 |
[From the House Reports Online via GPO Access.
Check for accuracy before quoting or citing.]
104th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session 104-177
_______________________________________________________________________
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL,
1996
_______
July 11, 1995.--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. 2002]
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, 1996.
INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT
Page number
Bill Report
Narrative summary of Committee action...................... 1
2
Program, project, and activity.............................
4
Title I--Department of Transportation:
Office of the Secretary.................... 2
11
Coast Guard................................ 7
22
Federal Aviation Administration............ 12
44
Federal Highway Administration............. 16
77
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration......................... 18
107
Federal Railroad Administration............ 21
120
Federal Transit Administration............. 25
135
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation............................ 30
157
Research and Special Programs
Administration......................... 31
159
Office of Inspector General................ 33
168
Title II--Related Agencies:
Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board....................... 33
169
National Transportation Safety Board....... 34
169
Interstate Commerce Commission............. 35
171
Panama Canal Commission.................... 35
172
Title III--General Provisions...................... 36
173
Title IV--National Capital Area Interest
Arbitration Standards Act of 1995.............. 55
175
House Report Requirements:
Inflationary impact statement..............
176
Rescissions................................
176
Transfers of funds.........................
177
``Ramseyer'' rule..........................
177
Changes in existing law....................
179
Comparison with budget resolution..........
183
Five-year projections of outlays...........
184
Assistance to state and local governments..
184
Tabular summary of the bill................
185
------
Summary of the Bill
The accompanying bill would provide $13,182,101,806 in new
budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the
Department of Transportation and related agencies, a decrease
of $1,011,419,194 below the fiscal year 1995 level.
The Committee has also recommended limitations on
obligations for a number of programs that are, for the most
part, financed by multi-year contract authority in legislative
acts. The total of the limitations on obligations for these
programs is $22,646,915,000, an increase of $876,017,000 above
the levels enacted in fiscal year 1995. An additional
$2,311,932,000 is estimated to be obligated for federal-aid
highway programs exempt from the obligation limitation in the
bill.
The total recommended obligational authority (new budget
authority, limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations)
amounts to $38,140,948,806. This is $91,171,194 less than
comparable fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, and $1,739,215,975
more than the budget request.
Bill Highlights
Faced with a smaller federal budget for transportation, the
bill reflects an overall reduction of $1.4 billion in budget
authority, a reduction of nearly 10 percent from fiscal year
1995 levels. Unlike the President's budget that called for a
reduction of $2.5 billion in infrastructure programs without
providing any specifics or details, this bill makes specific
recommendations by program and places a high priority on public
safety and investments in the future.
This year the Committee has placed a high priority on trust
fund spending in order to ensure highway and aviation users
that their tax receipts are spent, and spent in an efficient
manner. For example, the Committee recommendation spends 98.7
percent of the highway trust fund revenues collected this year.
Similarly, the Committee has included $2.8 billion from the
highway trust fund for transit formula and discretionary
grants--the full amount authorized. In the case of the aviation
trust fund, the Committee's recommendation for fiscal year 1996
is estimated to result in total spending (outlays) from the
aviation trust fund of $5.9 billion, $90 million more than
estimated trust fund tax receipts.
Major Recommendations
Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill
are:
(1) A provision providing for total obligations,
including exempt obligations, of $20,311,932,000 for
federal-aid highways, an increase of $884,321,000 above
fiscal year 1995;
(2) The appropriation of $4,600,000,000 for
operations of the Federal Aviation Administration, an
increase of $4,606,000 above the fiscal year 1995
level, including the 5 percent air traffic
revitalization pay for controllers;
(3) The appropriation of $2,000,000,000 for
facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation
Administration, a decrease of $87,489,000 below the
fiscal year 1995 appropriation;
(4) The appropriation of $2,566,000,000 for operating
expenses of the Coast Guard, a decrease of $32,000,000
below the fiscal year 1995 level;
(5) The appropriation of $628,000,000 for grants to
the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak),
subject to authorizing legislation, to cover operating
losses, capital expenses, and transition costs;
(6) A total of $2,000,000,000 for the Federal Transit
Administration's formula grants program, including
$400,000,000 for transit operating assistance;
(7) Two provisions to mitigate the reduction in
transit operating assistance: (a) the repeal of section
13(c) of the Federal Transit Act and an abrogation of
existing labor agreements; and (b) amendment of federal
transit laws to permit periodic bus overhauls to be
considered as a capital expense;
(8) A provision providing for obligations of not to
exceed $1,665,000,000 for the discretionary grants
program of the Federal Transit Administration;
(9) An appropriation of $200,000,000 for construction
of the Washington, D.C. metrorail system; and
(10) A total of $215,477,500 for the Office of the
Secretary, $36,711,500 below fiscal year 1995 and
$354,425,500 below the budget request. The Committee
did not approve the request for $331,000,000 for
headquarters facilities.
Tabular Summary
A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year
1995 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year
1996 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 1996. These hearings are contained in eight
published volumes totaling approximately 9,700 pages. 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 1996 have been
developed after careful consideration of all the information
available to the Committee.
Program, Project, and Activity
During fiscal year 1996, 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 discretionary grants,
Federal Transit Administration, and interstate transfer grants-
highways, Federal Highway 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.
Non-Technical Training
This year the Committee held a special hearing on non-
technical training in the Department of Transportation as a
result of serious concerns raised in a DOT Inspector General
investigative report regarding alleged abuses in management
training and diversity training. What the Committee found in
that report, and heard firsthand in the hearing, was nothing
short of shocking.
Witnesses described training methods and practices which
were offensive to many employees' religious beliefs and which
prescribed clearly theological readings. Some employees were
forced to reveal and discuss highly personal feelings and
traumatic experiences from their past, in the hope of changing
their values or the values of other training participants.
According to the Office of Inspector General (OIG), a
distinguishing feature of much of this training was the use of
confrontation by instructors, for the stated purpose of
changing personal values and behavior. One male witness
described the humiliation of being made to walk between a
``gauntlet'' of females, who assaulted him physically,
ostensibly to change his values and attitudes toward women. At
least two female witnesses described the need for professional
psychological help after going through the training. The Office
of Inspector General called this type of training a form of
``psychic roulette'', which some lost. Although top FAA and OST
officials were aware of complaints from employees, they
sacrificed some individuals for what they considered the larger
good.
Much of this fit the following description of ``new age''
training methods by management consultant Peter Drucker:
In most cases, managers are simply told to attend.
Even if there is ostensible choice, it is made pretty
clear, or so managers think, that non-attendance would
be seen as a sign of `disloyalty' or negative
attitudes. They are ordered to attend this session
aimed at changing their personality because somebody
claims that it is likely to be good for them, or maybe
good for the company.
Drucker goes on to say that, in his view:
Company-ordered psychological seminars of this kind
are, in other words, an invasion of privacy that is not
justified by any company need. They are morally
indefensible. And they are bitterly resented as such by
a good many of the people who are being subjected to
them.
Several management abuses occurred within the department
which, in the Committee's view, should never have been allowed
to happen. Although some administrative guidance was in place,
the guidance allowed too much discretion to human resource
managers infatuated with ``experiential'' training, was vaguely
worded, and had few if any enforcement sanctions. Taken
together, these abuses describe an organization which abandoned
well-established principles for human resource management and
training in an effort to sustain contracts with certain
individuals. These abuses include:
1. Little or no distribution of course evaluations to
students.
2. Little or no prior information provided to students on
course content or methods.
3. Sole source contracting and split bid purchasing, which
skirted competition.
4. Harassment of employees who expressed concern over
methods or content used during the training.
5. Little or no background check of the instructors hired.
6. No inquiry to determine why students were pledged to
secrecy in some cases.
Given the findings of this hearing, the Committee has
included a new general provision (Sec. 338) which is designed
to ensure that training abuses such as these never happen again
in the Department of Transportation. The provision would
prohibit training which is likely to induce high levels of
psychological stress, attempts to change participants' personal
values or lifestyle outside the workplace, or which relates to
skills or knowledge which has no bearing on one's official
duties in the workplace. It bans training which contains
methods associated with religious or quasi-religious belief
systems, including so-called ``new age'' beliefs. The provision
requires the use of end-of-course evaluations, and requires
that employees be notified in advance of the content and
methods to be used during the training.
Finally, the provision prohibits HIV/AIDS awareness
training other than that necessary to make employees more aware
of the medical ramifications of HIV/AIDS and the workplace
rights of HIV-positive employees. The Committee was concerned
to learn this year of some HIV/AIDS training classes which
overstepped the boundary of what the Committee considers
proper, by attempting to change participants' attitudes
concerning certain lifestyles. The Committee wants to support
awareness training which informs employees about the medical
aspects of AIDS and which promotes a greater sense of
compassion toward people with HIV/AIDS and their families.
However, the Committee does not support training which attempts
to change one's personal values or promote certain lifestyles.
If acceptable government-wide policy changes are made later in
the appropriations process, the Committee will review the need
for separate action in this bill.
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 officals to reprogram funds for safety programs
if that should be required.
TITLE I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $24,392,976,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -24,392,976,000
The budget requested by the Administration proposed that
certain programs for the Department of Transportation be funded
from the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment
Program (UTIIP). This new account is structured in two parts--
federal activities and state and local activities.
In total, infrastructure spending would decrease from
comparable 1995 levels by $2,500,000,000. Flexible funding
mechanisms are proposed to allow states and localities to
leverage reduced federal dollars. The new programs include an
$18,000,000,000 Unified Allocation Grant that will be available
to states and localities to spend on their transportation
priorities. The UTIIP also includes a $1,000,000,000
discretionary grant to focus on projects of national or
regional significance and $2,000,000,000 to capitalize state
infrastructure banks. Funding for such activities as Amtrak,
Northeast Corridor and transit operating assistance which were
separately appropriated in previous years are included as
separate line items in UTIIP. Also included is $1,142,972,000
for prior commitments including full funding grant agreements
for transit new start projects, WMATA, and existing airport
letters of intent. The following table compares funding levels
for fiscal year 1995 and those proposed in 1996 both under
UTIIP and current law:
UNIFIED TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT PROGRAM
[Appropriations and obligation limitations--In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 President's budget
Comparable -------------------------------
1995 \1\ Current
law Current policy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State and local
initiative:
Unified grant....... \2\ $22,911,25
8 \2\ $23,941,66
3 $18,000,000
State infrastructure
banks.............. .............. .............. 2,000,000
Transit operating
assistance......... 710,000 500,000 500,000
Prior commitments
(LOIs, New starts,
WMATA)............. 1,009,018 1,142,972 1,142,972
Rhode Island rail
development........ 5,000 10,000 10,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total, state and
local............ 24,635,276 25,594,635 21,652,972
===============================================
Direct Federal program:
Discretionary grants
(new program)...... .............. \4\ 300,000 1,000,000
Federal lands....... 448,000 \3\ 348,432 441,775
Research &
development \5\.... 239,079 217,237 219,027
Grants to Amtrak.... 772,000 750,000 750,000
NECIP............... 200,000 235,000 235,000
Penn Station
redevelopment...... 40,000 50,000 50,000
Administrative
expenses \6\....... 43,060 44,202 44,202
-----------------------------------------------
Total, direct
Federal.......... 1,742,139 1,944,871 2,740,004
===============================================
Total, UTIIP...... 26,377,415 27,539,506 24,392,976
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reflects the impact of reductions pursuant to ISTEA Sec. 1003(c),
e.g. Federal Lands.
\2\ Includes portions of Federal-Aid Highways, Grants-in-Aid for
Airports (except for existing LOIs), transit Formula capital and
Discretionary Grants (except for FFAs), and Local Rail Freight
Assistance (FY 1995 only).
\3\ Estimated obligations.
\4\ Congestion Relief Initiative.
\5\ Includes in each year Intelligent Transportation Systems, University
Transportation Centers, and Transit Planning and Research.
\6\ Includes Transit only; FHWA Limitation on General Operating Expenses
included as drawdown under Unified Grant.
The department's proposal is based on proposed legislation
which has not been considered by the appropriate authorizing
committees. Legislative language to effectuate the President's
proposed program was not submitted until May 2, 1995. During
extensive hearings on the department's proposed budget, the
Committee requested that the department submit a budget based
upon current law, distributing the reduction of $2,500,000,000
in the Department of Transportation's core infrastructure
programs. During those hearings, the Deputy Secretary informed
the Committee that the department would not provide specific
budgetary recommendations by program, other than for salaries
and expense accounts.
The Committee rejects the department's proposed UTIIP
proposal. Such a radical transformation in transportation
programs and their delivery requires significant Congressional
review and an authorization. Inasmuch as the administration and
the department chose not to recommend specific budgetary levels
for the Department's largest programs, the Committee has made
the hard choices and the decisions that the department and the
administration chose to avoid.
Department of Transportation Reorganization
Related to the proposed new UTIIP, the department has
proposed a reorganization. The Department of Transportation
proposal for consolidation, which was submitted to Congress on
April 4, 1995, involves three major areas. First, all surface
and maritime activities (other than the Coast Guard and the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC)) would be
combined in a single Intermodal Transportation Administration
(ITA). Second, the Federal Aviation Administration would
continue its safety and security functions, incorporating also
commercial space activities now housed with the Office of the
Secretary. Third is the Coast Guard--a military service that
transfers to the Navy upon declaration of war or when the
President directs, and which has a distinct set of functions.
No change in the Coast Guard's current status or activities is
proposed, except for transfer of bridges activities related to
the functions of the Intermodal Transportation Administration.
The SLSDC is already a wholly owned government corporation and
would be made a free-standing independent entity. The following
table lists those accounts affected by the proposed
reorganization:
accounts proposed to be merged into the intermodal transportation
administration
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program
Federal-Aid Highways
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund Liquidating Account
Highway-Related Safety Grants
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
Motor Carrier Safety
Operations and Research (NHTSA)
Operations and Research, Trust Fund (NHTSA)
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
Office of the Administrator (FRA)
Railroad Safety
Railroad Research and Development
Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program Account
Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High-Speed Rail
Violent Crime Reduction Programs
Alteration of Bridges
Operating-Differential Subsidies
Maritime Security Program
Operations and Training (Maritime Administration)
Maritime Guaranteed Loan (Title XI) Program Account
Research and Special Programs
Pipeline Safety
Emergency Preparedness Grants
accounts proposed to be included in the federal aviation administration
Operations
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
Facilities and Equipment
Research, Engineering, and Develpment
accounts proposed to be included in the coast guard
Operating Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Retired Pay
Reserve Training
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
account proposed to be established as an independent agency
St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation: Operations and Maintenance
The Committee has deferred consideration of the major
reorganization of the department. Any large scale
reorganization as contemplated by the department would be
premature pending consideration and authorization of the
proposed consolidated grant program. The Committee has, where
appropriate, concurred with less significant components of the
reorganization.
In testimony before the Committee, Department of
Transportation officials stated that the Department planned to
focus on changes to the field structure in fiscal year 1997,
after headquarters reorganizations were made in fiscal year
1996. The Committee acknowledges the need for a review of the
organizational structure of the department, but suggests that
rather than a comprehensive reorganization of the five surface
modal administrations into one, a review and down-sizing of the
department's field structure is more appropriate. DOT's role
has been altered by changes that have occurred in the federal
surface transportation landscape, particularly since the
passage of ISTEA. For example, the Federal Highway
Administration's field structure was put in place during the
construction of the Interstate Highway System, when FHWA's
primary customers, the state highway agencies, needed the
technical expertise and guidance in their state capital that
only a permanent presence could provide. The Interstate system
is complete now, FHWA's customer base has expanded considerably
to include, for example, metropolitan planning organizations in
the major urban centers, citizens groups, and others. As the
following chart indicates, 161 surface transportation field
offices currently exist in the fifty states and the District of
Columbia, and some cities have several offices. Given that
DOT's customers are in virtually every city in the U.S., some
type of field structure is appropriate. However, there is an
opportunity to consolidate the regional and division offices
and collocate field offices, thereby reaping benefits of shared
administrative services, such as reception, printing, mailing,
copying, and space. The existing field structure does not take
advantage of collocation. As the chart indicates, the Denver
metropolitan area, for example, has seven DOT surface
transportation field offices, some located downtown and others
outside of Denver.
The Committee, therefore, has included a general provision
(Sec. 336) canceling appropriations for personnel compensation
and administrative expenses totaling $25,000,000. The Secretary
is directed to reduce the existing field office structure and
to the extent practicable, collocate the department's surface
transportation field offices. To assist in this effort, the
Committee has provided the department flexibility to transfer
funds made available for personnel compensation and benefits
and other administrative expenses to other appropriations
accounts, provided that no appropriation shall increase or
decrease by more than ten percent.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Workers' Compensation
The bill includes a new general provision (Sec. 340) which
prohibits workers' compensation payments to DOT employees
(excluding the Maritime Administration) on the workers'
compensation rolls who are eligible to retire, or who become
eligible to retire during fiscal year 1996, allowing a six-
month grace period after the retirement eligibility point is
reached. The Committee believes that, since workers'
compensation provides more income (including tax-exempt status)
for employees than would be realized under federal retirement
benefits, many employees who are retirement-eligible have no
incentive to retire, and little or no incentive to go back to
work within the department. This provides an unnecessary drain
on agency operating budgets.
The vast majority of workers' compensation cases within the
department are FAA employees. According to the FAA, many of
their workers' compensation employees are over 60 years old,
many having been on workers' compensation for at least twenty
years. Most of these long-term cases are not currently re-
employable by the FAA in any capacity. However, many are
eligible for a civil service disability retirement, but have
little incentive to apply since workers' compensation provides
a higher income. Since workers' compensation payments are
included as a discretionary part of the budget, and therefore
in competition with the safety-related discretionary programs
funded in this bill, the Committee cannot continue making these
payments at the detriment of other critical programs.
The Committee's recommended bill language does not mandate
that these employees retire. However, should they choose to do
so, their benefits would be the same as other federal retirees.
The bill makes no change in their retirement eligibility or
benefits.
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $58,094,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 62,164,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 55,011,500
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -3,082,500
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -7,152,500
\1\ Reductions of $469,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and transfer of $5,187,928 for consolidated civil rights office not
reflected.
The bill provides $55,011,500 for salaries and expenses of
the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary
(OST). This is $3,082,500 below the level enacted last year.
The Committee recommendation assumes the following reductions
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
from the budget estimate:
Reductions in staff: Amount
2 public affairs specialists........................ -$120,000
3 congressional affairs officers.................... -180,000
3 international transportation specialists.......... -206,250
3 attorney advisors................................. -300,000
4 management analysts............................... -352,250
Hold reception and representation costs to 1995 levels.. -20,000
Hold travel to $365,000................................. -150,000
Reduce contractual services for acquisition, maintenance
and repair of ADP equipment and commercial online
data information systems, and other reductions...... -1,210,000
In addition, the Committee recommendation assumes $91,000
and 1 FTE for aviation information management.
Budget justifications.--Though the Committee has approved
again the consolidated office-by-office appropriation for OST,
the Committee wants to ensure adequate Congressional oversight
and control over these expenses. The Committee is unable to
ensure that oversight given the lack of detail and inadequacy
of the budget justifications. Therefore, the department is
directed to return to an office-by-office justification in the
1997 Congressional submissions.
Staffing.--The Committee recommendation eliminates a number
of positions in the Office of the Secretary, including 2 public
affairs specialists (-$120,000), 3 congressional affairs
officers (-$180,000), 3 international transportation
specialists (-$206,250), 3 attorney advisors (-$300,000) and 4
management analysts (-$352,250). In light of severe budget
constraints and government downsizing, it is the Committee
belief that these positions can be eliminated without affecting
the core responsibilities, functions and duties of the
Department.
Travel.--The Committee notes the significant increases in
travel performed by the secretarial offices. In fiscal year
1995, the Department estimates that the secretarial offices
will expend $457,000 on travel, an increase of $211,000 or 86
percent over 1994 levels. Given the serious budget constraints
facing the Committee and the Department, this increase is
excessive and gives the wrong impression when other areas of
the Department are cutting back essential transportation and
other services. Consequently, the Committee believes travel
reductions in the Office of the Secretary are in order and
recommends a reduction of $150,000 from the budget estimate of
$513,000.
Reception and representation.--The recommendation includes
$40,000 for official reception and representation expenses of
the Department, a decrease of $20,000 from the budget request.
Given the serious budget constraints facing the Committee and
the Department, an increase of fifty percent in reception and
representation expenses seems excessive and again sends the
wrong message when other administrative expenses of the
Department are being reduced.
ICC-related activities.--A separate salaries and expenses
request of $4,705,000 was included in the budget for functions
that would be transferred to the Department of Transportation
upon sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The
Administration proposed to sunset the Interstate Commerce
Commission with residual rail and motor carrier functions
transferring to the Department. Handling of consumer complaints
regarding household goods movers and review of rail mergers and
acquisitions were proposed to be transferred to the Federal
Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, respectively.
The Committee has deferred consideration of this request,
pending action by the appropriate authorizing committees of
Congress.
The Committee has included a general provision (Sec. 344)
that provides $8,421,000 to the Department of Transportation to
carryout certain rail and motor carrier functions that are to
be transferred from the Interstate Commerce Commission. These
funds would not become available to the ICC successor agency or
Department until such transfer of functions was authorized in
law. In addition, users fees collected would be available to
carryout the transferred rail and motor carrier functions.
Electronic tariff filing.--The bill includes a provision
that permits the office of the secretary (OST) to credit
$1,000,000 in user fees to support the electronic tariff filing
system. This provision has been carried in Research and Special
Programs Administration (RSPA), ``Research and Special
programs'' in the past but is necessary in OST as this program
has been transferred from RSPA to OST.
The Department of Transportation inherited a 1938
requirement from the former Civil Aeronautics Board that
requires maintaining physical custody of voluminous
international passenger fare tariffs now being filed with the
Department. Since the shift in 1989 to filing tariffs
electronically, the vast majority of tariffs are now filed and
available in more convenient electronic form. These electronic
filings are now being duplicated in physical form by the
Department only to meet the 1938 requirement. In order to
encourage the most efficient use of Departmental staff
resources, the Committee recommendation discontinues this
needless duplication of tariff filings, whether funded by
appropriations or user fees.
Courier services.--The Committee notes that the
Department's courier service has not delivered promptly the
materials requested from the Department. While security has
been tightened on the Capitol grounds in the wake of the
Oklahoma City bombing, the Department is directed to take
immediate corrective action to ensure that materials are
delivered in a timely manner to the Committee.
Hispanic serving institutions.--The Committee applauds the
Department of Transportation on its efforts to enhance
educational and career opportunities for minority students in
the areas of science, technology and transportation matters.
The Committee acknowledges the activities of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU),
university transportation centers (UTCs), and the Research and
Special Programs Administration (RSPA) in this regard. The
Committee strongly encourages the department, especially its
planning and research components (including but not limited to
OSDBU, UTCs, and RSPA), to include participation by Hispanic
serving institutions in any current or future plans to increase
its pre-designated or targeted research, development and
education funds.
general provisions
Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The
Committee has included a provision in the bill (Sec. 311)
identical to provisions in past Department of Transportation
Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and
Presidential appointees within the Department of
Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 1996 is 110
personnel, which is the same as provided in fiscal year 1995.
The bill specifies that no political or Presidential appointees
covered by this provision may be detailed outside of the
Department of Transportation.
