for grants for the costs of
planning, delivery and temporary use of transit vehicles for
special transportation needs and construction of temporary
transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the
VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake
City, Utah. In allocating the funds, the Secretary shall make
grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and such
grants shall not be subject to any local share requirement or
limitation on operating assistance under this Act or the
Federal Transit Act, as amended. This appropriation is similar
to one provided in support of the Summer Olympic Games in
Atlanta in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act.
Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has
included bill language that increases the federal share of the
incremental capital and training costs for the over-the-road
bus accessibility program from the current level of 50 percent
to 90 percent. A similar change in the federal share was
enacted last year. Section 3038(g) of TEA21 provides a total of
$4,700,000 for the incremental capital and training costs in
fiscal year 2001.
Operating expenses.--The bill contains a provision (sec.
339) that increases to $1,444,000 the limitation on operating
assistance relating to service for elderly individuals and
individuals with disabilities which was established in
accordance with provisions of section 360 of the Omnibus
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. FTA has interpreted
section 3027(c)(3) of TEA21 to be limited to certain transit
services that received section 5307 operating funds in the
past. It was the intent of Congress in creating section
3027(c)(3), however, also to include NorthEast Transportation
Services (NETS), a transit service that has been serving
elderly and handicapped in Tarrant County, Texas, although that
service had not received FTA operating funds in the past. The
additional provided in section 3027(c)(3) are to provide
$260,000 in operating funds and to cover operating expenses of
other current eligible participants.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.--In the
wake of a recent fire and evacuation of the Foggy Bottom Metro
station in Washington, D.C., the Committee is deeply troubled
by reports
--ALL--