Advisory committees.--In previous years, the Committee has
limited the funds used for the expenses of advisory committees
of the Department of Transportation. This year the Committee
has deleted this provision, as requested in the budget.
Office of Civil Rights
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... (\1\)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $12,793,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 6,554,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +6,554,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -6,239,000
\1\ Transfer authority for $5,376,000 included under Salaries and
Expenses.
The Committee recommends a separate appropriation for the
Office of Civil Rights, totaling $6,554,000. The recommendation
includes an additional $809,000 to be derived from the
limitation on general operating expenses of federal-aid
highways, and reduces amounts budgeted for supplies and
equipment by $371,000.
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 and equal
opportunity precepts in all of the Department's official
actions. In fiscal year 1995, the management of internal civil
rights activities was consolidated in the Office of the
Secretary with transfer authority provided in the salaries and
expenses account. In fiscal year 1996, the department requests
a separate appropriation which would fund all civil rights
activities in the department, including handling of external
matters.
Consolidation of civil rights offices.--The Committee
recommendation disallows the transfer of 65 FTE and $5,868,000
to consolidate external civil rights functions in the Office of
the Secretary, as proposed in the budget. The Committee notes
the substantial differences between equal employment
opportunities activities, which are generally personnel
matters, and disadvantaged business enterprise contracting and
other civil rights program activities. The Committee expects
that the department will take no action to reorganize or
otherwise affect changes to the current civil rights programs
of the department.
Transportation Planning, Research, and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $ 8,293,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 15,710,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,309,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -4,984,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -12,401,000
\1\ Reductions of $51,000 to comply with awards and provision not
reflected.
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 $3,309,000 for this appropriation,
which represents a decrease of $4,984,000 below the funding
level provided for fiscal year 1995. The recommended level
holds transportation and planning studies to $2,809,000
(-$795,000), an increase of 2.4 percent over last year, and
permits annualization and other pay-related costs for current
FTE. The Committee has included $70,000 for a planned project
to identify factors contributing to successful telecommuting
programs. The analysis should include transportation-related
behavior and potential location changes that could promote
further residential dispersions. The recommendation also
includes $100,000 for analysis of the impacts on Mexico and the
United States related to motor carrier functions under the
North American Free Trade Agreement, and $500,000 for aviation
management system improvements. The recommendation deletes
funding for planned trade promotion activities which should be
provided by the Department of Commerce.
The recommended level reflects elimination of further
funding for the development of the integrated personnel/payroll
system (IPPS) (-$3,911,000 and 3 FTE), the transportation
automated procurement system (TAPS) (-$6,195,000), and the
docket management system (DMS) (-$1,000,000). The Committee's
action will delay phases three through six of the IPPS project.
The TAPS pilot test program and evaluation have yet to begin in
the office of the secretary and, as a result, further
departmental conversion and full implementation is premature.
While the Committee agrees that further improvements are
desirable, they must be deferred due to the high outlays
associated with this account and the tight budget constraints
facing the Congress.
Office of Commercial Space Transportation
operations and research
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $6,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\2\)
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -6,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
\1\ Reductions of $53,000 to comply with awards and procurement reform
provisions not reflected.
\2\ Budget amendment transfers activities to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
The Committee recommendation deletes a separate
appropriation for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation
and reflects the Department's proposal to move this office from
the Office of the Secretary to the Federal Aviation
Administration.
Working Capital Fund
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................ ($93,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (104,364,000)
Recommended in the bill................................\1\ (102,231,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (+9,231,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................\1\ (-2,133,000)
\1\ In fiscal year 1996, the limitation on working capital fund expenses
is also addressed in a general provision (-$10,000,000).
The working capital fund (WCF) finances common
administrative services that are centrally performed in the
interest of economy and efficiency in the department. Charges
for services rendered are set at rates that return in full all
operating expenses, including a normal reserve for accrued
annual leave and depreciation of equipment. The fund is
reimbursed by the offices being served. The WCF also may
provide services to non-DOT entities on a fee-for-service
basis, which are not constrained by the limitation.
The bill includes language limiting fiscal year 1996
obligations of the Department of Transportation working capital
fund to $102,231,000. In addition, the Committee has included a
general provision (Sec. 327) that reduces, on a pro-rata basis,
the amounts budgeted for the WCF by $10,000,000. The bill,
therefore, provides a limitation of $92,231,000. Recommended
reductions are as follows:
Disallowance of transfer from OST of intermodal data
network............................................. -$906,000
Defer docket management systems maintenance............. -465,000
Hold non-pay inflationary increases to 1.5 percent...... -262,000
Reduction in WCF-funded travel.......................... -300,000
Reduction in executive training and development programs -200,000
The Committee has not agreed with the budget request to
eliminate all appropriations language and create a Service
Bureau financed by the working capital fund to perform common
services. The Committee has, however, modified the bill
language to apply the obligation limitation only to services
provided to DOT entities, enabling the working capital fund to
provide services outside the obligation limitation to non-DOT
entities.
Working capital expenses are calculated by the Department
and imposed on each agency. The Committee understands that on a
per capita basis administrative costs imposed on each mode or
office range from $507 to over $10,405, depending on size and
usage and therefore believes that the Department should
endeavor to reduce administrative positions, consolidate
activities, and eliminate duplicative or unnecessary programs
or projects.
General provision.--In previous years, Congress has placed
limitations on expenses of the working capital fund. However,
for technical reasons, the savings resulting from the
limitations have not been scored against the annual
appropriations bills. In order to ensure that WCF funds are
actually reduced in accord with Congressional directions and to
receive proper credit for those savings, the Committee has
continued a general provision (Sec. 327) which provides that
amounts budgeted for the WCF in this bill are hereby reduced,
on a pro rata basis, to the limitation level of $92,231,000.
Payments to Air Carriers
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995... ($33,423,000) ($33,423,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996. (\1\) (\1\)
Recommended in the bill........... (15,000,000) (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995......................... (-18,423,000) (-18,423,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996......................... NA NA
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.
The essential air service program was 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 service small airports.
The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for the essential air
service program. The recommendation is $18,423,000 below last
year's level. The President's budget had proposed to roll the
program into the UTIIP and the House-passed budget resolution
called for the termination of the program.
In view of budget constraints and the realization that many
rural communities need access to air service and would not have
that access without the continuation of the essential air
service program, the Committee has recommended a reduction of
55 percent from last year's level and a requirement that the
state, the locality or an other non-federal entity pay at least
fifty percent of the cost of providing such transportation.
Recognizing the vagaries of state and local legislative
calendars, communities may need some time to adjust to this
matching requirement. In addition, the Department of
Transportation will need to know in advance which communities
will be matching and which will not. Hence, the matching
requirement would not be implemented until 90 days after
October 1, 1995.
The bill includes language which (a) applies the matching
requirement to the state of Hawaii and the 48 contiguous
states, (b) applies the mileage criteria to communities of the
48 contiguous states within 70 miles of medium or large hub
airports, and (c) excludes from the per passenger subsidy
criteria essential air service points greater than two hundred
and ten miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. In
addition, the Committee has included bill language that
provides that communities which cannot generate any reasonable
amount of matching funds would be allocated an amount of
subsidy that is reduced from what it otherwise would be in the
same proportion as the ``unmatched'' funds represent of the
total to be made available in fiscal year 1996.
The Committee is aware that some of the communities
participating in the essential air program have been providing
a match in recent years. It is the Committee's expectation that
a participating community would be required to match the
federal subsidy on a fifty-fifty basis; in other words, those
communities currently providing a match would be required to
provide a total match of fifty percent, not an additional fifty
percent.
The following table lists the projected subsidized
essential air service points in fiscal year 1996:
PROJECTED SUBSIDIZED ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE (EAS) FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average daily
Estimated mileage enplanements at
States/communities to nearest hub EAS point (YE 6/
(S,M, or L) 30/94)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALABAMA: Anniston................. 61 10.3
ARIZONA:
Kingman....................... 103 10.7
Page.......................... 274 20.5
Prescott...................... 103 41.1
ARKANSAS:
El Dorado/Camden.............. 108 10.9
Harrison...................... 139 10.3
Hot Springs................... 54 12.9
Jonesboro..................... 71 11.1
CALIFORNIA:
Crescent City................. 233 13.0
Merced........................ 64 24.8
Visalia....................... 40 16.5
COLORADO:
Cortez........................ 253 27.9
Lamar......................... 162 4.1
HAWAII: Kamuela................... 39 4.6
ILLINOIS:
Mattoon/Charleston............ 146 4.4
Mt. Vernon.................... 93 7.9
IOWA: Ottumwa..................... 92 6.3
KANSAS:
Dodge City.................... 156 13.1
Garden City................... 209 21.9
Goodland...................... 190 3.2
Great Bend.................... 116 4.8
Hays.......................... 175 16.7
Liberal/Guymon................ 162 10.1
Topeka........................ 76 31.8
MAINE:
Augusta/Waterville \2\........ 71 13.5
Bar Harbor.................... 164 17.6
Rockland...................... 79 11.2
MINNESOTA:
Fairmont...................... 153 4.0
Fergus Falls.................. 185 10.9
Mankato....................... 75 4.5
Worthington................... 65 2.3
MISSOURI:
Cape Girardeau................ 133 18.8
Ft. Leonard Wood.............. 130 12.2
Kirksville.................... 158 8.4
MONTANA:
Glasgow....................... 279 5.9
Glendive...................... 223 2.9
Havre......................... 251 4.4
Lewistown..................... 129 3.6
Miles City.................... 145 3.0
Sidney........................ 273 7.7
Wolf Point.................... 295 6.3
NEBRASKA:
Alliance...................... 242 2.3
Chadron....................... 301 2.3
Hastings...................... 160 3.0
Kearney....................... 186 11.2
McCook........................ 259 3.4
North Platte.................. 282 5.2
Scottsbluff................... 202 8.6
NEVADA: Ely....................... 236 5.7
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Keene \3\.......... 56 12.3
NEW MEXICO:
Alamogordo/Holloman AFB....... 92 11.6
Clovis........................ 106 14.6
Silver City/Hurley/Deming..... 163 10.4
NEW YORK:
Massena....................... 149 20.1
Ogdensburg.................... 127 10.5
Watertown..................... 69 16.6
NORTH DAKOTA:
Devils Lake................... 403 11.8
Dickinson..................... 313 7.5
Jamestown..................... 304 10.8
OKLAHOMA:
Enid.......................... 91 9.4
Ponca City.................... 88 11.8
PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin... 91 30.5
PUERTO RICO: Ponce................ 80 31.2
SOUTH DAKOTA:
Brookings..................... 58 4.0
Mitchell...................... 72 2.1
Yankton....................... 96 10.1
TEXAS: Brownwood.................. 153 4.7
UTAH:
Cedar City.................... 173 18.7
Moab.......................... 241 6.1
Vernal........................ 171 17.0
VERMONT: Rutland \3\.............. 67 20.4
VIRGINIA:
Danville...................... 68 13.3
Staunton...................... 108 35.0
WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake.... 122 16.1
WEST VIRGINIA:
Beckley....................... 186 19.3
Clarksburg/Fairmont........... 107 8.8
Morgantown.................... 75 12.0
Princeton/Bluefield........... 145 21.6
WYOMING: Worland.................. 164 9.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The above list of communities is based on currently available data,
and is subject to change for a number of reasons. Subsidy rates are
subject to change as their two-year rate terms expire throughout the
year. In addition, air carriers submit passenger traffic data on a
quarterly basis. Changes in both subsidy rates and traffic will of
course change the subsidy-per-passenger calculation. Further, some
communities currently receiving subsidy-free service may require
subsidy in the future while some currently subsidized communities may
attain profitability and no longer require subsidy. Finally, Hub
designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the
Aircraft Activities Statistics.
\2\ Based on CY 1993 due to service disruptions.
\3\ Enplanements based on less than a full year's passenger data
annualized.
Payments to Air Carriers
(RESCISSION OF CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION)
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................ (-$4,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (-38,600,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (-23,600,000)
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................ (-19,600,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (15,000,000)
The bill includes a rescission of contract authority of
$23,600,000. This rescission removes contract authority which
is not available for obligation due to annual limits on
obligations. A similar rescission of $4,000,000 was made in
fiscal year 1995.
Payments to Air Carriers
(RESCISSION)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill................................. -$6,786,971
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................ -6,786,971
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -6,786,971
The bill includes a rescission of balances of general
funds from prior years. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978,
section 419, included a subsidy program to ensure scheduled air
service to specified communities. Prior to fiscal year 1992,
funding for this subsidy was provided from the general fund.
Starting in fiscal year 1992, this program has been funded from
the Airport and Airway trust fund. For the past several years,
balances have been carried forward in the general fund account.
These balances are no longer required as the program is now
funded from the trust fund account.
Rental Payments
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $144,419,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996 \1\ \2\............... 143,436,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 130,803,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -13,616,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -14,633,000
\1\ Rental payments for the FHWA are separately budgeted but reimbursed
to this account.
\2\ Includes budget amendment to reduce this account by $2,000,000.
The bill provides $130,803,000 in a consolidated
appropriation for rental payments to the General Services
Administration (GSA). These funds are used to pay GSA for
headquarters and field space rental and related services. In
addition to these consolidated funds, the bill recommends that
$17,099,000 shall be provided to GSA from the Federal Highway
Administration's Limitation on general operating expenses. This
brings total funding to $147,902,000 excluding funding
transferred for Marad. The Committee has been concerned for
some time over the spiraling growth in these expenses, and has
limited to 8,580,000 square feet the amount of space that the
Department may lease from the GSA.
The Committee has included a general provision (Sec. 337)
that will permit the Secretary to transfer funds made available
for salaries and expenses to ``Rental payments'' to cover space
utility charges and other related expenses in excess of the
amounts provided in the bill.
Headquarters Facilities
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $331,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -331,000,000
The budget requests a change of administration policy to
budget new buildings with the affected agency rather than GSA.
The rationale for this change is to shift GSA into a policy and
oversight organization for Government-wide administrative
services and to hold the agencies responsible for determining
their facility requirements and priorities. The Committee has
rejected the request, noting that the proposal represents a
significant change in policy which requires the concurrence and
legislative action of the appropriate authorizing committees.
Minority Business Resource Center Program
Limitation on
Appropriation direct loans
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995...... $1,900,000 ($15,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.... 1,900,000 (15,000,000)
Recommended in the bill.............. 1,900,000 (15,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.. ............... ................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996 ............... ................
The minority business resource center of the Office of
Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization provides
assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding
for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The
program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime
interest rates for transportation-related projects.
Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were
funded by the Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business
Utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made
by the Federal 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 direct loans of $15,000,000 and
subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000, the same
levels as last year.
Minority Business Outreach
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $2,900,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,900,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +2,900,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
This appropriation provides contractual support to assist
minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in
securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects
that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and
contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST
purposes. Unobligated balances funded program activities last
year. The Committee has provided $2,900,000, the same level as
included in the budget.
The Committee has deleted language requested in the budget
that would allow the funds provided for minority business
outreach activities to be used for business opportunities
related to any mode of transportation. Such activities are
unauthorized.
COAST GUARD
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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.
The Committee recommends a total program level of
$3,660,556,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year
1996. This is $82,341,000 (2.4 percent) less than the budget
estimate, and $3,230,000 more than the fiscal year 1995 program
level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995
program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Bill compared
------------------------------------ Recommended in with fiscal
the bill year 1996
1995 enacted 1996 estimate estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating expenses........................ \1\ $2,598,000,00
0 $2,618,316,000 $2,566,000,000 -$52,316,000
Acquisition, construction, and
improvements............................. 362,950,000 428,200,000 375,175,000 -53,025,000
Environmental compliance and restoration.. 23,500,000 25,000,000 21,000,000 -4,000,000
Alteration of bridges..................... ................. 2,000,000 16,000,000 +14,000,000
Retired pay............................... 562,585,000 582,022,000 582,022,000 ...............
Reserve training.......................... 64,981,000 64,859,000 61,859,000 -3,000,000
Research, development, test, and
evaluation............................... 20,310,000 22,500,000 18,500,000 -4,000,000
Boat safety............................... 25,000,0000 ............... 20,000,000 +20,000,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................... 3,657,326,000 3,742,897,000 3,660,556,000 -82,341,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Excludes $11,200,000 in the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 1995, $28,297,000 in the Military
Readiness Supplemental Act, 1995, reductions of $864,825 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions, and transfer of $792,828 for consolidated civil rights office.
Operating Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.......................\1\ $2,598,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 2,618,316,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,566,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -32,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -52,316,000
\1\ Excludes $11,200,000 in the Department of Defense Appropritions Act,
1995, $28,297,000 in the Military Readiness Supplemental Act, 1995,
reductions of $864,825 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions, and transfer of $792,828 for consolidated
civil rights office.
budget by mission category
The following data is based on the Coast Guard budget
submission and summarizes, by Coast Guard mission, the expected
resources to be provided for each major Coast Guard mission for
fiscal years 1994 through 1996. Because of the nature of the
service's accounting systems and unknown changes in operational
needs, these figures are estimates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1994 actual 1995 estimate 1996 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Search and
rescue........ $371,863,000 $361,573,000 $362,128,000
Aid to
navigation.... 440,254,000 491,867,000 492,622,000
Marine safety.. 281,655,000 310,096,000 310,572,000
Marine
environmental
protection.... 229,442,000 221,180,000 221,520,000
Enforcement of
laws and
treaties...... 967,285,000 889,155,000 890,519,000
Ice operations. 81,628,000 85,467,000 85,598,000
Defense
readiness..... 79,177,000 103,694,000 103,853,000
Headquarters
administration 144,018,000 147,337,000 151,504,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.... 2,595,322,000 2,610,369,000 2,618,316,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
financial management
Budget justifications.--For many years, the Committee has
encouraged the Coast Guard to develop budget and accounting
systems which provide more useful information to the Congress
in annual budget reviews, and which more accurately explain the
service's planned costs and expenditures. While some progress
has been made, the Committee was very disappointed this year to
discover that the detailed justification material for operating
expenses continues to be based on incremental changes to the
base amounts or programmatic initiatives, and not on the
overall budget request by program, project and activity (PPA).
In addition, errors in the breakdown by PPA indicate the
service spent most of its effort justifying changes to the
previous year's base funding, and not justifying the entire
budget. For example, the budget breakdown by PPA requests
$151,504,000 for headquarters administration in fiscal year
1996. However, in budget hearings, the Coast Guard stated these
figures were in error, and offered a new estimate of
$172,862,000. This calls into question other elements of the
request, since in this one case alone, $21,358,000 must be
reduced from other parts of the request. The Committee wishes
to emphasize to the Coast Guard that the fiscal year 1997
justifications are to be based upon program, project and
activity and not upon changes to base funding amounts, and full
justification is expected on that basis.
Reprogramming procedures.--The Committee believes, based on
testimony this year, that the Coast Guard has been improperly
interpreting the existing reprogramming guidelines for this
appropriation. Those guidelines state that Congressional
approval is required for funding shifts of ten percent or more
among PPAs. Congressional guidance further states that PPAs are
defined as any item for which a specific dollar level is cited
in appropriations Acts or the reports accompanying those Acts.
Although reports accompanying the fiscal year 1995 DOT
Appropriations Act specify dollar levels down to three and
sometimes four levels, the Coast Guard has interpreted PPA to
mean only the program (budget activity) level. This has had the
effect of allowing shifts of appropriated funds without
Congressional notification and approval, far in excess of what
is allowed under the existing guidelines. For example, the
fiscal year 1995 appropriation of $2,108,000 for communication
stations was raised internally by the Coast Guard to
$3,107,000. Activities Europe was reduced 27 percent, from
$5,631,000 to $4,098,000. Shifts of fiscal year 1994 funds were
as high as 64 percent, with no Congressional notification. The
Committee intends to provide the Coast Guard flexibility in
allocating its operating funds, but wishes to clarify the
requirement for Congressional review under the existing
guidelines.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a total of $2,566,000,000 for
operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1996.
This is $52,316,000 less than the budget request, and
$32,000,000 below the fiscal year 1995 program level. The
following table compares the fiscal year 1995 enacted level,
the fiscal year 1996 estimate, and the recommended level by
program, project and activity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program, Fiscal year--
project and -------------------------------------- 1996 recommended
activity 1995 enacted 1996 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and
Allowances:
Military
pay and
benefits.. $1,225,490,000 $1,230,154,000 $1,209,853,000
Civilian
pay and
benefits.. 173,367,000 177,263,000 177,613,000
Permanent
change of
station... 59,644,000 60,233,000 60,233,000
Medical
care and
equipment. 124,487,000 124,185,000 117,885,000
Leased
housing... ................. ................. 14,900,000
Budget
activity-
wide
adjustment
s......... ................. ................. -9,850,000
Depot Level
Maintenance:
Aircraft... 138,124,000 139,041,000 139,041,000
Electronics 31,652,000 31,549,000 31,549,000
Shore
Facilities 93,963,000 95,645,000 95,645,000
Vessels.... 98,465,000 99,081,000 99,081,000
Operations and
Support:
Area
Operations
and
Support:
Cutters
:
Med
iu
m
en
du
ra
nc
e
(W
ME
C) 15,819,000 15,451,000 15,451,000
Hig
h
en
du
ra
nc
e
(W
HE
C) 10,807,000 11,070,000 11,070,000
Pol
ar
ic
eb
re
ak
er
s
(W
AG
B) 1,936,000 2,024,000 2,024,000
Area
Office
s..... 11,298,000 12,156,000 12,156,000
Mainten
ance
and
Logist
ics
Comman
ds.... 121,806,000 125,616,000 125,616,000
Communi
cation
s
Statio
ns.... 3,107,000 3,262,000 3,262,000
District
Operations
and
Support:
Distric
t
Office
s..... 58,059,000 56,641,000 51,041,000
Groups
and
Bases. 68,015,000 68,592,000 68,592,000
Combine
d
Group/
Air
Statio
ns.... 9,468,000 9,827,000 9,827,000
Air
Statio
ns.... 45,727,000 45,028,000 45,028,000
Marine
Safety
Office
s..... 7,645,000 9,785,000 9,785,000
LORAN
Statio
ns.... 6,254,000 6,491,000 6,491,000
Cutters
: WLBs
and
Smalle
r;
Mackin
aw.... 27,132,000 29,599,000 29,599,000
VTS
System
s..... 219,000 247,000 247,000
Ammunition
and Small
Arms...... 5,791,000 4,707,000 4,707,000
Recruiting and
Training
Support:
Recruiting. 5,861,000 5,467,000 5,467,000
Training
Centers
(Yorktown
&
Petaluma). 27,535,000 26,522,000 26,522,000
Coast Guard
Academy... 12,635,000 12,747,000 12,747,000
Professiona
l Training
&
Education. 25,833,000 26,207,000 25,207,000
Coast Guard
Wide
Centralized
Services:
Headquarter
s-Managed
Units:
Supply
Center
s..... 8,914,000 8,554,000 8,554,000
Finance
Center 4,682,000 4,776,000 4,776,000
Militar
y Pay
and
Person
nel
Center 1,115,000 1,137,000 1,137,000
Activit
ies
Europe 4,098,000 -1,372,000 -1,372,000
Coast
Guard
Yard.. 1,913,000 1,945,000 1,945,000
Strike
Teams. 2,531,000 2,678,000 2,678,000
Nationa
l
Pollut
ion
Funds
Center 1,207,000 1,231,000 1,231,000
COMDAC
Suppor
t
Facili
ty.... 2,024,000 2,054,000 2,054,000
Air
Statio
n
Washin
gton
D.C... 907,000 925,000 925,000
Operati
ons
System
s
Center 5,123,000 6,901,000 6,901,000
Telecom
munica
tions
System
s
Comman
d..... 2,801,000 2,919,000 2,919,000
Omega
Naviga
tion
System
s
Center 3,866,000 404,000 404,000
Intelli
gence
Coordi
nation
Center 258,000 263,000 263,000
Electro
nics
Engine
ering
Center 2,828,000 3,533,000 3,533,000
Coast Guard
Institute. 744,000 759,000 759,000
Researc
h and
Develo
pment
Center 429,000 436,000 436,000
Militar
y
Person
nel
Center 786,000 801,000 651,000
Civilia
n
Person
nel
Office
s..... ................. ................. 393,000
Headquarter
s/
Centralize
d Bill
Paying:
Headqua
rters. 122,372,000 121,497,000 119,497,000
Postal. 7,516,000 6,674,000 6,674,000
FTS.... 12,500,000 12,060,000 10,626,000
Federal
Employ
ment
Compen
sation 6,243,000 6,890,000 6,243,000
Unemplo
yment
Compen
sation 4,546,000 4,661,000 4,546,000
Account-Wide
Adjustments... ................. ................. -18,562,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total
appr
opri
atio
n... 2,607,542,000 2,618,316,000 2,566,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended reduction from the budget estimate includes
the following adjustments:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program,
project and Budget estimate Committee Change from
activity recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and
Allowances:
Military
Pay and
Benefits:
Militar
y pay
raise
(2.2%) $20,070,000 $18,669,000 -$1,401,000
Militar
y
essent
iality
(conve
rsion
to
civili
an)... 0 -1,000,000 -1,000,000
General
detail 174,812,000 171,812,000 -3,000,000
Leased
housin
g
(trans
fer).. 14,900,0000 0 -14,900,000
Civilian
Pay and
Benefits:
Senior
execut
ive
servic
e
staffi
ng.... N/A 1,000,000 +1,000,000
Youth
opport
unity
staffi
ng.... 1,645,700 820,700 -825,000
Medical
Care and
Equipment:
Hold
costs
to
fiscal
year
1995
level. 134,100,000 127,800,000 -6,300,000
Leased
Housing
(Transfer) 0 14,900,000 +14,900,000
Budget
Activity-
Wide:
Acceler
ate
existi
ng
stream
lining
plan.. 0 -4,850,000 -4,850,000
Acceler
ate
FY97
restru
cturin
g plan 0 -5,000,000 -5,000,000
Operations and
Support:
District
offices... 56,641,000 51,041,000 -5,600,000
Recruiting and
Training:
Graduate
school
tuition... 2,300,000 1,300,000 -1,000,000
Coast Guard-
Wide
Centralized
Services and
Support:
Civilian
personnel
office
consolidat
ion....... -393,000 ................. +393,000
Military
personnel
center.... 801,000 651,000 -150,000
FTS 2000... 12,060,000 10,626,000 -1,434,000
Headquarter
s
administra
tion...... 172,862,000 170,862,000 -2,000,000
Workers'
compensati
on (hold
to FY95
level).... 11,551,000 10,789,000 -762,000
Studies and
analyses.. 2,800,000 1,800,000 -1,000,000
Account-Wide
Adjustments:
Recreationa
l
equipment. 296,000 150,000 -146,000
Non-pay
inflation. 23,368,000 17,526,000 -5,842,000
Non-
operationa
l travel.. 39,334,000 37,503,000 -1,831,000
MPPC
contractin
g out..... N/A -500,000 -500,000
Undistribut
ed........ 0 -10,243,000 -10,243,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pay and Allowances
The bill includes $1,570,634,000 for pay and allowances for
Coast Guard personnel, which is a $12,354,000 (less than one
percent) decrease below the level provided for fiscal year
1995.
Pay raise.--The bill includes funds for a 2.2 percent pay
raise for both military and civilian personnel of the Coast
Guard. The President's budget proposed a 2.4 percent military
pay raise and a 2.2 percent raise for civilian personnel. The
Committee believes civilians and military personnel should
receive the same general pay raise. By the end of this year's
appropriations cycle it would be the Committee's intent to
provide Coast Guard military members the same pay raise as
provided for Department of Defense military. Additional funds
are provided for cost of living adjustments for military
members living in high cost areas of the United States. No
funds are included for civilian locality pay.
Special pays.--The bill includes all funds requested for
special pays for military personnel. The following table,
provided by the Coast Guard, summarizes those costs for fiscal
year 1996:
Special pay Amount
Responsibility pay...................................... \1\ $0
Diving pay.............................................. 62,472
Hostile fire imminent danger pay........................ \2\ 900,000
Sea pay................................................. 14,025,000
Certain places pay...................................... 151,000
Aviation career incentive pay........................... 6,266,100
Hazardous duty incentive pay............................ 5,107,200
Special duty assignment pay............................. 1,875,456
Selective reenlistment bonuses.......................... \3\ 1,635,492
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... $30,022,720
\1\ Responsibility pay eliminated in fiscal year 1995.
\2\ Higher estimate for fiscal year 1996 over fiscal year 1993 and
fiscal year 1994 is due to the expected continuation of Persian Gulf,
Haitian and Adriatic theaters of operations. This estimate is lower than
expected fiscal year 1995 obligations.
\3\ No new payments, only previous years' installments due.
Troops to teachers program.--The Committee includes
$404,000 for Coast Guard participation in the ``troops to
teachers'' program, an increase of 45 percent over the $278,000
provided for fiscal year 1995.
Military essentiality.--The recommendation includes a
reduction of $1,000,000 assuming the conversion of
administrative support positions from military to civilian. A
recent General Accounting Office study found that many military
positions in the Department of Defense did not meet the
``military essentiality'' criteria, and should be converted to
civilian positions at a cost savings of approximately $15,000
per position. Following up that study, the House-passed Defense
Authorization Bill for fiscal year 1996 requires DOD to convert
10,000 military positions to civilian. The Committee's review
of positions in certain offices and facilities this year leads
to the inescapable conclusion that similar savings are possible
in the Coast Guard. This is supported by testimony from the DOT
Inspector General, who stated ``the Coast Guard actually has
several areas where military personnel could effectively be
replaced by civilians''. The recommendation assumes the
conversion of approximately 65 positions.
General detail.--The Committee recommends a reduction in
this overhead account from $174,812,000 to $171,812,000 due to
budget constraints and lower general detail requirements
resulting from the downsized military workforce.
Continental U.S. cost of living adjustment (CONUS COLA).--
The bill includes $6,796,000 for a cost of living adjustment
for military members living in high cost areas of the
continental United States. This discretionary pay was first
authorized in the 1995 Defense Authorization Act. Fiscal year
1996 is the first year of the program.
Leased housing.--The Committee recommends transferring
funds for leased housing from ``Military pay and allowances''
to a new budget line. The Committee believes that payments to
private contractors for leased housing should not be combined
in the same budget line with salaries and direct payments to
individuals. Furthermore, the Committee's recommendation brings
Coast Guard budgeting practices more into line with the
Department of Defense, which excludes such costs from military
personnel accounts.
Senior executive service (SES) staffing.--During Committee
hearings this year, the Coast Guard testified that there are
only ten senior executive service (SES) positions in the entire
service, and none are above the SES-4 level. Given the frequent
turnover of military personnel, the Committee believes more
stability and continuity is needed among senior management
levels of the Coast Guard. Continuity and ``corporate
knowledge'' will become even more critical in the coming years,
as the service's downsizing and restructuring accelerates. For
this reason, the Committee recommendation includes $1,000,000
above the budget request for the Coast Guard to hire ten
additional SES civilian positions.
Student intern programs.--The recommendation reduces
staffing for the ``student temporary employment program'' and
the ``student career experience program'' by one half due to
budget constraints. The recommendation provides 56 staff years
and $820,700 for these programs.
Permanent change of station.--The bill provides $60,233,000
for permanent change of station moves. This compares to
$59,644,000 provided for fiscal year 1995.
Medical care costs.--For the past two years, the Coast
Guard has testified that cost containment initiatives are
underway to address the high rates of medical cost inflation.
The Committee is disappointed, therefore, to note that these
costs continue to rise, from $119,600,000 in fiscal year 1994
to $127,800,000 in fiscal year 1995 and an estimated
$134,100,000 in fiscal year 1996. This is especially startling
considering the workforce has been reduced significantly over
that time period. Other agencies have been experiencing greatly
reduced inflation rates. The Committee recommends a hard freeze
on medical care costs, providing funds at the same level as in
fiscal year 1995, and encourages the Coast Guard to realize
such savings through more effective cost containment measures.
Accelerate existing streamlining.--The Committee
recommendation assumes a three month staff year rate for fiscal
year 1996 position reductions, compared to a six month rate
assumed in the President's budget request. This results in a
reduction of $4,850,000 from the budget estimate.
Accelerate restructuring plan.--After eighteen months, the
Coast Guard has nearly completed two major analyses of its
field organization, headquarters, and training facilities.
While not yet formally released by the Department of
Transportation, those studies are expected to propose
significant budgetary savings through closure of unneeded
facilities, consolidation of similar activities, and a
restructure of training facilities. The Committee applauds the
Coast Guard for taking this important initiative, and for
working to ensure that downsizing is accomplished with the
least impact on the delivery of essential services to the
public. Because of the Coast Guard's extensive field structure
and large headquarters presence, the Committee believes that
significant efficiencies can be achieved. The Committee's
recommendation assumes a portion of those savings
(approximately fifteen percent) can be achieved during fiscal
year 1996 through more aggressive implementation, resulting in
a reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget request.
Depot Level Maintenance
The bill includes $365,316,000 for depot level maintenance,
which is $3,112,000 more than the level provided for fiscal
year 1995 and the same as the budget estimate. The Committee
believes that maintenance and spare parts for Coast Guard
assets should receive a high priority for funding.
Operations And Support
The bill includes $393,896,000 for operations and support,
which is $813,000 more than the level provided for fiscal year
1995. This budget activity funds operations of medium- and
high-endurance cutters, area offices, district offices, air
stations, maintenance and logistics commands, and other
operational units.
Vessel traffic service (VTS) privatization.--The Committee
received testimony this year indicating that after full
implementation of the VTS 2000 program, the Coast Guard's
annual costs to operate and maintain VTS systems would be
approximately $65,000,000. Today (budgeted for fiscal year
1996), those costs are only $19,862,000. Given the significant
reductions that will be needed over the next seven years to
eliminate the federal deficit, and the predominantly local
benefits which accrue from the VTS program, the Committee
believes that VTS systems are a prime candidate for system-wide
privatization. In fact, the privately-run VTS system in Long
Beach, California appears to meet requirements without federal
support, and conducts its operations more efficiently and at
less cost than those systems run today by the Coast Guard.
Consequently, the Committee encourages the Coast Guard to begin
a long-term effort to privatize the existing VTS systems in
fiscal year 1996, and reduces the 1996 budget request by
$1,000,000 (five percent) assuming some initial savings from
that effort.
District offices.--The President's budget requests
$56,641,000 to support 1,896 positions at the Coast Guard's ten
district offices. The Coast Guard has the Department of
Transportation's most extensive field organization, with
districts, area commands, groups, bases, stations, and
maintenance and logistics commands. While some of this is
clearly required for the service to carry out its functions in
the field, it would appear the Coast Guard could achieve
budgetary savings and give more decisionmaking authority to
those units actually performing the activity by reducing the
number of oversight and planning layers in their field
organization. At a minimum, two district headquarters could be
consolidated with the area commands, and the Committee is
convinced that other efficiencies are possible as well. The
Committee recommendation provides $51,000,000 for district
headquarters offices in fiscal year 1996.
recruiting and training
The bill includes $69,943,000 for recruiting and training
support, a reduction of $1,921,000 from the fiscal year 1995
enacted level. This budget activity funds recruiting and
training activities including support for the Coast Guard
Academy and Coast Guard training centers in Yorktown, Virginia;
Petaluma, California; and Cape May, New Jersey.
Graduate school tuition.--The Coast Guard's budget request
for fiscal year 1996 includes $2,300,000 to pay graduate school
tuition for its employees. This is in addition to the estimated
$19,800,000 in salaries and benefits paid to those employees
while in school. Almost half of the tuition costs are provided
to lieutenants. The Committee questions whether it is truly
necessary for so many officers at this junior a rank to receive
graduate training at that point in their careers, or whether
the position descriptions for lieutenants require a graduate
degree. While the Committee understands that some graduate
training is necessary for effective management, given budget
constraints, the Committee recommends $1,300,000 for tuition, a
reduction of $1,000,000 from the budget request.
coast guard-wide centralized services and support
The bill includes $184,773,000 for Coast Guard-wide
centralized services and support, a reduction of $12,630,000
from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level and a reduction of
$4,953,000 from the budget request.
Civilian personnel office consolidation.--The Committee
does not agree with the Coast Guard's proposal to close four of
its five civilian personnel offices around the country and
consolidate into a single office. The Committee believes this
proposal is too extreme, and will have a detrimental impact on
service to the civilian workforce. Therefore, the
recommendation restores these funds ($393,000). In order to
partially offset this restoration, the Committee recommends a
reduction of $150,000 for the Military Personnel Center, which
is able to handle this modest reduction due to its larger
funding base.
FTS 2000.--The Committee recommends $10,626,000 for FTS
2000 telecommunications costs, an increase of 5.6 percent over
the most recent estimate for fiscal year 1995.
Headquarters administration.--The bill includes
$170,862,000 for Coast Guard headquarters administrative costs,
an increase of $2,842,000 (1.7 percent) over fiscal year 1995
and a 1.1 percent reduction from the budget request. Currently,
there are 2,435 billets in headquarters. In allocating
reductions to the Coast Guard, the Committee has tried to
preserve funding for elements of the service which provide
essential direct service to the public such as air and boat
stations, large cutters and patrol boats, and spare parts.
These mission-oriented activities have been preserved as a high
priority to the maximum extent possible. To achieve this,
however, some efficiencies in headquarters and other overhead
units are required. While the Committee allows the Commandant
the discretion to allocate this reduction, the Committee
suggests that staffing in the following offices be reviewed:
Office: No. of positions
Commandant/Vice Commandant.......................... 26
Public affairs...................................... 37
International affairs............................... 26
Quality staff....................................... 7
Management effectiveness............................ 18
Legal/Administrative Law Judges..................... 116
Headquarters command center......................... 56
Marine safety information management................ 38
Auxiliary, boating, and consumer affairs............ 50
Diversity/total quality management.................. 12
Workers' compensation.--Despite departmental budget
guidance to freeze each agency's requests for workers'
compensation costs in fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard budget
includes an increase of $762,000. The Committee recommends
deleting that increase. As the Committee has encouraged in past
years, greater attempts should be made to find positions for
those currently on workers' compensation but eligible to return
to work. This would result in efficiencies allowing the
reduction in workers' compensation without adverse effect.
Studies and analyses.--The Committee recommendation
includes $1,800,000 for studies and analyses, a reduction of
$1,000,000 due to budget constraints.
Account-Wide Adjustments
Recreational equipment.--The President's request included
$296,000 for balls, bats, golf clubs, fitness machines, camping
equipment, outdoor grills, and related equipment for the Coast
Guard's morale, welfare, and recreation program. Given the
severe budget constraints facing the country, the Committee
believes such items should be reduced to a lower level. The
Committee recommends $150,000 for these items.
Non-pay inflation.--OMB policy states that President's
budget requests will not necessarily include an allowance for
the full rate of anticipated inflation. In effect, agencies are
expected to be able to absorb at least a portion of non-pay
inflation (i.e., inflation for accounts other than pay) through
increased efficiency and use of advanced office technologies.
For fiscal year 1996, OMB allowed agencies a maximum of 2.0
percent non-pay inflation. In the department, this standard was
applied inconsistently: some agencies included the full 2
percent, while others were provided smaller allowances. The
Committee's recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for
non-pay inflation for all modes of the department. Since the
Coast Guard budgeted for a 2 percent increase, this results in
a reduction of $5,842,000 from the budget estimate.
Non-operational travel.--In the Coast Guard, non-
operational travel (i.e., for training, conferences, and
miscellaneous purposes) has increased 6.8 percent on a per
capita basis between fiscal year 1994 and the fiscal year 1996
budget request. This year in hearings, the DOT Inspector
General expressed concern over the high amount of
administrative travel being taken throughout the department.
The Committee agrees that such travel should be curtailed to
the maximum extent possible. The Committee's recommendation
allows a travel budget of $1,004 per staff year, a per capita
increase of 2.5 percent over the fiscal year 1994-1996 time
period. Operational travel, budgeted at $27,226,000, is not
affected by this recommendation.
Military pay and personnel center contracting out.--The
Committee recommendation assumes savings of $500,000 from
contracting out operations of the Military Pay and Personnel
Center in Topeka, Kansas, as suggested this year by the
Inspector General. This center is responsible for the
processing of pay checks, travel reimbursement checks, and
other aspects of personnel finance administration within the
Coast Guard. The Committee believes this is a prime candidate
for contracting out.
Restructuring implementation costs.--The Committee has
provided $3,000,000 for operating expenses related to the
impending release of Coast Guard restructuring studies. The
Committee believes much restructuring is needed, and applauds
the Commandant for undertaking a wide-ranging review. While
approved by the Coast Guard, these studies have still not been
approved by the Secretary of Transportation or the Office of
Management and Budget. Once the administration's proposal is
clear, the Committee will also consider reprogramming
proposals. The Committee does wish to provide the Coast Guard
flexibility to obtain additional funding for this initiative
should it receive administration and Congressional approval
during the fiscal year. In order to facilitate rapid
implementation and provide flexible funding, the Committee bill
includes language under ``Acquisition, construction, and
improvements'' allowing the Coast Guard to transfer up to
$50,000,000 in available funding during fiscal year 1996 from
lower priority acquisition projects to finance restructuring
activities.
Undistributed.--The recommendation includes an
undistributed reduction of $10,243,000 due to budget
constraints. The department is accorded the flexibility to
allocate the reduction.
bill language
Motor vehicle purchase.--The bill includes a limitation on
the purchase of motor vehicles to five. This year, the Coast
Guard testified they had no plans to purchase any motor
vehicles during fiscal year 1996. While the Committee
considered a zero limitation, the proposed limitation of five
provides them some flexibility, should current plans change.
Drug enforcement expenses.--The bill specifies that no less
than $314,200,000 may be obligated or expended on drug
enforcement programs during fiscal year 1996. This is the same
amount as the budget estimate, and a 7 percent increase over
the $293,600,000 provided for fiscal year 1995. This resumes a
practice, begun several years ago, of including minimum amounts
in the bill for this important mission. The Committee
recommends no specific reductions in anti-drug activities, and
does not wish to see the Coast Guard reprogram funds away from
the budgeted level for those activities.
general provision
The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 316)
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 1995.........................\1\ $362,950,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 428,200,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 375,175,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +12,225,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -53,025,000
\1\ Reductions of $12,600 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The bill includes $375,175,000 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 $32,500,000 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 reduces long-term unobligated balances. However,
the bill does include authority to transfer funds for possible
restructuring activities, as previously described under
``Operating expenses''.
Committee Recommendation
The following table compares the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level, the fiscal year 1996 estimate, and the recommended level
by program, project and activity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-----------------------------------------------
Program name 1996
1995 enacted 1996 estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels:
Survey and design--
cutters and boats.. $750,000 $500,000 $500,000
Seagoing buoy tender
(WLB) replacement.. 36,000,000 65,000,000 65,000,000
Coastal buoy tender
(WLM) replacement.. 56,000,000 93,000,000 93,000,000
47-foot motor
lifeboat (MLB)
replacement project 31,000,000 500,000 500,000
Buoy boat
replacement project
(BUSL)............. 10,000,000 8,500,000 ..............
Polar icebreaker
replacement follow-
on................. 7,900,000 4,300,000 4,300,000
82-foot WPB
capability
replacement........ 10,000,000 4,000,000 ..............
Norwegian crewing
concept development
(NORCREW).......... .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Self propelled barge
replacement........ 2,500,000 900,000 900,000
Surface search radar
replacement project .............. 3,500,000 3,500,000
210-foot medium
endurance cutter
MMA................ 25,000,000 14,500,000 14,500,000
378-foot shipboard
command & control.. 5,000,000 1,300,000 1,300,000
Configuration
management......... .............. 5,700,000 5,700,000
Stalwart class
conversion......... 3,750,000 .............. ..............
Cutter Yocona re-
engining project
(reprogramming).... 4,400,000 .............. ..............
Aircraft:
Traffic alert &
collision avoidance
system (TCAS) phase
IV................. 3,900,000 13,000,000 10,000,000
Global positioning
system installation
phase VI........... 2,300,000 1,900,000 1,900,000
HH-65 Helicopter
main transmission
gearbox upgrade
phase II........... 2,000,000 2,500,000 2,500,000
HC-130 side looking
airborne radar
(SLAR) upgrade..... .............. 2,100,000 2,100,000
HU-25B aireye system
replacement........ 1,600,000 .............. ..............
HU-25C falcon jet
modification....... 2,000,000 .............. ..............
TALON helicopter tie-
down project
(reprogramming).... 2,509,000 .............. ..............
Air interdiction/AEW
project
(reprogramming).... 605,000 .............. ..............
Other Equipment:
Supply center
computer
replacement........ 6,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Fleet logistics
system............. .............. 3,000,000 3,000,000
Vessel traffic
service (VTS)
system 2000........ 2,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
VTS equipment
replacement........ 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000
Marine information
for safety and law
enforcement (MISLE) .............. 11,000,000 11,000,000
Conversion of
software
applications....... 2,750,000 11,100,000 6,100,000
Finance center
information system
replacement........ 1,000,000 2,600,000 2,600,000
Differential GPS
transmitter
replacement........ .............. 1,700,000 ..............
Differential GPS
implementation--sec
ond district....... .............. 2,400,000 ..............
Search and rescue
simulation model
(SARSIM)........... .............. 500,000 500,000
Communication
systems 2000....... .............. 11,000,000 6,000,000
WLB/WLM support
facility........... .............. 1,500,000 1,500,000
Vessel navigation
training simulator. .............. 1,500,000 1,500,000
Local notice to
mariners automation .............. 500,000 500,000
Global maritime
distress and safety
system............. 1,800,000 500,000 500,000
Resource information
system for health
services........... 3,000,000 .............. ..............
Oil spill response
equipment.......... 2,500,000 .............. ..............
Search and rescue
management
information system. 900,000 .............. ..............
Communication
station Honolulu
transmitters....... 1,900,000 .............. ..............
Replace AR&SC
computer (phase IV) 2,000,000 .............. ..............
VTS upgrade and
expansion projects. 1,600,000 .............. ..............
Oil spill training
simulator.......... 1,250,000 .............. ..............
Shore Facilities and
Aids to Navigation:
Survey and design--
shore projects..... 10.000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000
Minor AC&I shore
construction
projects........... 6,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000
Streamlining
initiatives........ .............. 5,000,000 5,000,000
Air station
consolidation...... .............. 11,000,000 11,000,000
Coast Guard Yard
ship handling
facility (phase II) .............. 15,100,000 ..............
Public family
quarters........... 12,000,000 22,700,000 20,275,000
Station Boothbay
Harbor, ME--
renovate/expand.... .............. 2,800,000 2,800,000
Base South Portland,
ME--construct
station operations
bldg............... .............. 2,600,000 2,600,000
Base San Juan, PR--
reconstruction
(phase II)......... .............. 3,150,000 3,150,000
Station Port Isabel,
TX--reconstruct/
expand waterfront
facilities......... .............. 2,650,000 2,650,000
Station Portage, MI--
relocate/replace
station facilities. .............. 4,200,000 4,200,000
Station Chetco
River, OR--
construct mooring/
waterfront......... .............. 2,000,000 2,000,000
Station Honolulu,
HI--replacement.... .............. 5,000,000 5,000,000
Coast Guard Academy--
Roland Hall
renovation......... .............. 5,100,000 5,100,000
Waterways ATON
projects........... .............. 5,500,000 5,500,000
Air Station Miami,
FL--upgrade (phase
II)................ 8,400,000 .............. ..............
Support Center New
York--construct ANT/
ET shops........... 3,250,000 .............. ..............
Support Center
Seattle, WA--
reconstruct pier 37 10,300,000 .............. ..............
Station
Provincetown, MA--
replace wave
barrier............ 1,300,000 .............. ..............
Base San Juan--
reconstruction
(phase I).......... 10,750,000 .............. ..............
Base Honolulu--
electrical system.. 1,950,000 .............. ..............
Atlantic Strike
Team--construct
maint/equip storage
facility........... 5,000,000 .............. ..............
Waterways short
range aids projects 6,500,000 .............. ..............
Overseas LORAN
closure............ 13,900,000 .............. ..............
Personnel and Related
Support:
Personnel and
related support.... 44,200,000 .............. ..............
Direct personnel
costs.............. .............. 48,200,000 42,500,000
Core acquisition
costs.............. .............. 700,000 500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total
appropriation.... 362,950,000 428,200,000 370,175,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vessels
The Committee recommends $191,200,000 for vessels, an
increase of $3,300,000 above the amount provided for fiscal
year 1995. Approximately 80 percent of this amount
($158,000,000) is to continue production of the Coast Guard's
new seagoing and coastal buoy tenders, which the Committee
considers a high priority due to the age of the current buoy
tender fleet.
Stern loading buoy boat replacement project.--The Committee
recommends no funds for this project in fiscal year 1996, a
reduction of $8,500,000 from the budget request. Funds were
provided in fiscal year 1995 to begin production. However, the
program has experienced significant delays because of the Coast
Guard's decision to award the contract as a small business set-
aside to a boatyard with no previous production experience.
According to the service, the acquisition strategy and program
costs are uncertain at this time, and an unobligated balance of
$9,200,000 is expected to exist at the end of fiscal year 1995.
For these reasons, it appears clear that additional funding is
not needed at this time. Before changing the production
location for this program, the Coast Guard shall notify the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and provide a
full explanation and analysis for that decision.
82-foot coastal patrol boat replacement.--The Committee
recommends no funds for this project in fiscal year 1996. Like
the stern loading buoy boat, this project has also experienced
significant delays, in this case because the Coast Guard
specified requirements that no vendor was able to meet. Having
revised their requirements, the Coast Guard now expects to
award a contract during the fourth quarter of fiscal year 1995.
However, since the majority of work using fiscal year 1995
funds will now be carried on throughout fiscal year 1996,
additional funding may be deferred without effect.
Aircraft
The Committee recommends $16,500,000 for aircraft, an
increase of $4,700,000 above the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level.
Traffic collision and avoidance system (TCAS).--The
Committee recommends $10,000,000 for this project, a reduction
of $3,000,000 from the budget request but an increase of
$6,100,000 above the level provided for fiscal year 1995. The
Committee believes the budget request for this project assumed
an overly ambitious schedule, and underestimated the technical
risk, of integrating TCAS electronics into the Coast Guard
helicopter fleet. Even though most of the 1996 funding is for
installation into helicopters, Coast Guard documents indicate
this has never been accomplished before, and presents
engineering risks. The first helicopter prototype is just now
being installed. Given the technical risk and the fact that
$4,400,000 in unobligated balances is expected to be carried
over into fiscal year 1996 from prior year funds, the Committee
believes some reduction is possible without effect on the
overall schedule.
Other Equipment
The Committee recommends $42,200,000 for other equipment,
an increase of $12,500,000 above the level provided for fiscal
year 1995.
Conversion of software applications.--The recommendation
allows $6,100,000 for this program, an increase of 122 percent
above the $2,750,000 provided for fiscal year 1995 but a
reduction of $5,000,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee
believes this work can be phased in over a longer time period
without significant impact on operational missions.
Differential global positioning system.--The Committee
recommends no funding for two new projects, ``differential GPS
transmitter replacement'' and ``differential GPS implementation
in the second district''. These items were not on the Coast
Guard's long-range AC&I plan last year, and do not appear to
address any emergency requirement justifying their sudden
placement in the budget. Given budget constraints and the weak
justification, the Committee believes these projects should be
deferred in lieu of full funding for other activities.
Communication system 2000.--The Committee recommends
$6,000,000 for this new project, a reduction of $5,000,000 from
the budget estimate. The long-range AC&I plan indicates average
annual funding of $2,250,000 between fiscal years 1997 and
2000. The fiscal year 1996 request therefore represents a
funding ``spike'' which drops significantly after fiscal year
1997. The Committee recommendation provides the same level of
funding as is shown in the Coast Guard's plan for fiscal year
1997.
Shore Facilities
The Committee recommends $82,275,000 for shore facilities,
a reduction of $7,075,000 from the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level. The Committee notes that, as of February 28, 1995, the
Coast Guard had an unobligated balance in shore facilities of
$142,864,540. Because of the backlog of projects in the
pipeline, and because of the weakness in individual projects
discussed below, the Committee believes a lower level is
justified.
Streamlining implementation costs.--The Committee has
provided $5,000,000 in specific funding for AC&I costs related
to the impending release of Coast Guard streamlining studies.
The Committee believes much streamlining is needed, and
applauds the Commandant for undertaking a wide-ranging review.
Once the administration's proposal is clear, the Committee will
also consider reprogramming proposals. Language is included in
the bill allowing up to $50,000,000 in transfer authority for
this purpose.
Coast Guard Yard, ship handling facility.--The Committee
recommends no funding for the planned construction of a new
$40,800,000 ship handling facility at the Coast Guard Yard in
Maryland, a reduction of $15,100,000 from the budget request.
According to the Coast Guard, this new facility is needed to
overhaul the 378-foot and 270-foot cutter classes. However, the
378-foot cutters completed a major overhaul just a few years
ago, and the Committee is unaware of other major overhauls
planned. The 270-foot cutter overhaul is not scheduled to begin
until at least the year 2003, and budget reductions may slip
that schedule. Since the majority of the Yard's current work
(the 210-foot cutter overhaul) completes in fiscal year 1997,
it is not clear what work will sustain the Yard during the
1997-2003 time frame. It is also not clear whether the Yard
should be acquiring the industrial capacity to compete against
private shipyards for overhauls of major vessel classes. While
the Committee considered the DOT Inspector General's suggestion
this year to close the Yard entirely, the Committee believes
such action is not yet required. However, it should be noted
the IG's analysis does raise significant questions about the
Yard's future, including the need for this project.
Public family quarters.--The recommendation of $20,275,000
provides the same level of funding the Coast Guard is planning
to allocate to this program in the outyears and a 70 percent
increase over the $12,000,000 provided for fiscal year 1995.
Personnel and Related Support
The bill includes $43,000,000 for AC&I personnel and
related support, a decrease of $1,200,000 (2.7 percent) from
the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. Since the Coast Guard is
under an agency-wide target for staffing reductions, the more
acquisition staffing is increased, the less staffing is
available for operational missions. Given the proposed
reduction in the AC&I appropriation and overall downsizing, the
Committee believes this level will be sufficient to effectively
manage the AC&I program during fiscal year 1996. The
recommendation includes $42,500,000 in direct personnel costs
and $500,000 in core acquisition costs. The Coast Guard is
directed to cap AC&I-funded full-time positions at 717, which
is the same level as provided for fiscal year 1995.
Quarterly acquisition reports.--The Coast Guard is directed
to continue submission of the quarterly acquisition reports to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. However,
beginning in fiscal year 1996, the Coast Guard is to include
with each such report an up-to-date listing of unobligated
balances by acquisition project and by fiscal year.
Environmental Compliance and Restoration
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $23,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 25,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 21,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -2,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -4,000,000
\1\ Reductions of $2,700 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The Committee recommends $21,000,000 to bring Coast Guard
facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and
environmental regulations. These funds will 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 is $2,500,000 (10.6 percent)
below the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This level is
sufficient to fully fund the requested levels for site-specific
cleanup and restoration projects ($14,260,000). The bill does
not include language requested in the President's budget
dealing with the use of funds for parts and equipment
associated with operations and maintenance. This is related to
proposed language under ``Operating expenses'' which is a
legislative matter under consideration by the appropriate
authorization committee.
Sites to be addressed.--The funds in this bill are
sufficient to finance the budgeted amount of $13,540,000 for
cleanup and restoration projects at specific sites. The sites
for which funds are included are as follows:
Project site Amount
Support Center Kodiak, AK: RCRA Consent Order........... $5,695,000
Aids to Navigation Battery Cleanup, Agency-Wide......... 5,025,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Solid Waste
Management Units.................................... 600,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Electroplating Shop.. 650,000
Support Center Elizabeth City, NC: Tricloroethylene
remediation......................................... 850,000
Air Station Traverse City, MI........................... 350,000
Air Station Cape Cod, MA................................ 350,000
Station Marquette, MI................................... 20,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 13,540,000
Alteration of Bridges
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $2,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 16,000,000
Bill compared with:.....................................
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +16,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... +14,000,000
The bill includes $16,000,000 for alteration of bridges
deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-
Hobbs Act. The Committee does not agree with the approach taken
by the 103rd Congress, and supported by the administration,
that highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges
should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's
discretionary bridge account. This approach is unfair to some
states which, under existing highway formulas, pay a higher
price for discretionary bridge grants and are therefore less
likely to apply. In addition, 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 $16,000,000 for five bridges. This
funding level is higher than in the recent past because of the
need to move projects forward after delays caused by
underfunding over the past two years, and because of the
Committee's strong commitment to safety on our nation's
waterways. Each of the bridges for which funds are recommended
is authorized and has been issued an order to alter by the
Commandant of the Coast Guard. The Committee's specific
recommendation is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Committee
Bridge and location estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burlington, IA, Burlington
Northern RR Bridge............... $2,000,000 $2,000,000
New Orleans, LA, Florida Avenue RR/
HW Bridge........................ -- 2,000,000
Brunswick, GA, Sidney Lanier HW
Bridge........................... -- 8,000,000
Boston, MA, Chelsea St. Bridge.... -- 2,000,000
St. John's Island, SC, Limehouse
HW Bridge........................ ................. 2,000,000
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 2,000,000 16,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retired Pay
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $562,585,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 582,022,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 582,022,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +19,437,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
The Committee has approved the budget estimate of
$582,022,000 for 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. This compares to an appropriation of
$562,585,000 for fiscal year 1995.
The Committee notes that, as part of the reinventing
government initiative, the administration is considering the
conversion of Coast Guard retired pay from a mandatory
appropriation to discretionary, and requiring that funds be
increased to fully fund the program on an actuarily sound
basis. The Department of Defense has established a trust fund
to finance military retirement, and spending from this fund is
scored as discretionary in the budget process. However, the
Coast Guard does not participate in the trust fund. Instead,
they request and receive annual appropriations which are scored
as mandatory. The Committee is concerned that changing the
current system could cause enormous additional reductions in
transportation discretionary programs, in order to finance what
is currently mandatory as well as meet deficit reduction
targets. The Committee urges the administration to consider
this issue carefully as the reinventing government proposals
are more fully developed.
Reserve Training
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $64,981,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 64,859,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 61,859,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -3,122,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -3,000,000
\1\ Reductions of $4,275 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions not reflected.
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. The program activities
fall into the following categories:
Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for
three categories of non-prior service trainees.
Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted
personnel.
Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-
to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training
facilities.
Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve
forces program.
The bill includes $61,859,000 for reserve training. The
amount recommended represents a decrease of $3,122,000 (4.8
percent) below the fiscal year 1995 level and will support a
selected reserve of approximately 7,630. The budget proposed
funds to support a selected reserve of 8,000, which is the same
level as estimated for fiscal year 1995. The reduction is due
to budget constraints, and does not reflect a diminution of the
Committee's support for the Coast Guard Reserves.
Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $20,310,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 22,500,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 18,500,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -1,810,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -4,000,000
\1\ Reductions of $3,600 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The bill includes $18,500,000 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, $3,150,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund. The following table summarizes the fiscal
year 1995 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for
the various research areas:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year
Program area 1995enacted 1996estimate Committeerecommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improve Search and
Rescue
Capability:
Search
planning..... $710,000 $100,000 $100,000
Search
process,
platforms and
sensors...... 150,000 400,000 400,000
Personnel..... 425,000 432,000 432,000
=====================================================
Waterways Safety &
Management:
Waterways
management... 500,000 500,000 500,000
Advanced
vessel
traffic
systems/
services..... 300,000 600,000 100,000
Integrated
navigation
systems...... 325,000 450,000 450,000
Short range
aids to
navigation... 200,000 400,000 200,000
Personnel..... 850,000 864,000 864,000
=====================================================
Marine Safety:
Marine safety
research..... 75,000 530,000 200,000
Human factors
analysis..... 650,000 1,685,000 700,000
Fire safety
for
commercial
vessels...... 440,000 960,000 750,000
Personnel..... 957,000 972,000 700,000
=====================================================
Ship Structure
Committee:
Support for
Committee.... 250,000 250,000 ....................
Personnel..... 35,000 36,000 ....................
=====================================================
Marine
Environmental
Protection:
Planning,
management
and training. 300,000 150,000 150,000
Oil pollution
response..... 250,000 850,000 500,000
Personnel
health and
safety....... .............. 75,000 75,000
Port
demonstration
project...... 250,000 .............. ....................
OPA-90
regional
grant program 500,000 .............. ....................
Personnel..... 496,000 504,000 504,000
=====================================================
Maritime Law
Enforcement:
Surveillance.. 400,000 725,000 725,000
Vessel search. 200,000 .............. ....................
Personnel..... 496,000 504,000 504,000
=====================================================
Safety and
Environmental
Compliance:
Cutter fire
safety
technology... 350,000 600,000 586,000
Pollution
prevention... 550,000 500,000 500,000
Aviation
engineering
support...... 110,000 75,000 ....................
Vessel loss
exposure and
risk analysis
method....... 410,000 620,000 620,000
Personnel..... 602,000 612,000 612,000
=====================================================
Human Resource
Management
Effectiveness:
Training
techniques
and
technologies. 300,000 300,000 ....................
Staffing
standards
development.. 75,000 .............. ....................
Personnel..... 142,000 144,000 ....................
=====================================================
Command, Control,
Computers &
Intelligence:
Information
systems...... 2,000,000 280,000 1,780,000
Advanced
communication
s systems.... 300,000 .............. ....................
Personnel..... 638,000 648,000 648,000
=====================================================
Technology Base:
Future
technology
assessment... .............. 300,000 ....................
Modeling...... 600,000 150,000 ....................
Select
projects..... 250,000 450,000 300,000
Personnel..... 673,000 684,000 200,000
=====================================================
R&D Personnel,
Program Support,
& Operations:
Admin/support
personnel and
related costs 3,047,000 3,100,000 2,600,000
Support and
operations... 1,500,000 1,700,000 1,500,000
R&D management
info system
development.. .............. 500,000 450,000
Modernization
of F&STD test
facilities... .............. 850,000 850,000
=====================================================
Other Projects:
South Florida
oil spill
research
center....... 1,000,000 .............. ....................
Maritime Fire
and Research
Association.. 250,000 .............. ....................
-----------------------------------------------------
Total
appropriati
on......... 20,310,000 22,500,000 18,500,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waterways safety and management.--The recommended level
holds funding for this activity to the fiscal year 1995 level,
instead of a 29.3 percent increase as proposed in the budget
estimate. The Committee believes that some of this work is of
lower overall priority, and some could be conducted with
operating funds.
Marine safety.--Due to budget constraints and the need to
fund higher priority activities, the recommendation allows
funding equivalent to average funding over the fiscal year
1993-1995 time period. The President's budget proposed
$4,147,000, which is almost double the fiscal year 1995 level
of $2,122,000. The recommendation provides an increase of 10.8
percent over fiscal year 1995.
Ship structure committee.--The Committee recommends
termination of this activity due to budget constraints. This is
essentially a research project in consultation with the
shipbuilding and boat-building industry, designed to improve
the materials, design, and construction of vessels. Some of the
anticipated products include a design guide for marine
application of composite materials, a fracture symposium and
workshop, and study of compensation for openings in primary
structural members of ships. While the Committee has no
evidence that this is an unworthy program per se, it is
probably a ``nice to have'' which is unaffordable in the
current budget climate.
Marine environmental protection.--The recommendation allows
a 100 percent increase under ``oil pollution response''
research over the funding provided for fiscal year 1995 instead
of the 240 percent increase proposed.
Safety and environmental compliance.--The bill deletes
funding for aviation engineering support, a savings of $75,000
from the budget request. From the justifications provided, it
appears this work would be appropriate for financing under
operating expenses. In addition, a minor reduction is
recommended in cutter fire safety, allowing a 67 percent
increase instead of the 71 percent increase proposed.
Human resource management effectiveness.--The Committee
recommends no specific funding for this research activity due
to budget constraints and the need to preserve funds for higher
priority work. This activity includes such elements as
development of staffing standards, evaluation of training
methods, and prototyping of training systems and techniques.
This type of research can be conducted using operating expense
funds if it is of high enough priority, as is done in many
other agencies.
Command, control, communications, computers and
intelligence.--The Committee cannot concur with the drastic
reduction proposed for the operational information system (OIS)
or the unacceptably long implementation schedule which would
result from the request. This project will apply pen-based
technology to the Coast Guard's operational missions, reducing
paperwork dramatically and increasing efficiency. Development
of OIS began a few years ago, after a Coast Guard study of
small boat station workload revealed that over half of the time
was being spent on paperwork, resulting in less boardings, less
inspections, and less enforcement actions. The President's
budget proposed deep cuts in this project in order to finance
increases in marine safety research. The Committee has long
supported implementation of pen-based technologies and other
labor-saving devices in the field. This will become even more
important in future years, as Coast Guard downsizing plans and
budget constraints require greater efficiencies and less time
completing paperwork. The Committee recommendation includes
$1,780,000 for OIS development, and directs the Coast Guard to
use these funds to accelerate fielding of OIS systems and
broaden their application to the vessel boarding program. This
action will improve law enforcement effectiveness and allow
more vessel boardings per manhour expended.
Technology base.--Due to budget constraints and the
Committee's priority on development of near-term technologies
of value to field units, the Committee recommends a significant
reduction in funding for long-term technology base research.
The bill includes $500,000, a reduction of $1,023,000 from the
fiscal year 1995 enacted level.
Research and development personnel, program support and
operations.--The recommendation allows an increase of 18.8
percent instead of the 35.3 percent increase requested. Within
the overall total, the modernization of test facilities at the
Coast Guard Fire and Safety Test Detachment is fully funded at
the requested level of $850,000.
Boat Safety
(Aquatic Resources Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\1\)
Recommended in the bill................................. 20,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... +20,000,000
\1\ The President's budget proposes funding as a permanent appropriation
beginning in fiscal year 1996.
The Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended, and the
Federal Boat Safety Act of 1971, as amended, provide for the
transfer of highway trust fund revenue derived from the motor
boat fuel tax, excise taxes on sport fishing equipment, and
import duties on fishing tackle and yachts to the aquatic
resources trust fund. The Secretary of the Treasury estimates
the amounts to be so transferred and appropriations are
authorized from the fund for recreational boating safety
assistance and other programs as authorized by the Federal Boat
Safety Act of 1971, as amended, and Public Law 98-369 (the
Deficit Reduction Act of 1984). These funds are used primarily
to provide grants to states to help enforce boating safety laws
and to expand boating education programs.
The bill includes an appropriation of $20,000,000 for the
boat safety program. When combined with an additional
$10,000,000 in permanent indefinite appropriations from the
Clean Vessel Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-587), total program
funding of $30,000,000 is provided for fiscal year 1996.
The Committee cannot support the Coast Guard's proposal to
convert this program to mandatory spending. According to an
April 1993 study by the National Transportation Safety Board,
recreational boating accidents result in the highest number of
transportation fatalities annually after highway accidents.
Over 900 people are killed each year in boating accidents, and
over 350,000 are injured--more than 40 percent of which require
treatment beyond first aid. The number of boats, especially
high speed boats, is increasing each year. The Safety Board
made a number of recommendations to the Coast Guard and to the
individual states aimed at improving boating safety across this
country. Federal support and direction will be needed to ensure
implementation of initiatives raised in the Safety Board's
study as well as to continue other boating safety activities.
In fiscal year 1994, boating safety grant funds were
distributed in the amounts shown in the table below. It is
anticipated that a similar distribution would be in effect for
the $30,000,000 program funding in fiscal year 1996.
RECREATIONAL BOATING SAFETY PROGRAM
[Fiscal Year 1994 Federal allocations and Federal/State share of expenditures]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RBS program expenditures Total fiscal
Federal ---------------------------------------------- year 1994
State allocation Federal RBS
share Percent State share Percent expenditures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................... 765,297 765,297 23.2 2,531,071 76.8 3,296,368
Arizona............................... 590,693 500,172 20.0 2,004,658 80.0 2,504,830
Arkansas.............................. 450,422 306,222 49.8 308,468 50.2 614,690
California............................ 2,392,650 976,680 6.8 13,356,422 93.2 14,333,102
Colorado*............................. 376,567 102,543 18.5 452,388 81.5 554,931
Connecticut........................... 494,007 494,007 19.2 2,079,105 80.8 2,573,112
Delaware.............................. 340,363 340,363 41.2 484,827 58.8 825,190
Dist. of Col.......................... 348,304 194,254 12.8 1,318,724 87.2 1,512,978
Florida............................... 3,245,521 3,245,521 10.2 28,601,258 89.8 31,846,779
Georgia............................... 850,473 850,473 22.9 2,866,323 77.1 3,716,796
Hawaii**.............................. 526,883 533,227 12.6 3,692,329 87.4 4,225,556
Idaho................................. 405,503 405,503 21.7 1,467,364 78.3 1,872,867
Illinois.............................. 712,288 712,288 47.7 782,431 52.3 1,494,719
Indiana............................... 560,365 560,365 36.6 969,369 63.4 1,529,734
Iowa.................................. 508,758 402,340 50.0 402,340 50.0 804,680
Kansas................................ 370,191 326,628 50.0 326,634 50.0 653,262
Kentucky.............................. 582,251 582,251 22.3 2,032,618 77.7 2,614,869
Louisiana............................. 710,529 710,529 32.4 1,480,802 67.6 2,191,331
Maine................................. 392,860 27,252 2.9 925,412 97.1 952,664
Maryland.............................. 1,486,002 1,486,002 13.5 9,532,738 86.5 11,018,740
Massachusetts......................... 612,343 612,343 25.8 1,763,352 74.2 2,375,695
Michigan**............................ 1,626,365 1,664,140 26.1 4,723,891 73.9 6,388,031
Minnesota............................. 1,194,482 1,115,104 26.1 3,157,412 73.9 4,272,516
Mississippi........................... 525,147 525,147 23.1 1,749,360 76.9 2,274,507
Missouri.............................. 838,087 646,305 16.0 3,402,518 84.0 4,048,823
Montana............................... 304,205 206,145 48.2 221,242 51.8 427,387
Nebraska.............................. 316,300 167,607 50.0 167,607 50.0 335,214
Nevada................................ 403,900 403,900 24.5 1,247,478 75.5 1,651,378
New Hampshire**....................... 396,608 512,815 37.8 842,761 62.2 1,355,576
New Jersey**.......................... 1,065,146 1,358,400 9.7 12,590,860 90.3 13,949,260
New Mexico............................ 356,897 356,897 32.1 756,168 67.9 1,113,065
New York**............................ 1,289,114 1,536,836 36.8 2,636,490 63.2 4,173,326
North Carolina........................ 784,545 784,545 23.3 2,575,596 76.7 3,360,141
North Dakota.......................... 303,962 237,500 48.7 250,076 51.3 487,576
Ohio.................................. 1,463,535 1,463,535 20.0 5,864,087 80.0 7,327,622
Oklahoma.............................. 612,252 565,548 26.3 1,582,784 73.7 2,148,332
Oregon................................ 847,755 847,755 20.3 3,329,355 79.7 4,177,110
Pennsylvania.......................... 937,279 937,279 18.3 4,178,836 81.7 5,116,115
Rhode Island.......................... 347,048 322,053 32.7 662,768 67.3 984,821
South Carolina**...................... 849,398 1,072,284 32.6 2,213,442 67.4 3,285,726
South Dakota**........................ 286,882 309,776 50.0 309,778 50.0 619,554
Tennessee............................. 715,751 715,751 42.1 985,635 57.9 1,701,386
Texas................................. 1,580,341 1,580,341 17.5 7,461,599 82.5 9,041,940
Utah.................................. 420,232 420,232 13.8 2,631,744 86.2 3,051,976
Vermont............................... 306,096 264,103 45.0 322,416 55.0 586,519
Virginia.............................. 529,720 529,720 30.3 1,219,970 69.7 1,749,690
Washington............................ 556,032 315,208 18.0 1,431,579 82.0 1,746,787
West Virginia......................... 306,653 259,363 50.0 259,367 50.0 518,730
Wisconsin............................. 1,101,373 1,101,373 30.6 2,501,333 69.4 3,602,706
Wyoming............................... 273,993 121,844 50.0 121,844 50.0 243,688
American Samoa**...................... 233,915 237,316 100.0 0 0.0 237,316
Guam**................................ 242,524 289,574 0.0 289,575 50.0 579,149
N. Marianas........................... 234,453 0 0.0 0 0.0 0
Puerto Rico........................... 357,414 357,414 39.7 543,954 60.3 901,368
Virgin Islands........................ 254,889 153,100 58.2 109,889 41.8 262,989
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Totals.......................... 38,584,563 35,513,170 19.4 147,720,047 80.6 183,233,217
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Fiscal year 1994 expenditure information incomplete.
** Federal share includes carryover of prior-year funds.
Ratio of fiscal year 1994 State funds to Federal funds = 4.16/1
Note.--Federal share cannot exceed 50 percent of total expenditures for States; Territories are exempt from
matching share requirement.
Emergency Fund
(Limitation on Permanent Appropriation)
(Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund)
The bill limits obligations from the emergency fund of the
oil spill liability trust fund to no more than $3,000,000 in
fiscal year 1996. The Oil Pollution Act of 1990 established a
$50,000,000 annual permanent appropriation to finance emergency
expenditures without further appropriation. Since the
Committee's proposed allocation of budget authority pursuant to
section 602(b) of the Congressional Budget Act sets aside
$1,500,000,000 just for such emergencies in fiscal year 1996,
and would require no further appropriation, the Committee
believes a separate $50,000,000 annual appropriation is no
longer necessary. The Committee would also note that in only
one of the past five years has the full appropriation been
required, and that without any limitation, the Coast Guard
estimated the emergency fund would have accumulated an
unobligated balance of $90,685,000 by the end of fiscal year
1996.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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 1996. 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 total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal
year 1996 amounts to $8,343,050,000, including a $1,600,000,000
limitation on the use of contract authority. This is
$1,463,492,000 above the President's request level and
$49,173,000 (less than one percent) below the fiscal year 1995
enacted level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year
1995 program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and
the Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Bill compared
------------------------------------ Recommended in with fiscal year
1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill 1996 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations.............................. \1\ $4,595,394,0
00 $4,704,000,000 $4,600,000,000 -$104,000,000
Facilities and equipment................ 2,087,489,000 1,907,847,000 2,000,000,000 +92,153,000
(Rescission)........................ -35,000,000 ................ -60,000,000 -60,000,000
Research, engineering and development... 259,192,000 267,661,000 143,000,000 -124,661,000
Grants-in-aid for airport \2\........... 1,450,000,000 ................
.........\3\ 1,600,000,000 +1,600,000,000
Aircraft purchase loan guarantee program
\4\.................................... 148,000 50,000 50,000 ................
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Total............................. 8,392,223,000 6,879,558,000 8,343,050,000 -36,508,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reduction of $8,904,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards and procurement reform provisions and
transfer of $3,967,700 for consolidated civil rights office not reflected.
\2\ Limitation on obligations.
\3\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment Program (UTIIP).
\4\ Appropriation pursuant to limitation on borrowing authority.
Aviation trust fund spending
The Committee this year has placed a high priority on
ensuring that aviation spending in fiscal year 1996 is at least
equal to the tax receipts going into the airport and airway
trust fund. For many years the Committee was concerned that a
``penalty clause'' in the authorizing statute led to a
continued buildup in the aviation trust fund unobligated
balance.
As is shown in the following graph provided by the General
Accounting Office, the balance in the trust fund was increasing
between fiscal years 1984 and 1990 while this provision was in
effect. The Committee was very pleased in 1990 when the penalty
clause was repealed, because it caused a significant drop in
trust fund unobligated balances. Each year since that time,
spending from the trust fund has been greater than the tax
revenues collected in that year.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Although a provision similar to the penalty clause was
enacted in last year's aviation reauthorization act, making
more difficult the Committee's attempt to spend down the
unobligated balance in the trust fund, the Committee has placed
a priority on trust fund spending this year in order to ensure
aviation users that their tax receipts are being spent in an
efficient manner. The Committee's recommendations for fiscal
year 1996 are estimated to result in total spending (outlays)
from the aviation trust fund of $5,966,792,000 during the
fiscal year. This is $89,792,000 more than estimated trust fund
tax receipts.
Operations
(Including Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
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 research and development program; and (6)
administration of the federal grants-in-aid program for airport
construction.
Committee Recommendations
A breakdown of the fiscal year 1995 enacted level, the
fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and the Committee
recommendation by budget activity is as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Budget activity -----------------------------------------------------
1995 enacted 1996 estimate 1996 recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air
traffic control
system........... $2,200,319,000 $2,228,634,000 $2,220,324,000
NAS logistics
support.......... 175,665,000 185,158,000 186,058,000
Maintenance of ATC
system........... 842,331,000 868,297,000 866,197,000
Leased
telecommunication
s services....... 316,793,000 328,423,000 321,743,000
Aviation
regulation and
certification.... 361,119,000 399,711,000 383,950,000
Aviation standards 108,751,000 111,395,000 108,751,000
Civil aviation
security......... 64,849,000 65,769,000 64,849,000
NAS design and
management....... 54,078,000 53,277,000 45,000,000
Administration of
airports......... 39,299,000 42,173,000 41,530,000
Executive
direction and
management....... 190,270,000 189,216,000 175,000,000
Human resource
management....... 229,964,000 231,947,000 200,005,000
Commercial space
transportation... ................ ................ 5,770,000
Account-wide
adjustments...... ................ ................ -19,177,000
-----------------------------------------------------
Total
appropriati
on......... 4,583,438,000 4,704,000,000 4,600,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The recommended levels include the following adjustments to
the budget estimate:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget Committee Change from
estimate recommended request
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operation of air traffic
control system:
Contract tower
streamlining....... $6,520,000 .............. -$6,520,000
``Quality through
partnership''...... 1,790,000 .............. -1,790,000
NAS logistics support:
Motor fleet, FAA
logistics center... 55,100,000 $52,000,000 -3,100,000
Depot spares........ .............. 4,000,000 +4,000,000
Maintenance of the ATC
system:
Airport movement
area safety system. 2,000,000 .............. -2,000,000
OASIS maintenance... 100,000 .............. -100,000
Leased
telecommunications
services:
Administrative
communications..... 93,607,000 88,927,000 -4,680,000
WECO switch offset.. .............. -2,000,000 -2,000,000
Aviaton regulation and
certification:
Flight stds/
certification
staffing increase.. 9,907,000 4,953,000 -4,954,000
Delete funding for
new data systems... 1,634,000 0 -1,634,000
Hold PCS costs to
fiscal year 1995
level.............. 2,140,000 1,523,000 -617,000
Omega navigation
system............. 8,556,000 0 -8,556,000
Aviation standards:
Hold costs to fiscal
year 1995 level.... 111,395,000 108,751,000 -2,644,000
Civil aviation security:
Hold costs to fiscal
year 1995 level.... 65,769,000 64,849,000 -920,000
NAS design and
management:
Reduction due to
budget constraints. 53,277,000 45,000,000 -8,277,000
Administration of
airports:
Staffing increase... 1,891,000 1,248,000 -643,000
Executive direction and
management:
Staffing reductions. 0 -5,390,000 -5,390,000
Regional public
affairs staffing... 3,055,000 1,008,000 -2,047,000
Additional reduction
due to budget
constraints........ 0 -6,779,000 -6,779,000
Human resource
management:
Labor, personnel &
human relations.... 130,142,000 108,000,000 -22,142,000
Centralized training 100,050,000 90,000,000 -10,050,000
Mid-America Aviation
Resource Consortium 0 250,000 +250,000
Commercial space
transportation:
Transfer from office
of the secretary... \1\ 0 5,770,000 +5,770,000
Account-wide
adjustments:
Administrative
aircraft........... 3,600,000 0 -3,600,000
Society of
automotive
engineers grant.... 105,000 0 -105,000
Overseas personnel
assignments........ N/A -500,000 -500,000
Non-pay inflation... 0 -4,824,000 -4,824,000
Workers'
compensation--hold
to FY95 level...... 0 -1,394,000 -1,394,000
Undistributed....... .............. -8,754,000 -8,754,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\$6,541,000 included in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
Operation Of Air Traffic Control System
The Committee recommends $2,220,324,000 for the operation
of a national system of air traffic control and flight service
facilities. This is $20,005,000 (one percent) above the level
enacted for fiscal year 1995. The operation of these facilities
is designed to assure the safety, reliability and regularity of
flight operations.
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'' (emphasis added). 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, recurring costs of $6,000,000 would be
required in the FAA's annual operating budgets. This provision
is identical to that in effect for fiscal year 1995 and
requested by the administration in the fiscal year 1996
President's budget. In addition, the Committee bill does not
include requested language allowing these funds to be used for
back pay for Sunday premium pay between fiscal years 1988
through 1990, to which the judicial decision was retroactively
applied.
Contract tower streamlining.--The bill deletes the
$6,520,000 requested for the third year of the contract tower
streamlining program. While the Committee continues to strongly
support this program, delays in the program make further
funding unnecessary in fiscal year 1996. Even though funds were
provided for the first 25 towers in October 1993, they were not
put under contract until September 1994. The next 25 will not
be under contract until the end of fiscal year 1996. Given
these delays, the Committee believes additional funds will not
be required until fiscal year 1997.
Quality through partnership.--The bill deletes the
requested funding of $1,790,000 for FAA's ``quality through
partnership'' program. According to the agency, this is a
``cooperative, long range cultural change process which
establishes a team structure for identifying and resolving
issues at the most appropriate level.'' Funds are used to
support hundreds of labor-management teams plus a national
steering committee and nine regional steering committees. While
the Committee agrees some coordination is needed, it would seem
that normal staff meetings and travel budgets (both union and
FAA) could accommodate the necessary level of coordination
without this multimillion dollar effort.
Staffing standards study.--After many years of internal
study, the FAA still does not have a complete understanding of
how many controllers are required at each of its facilities.
The FAA's 1994 review indicated that almost thirty percent of
the agency's field facilities had staffing imbalances of
greater than ten percent, compared to the planning standard.
Last year, the agency stated their planning standards could not
be used for facility planning due to the unique needs of each
facility.
While acknowledging that some facilities have unique
staffing needs, the Committee believes the FAA needs a solid
planning methodology on which to base its staffing, training,
and facility allocation decisions. Without good planning tools,
as the agency downsizes there is a higher likelihood of
situations similar to the emergency situation which occurred
earlier this year at the New York en route center requiring
immediate staffing increases. This problem could become even
more acute with a smaller and possibly less experienced
controller workforce and little or no developmental pipeline
for controllers.
For these reasons, the Committee directs FAA to study the
development of a comprehensive methodology whereby the FAA
could determine the required number of controllers at each of
its facilities. This study is to be conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences, and should be submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than April 15,
1997.
Loran-C.--The Committee has indicated to the FAA in past
years that the agency should take full advantage of the
compatibility of Loran with GPS technology so the substantial
investment made by users in the technology can continue to be
utilized, and so Loran can be used as a cost effective
alternative system to GPS. The Committee has also heard from
every segment of the Loran user community, and there is broad
consensus to continue support and funding for Loran, until it
is determined that satellite technology is available and
reliable as a sole means of safe and efficient air navigation.
The Loran system is established, operationally proven, reliable
and cost effective. The Committee understands there are
currently more than 1.3 million users of Loran, and that total
system infrastructure operation and maintenance costs are
approximately $17,000,000 annually. In view of the favorable
benefits versus costs associated with Loran, and because of the
substantial enhancement it provides to user safety, the
Committee remains convinced that the Federal Government and
users can benefit from the technology well into the next
century.
The Committee last year indicated to the FAA that it might
be necessary for the agency to assume increased funding
responsibility for Loran-C/GPS related initiatives in
conjunction with other elements of DOT. The Committee believes
that some funding responsibility for Loran should be
transferred to the FAA. Therefore, the Committee directs the
FAA to provide a plan, within 120 days of enactment of this
bill, for future funding, upgrading, and support for Loran in
cooperation with other elements of DOT. Moreover, the FAA is
directed to expedite implementation of the automatic blink
system, and the agency should fully support actions to permit
promulgation of Loran non-precision approaches for which funds
have been previously approved. The FAA is also urged to
continue developing GPS approaches which are compatible with
Loran technology, so that full benefit can be gained from both
technologies.
Operational responsibility pay.--Since October 2, 1982, air
traffic controllers and certain other FAA personnel have been
paid an ``operational responsibility'' bonus equivalent to five
percent of base pay. The pay is not mandatory, but subject to
the discretion of the FAA administrator. The legislative
history of this pay indicates Congressional intent that the pay
was provided to reward controllers who did not join in the
illegal air traffic controllers' strike in 1981. The House
budget resolution for fiscal year 1996 assumes the immediate
termination of this pay, arguing that the need for the special
pay has long since passed. The Committee believes that, since
controllers have been receiving this pay for as long as
thirteen years, to terminate the pay at this time would result
in a five percent reduction in the take home pay of critical
safety personnel. Therefore, the Committee bill provides full
funding for this pay in fiscal year 1996. However, fully
funding this $88,600,000 program has required difficult
reductions in other parts of the FAA operating budget.
nas logistics support
The Committee recommends $186,058,000 for logistics support
of the national airspace system, an increase of $10,393,000
(5.9 percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This
activity funds the acquisition of spare parts and repair
services, agency-wide acquisition and contract administration
staff, and other related logistics activities.
FAA logistics center motor fleet.--The recommendation holds
costs for the FAA logistics center motor fleet to slightly
below the fiscal year 1995 funding level. The President's
budget proposed an increase from $52,400,000 in fiscal year
1995 to $55,100,000 in fiscal year 1996. The Committee believes
that given a smaller workforce than assumed in the President's
budget, holding the line on these administrative costs is
reasonable. This results in savings from the budget estimate of
$3,100,000.
Depot spares.--This year, FAA and departmental officials
described ``horror stories'' and provided statistics of aging
equipment, power outages, and long repair times. At the same
time these cases are occurring, the FAA is sending increased
amounts of new equipment to the field which also require spare
parts. Given these circumstances, the Committee finds it
curious that the FAA continues to reduce their logistics
center's internal budget requests for spare parts, which may be
contributing to the horror stories. The following table
compares internal budget requests for spare parts of the
logistics center to final allocations by the FAA:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Request Allowance Difference
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1992.................. $80,710,000 $64,894,000 -$15,816,000
1993.................. 95,371,000 64,647,000 -30,724,000
1994.................. 117,288,000 75,465,000 -41,823,000
1995.................. 114,786,000 74,507,000 -40,279,000
1996.................. 96,791,000 82,328,000 -14,463,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee believes that maintaining the existing system
at a high state of readiness and availability is critical until
new, less maintenance-intensive systems are commissioned. For
this reason, the Committee bill includes $86,328,000 for depot
spares, an increase of $4,000,000 above the budget request but
still $10,463,000 (10.8 percent) below the logistics center's
requirement for fiscal year 1996. This provides a modest
improvement in addressing the existing spare parts shortfall.
Maintenance Of Air Traffic Control System
The Committee recommends $866,197,000 for maintenance of
the air traffic control system, an increase of $23,866,000 (2.8
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This budget
activity finances the field maintenance workforce, engineering
support, and planning, direction and evaluation activities. The
recommendation includes reductions to the budget request for
maintenance of the airport movement area safety system (-
$2,000,000) and the operability and support implementation
system (-$100,000). Current development and production
schedules for those systems do not support a request for
maintenance funds in fiscal year 1996.
Leased Telecommunications Services
The Committee recommends $321,743,000 for leased
telecommunications services, an increase of $4,950,000 (1.6
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. The
recommendation includes a reduction of five percent, compared
to the fiscal year 1995 level, in funding for administrative
telecommunications. The Committee believes this can be
accommodated with little impact, given the need to reduce
overhead costs and fully consider the effect of a smaller FAA
workforce. In addition, the bill includes a $2,000,000
reduction from the budget request to reflect an unbudgeted
receipt of funds from a court case involving fraud in the
procurement of WECO switches. The FAA was recently awarded a
settlement of $13,900,000 from the contractor in this case. A
portion of these funds were to be applied to fiscal year 1996
budget requirements for telecommunications. Given these
additional funds, the Committee believes a reduction can be
made in this area without impact.
Aviation Regulation And Certification
The Committee recommends $383,950,000 for aviation
regulation and certification activities, an increase of
$22,831,000 (6.3 percent) above the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level. The President's budget requested $399,711,000, an
increase of $38,592,000 (10.7 percent).
Flight standards and certification staffing.--The
President's budget proposed a large increase in staffing for
flight standards and certification--261 new full time positions
and 131 staff years at a fiscal year 1996 cost of $9,907,000.
While the Committee supports the need for greater staffing in
this safety-related area, the proposed increase for fiscal year
1996 is too great for a single fiscal year. In addition,
positions added in fiscal year 1995 have not all been filled
due to overall staffing ceilings within the administration. The
Committee recommendation provides an increase of 65 staff years
rather than 131.
New data systems.--The recommendation deletes funds for two
new data management systems: the Airmen Certification Rating
Application System (-$875,000) and the Data Management
Administration System (-$759,000) due to budget constraints.
Permanent change of station moves.--The bill holds these
costs of the fiscal year 1995 level due to budget constraints.
OMEGA navigation system.--The bill deletes funds to
continue operation and maintenance of the OMEGA navigation
system, a savings of $8,556,000 from the budget request.
According to the Federal Radionavigation Plan, there are only
22,500 users of this system worldwide, only 14,000 of which are
attributable to air navigation. Supporting such a high cost
system for so few users is no longer affordable. The Committee
believes this program could be continued through user fees, if
deemed essential to the user community.
aviation standards
The Committee recommends $108,751,000 for aviation
standards, the same amount as the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level and $2,644,000 (2.3 percent) below the budget request.
Aeronautical charting.--The Committee understands the FAA
is currently exploring the possibility of assuming
responsibility from the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) of producing and distributing
aeronautical charts. It appears the FAA may be able to perform
this function more efficiently and cost-effectively than NOAA.
The Committee understands that NOAA is amenable to such an
arrangement and is involved in the discussions. The Committee
encourages these discussions, and looks forward to working with
FAA on development of a final proposal.
civil aviation security
The Committee recommends $64,849,000 for civil aviation
security, the same amount as the fiscal year 1995 enacted level
and $920,000 (1.4 percent) below the budget request.
nas design and management
The Committee recommends $45,000,000 for design and
management of the national airspace system, a decrease of
$9,078,000 from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This
activity provides oversight and planning for the research,
engineering, and development (RE&D) and facilities and
equipment (F&E) appropriations. The Committee is proposing a
sharp reduction in this administrative account in order to
continue funding the five percent air traffic revitalization
bonus pay and to provide the highest possible funding levels
for air traffic controllers, safety inspectors, and system
maintenance. The Committee believes that the effect of this
reduction could be mitigated through more effective utilization
of FAA's network of technical support contractors.
administration of airports
The Committee recommends $41,530,000 for administration of
airports, an increase of $2,231,000 (5.7 percent) above the
fiscal year 1995 enacted level and a reduction of $643,000 from
the budget request. The bill includes 20 new positions for
airport inspection, 10 new positions for compliance, and 3 new
positions for management improvements. In total, the
recommendation provides more than half of the proposed increase
of 50 new positions, and focuses on staff needed for airport
inspections (which is mostly safety-related) and compliance
issues including illegal revenue diversion.
Atlantic City International Airport.--Of the funds provided
for operating expenses of the FAA, the Committee expects FAA to
continue its contribution for fire fighting and emergency
services at the Atlantic City International Airport, either
alone or in conjunction with the New Jersey Guard.
EXECUTIVE DIRECTION AND MANAGEMENT
The Committee recommends $175,000,000 for executive
direction and management, reductions of $14,216,000 from the
budget request and $15,270,000 from the fiscal year 1995
enacted level. A reduction in this overhead account is needed
to continue funding the five percent bonus pay for air traffic
controllers.
Staffing levels.--The Committee has reviewed staffing
levels in several headquarters offices, and believes that
opportunities for streamlining exist. The bill includes a
reduction of $5,390,000 to reduce staffing in the following
offices:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY95
Office enacted FY96estimate FY96recommended Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chief counsel.. 129 131 125 -6
Government and
industry
affairs....... 12 11 10 -1
Information
technology.... 92 86 75 -11
Public affairs. 33 32 10 -22
Accounting..... 73 74 72 -2
Policy,
planning and
international. 38 38 25 -13
Policy, plans,
management
analysis...... 76 74 60 -14
International
aviation...... 28 28 25 -3
Air traffic
system
management.... 194 190 187 -3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regional public affairs offices.--Currently, the FAA
regional offices have 38 public affairs staff, in addition to
the 33 in headquarters. Given budget constraints, this level of
staffing in the regions seems excessive. The Committee
recommends only 13 regional public affairs staff.
Additional reduction due to budget constraints.--The bill
includes an additional reduction in this activity of $6,779,000
due to budget constraints and the higher priority accorded to
first line operational positions in air traffic and field
maintenance.
human resource management
The Committee recommends $200,005,000, a decrease of
$29,959,000 (13 percent) from the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level.
Labor, personnel and human relations.--The bill includes
$108,000,000, a reduction of $22,142,000 from the budget
estimate. According to the justification material, much of this
funding is for organizational development teams and for labor
relations work. While the Committee is generally supportive of
such work in moderation, an annual budget of $130,142,000
appears excessive. The recommendation reduces the request by 17
percent.
Centralized training.--As previously discussed in an
earlier section of this report, the FAA has come under severe
criticism this year for mismanagement of its training program.
Several top executives in charge of training have recently left
the agency. In fact, the entire human resource organization
appears to be in disarray at this time. The General Accounting
Office testified that the management training budget should be
scrutinized very heavily as a result of the criticisms and weak
management. Given the concerns this year about training in the
FAA and the uncertain direction of that training within the
agency, a significant reduction in the $15,490,000 requested
for management training seems in order. In addition, a portion
of this reduction should be allocated against program
administration training (budgeted at $8,672,000). The Committee
recommends no reduction in training for regulatory standards
and compliance inspectors, based on GAO testimony that these
staff are ill-equipped at the present time to carry out their
safety inspection responsibilities due to insufficient
training. The Committee recommends $90,000,000 for training, a
reduction of $10,050,000 (10 percent) from the budget request.
Implementation of IG recommendations.--The Committee
directs the FAA administrator to submit reports, on a quarterly
basis, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations,
regarding the agency's implementation of IG recommendations in
the FAA training investigation recently completed. These
reports should be submitted until further notice.
Mid-American Aviation Resource Consortium.--The Committee
expects the FAA to continue the agency's commitment to the Mid-
American Aviation Resource Consortium in Minnesota and has
included $250,000 for this purpose. These funds are to be used
in Minnesota to support the air traffic controller training
program and to continue research for the FAA.
office of commercial space transportation
The Committee recommends $5,770,000 for operations of, and
research by, the office of commercial space transportation.
This office is currently part of the office of the secretary of
transportation. The Committee believes the office would more
effectively serve its customers, and streamline the OST
organization, if it were relocated to the FAA. The office is
authorized as a part of DOT, but not under any particular mode
or organization.
The recommended level represents a reduction of $290,000
(4.8 percent) from the fiscal year 1995 enacted level. This
level is sufficient to finance the additional 4 staff years
provided in fiscal year 1995. Recommended adjustments to the
budget request are as follows: (a) hold travel to the fiscal
year 1995 level (-$45,000); (b) reduce funding for contract
programs (-$666,000); and (c) delete funds for fostering
competition and industry viability, an activity opposed by the
Committee in past years and one more appropriately conducted by
the private sector (-$60,000).
account-wide adjustments
Administrative aircraft.--The bill reduces the budget
request by $3,600,000 based on an Inspector General audit
indicating significant savings if the FAA were to dispose of
six administrative aircraft, based in the regions, which are
not required for FAA missions. Given the emphasis this year on
reducing unnecessary overhead and administrative costs, the
Committee accepts the IG recommendation, and requires the FAA
to dispose of these six aircraft.
Society of automotive engineers grant.--The recommendation
terminates funding for this small research grant due to budget
constraints, for a savings of $105,000.
Overseas personnel.--The FAA currently has 208 personnel
assigned around the world. While the Committee understands that
the FAA requires overseas personnel in order to carry out its
missions, these assignments are very costly, given the high
cost of living in many countries, and should be heavily
scrutinized. The Committee believes that such scrutiny will
result in fewer overseas assignments, and assumes savings from
that review.
Non-pay inflation.--Consistent with action in other parts
of the bill, the recommendation allows a 1.5-percent increase
for non-pay inflation. The FAA budget requested 2.0 percent.
The recommendation results in savings of $4,824,000.
Workers' compensation.--The recommendation holds these
costs to the fiscal year 1995 level. In addition, the bill
includes a new department-wide general provision restricting
funds for workers' compensation in fiscal year 1996, resulting
in significant additional savings for the FAA. This is
discussed under ``OST general provisions.'' The Committee also
directs the FAA to set aside and reserve no less than 30 staff
years for the purpose of offering employees currently on
workers' compensation a working position back in the agency.
The Committee has encouraged such action for two years now, and
continues to believe that reform in this area would reduce
costs.
Undistributed.--The recommendation includes a reduction of
$8,754,000 due to budget constraints. The administrator is
accorded the flexibility to allocate this reduction.
Second career training program.--The Committee has included
language carried for many years prohibiting the use of funds
for the second career training program.
general provisions
Passenger manifests.--The bill continues the limitation
(Sec. 319) contained in previous appropriations Acts
prohibiting the Department of Transportation from issuing a
final rule on an international passenger manifest program that
only applies to U.S. carriers. The Department has issued an
advance notice of proposed rulemaking which would require U.S.
airlines to compile manifests for international flights that
include the name of the passenger, the name of a next of kin
and an emergency contact number. The Committee believes that if
the Department anticipates that this regulation will be
beneficial to U.S. citizens flying internationally, then it
should apply to both U.S. and foreign flag carriers. The
Committee believes that imposing such a regulation only on U.S.
airlines could provide a competitive advantage to foreign flag
carriers that will not have to bear the costs associated with
implementation of the regulation or cope with the operational
irregularities and passenger inconvenience resulting from
passengers being confronted with the requirement to confirm
this additional information prior to boarding international
flights.
O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill continues the
general provision (Sec. 323) enacted in fiscal year 1995 which
prohibits funding to implement or enforce regulations that
would result in slot allocations for international operations
to any carrier at O'Hare Airport in excess of the number of
slots allocated to and scheduled by that carrier as of the
first day of the 1993-1994 winter season, if that international
slot is withdrawn from an air carrier under existing
regulations for slot withdrawals. Since slots are all
reallocated at the beginning of the winter season, it is
believed that the FAA can easily implement the provision. The
following definitions continue to apply to this provision: (a)
``air carrier'' shall be as defined in section 1301(3) of title
49 of the U.S. Code App.; (b) ``foreign air carrier'' shall be
as defined in section 1301(22) of title 49 of the U.S. Code
App.; and (c) ``slot'' shall be defined as the operational
authority to conduct instrument flight rule takeoffs and
landings as further regulated in subparts K and S of part 93 of
title 14 of the code of federal regulations.
Facilities and Equipment
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $2,087,489,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 1,907,847,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 2,000,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -87,489,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... +92,153,000
This account is the principal means for modernizing and
improving air traffic control and airway facilities. This
account 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 $2,000,000,000
for this program, which represents a decrease of $87,489,000
(4.2 percent) below the level provided in fiscal year 1995. The
President's budget proposed $1,907,847,000, a decrease of
$179,642,000 (8.6 percent). The bill provides that of the total
amount recommended, $1,784,000,000 is available for obligation
until September 30, 1998, and $216,000,000 (the amount for
personnel and related expenses) is available until September
30, 1996. These obligation availabilities are consistent with
past appropriations Acts.
The following chart shows the fiscal year 1995 enacted
level, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation for each of the projects funded by this
appropriation:
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
additional funds for safety and capacity enhancement programs
The bill includes a total of $229,917,000, above the budget
estimate, for new systems, and associated site preparation and
installation, to improve aviation safety and airway capacity
around the country through rapid commissioning of new air
traffic control systems, advanced computers, and state-of-the-
art communication systems.
In setting priorities for this bill, the Committee has
placed the strongest emphasis on maintaining, and improving
wherever possible, transportation safety around the nation.
Because of significant concerns over the past year regarding
the state of aviation safety, the Committee feels strongly that
additional funding emphasis should be placed on new safety-
related equipment. Among other things, this equipment will
provide controllers, pilots, and airline dispatchers a more
accurate and up-to-date understanding of dangerous weather
conditions and provide a clearer picture and automated alerting
of potential conflicts between aircraft maneuvering on airport
surfaces.
The Committee wishes to emphasize that almost a quarter of
a billion dollars is being added above the administration's
request to improve and promote aviation safety around this
country. By contrast, the FAA proposed a significant
reduction--8.6 percent--in this critical safety appropriation.
The Committee directs the FAA to pursue these improvements
aggressively as a high priority. While the administration has
proposed an air traffic control corporation to help resolve
problems in FAA acquisition and personnel management, the
Committee held a special hearing on the subject this year and
determined that such a proposal has yet to win the support of
any major segment of the aviation industry, including airlines
and the general aviation community. Significant concerns were
raised in that hearing about the detrimental effect such a
change could have on aviation safety.
The Committee believes the status quo is unacceptable. The
Committee agrees that FAA reform is essential, and believes
effective reform could be achieved if the FAA and the
administration were to pursue aggressively exemption from the
existing procurement and personnel laws and strongly work for
an independent FAA, rather than a government corporation. The
Committee hopes the FAA will field these Congressionally-added
systems as soon as possible, and place a higher priority on
safety-related equipment in future acquisition budget requests.
In addition, the Committee has placed a high priority on
capital investment in this bill, and sought to maximize the
return to users from their aviation taxes going into the
airport and airway trust fund. The Committee received testimony
from administration officials this year indicating that the air
traffic control system is becoming increasingly debilitated by
old, antiquated equipment. While much of the old equipment is
scheduled for replacement over the next two or three years with
systems already under contract, the Committee's recommended
funding level would accelerate efforts to revitalize the
technological state of the ATC system in this country.
The programs for which the Committee recommends additional
funding, and the associated increases above requested levels,
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program Main purpose Added funding
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aviation weather products Safety & capacity...... $12,400,000
generator.
Aeronautical data link...... Capacity............... 12,400,000
Terminal area surveillance Safety................. 5,800,000
system (TASS).
En route center building Capacity............... 17,000,000
improvements.
Terminal ATC automation..... Capacity & safety...... 22,600,000
Terminal doppler weather Safety................. 42,500,000
radar.
Terminal voice switch Safety................. 7,000,000
replacement.
Low cost surface detection Safety................. 8,000,000
radar (ASDE).
Loop technology for surface Safety................. 2,000,000
detection.
Northern California Capacity............... 10,000,000
metroplex.
Atlanta metroplex........... Capacity............... 10,000,000
Airport movement areas Safety................. 20,000,000
safety system (AMASS).
Instrument landing systems.. Capacity............... 3,500,000
Runway visual range Capacity............... 7,000,000
equipment.
Low level windshear alert Safety................. 14,000,000
system.
Day care facilities......... Employee............... 2,600,000
Airport/aircraft safety Safety................. 10,000,000
equipment.
Transition engineering Safety & capacity...... 10,000,000
support.
Program support leases...... Safety & capacity...... 4,117,000
Acquisition and installation Safety & capacity...... 9,000,000
personnel.
------------------
Total................. ....................... 229,917,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
engineering development, test, and evaluation
The Committee recommends $475,700,000 for engineering
development, test, and evaluation activities.
Aviation weather services improvements.--The Committee
recommends $26,100,000, an increase of $12,400,000 above the
budget request. The additional funding is intended to restore
funds for the aviation weather products generator (AWPG)
project. The AWPG project will provide high resolution
graphical images of severe weather conditions. Last year, the
FAA described this project as necessary for improved weather
hazard forecasting in such conditions as icing, turbulence,
severe storms, microbursts, and high winds. It will improve
safety as well as airway capacity and route planning for
airlines. The Committee does not believe a program with
benefits such as these should be terminated, as the President's
budget suggests.
En route automation.--The reduction of $60,700,000 reflects
contract savings in the display system replacement project
(-$55,700,000) and a programmatic reduction in advanced en
route automation (AERA) (-$5,000,000). The recommendation
reduces AERA funding from $38,300,000 to $33,300,000 in fiscal
year 1996. The project was funded at $12,000,000 in fiscal year
1995.
Aeronautical data link.--The recommendation increases
funding from $23,800,000 in fiscal year 1995 to $27,400,000 in
fiscal year 1996 and retains funding under this budget
activity. The President's budget proposed $15,000,000 under the
procurement budget activity. The Committee's review indicates
this program is still in engineering development, and should be
accelerated due to the benefits it offers to aviation users.
Terminal area surveillance system (TASS).--The
recommendation includes $5,800,000 to continue development of
the terminal area surveillance system (TASS). This system is
designed to detect and help direct aircraft around hazardous
conditions such as windshear and wake vortices. Given the
safety-related nature of this program and its strong
operational requirement, the Committee believes this important
program should be continued. The budget proposed termination
due to budget constraints.
Technical center facilities.--The Committee recommendation
consolidates funding for improvements at the FAA Technical
Center from six separate budget lines to a single line, for
simplicity and budgetary flexibility. Budget items 1E02 through
1E07 have been consolidated into the single line 1E06, entitled
``Technical center facilities''.
Evaluation of innovative deicing technology.--The Committee
is aware of the FAA's recent evaluation of innovative aircraft
deicing technology utilizing gas-fired infrared heating units
in a wind-resistant, nonflammable fabric shelter. This full-
scale evaluation, conducted at the Greater Buffalo
International Airport, demonstrated the capability of such a
system for cost effective deicing without the adverse
environmental problems associated with traditional glycol
treatments. The Committee understands that further testing of
this system is planned for the upcoming winter. The Committee
believes that this technology warrants further exploration, and
directs the FAA to provide a full report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 15, 1996 on the
results of testing and the agency's plans to authorize airport
grant funding or passenger facility charges to enable airports
to procure such a system.
air traffic control facilities and equipment
Improvement of ATC en route radar facilities.--The
Committee recommends a reduction of $5,900,000 in the budget
request for this program due to weak justification and a large
unobligated balance of prior year funds.
Air route traffic control center (ARTCC) building
improvements.--The Committee has included $17,000,000 above the
budget request to provide the additional funding needed to meet
the revised schedule for fielding of the display system
replacement (DSR). Without increased funding to renovate ARTCC
facilities in Atlanta, Fort Worth, Oakland, and Leesburg, the
schedule for DSR is likely to slip.
Voice switching and control system (VSCS).--The
recommendation reduces the requested funding by $6,600,000. The
reduction is to be allocated as follows: (a) engineering
support for maintenance (-$1,500,000); (b) program management
(-$3,000,000); (c) airway facilities training (-$1,000,000);
and (d) technical services (-$1,100,000).
Traffic flow management.--The recommendation defers funding
for a new project called traffic management system--sustain
(-$10,800,000) and uses a portion of those savings to
accelerate full scale development contract award for the
center/TRACON automation system (CTAS) (+$7,000,000). The CTAS
project will provide critical capacity benefits. Because of its
priority, the Committee believes the work should be put on a
fast track, even if such action requires reduction in lower
priority activities. In addition, the recommendation increases
development funds for terminal air traffic control automation
activities by $15,600,000.
Critical telecommunications support.--The recommendation
deletes funds for this project due to its low priority and
large unobligated balance of prior year funding.
Terminal doppler weather radar (TDWR).--The Committee
believes that production for this important safety radar system
has been prematurely cut off in the FAA budget request,
particularly given the recent finding of the National
Transportation Safety Board citing windshear as a contributing
factor in last year's tragic aviation accident in Charlotte,
North Carolina. The FAA originally established a requirement
for 102 TDWR systems, and to date only 47 have been purchased.
Given the existing requirements which remain unaddressed, the
Committee recommends $40,000,000 in fiscal year 1996 for
acquisition of 5 TDWR systems. In addition, the Committee has
provided $2,500,000 not included in the President's budget to
complete installation of the doppler radar in Las Vegas,
Nevada, and to conduct the environmental assessment for the
proposed Floyd Bennett Field site in New York City. The
increases are needed to allow timely implementation of this
safety equipment at those locations. Wind shear remains the
primary weather-related threat to airline safety. The FAA has
identified 102 U.S. airports that have significant risks from
wind shear (severe weather exposure). The Committee recommends
that the FAA give priority to those airports at the greatest
risk of wind shear (severe weather exposure) in the
installation of additional units.
Terminal automation.--The Committee strongly supports
continued development of the FAA's standard terminal automation
replacement system (STARS), and has recommended the full amount
of the administration's request for fiscal year 1996. This
program is a critical component of the FAA's modernization
program because without it, users of the air traffic control
system will not be able to make full use of advances in
automation and GPS technology. The STARS program is also a
model procurement that reflects the painful and expensive
lessons the FAA has learned during the past decade. The program
manages risk by transferring development responsibility to
industry, reduces costs by seeking off the shelf technology
wherever possible, and requires ``fly before you buy'' proof
from companies wishing to bid. The Committee believes the FAA
has, in this program, set realistic and achievable program
schedules and cost estimates. The Committee believes that a
fair competition among qualified bidders is essential to the
STARS acquisition plan. The Committee expects the FAA to
proceed with a STARS competition among qualified bidders and
take no actions on other projects, such as performance
enhancements for systems currently in use, which would have the
effect of giving one contractor an advantage over others.
The recommended funding level for terminal automation
provides no funds for a prime contract for the digital BRITE
(DBRITE) display system. This project has undergone significant
delays, with funds as far back as fiscal year 1993 still not
yet obligated. In addition, the Committee believes the benefit-
cost justification for these systems is inaccurate and needs to
be reviewed with more attention to quantitative analysis before
further funds are requested. Since 57 units are planned for
procurement using the earlier appropriations later this year,
it is apparent the manufacturing base will be sustained through
fiscal year 1996. The Committee will consider additional
funding next year pending stronger justification for their
procurement.
Reprogramming for Windsor Locks, CT air traffic control
facilities.--The Committee approves the department's request to
reprogram $2,800,000 to begin construction of a new terminal
radar approach control (TRACON) facility at Bradley
International Airport in Windsor Locks, Connecticut.
Airport movement areas safety system (AMASS).--Given this
program's importance to aviation safety, the strong support of
the National Transportation Safety Board, and recent calls for
accelerated fielding by the FAA Safety Summit, the Committee
recommendation includes an additional $20,000,000 for AMASS
systems. The recommended level includes AMASS systems for
airports in the following locations:
Philadelphia, PA
Seattle, WA
Denver, CO (2 systems)
Anchorage, AK
Miami, FL
Cleveland, OH
Dallas/Ft. Worth, TX
San Francisco, CA
Kansas City, MO
Memphis, TN
Remote maintenance monitoring system (RMMS).--This project,
funded at $12,500,000 in the budget request, would develop and
procure near-term up-grades to the existing RMMS systems.
However, the FAA budget also includes funds to study a new,
replacement system for RMMS. Since, according to the
justifications, the replacement system is to be purchased
``off-the-shelf'', the Committee is not convinced that funds to
develop improvements to the existing system are needed. Instead
of pursing both alternatives, the FAA should expeditiously
procure the off-the-shelf replacement in lieu of upgrades. This
termination results in savings of $12,500,000.
Terminal air traffic control facility replacement.--The
Committee recommends $60,400,000, to be distributed as follows:
Merrill, AK............................................. $1,018,600
Oakland, CA............................................. 2,425,400
St. Louis TRACON........................................ 2,380,000
Manchester, NH.......................................... 938,000
Albany, NY.............................................. 648,000
Birmingham, AL.......................................... 409,000
Islip, NY............................................... 354,400
Kansas City, MO......................................... 10,600,000
Vero Beach, FL.......................................... 326,000
Santa Barbara, CA....................................... 2,000,000
Little Rock, AR......................................... 5,980,100
Covington, KY........................................... 6,500,000
Salina, KS.............................................. 1,144,100
Newport News, VA........................................ 721,200
Salt Lake City TRACON, UT............................... 1,900,000
Roanoke, VA............................................. 1,939,300
Everett, WA............................................. 928,700
Champaign, IL........................................... 402,000
Grand Canyon, AZ........................................ 212,000
Dallas (Addison), TX.................................... 3,693,700
Port Columbus, OH....................................... 2,457,500
Fort Lauderdale (Executive), FL......................... 1,701,800
San Angelo, TX.......................................... 1,838,800
Bedford, MA............................................. 323,000
Corpus Christi, TX...................................... 612,000
Seattle, WA............................................. 786,000
New York (LaGuardia), NY................................ 1,000,000
St Louis (Control Tower), MO............................ 5,600,000
Kansas City (ASDE), MO.................................. 552,900
Newark, NJ.............................................. 1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 60,400,000
Terminal voice switch replacement (TVSR).--The Committee
believes contract award for the enhanced terminal voice
switch--the large communications switch for TRACON facilities--
should be accelerated, given the increased frequency of outages
and the criticality of good communications between air traffic
controllers and pilots. The recommendation includes an
additional $7,000,000 to accelerate award of this contract.
Airport surface detection equipment (ASDE)-3.--The ASDE-3
radar system detects potential aircraft conflicts on the
airport surface. Because of the safety improvements offered by
this system and the strong support of the NTSB, Congress added
funds at the initiative of this Committee in fiscal year 1993
to purchase an additional ten ASDE-3 systems. Over the next two
years, however, FAA mismanagement has lessened the
attractiveness of this procurement. For example, FAA's
inability to sign the new contract in a timely manner caused a
break in the production line and higher costs, so that now only
six systems can be procured for the cost originally estimated
for ten. In addition, the FAA's benefit-cost analysis for
additional systems utilized an inappropriate discount rate.
When this was discovered--after funding had been provided--the
agency declared that, contrary to earlier information, no
additional site met benefit-cost criteria. Despite these
problems, the Committee continues to believe that these systems
would improve safety, and encourages the FAA to locate these
systems at the most cost beneficial sites as soon as possible.
Low-cost ASDE and inductive loop technologies.--Because of
the high cost of the existing ASDE-3 systems and the strong
safety requirement, the Committee believes the FAA should
explore lower cost surface detection technology solutions for
airports not scheduled to receive ASDE equipment. The bill
includes $8,000,000 for initial development of a low-cost ASDE
radar system and $2,000,000 to examine inductive loop
technology for surface detection. The objective of the
inductive loop technology program is to provide a prototype
system that will classify, track, and record aircraft and
ground vehicle movement on taxiways and runways. The prototype
system should include: (a) at least 150 inductive loop sensors;
(b) a short range sensor; (c) a system that automatically
provides incursion prevention alerts along with positional
information of aircraft and ground vehicles; and (d) provision
of data to a central site from all sensors and computer
hardware and displays. It is expected that data will be
collected from the prototype system to train neural networks to
detect and classify over 100 commercial aircraft, general
aviation aircraft, and ground vehicles.
The Committee is aware that General Mitchell International
Airport in Milwaukee, Wisconsin is being considered by the
Federal Aviation Administration as a test site for new low cost
ground radar equipment. The Committee supports and encourages
the FAA to use General Mitchell International Airport as a test
site for this ground radar equipment.
Facility consolidation.--The Committee has, for several
years, encouraged the FAA toward greater airspace utilization
and resource efficiencies through facility consolidation. The
current budget request makes steps in that direction, but at a
very slow pace. The Committee believes that, given budget
projections for future years, the FAA needs to accelerate this
program, to realize those budget savings and deliver
operational benefits to users on a faster timetable. The bill
therefore includes $10,000,000 each for new metroplex control
facilities in northern California and Atlanta, Georgia. Both of
these facilities were funded in fiscal year 1995, but had
funding deferred in the fiscal year 1996 budget request.
Integrated network management system.--The Committee is not
convinced this new program will be affordable in the outyears,
and therefore recommends no funding for fiscal year 1996.
Automated surface observing system (ASOS).--The joint
program of the FAA and the National Weather Service to provide
ASOS systems has not met its objectives for commissioning new
sites. The Committee is aware that numerous problems have been
reported with the equipment and its installation. The Committee
therefore directs FAA to explore alternatives to this program,
including investigating whether ASOS is the most appropriate
technology for all present and planned sites and whether more
cost-effective, yet functionally compatible, systems are
available. The FAA is directed to report to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than January 1,
1996 on the alternatives available and the steps the agency
plans to take to resolve the technical and installation
problems associated with this program.
Establishment of instrument landing systems (ILS).--The
Committee recommendation includes the $30,000,000 in the budget
request and $3,500,000 for a category II ILS to be installed in
Rockford, Illinois. The FAA validated a requirement for this
system due to changes in air traffic at that location, and was
planning to reprogram funds for this purpose. Because
rescissions of unobligated funds in this bill and previous Acts
lower significantly the FAA's funds available for
reprogramming, the Committee believes additional funding is
warranted so that the requirement at this airport will not be
delayed. The bill includes funding for the following systems:
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Category III ILS with ALSF-2) (34R)
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX (Category III ILS with ALSF-2) (16L)
St. Louis, MO (Category III ILS with ALSF-2/DME/RVR) (14R)
Atlanta, GA (Category III ILS with ALSF-2/DME/RVR) (27)
Rockford, IL (Category II ILS) (7/25)
Low level windshear alert system (LLWAS).--The bill
includes the $1,000,000 requested in the budget estimate and,
in addition, $14,000,000 to accelerate procurement and
installation of new equipment and upgraded LLWAS sensors at
high density airports. This is a safety radar system which
detects and alerts against dangerous windshear conditions
similar to that implicated in the 1994 aviation accident in
Charlotte, North Carolina. The Committee places a high priority
on improving safety at airports across the nation, and this
system is an important component of that effort.
Sites receiving funds in this bill for enhanced LLWAS
equipment or antenna pole replacement or relocation are as
follows:
Adams Field, Little Rock, AR
Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood Airport, Fort Lauderdale, FL
Luis Munoz Marin International, San Juan, PR
John F. Kennedy International, New York, NY
Mueller Airport, Austin, TX
Tucson International, Tucson, AZ
Lubbock International, Lubbock, TX
El Paso International, El Paso, TX
San Antonio International, San Antonio, TX
Sarasota/Bradenton International, Sarasota, FL
Los Angeles International (LAX), Los Angeles, CA
Bradley International, Windsor Locks, CT
Birmingham International, Birmingham, AL
Honolulu International, Honolulu, HI
Buffalo International, Buffalo, NY
Jacksonville International, Jacksonville, FL
Rochester International, Rochester, NY
Hancock International, Syracuse, NY
Des Moines International, Des Moines, IA
Daytona Beach Regional, Daytona Beach, FL
Piedmont Triad International, Greensboro, NC
Richmond International, Richmond, VA
Norfolk International, Norfolk, VA
Dane County Regional, Madison, WI
Charleston International, Charleston, SC
Kent County International, Grand Rapids, MI
Albany County Airport, Albany, NY
Huntsville International, Huntsville, AL
Mobile Regional, Mobile, AL
Dannelly Field, Montgomery, AL
Localizer directional aid, Santa Monica airport.--The
Committee is concerned about the FAA's plans to reinstall a
localizer directional aid (LDA) at the Santa Monica Airport in
California. The LDA would replace a previously existing
facility installed in June 1992 and damaged during the January
1994 Northridge earthquake. There is concern in the adjacent
communities that the FAA did not adequately address noise,
environmental, social and economic impacts during the initial
placement of this facility. Following completion of the
environmental impact statement, the Committee instructs the FAA
to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations
on the potential impacts of the LDA, and the mitigation that
would be required to address the concerns of the communities.
Further, the Committee instructs the FAA to delay any
installation of the LDA until at least a six month period
following issuance of the report, in order for Congress to
examine the report thoroughly.
Runway visual range (RVR).--The recommendation includes an
additional $7,000,000 to procure runway visual range equipment.
Suspending operations at a major airport due to loss of the RVR
can cost aviation system users as much as $1,000,000 per hour.
The new RVR system is not as susceptible to outages due to
weather, resulting in far less down time and substantial
benefits to users.
Fuel storage tanks.--The recommendation reduces these costs
to $9,400,000 in order to fund higher priority activities.
Local projects and air navigation facilities/air traffic
control support.--The Committee deletes funding for these
projects due to weak justification and the need to fund
specific safety-related equipment. These two reductions total
$7,000,000.
NAS management automation program (NASMAP).--The
recommendation defers further funding for this poorly justified
new management information system, saving $2,000,000 from the
budget estimate.
Child care facilities.--According to the FAA, there are
still seven en route centers without a day care center. Two of
these are included in the President's budget. The Committee
recommendation funds four new centers rather than two, an
increase of $2,600,000 above the budget request.
Airport/aircraft security equipment.--The bill includes
$10,000,000 to procure, install and test prototype aviation
security equipment at airports and advanced hardened containers
for aircraft. These items have been under development for
several years, and the Committee has information indicating
their readiness for prototyping at this time.
Mission Support
Program support leases.--The Committee recommends
$31,117,000 for this project in fiscal year 1996.
Transition engineering support.--Given the importance of
fielding new ATC equipment as rapidly as possible, and
departmental testimony that system outages are occurring with
increasing frequency, the Committee believes this is a high
priority for additional funding and questions internal budget
decisions in the department which reduced the funding by over
$10,000,000. The Committee recommendation restores $10,000,000
above the budget request to ensure that new equipment is
installed and commissioned in a timely manner.
System architecture.--The recommendation provides the same
funding level as provided for fiscal year 1995.
Technical services support contract.--The Committee does
not believe the ``resource tracking program'' is appropriate
for this budget line, since it is not part of the TSSC
contract, but a general management tool for the appropriation.
Pending stronger justification for this activity, the Committee
recommends no funding, a reduction of $1,000,000 from the
budget request.
Financial control baseline notices.--The FAA is directed to
submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations a
copy of each F&E financial control baseline notice as it is
approved by the agency.
personnel and related expenses
The Committee recommends $216,000,000, an increase of
$7,500,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 1995. This
subaccount provides funding for salaries and benefits for those
government personnel involved in managing, overseeing, and
installing new equipment and facility construction. The
increase of $9,000,000 above the budget estimate is provided
specifically for field support, and will enable installation
and commissioning of currently warehoused data multiplexing
network equipment, instrument landing systems, and 3,500 radio
transmitters and receivers. The Committee is appalled to learn
of the amount of modernization equipment sitting in warehouses
around the country due to lack of government staff allocations
or funds for installation. These systems were bought to be
used, not sit in warehouses while the system decays. The
Committee recommendation assists in addressing that problem.
Facilities and Equipment
(airport and airway trust fund)
(rescission)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................ -$35,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill................................. -60,000,000
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................ -25,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -60,000,000
The bill includes a rescission of $60,000,000 from the
unobligated balances of ``Facilities and equipment'' due to
budget constraints. The FAA administrator is accorded the
discretion to allocate this reduction.
Research, Engineering, and Development
(Airport and Airway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $259,192,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 267,661,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 143,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -116,192,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -124,661,000
The accompanying bill includes $143,000,000 for long-term
research, engineering and development programs to improve the
air traffic control system and to increase its safety and
capacity to meet air traffic demands of the future, as
authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the
Federal Aviation Act. This appropriation also finances the
research, engineering and development needed to establish or
modify federal air regulations.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $143,000,000, a reduction of
$116,192,000 below the fiscal year 1995 enacted level and
$124,661,000 below the President's budget request. The
reduction reflects the Committee's decision to place a higher
priority on the development and near-term acquisition of
safety- and capacity-enhancing equipment, and a correspondingly
lower priority on long term research.
This year, the Committee received testimony documenting
extensive equipment outages and safety concerns in the national
airspace system. While still the safest airway system in the
world, aviation accidents in 1994 highlight the need for more
rapid implementation of advanced safety technologies,
especially those related to forecasting and detection of
hazardous weather conditions such as windshear. Equipment
outages due to delays in replacement systems are restraining
airway system capacity even as air traffic increases. This
raises costs to airway system users and causes delays in
passenger travel all across this country.
Given these issues, and considering the importance of air
travel for the overall economy of the United States, the
Committee cannot accept the administration's proposal to reduce
the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation drastically--8.6
percent in a single year--while increasing long term research.
The Committee bill increases funding for facilities and
equipment significantly above the President's request, and
reduces ``Research, engineering, and development''. This
reduction is not intended to be prejudicial to the FAA's
research activities, but is instead a reflection of the
difficult priorities which must be made to eliminate the
federal deficit while maintaining essential transportation
services to the public today and for the near-term future.
A table showing the fiscal year 1995 enacted level, fiscal
year 1996 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-----------------------------------------------
Program name 1996
1995 enacted 1996 estimate recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System development and
infrastructure:
System planning and
resource management $3,623,000 $3,953,000 $3,000,000
Technical laboratory
facility........... 5,800,000 9,598,000 5,800,000
Capacity and air traffic
management technology:
Air traffic
management
technology......... 9,174,000 9,875,000 0
Oceanic automation
program............ 10,649,000 10,470,000 8,000,000
Terminal air traffic
control automation
(TATCA)............ 16,891,000 15,624,000 0
Runway incursion
reduction.......... 8,099,000 8,177,000 0
System capacity,
planning and
improvements....... 12,082,000 12,256,000 6,000,000
Cockpit technology.. 4,820,000 8,266,000 6,500,000
General aviation/
vertical flight
technology......... 4,837,000 3,327,000 2,629,000
Modeling, analysis,
and simulation..... 9,631,000 7,807,000 2,000,000
Future airway
facilities
technology......... 800,000 3,403,000 0
Communications,
navigation and
surveillance:
Communications...... 18,080,000 15,367,000 10,000,000
Navigation.......... 14,922,000 15,963,000 10,000,000
Surveillance........ 3,962,000 0 0
Weather................. 2,909,000 6,493,000 6,493,000
Airport technology...... 8,200,000 9,278,000 1,000,000
Aircraft safety
technology:
Aircraft systems
fire safety........ 1,200,000 3,906,000 0
Advanced materials/
structural safety.. 5,245,000 2,973,000 2,000,000
Propulsion and fuel
systems............ 3,436,000 4,059,000 0
Flight safety/
atmospheric hazards
research........... 5,000,000 4,173,000 4,173,000
Aging aircraft...... 25,000,000 21,415,000 15,000,000
Aircraft
catastrophic
failure prevention
research........... 2,705,000 4,357,000 2,705,000
Fire research....... 4,500,000 4,604,000 0
Fire research and
safety............. 0 0 5,700,000
General aviation
renaissance........ 0 1,005,000 0
Cabin safety........ 0 1,055,000 0
System security
technology:
Explosives and
weapons detection.. 23,675,000 33,179,000 23,000,000
Airport security
technology
integration........ 1,000,000 2,530,000 0
Aviation security
human factors...... 3,124,000 4,603,000 0
Aircraft hardening.. 7,828,000 3,496,000 0
Human factors and
aviation medicine:
Flight deck/
maintenance/system
integration human
factor............. 16,508,000 11,182,000 15,500,000
Air traffic control/
airway facilities
human factors...... 11,259,000 10,193,000 10,000,000
Aeromedical research 4,233,000 4,485,000 2,500,000
Environment and Energy.. 5,200,000 5,429,000 1,000,000
Innovative/Cooperative
Research............... 4,800,000 5,160,000 0
-----------------------------------------------
Total
appropriation.... 259,192,000 267,661,000 143,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In reaching the overall reduction, the Committee targeted
research activities which: (a) could be performed by the
private sector or other non-federal entities such as airports;
(b) appeared to be of low overall priority or finance FAA
overhead and facilities; and (c) have corresponding programs in
``Facilities and equipment'', some of which are increased in
this bill. These reductions are as follows:
Activities which can be performed by the private sector or
other non-federal entities.--Several activities have been
reduced which could be performed by the private sector or by
other non-federal entities. They include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project 1996 budget recommendation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Airport technology...... $9,278,000 $1,000,000 -$8,278,000
Advanced aircraft
materials.............. 2,973,000 2,000,000 -973,000
Propulsion and fuel
systems................ 4,059,000 .............. -4,059,000
Aging aircraft.......... 21,415,000 15,000,000 -6,415,000
Aircraft catastrophic
failure prevention..... 4,357,000 2,705,000 -1,652,000
Cabin safety............ 1,055,000 .............. -1,055,000
Aircraft hardening...... 3,496,000 .............. -3,496,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Low priority or administrative, level of effort
activities.--Much of this work involves operating support of
FAA organizations conducting the RE&D program. Lower funding is
called for, as the overall program is being cut back, and
because of the need to streamline administrative and management
operations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project 1996 budget recommendation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
System planning/resource
management............. $3,953,000 $3,000,000 -$953,000
Technical lab facility.. 9,598,000 5,800,000 -3,798,000
Modeling, analysis and
simulation............. 7,807,000 2,000,000 -5,807,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reductions in areas due to increases in F&E activities.--
Some activities were reduced in consideration of increases
provided under ``Facilities and equipment'' (F&E) for
activities in the same area of technology, but in more advanced
phases of development. Since solutions for these problems are
being accelerated through application of F&E funds, early
research can be cut back.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project 1996 budget recommendation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oceanic automation...... $10,470,000 $8,000,000 -$2,470,000
TATCA................... 15,624,000 .............. -15,624,000
Runway incursion........ 8,177,000 .............. -8,177,000
Explosives/weapons
detection.............. 33,179,000 23,000,000 -10,179,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some worthy activities are being reduced in order to
protect funding for higher priority safety activities,
including the increase for air traffic control human factors
safety research. These reductions are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee
Project 1996 budget recommendation Change
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic management
technology............. $9,875,000 .............. -$9,875,000
System capacity,
planning and
improvements........... 12,256,000 $6,000,000 -6,256,000
General aviation/
vertical flight........ 3,327,000 2,629,000 -698,000
Communications.......... 15,367,000 10,000,000 -5,367,000
Navigation.............. 15,963,000 10,000,000 -5,963,000
General aviation
renaissance............ 1,005,000 0 -1,005,000
Environment/energy...... 5,429,000 0 -5,429,000
Innovative research..... 5,160,000 0 -5,160,000
Aeromedical research.... 4,485,000 2,500,000 -1,985,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air traffic control human factors research.--The Committee
is very upset that, year after year, the FAA continues to
ignore the importance of human factors research in its overall
research program. Even though last year the Congress directed
FAA not to reduce funding for this activity, the agency's
fiscal year 1996 request slashes funding by 23.1 percent, from
$27,700,000 to $21,300,000. This would drop funding for this
critical area to the pre-1993 level. Even though most aviation
accidents are caused by human factors, the FAA chose instead to
request increased funding for items such as cooperative
research with colleges and universities, FAA lab facility
upgrades, flow control technology, and airport pavement
technologies. The Committee believes this appropriation should
focus first and foremost on safety, even if that results in
less funding for non-safety-related research. The
recommendation includes $25,500,000 for air traffic control
human factors research, an increase of $4,200,000 above the
budget request, but a decrease of $2,200,000 below the fiscal
year 1995 enacted level. FAA is directed not to reprogram any
of these funds to other activities.
General Provision
Federally-funded research and development center.--The bill
continues a general provision enacted in fiscal year 1995 (Sec.
326) which caps staffing at the existing federally-funded
research and development center (FFRDC) at no more than 335
members of the technical staff. The Committee is pleased with
changes made by the FAA over the past year to address
management issues cited in last year's Committee report, and
believes that these changes provide a stronger, more productive
FFRDC relationship.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(airport and airway trust fund)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995... $1,500,000,000 ($1,450,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996. 1,500,000,000 (\1\)
Recommended in the bill........... 1,500,000,000 (1,600,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995......................... 1,500,000,000 (+150,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996......................... 1,500,000,000 (+1,600,000,000)
\1\ Included under the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment
Program (UTIIP).
The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of
$1,500,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by
the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended.
This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred
pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on
obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and
development, noise compatibility and planning, the military
airport program, reliever airports, and other authorized
activities. This is the same funding as requested in the
President's budget, and same level as provided for fiscal year
1995.
limitation on obligations
The bill includes a limitation on obligations of
$1,600,000,000 for fiscal year 1996. This is $150,000,000 (10.3
percent) above the fiscal year 1995 level. The President's
budget proposed to consolidate this program into the Unified
Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program, with no
specific funding set aside in law. As set forth in statute, the
obligation limitation will be distributed as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Project --------------------------------------------------------
1995 enacted 1996 estimate 1996 recommended
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entitlements:
Primary airports................................... $412,035,885 $448,176,815 $487,986,896
Cargo airports (3.5%).............................. 38,391,975 42,191,003 49,001,271
Alaska supplemental funding........................ 10,528,980 10,528,980 10,528,980
States (12.5%)..................................... 150,285,479 165,472,172 181,005,773
Carryover entitlements............................. 147,061,820 100,000,000 100,000,000
Discretionary Set-Asides:
Noise (12.5%)...................................... 156,547,374 172,366,846 188,547,680
Reliever airports (5%)............................. 62,618,950 68,946,738 75,419,072
Commercial service airports (1.5%)................. 18,785,685 20,684,022 22,625,722
System planning (.75%)............................. 9,392,842 10,342,010 11,312,861
Military airport program (2.5%).................... 31,309,475 34,473,369 37,709,536
Returned Entitlements:
Non-hub airports................................... 50,309,449 58,181,740 63,349,834
Non-commercial service airports.................... 25,154,724 29,090,870 31,674,917
Small hubs......................................... 12,577,362 14,545,435 15,837,458
Other Discretionary:
Capacity/safety/security/noise..................... 243,750,000 243,750,000 243,750,000
Remaining discretionary............................ 81,250,000 81,250,000 81,250,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total limitation:................................ 1,450,000,000 1,500,000,000 1,600,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee's recommendation restores funding to this
program, which was reduced for three consecutive years between
fiscal years 1992 and 1995. In fiscal year 1992, this program
was funded at $1,900,000,000. In fiscal year 1995, the program
is funded at $1,450,000,000. While the Committee recognizes
these reductions were based on valid concerns, including the
lack of contract authorization and management issues, the
Committee is pleased the FAA has made progress in addressing
some of the Committee's past concerns in this area. In order to
restore faith that the Federal Government is a reliable funding
partner, and to address the backlog of important capacity
projects which have been building up as the program was
reduced, the Committee believes some increase is justified. The
Committee has also improved an increase under ``Operations''
for increased staffing in the airport program, which will
improve grants oversight and implement management improvements.
Consistent with the treatment of highway demonstration
projects, there is no funding for earmarked airport projects in
the bill.
general provisions
Sixth runway, Denver International Airport.--The bill
retains the general provision (Sec. 333) enacted in fiscal year
1995 which prohibits funding for planning, engineering, design,
or construction of a sixth runway at the new Denver
International Airport, unless the FAA administrator determines,
in writing, that safety conditions warrant obligation of such
funds. The Committee remains unconvinced at this time that the
runway is a high priority, and that such a project could be
managed effectively given the past management history of the
overall project.
Hot Springs, Arkansas airport properties.--The bill
includes a new general provision (Sec. 339) which states that
two small parcels of land previously developed as park sites
and currently used by the citizens of Hot Springs shall not be
considered airport property for the purposes of meeting
requirements of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982,
as amended. These facilities include softball fields and
playground equipment for children. The good intentions of city
officials to turn unused land near the airport into
recreational space is now costing the city as much as $70,000
per year because of FAA concerns that the park sites might be
considered airport assets not maximizing their revenue
potential. The Committee does not wish to penalize communities
which take innovative action in this regard, and is unconvinced
that additional revenues could be generated on this site.
Revenue diversion.--The Committee does not recommend
continuing the existing provision regarding illegal revenue
diversion at airports. The Committee remains resolute in its
strong opposition to illegal revenue diversion, and has
provided increased funding in the bill for staff to monitor and
enforce the revenue diversion laws. However, because the
penalty in the existing provision--termination of all federal
transportation funding--is so severe, it is unlikely the
provision would be enforced if it were ever required, and such
action would in all likelihood not match the severity of the
crime. In addition, the aviation reauthorization bill last year
addressed this issue, strengthening the enforcement provisions
against revenue diversion and giving users more clearly defined
avenues for pursuing remedies. For these reasons, the Committee
believes action in this bill is no longer required.
Collection of passenger facility charges on frequent flyer
coupons.--The Committee does not recommend continuing the
existing provision regarding collection of passenger facility
charges on frequent flyer coupons. Such collection was
prohibited in last year's reauthorization bill, making action
in this bill unnecessary. The Committee is still very much
opposed to such collections, and is pleased that they have been
terminated.
Aircraft Purchase Loan Guarantee Program
(limitation on borrowing authority)
Limitation on
Appropriation borrowing authority
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995....................... $148,000 ($9,970,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996....................... 50,000 (1,600,000)
Recommended in the bill..... 50,000 (1,600,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal
year 1995.............. -98,000 (-8,370,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal
year 1996.............. .................... ....................
The Committee recommends language that permits the
Secretary of Transportation to borrow up to $1,600,000 from the
Secretary of the Treasury to pay defaulted loans. This is the
same as the budget estimate. According to the Office of
Management and Budget and the Congressional Budget Office, the
borrowing authority provided in appropriations Acts for this
program is not new budget authority. The bill includes an
appropriation of $50,000, as included in the budget request and
calculated in accord with the Credit Reform Act, for the
administrative costs of this program.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program
The Federal Highway Administration provides financial
assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and
highways, enforces federal standards relating to interstate
motor carriers and the highway transport of hazardous
materials, and provides technical assistance to other agencies
and organizations involved in road building activities. Title
23 U.S.C. and other supporting legislation provide authority
for the various activities of the Federal Highway
Administration. Most of the funding for the Federal Highway
Administration is provided by contract authority, with program
levels established by annual limitations on obligations
provided in appropriations Acts.
Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level
of $20,401,082,000 would be provided for the activities of the
Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 1996. This is
$522,526,000 more than the fiscal year 1995 level, an increase
of 2.6 percent.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program
levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program -------------------------------------------------- Recommended in the bill
1995 enacted 1996 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal-aid highways\1\.............. $17,160,000,000 (\2\) $18,000,000,000
Highway-related safety grants\1\..... 10,800,000 (\2\) $10,000,000 10,000,000
Other highway projects............... 366,055,000 (\2\) .......................
Motor carrier safety grants\1\....... 74,000,000 85,000,000 79,150,000
Exempt federal-aid programs.......... 2,267,701,000 \2\ 200,000,000 2,311,932,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total.......................... 19,878,556,000 295,000,000 20,401,082,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligations.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into the Unified Transportation Infrastructure
Investment program.
general provisions
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge.--The Committee has included
language in the bill (Sec. 325) continuing the one-way
westbound tolls collection system on the Verrazano-Narrows
Bridge. The Committtee believes one-way westbound tolls reduce
traffic congestion and pollution and encourages the governors
of New York and New Jersey to agree upon a mutually acceptable
solution to the problem of toll collection without increasing
pollution and congestion. The Committee has repeated the bill
language on this subject which was contained in Public Law 103-
122.
Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel.--The Committee has
included bill language (Sec. 345) that stipulates that the
Secretary of Transportation may not authorize funding for
additional Federal-aid projects for the Central Artery/Third
Harbor Tunnel Project in Boston, Massachusetts, until a
financial plan is submitted by the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts by October 30, 1995 and approved by the
Secretary. For each fiscal year thereafter, the Secretary must
approve revised financial plans submitted biannually by the
Commonwealth and based on detailed annual estimates of cost-to-
complete the remaining elements of the project.
People's Republic of China.--The Committee has included
bill language (Sec. 341) prohibiting the use of funds to
arrange tours of scientists or engineers employed by or working
for the People's Republic of China, to hire citizens of the
People's Republic of China to participate in research
fellowships sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration or
other modal administrations of the Department of
Transportation, or to provide training or any form of
technology transfer to scientists or engineers employed by or
working for the People's Republic of China.
Obligation rates.--The Committee has continued language
which limits federal-aid highways first quarter obligations.
The Committee has restricted first quarter obligations to 12
percent.
Recycled paving materials.--The Committee has included
language (Sec. 320) delaying the administration,
implementation, and enforcement of section 1038(d) of Public
Law 102-240, relating to crumb rubber.
Metric signage.--The Committee has included bill language
(Sec. 324) which prohibits the design, construction, erection,
modification or placement of any sign relating to speed limit,
distance or other measurement using metric.
Limitation on General Operating Expenses
Limitation, fiscal year 1995..........................\1\ ($525,341,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (689,486,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (495,381,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (-29,960,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (-194,105,000)
\1\ Reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
This limitation controls spending for the salaries and
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to
conduct and administer the federal-aid highways program and
most other federal highway programs. The limitation includes a
number of contract programs, such as highway research,
development and technology, rural technical assistance, and
minority business enterprise. In addition, administrative costs
for highway-related safety grants are transferred to the
limitation.
The Committee recommends a limitation of $495,381,000. This
amount is $29,960,000 less than the fiscal year 1995 level of
$525,341,000. The following table summarizes the fiscal year
1995 limitation, the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and the
Committee's recommendation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------- Recommended in
1995 1996 estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses:
Salaries and
expenses........... $210,128,000 $213,964,000 $213,964,000
Travel.............. 18,489,000 18,489,000 17,286,000
Transportation...... 849,000 874,000 849,000
Rent, communications
and utilities...... 26,352,000 28,190,000 26,540,500
Printing............ 102,000 112,000 112,000
Working capital fund 19,763,000 22,471,000 22,471,000
Supplies............ 2,517,000 2,517,000 2,517,000
Equipment........... 10,584,000 10,584,000 10,584,000
Other............... 17,315,000 17,833,000 17,833,000
Procurement savings. .............. -3,000,000 -3,000,000
Civil Rights
transfer........... .............. -809,000 +809,000
Accountwide
adjustments........ .............. .............. -5,251,500
Contract programs,
research and
development:
Highway R&D......... 53,552,000 79,706,000 55,772,000
ITS................. 114,500,000 238,579,000 93,250,000
Technology
deployment......... 12,622,000 17,241,000 11,622,000
Long term pavement
performance........ 8,739,000 10,701,000 8,489,000
Local technical
assistance......... 3,015,000 3,015,000 3,015,000
National Highway
Institute.......... 4,369,000 4,369,000 4,369,000
Disadvantaged
business
enterprises........ 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000
International
transportation..... 500,000 500,000 500,000
OJT/supportive
services........... 5,000,000 5,000,000 ..............
Rehabilitation of
TFHRC.............. 3,000,000 .............. ..............
Technical assistance
to Russia.......... 400,000 400,000 400,000
Truck dynamic test
facility........... .............. 1,500,000 750,000
Transportation
investment analysis .............. 2,250,000 ..............
Cost allocation
study.............. .............. 5,000,000 2,500,000
-----------------------------------------------
Total............. \1\ 521,796,00
0 689,486,000 495,381,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capitol
fund, awards, and procurement reductions.
Administrative expenses
The Committee recommends $304,714,000 for administrative
expenses. This amount is $1,385,500 less than provided in 1995.
The recommendation assumes a total of 3,372 full-time permanent
positions.
Rent, communications, and utilities.--Consistent with the
Committee's recommendation to reduce the Department's overall
space utility, the Committee has reduced FHWA's request for
rental payments to $17,099,000. These funds are budgeted in
this account and reimbursed to ``Rental payments'' in the
Office of the Secretary.
Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommendation
includes an accountwide adjustment of $5,251,500 due to budget
constraints. Funds budgeted for strategic initiatives,
contractual support, teleconferencing, IRM improvements,
working capital fund, travel and transportation and other
administrative expenses will need to be reduced accordingly.
The department is accorded the flexibility to allocate the
reduction.
Contract Programs
The limitation on general operating expenses includes a
total of $190,667,000 for contract programs. This represents a
decrease of $25,030,000 from fiscal year 1995. Although the
recommendation represents a significant reduction below the
budget, the FHWA's contract programs have grown considerably in
the last few years. As recently as fiscal year 1993, the
contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration were at
the $100,000,000 level. The Committee has approved without
modification the budget requests for the local rural technical
assistance program, the National Highway Institute, the
minority business enterprises program, international
transportation, and technical assistance for Russia.
Highway research, development and technology
The Committee recommends $55,772,000 for highway research,
development and technology programs. This level represents an
increase of $2,220,000, or 4.1 percent over last year. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program level,
the fiscal year 1996 budget estimate and the Committee
recommendation for the various research areas:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
-------------------------------------- Recommended in
Program 1995 program the bill
level 1996 estimate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highway
research and
development:
Safety..... $7,768,000 $9,853,000 $8,768,000
Materials.. 5,451,000 ................. .................
Pavements.. 7,476,000 9,247,000 9,247,000
Structures. 6,311,000 12,359,000 13,211,000
Environment 5,593,000 6,481,000 5,593,000
Right-of-
way....... 429,000 429,000 429,000
Policy..... 6,681,000 8,434,000 5,681,000
Planning... 6,069,000 7,895,000 6,069,000
Motor
Carrier... 7,774,000 9,008,000 6,774,000
National
Science
and
Technology
Council
Priority
Projects.. ................. 16,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total,
Highway
research
and
developm
ent..... 53,552,000 79,706,000 55,772,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Safety.--The Committee recommends $8,768,000 for highway
safety research and development. The combination of ISTEA and
GOE funds will result in a safety R&D program of not less than
$12,768,000 of new contract authority.
Pavements.--The Committee recommends $9,247,000 for
pavements research and development, including $1,000,000 for
work on high performance concrete as proposed by the National
Science and Technology Council (NSTC).
Structures.--Of the $13,211,000 provided for structures
research and development, $3,000,000 is afforded for a project
proposed by the NSTC discussed in greater detail under NSTC
priority projects.
Motor carrier.--The Committee recommends a level of
$6,774,000 for motor carrier research. The Committee notes the
substantial expansion of this program during the last few years
and suggests that a more careful review of research proposals
by experts within and outside of FHWA is needed. The
Committee's allowance includes $350,000 to conduct a research
project to improve the current ``Share the Road'' campaign,
which is intended to educate the motoring public about truck
safety dynamics, and to coordinate similar non-federal
activities and identify gaps in this outreach area.
In view of changes in program emphasis, funding levels and
growth of related research and development activities, the
Committee asserts that it would be timely for FHWA to prepare a
new research and development plan reflecting its revised
research agenda and priorities. The FHWA shall submit a draft
of its five year strategic plan together with details on
current and planned R&D budget expenditures to the National
Motor Carrier Advisory Committee for comment. The plan should
pay particular attention to the driver fatigue research
program. A final plan should be submitted to the House and
Senate Committees on Appropriations before April 1, 1996.
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) Priority
Projects.--The Committee's allowance does not include the
$16,000,000 requested for the NSTC priority projects. In the
Committee's view, budgetary limitations do not allow for this
substantial increase in highway research and development
funding, a comprehensive justification did not support the
initiative, and the proposal was not subject to intensive peer
review through FHWA's technical working groups and the Research
and Technology Executive Board. The Committee maintains that
priority funding should be reserved for FHWA's core
infrastructure research and development program.
Nevertheless, the Committee recognizes the importance of
improving the nation's physical infrastructure and has reviewed
the request for NSTC priority projects. The Committee has
included within the pavements and structures programs two
research projects that were identified by the NSTC. The
Committee recommends $1,000,000 to accelerate the utilization
of high performance concrete, which offers potential savings of
20 percent or more on highway structures. This highway material
offers improved resistance to changing weather conditions and
increased strength. Fewer structural members, longer spans and
pavement life, and lower life-cycle costs are possible with
high performance concrete. The Committee's recommendation also
includes $3,000,000 as part of the structures R&D program to
construct or use one or more facilities that would evaluate and
calibrate bridge and pavement non-destructive evaluation
technologies. This project will accelerate the use of this
technology and will pay dividends in public sector investment,
private sector jobs, and most importantly, promote safety for
the traveling public. The testing or evaluation of any new
proprietary devices or methods shall involve substantial cost
sharing with the private sector.
Turner Fairbanks facility.--In the 1997 Congressional
budget justifications, the FHWA is directed to submit a
separate line item specifying the amount of funds necessary to
support and maintain the Turner Fairbanks facility and to
conduct associated research and contract activities that are
now included in other various research activities.
Intelligent transportation systems (ITS).--The
Administration has called for an accelerated ITS effort of
$651,600,000, which includes $113,000,000 in contract authority
provided by the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act (ISTEA), $238,600,000 from general operating expenses,
including $100,000,000 for the Trailblazer initiative, and
$300,000,000 for a congestion relief and mitigation program.
This request represents an increase of 186 percent over the
1995 levels. The Committee has provided $93,250,000 for the
intelligent transportation systems (ITS) research program. When
combined with the $113,000,000 in contract authority provided
for this program by ISTEA, the Committee's recommendation will
allow a total program level of $206,250,000.
In addition, funding for elements of ITS research,
particularly research and development and operational tests,
may be supplemented by redirecting unobligated balances from
projects first made available in fiscal year 1993 and earlier.
The Committee believes that as much as $15,000,000 may be
redirected to support ITS research and development. Any such
transfers shall be subject to the prior notification of the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations and shall not be
redirected to the automated highway system or advanced
technology applications.
The Committee funding for the ITS research and development
activities has grown significantly over the last several years.
In testimony before the Committee, the General Accounting
Office noted:
The [IVHS] Act authorized $659 million to support the
program over 6 years, but after only after four years
its appropriations have exceeded $800 million--almost
$150 million more than was authorized for the 6-year
period. The ITS program has also grown from a few
projects in 1992 to 268 projects as of January 1995.
The following tables illustrate the growth in
appropriations and number of projects in the ITS program:
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Given this rapid growth, the Committee remains concerned
that the ITS program needs to assess its progress and ensure
effective management oversight. Although the initial actions of
the Joint Program Office (JPO) have been helpful to strengthen
management oversight of the ITS program, the Committee believes
that stronger steps must be taken to ensure a more targeted,
coordinated and cost-conscious program. The Committee,
therefore, directs the department to empower the JPO to
exercise autonomous control over the entire ITS funding budget,
to include all requests under the FHWA limitation on general
operating expenses, (including FTA and RSPA ITS activities),
and review and monitor all ITS projects and their costs,
objectives and schedules to accomplish JPO-approved program
milestones.
Reprogramming guidelines and procedures.--The Committee
wishes to reiterate the reprogramming guidelines that state
that Congressional approval is required for funding shifts of
ten percent or more among programs, projects and activities
(PPA). Congressional guidances states that PPAs are defined as
any item for which a specific dollar level is cited in
appropriations Acts or the reports accompanying those Acts.
Congressional notification and approval of proposed changes to
appropriated funding levels is fundamental.
The following table depicts the 1995 program level, the
fiscal year 1996 request and the Committee's recommendation for
the intelligent transportation systems program by activity:
INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
[Dollars in thousands]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Recommended in
Program program level estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligent
transportation
systems:
Research
and
developmen
t......... $35,000,000 $27,479,000 $25,000,000
ITS
operationa
l tests... 22,500,000 22,500,000 18,750,000
Commercial
vehicle
operations 10,700,000 10,700,000 12,700,000
Automated
highway
system.... 10,000,000 18,700,000 10,000,000
Advanced
technology
applicatio
ns........ 15,000,000 15,000,000 2,500,000
Program and
systems
support... 11,300,000 17,000,000 11,300,000
Priority
corridors. 10,000,000 10,000,000 .................
Crash
avoidance
research.. ................. 17,200,000 13,000,000
Trailblazer
initiative ................. 100,000,000 .................
--------------------------------------------------------
Total,
ITS..... 114,500,000 238,579,000 93,250,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operational tests.--The basic definition or outline of the
National Systems Architecture is currently scheduled to be
finalized by spring 1996. The Committee insists that once the
basic structure has been established that any cooperative
agreements signed thereafter by the department shall require
that federally-supported ITS operational tests or corridor
projects are consistent and compatible with this architecture.
This requirement will promote interoperability.
Commercial vehicle operations (CVO).--The Committee
commends the actions taken by the FHWA to equip 200 motor
carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) sites by mid 1997
with the latest technology. This investment will promote the
effectiveness and efficiency of the MCSAP by improving the
targeting of vehicles and drivers subject to inspection. The
Committee wishes to expand the progress to date and recommends
$12,700,000 for the commercial vehicle component of the ITS
program. Within the amount recommended, sufficient funds are
available to improve and operate the SAFER and supporting
systems, to equip at least fifty additional sites across the
country by mid-1998 with the SAFER/inspection module that will
provide on-line vehicle- and driver-specific inspection
information, and for at least forty percent of the expenses
needed to develop and pilot test the CVO communications
infrastructure (CVISION). The Joint Program Office shall ensure
that MCSAP officers and the state officials participating in
the commercial vehicle information system participate in the
design, testing and implementation of this initiative.
Automated highway system.--The Committee recommends
$10,000,000 for the automated highway system project. The
amount recommended is judged adequate to maintain the initial
partnership agreement, but will require an extension of this
project beyond the original seven year duration.
Advanced technology applications.--Because of overlap with
activities funded under research and development, changing
national priorities regarding defense conversion, difficulties
encountered in funding ITS dual use projects and budgetary
limitations, the Committee has reduced funding for advanced
technology applications. The funds provided will allow
continuation of the IDEAS program and some high risk,
potentially high return projects that will supplement the R&D
program.
Priority corridors.--Separate categorical funding for
priority corridors was first provided in fiscal year 1995,
before which support for this area was provided wholly from the
ISTEA set-aside for ITS. The Committee recommendation assumes
that the priority corridors program will be supported through
the ISTEA set-aside of $87,000,000 in fiscal year 1996.
Crash avoidance research.--The Committee has provided
$13,000,000 to facilitate the development and sale of products
which will enhance the ability of drivers to avoid collisions
and to ensure that safety is not degraded by new ITS products.
Trailblazer initiative.--The Committee has not included
$100,000,000 for the Trailblazer initiative as requested by the
President, based, in part, on insufficient justification. The
Committee notes the Department did not request funding for the
Trailblazer initiative from the Office of Management and
Budget.
The Committee acknowledges that the ITS program has made
some significant strides in the four years of its existence and
may soon be entering a second phase of standards setting and
deployment of infrastructure. The Intelligent Transportation
Society of America (ITS America), a federal advisory committee
to the department, projects the total funding needed for the
ITS program to be $227 billion and to take 20 years to develop
and make the program's technologies fully functional. The
Committee believes that any large-scale national deployment of
ITS infrastructure would be premature in advance of a national
architecture, an explicit authorization, and a large scale
private partnership. Therefore, the Committee directs the
department to prepare a report to the Congress that outlines a
strategy for phased deployment of ITS. The report shall serve
as a guiding mechanism for reauthorization and shall discuss
and recommend appropriate public and private roles, funding and
financing options, standards setting and maintenance (including
operating costs). The report shall also include total estimated
costs, criteria for selection, and anticipated schedule
relative to the overall deployment strategy. In the near term,
the Committee notes that it has provided significant increases
in the Federal-aid highway program, and capital and operating
costs for traffic monitoring, management, and control
facilities and programs are eligible activities of the surface
transportation program should states or localities wish to
pursue ITS deployment.
Long-term pavement performance.--The Committee recommends
$8,849,000 for the LTPP program. This amount shall be
supplemented by $6,000,000 of section 6001 funds to further
this important research.
Technology assessment and deployment.--The Committee
recommends $11,622,000 for technology assessment and
deployment. The Committee directs that not less than $3,000,000
shall be allocated to safety activities (excluding congestion
and incident management) and not less than $2,400,000 of
section 6005 funds shall be allocated to safety applications.
The Committee has included not less than $1,000,000 which
shall be allocated to the Office of Highway Safety (OHS) to
develop and test at least two new outreach campaigns that can
be used by the states under the section 402 program. The
Committee has reviewed the Red Light Running campaign and has
received comments on the program from various state officials.
The Committee expects that the OHS will develop other
successful highway safety programs such as the project to
increase compliance with yield-right-of-way or grade crossing
signs. These campaigns should be ready for the development by
the states as part of their 1997 section 402 programs.
On-the job training/supportive services.--No funds are
recommended for on-the-job training/supportive services in
fiscal year 1996. Funds were provided in fiscal year 1995 for
the first time in many years. States currently have the
authority to use their federal-aid highway resources to
accomplish the objectives of on-the job training and supportive
services. The Committee urges the FHWA to encourage state
highway departments to take necessary actions to achieve OJT/
supportive services, particularly given the increases in the
federal-aid program.
Truck dynamic test facility.--FHWA has signed a partnership
agreement that will allow the agency to have access to a non-
federal test facility to support truck/pavement interaction
research. In light of this cost saving arrangement, the
Committee recommends $750,000.
Cost allocation study.--$2,500,000 is recommended for a
truck size and weight and a cost allocation study. The FHWA
shall conduct an objective and comprehensive study on truck
size and weight issues and shall seek input from all affected
parties, including the highway safety community. This study
will provide a basis for recommendations for the next highway
reauthorization and supplement, not duplicate, the work of the
General Accounting Office, the Transportation Research Board
and the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials.
The Committee directs the FHWA to complete a major portion
of the cost-allocation study before completing Phase III of the
truck-size and weight study. FHWA must ensure that policy
decisions on truck-size and weight are formulated within the
context of well reasoned cost-allocation decisions which ensure
that each vehicle class, and each distinct vehicle type within
those classes, fairly shoulders cost responsibilities for
infrastructure damage and other proportional effects on safety
and associated crash cost impacts, congestion and capacity
effects, and energy and environmental concerns. Only objective
contractors with no conflicts of interest with the trucking or
rail industries shall contribute to these studies.
Cathodic protection for bridges.--Cathodic protection has
long been recognized and recommended by the FHWA as the only
practical system which will stop bridge deck corrosion in
chloride contaminated bridge decks. The FHWA has extensively
promoted and provided technical assistance in the use of
cathodic protection systems through the FHWA demonstration
project program since 1975. Recent FHWA economic studies have
shown that cathodic protection systems should be considered for
use on structurally sound salt-contaminated bridge decks
carrying heavy traffic volumes in urban areas where traffic
disruption and delay costs resulting from deck replacement or
repair are significant. The FHWA is strongly encouraged to
continue its program to demonstrate the latest technology in
cathodic protection systems and to assist and encourage states
to use cathodic bridge protection systems when economic studies
show that these systems will be cost effective.
Recycled materials.--The Committee directs the Federal
Highway Administration to provide at least $1,000,000 from
available resources for continued research on using recycled
materials in concrete pavement and landscaped margins. The
potential exists to use large scale quantities of plastic and
paper waste as well as microsilica in concrete pavement
construction. The Committee believes that a small investment in
research in this area could yield large benefits in future
years.
Border regions infrastructure issues.--The Committee
continues to express its belief that there is great need to
develop further the infrastructure along the United States'
border regions with Mexico and Canada, especially as these
countries implement the North American Free Trade Agreement and
as volumes of trade and traffic continue to increase. The
Committee supports efforts by the department to participate in
the exchange of technical and professional expertise with the
governments of Mexico and Canada to enhance transportation
projects and improve infrastructure initiatives in these
regions. Further, the Committee directs that the Federal
Highway Administration give high priority to transportation
needs along the border regions in grant programs and
discretionary funding. Based on the 1993 FHWA report entitled
the ``Assessment of Border Crossings and Transportation
Corridors for North American Trade,'' which found that federal
highway funds had not been sufficiently allocated to meet the
infrastructure needs along our borders, the Committee had
requested of FHWA recommendations to improve the distribution
of funding to border regions in last year's House report. The
Committee is aware that FHWA's data collection efforts as a
part of the recommendations are incomplete, and urges
completion of the study so that its recommendations might be
considered on a timely basis.
Federal parkways.--The Committee rejects the
administration's proposal to transfer ownership, oversight and
responsibility of federal parkways to the states of Maryland
and Virginia.
Highway-Related Safety Grants
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
(Including transfer of funds)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995... ($10,800,000) ($10,800,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996. (10,000,000) (10,000,000)
Recommend in the bill............. (10,000,000) (10,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995......................... (-800,000) (-800,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996......................... (--) (--)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
A liquidating cash appropriation of $10,000,000 is
recommended to assist states and localities in implementing the
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway
Administration. These standards cover traffic control devices,
highway surveillance, and the highway-related aspects of
pedestrian safety.
limitation on obligations
The bill also limits fiscal year 1996 obligations under
this program to $10,000,000. This is identical to the amount
requested for 1996. Obligations under this program are incurred
to collect safety data, improve programming systems, study
safety problems, and develop technical manuals related to the
highway safety standards administered by the Federal Highway
Administration.
Federal-Aid Highways
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995................... \1\ ($17,000,000,000
)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................. (19,200,000,000)
Recommended in the bill........................... (19,200,000,000)
Bill compared with:...............................
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995............... (+2,200,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996............. (--)
\1\ Reductions of $3,545,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $19,200,000,000 for the federal-aid highways program. This
is identical to the budget request and $2,200,000,000 more than
the enacted fiscal year 1995 appropriation.
An estimated $3,100,000,000 of the recommended liquidating
cash appropriation is to continue the construction of the
interstate highway system. The balance of the funds is
primarily for payments to the states for the national highway
program, the surface transportation program, interstate
maintenance, interstate substitutions, bridge replacement and
rehabilitation, the congestion mitigation and air quality
improvement program, certain planning and research programs,
emergency relief, and the administrative costs of the Federal
Highway Administration as discussed under the limitation on
general operating expenses.
federal-aid highways programs
Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a
federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain
ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new
construction of roads. State highway departments have the
authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to Federal
Highway Administration 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 represent 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.
Federal-aid highway funds are made available through the
following major system-related programs:
National highway system.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 authorized the
development of a proposed national highway system (NHS)
consisting of 155,000 miles (plus or minus 15 percent) of major
roads in the United States. The proposed NHS will include all
interstate routes, a large percentage of urban and rural
principal arterial, the defense strategic highway network, and
major strategic highway connectors. The proposed system, which
will be developed in consultation with the states, must be
designated by law by September 30, 1995. In the interim, NHS
funds may be used on highways classified as principal
arterials. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of
its NHS funds to the new surface transportation program, or, if
the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The
federal share for the NHS is 80 percent, except for the
interstate portion which is 90 percent, with an availability
period of four years.
Surface transportation program.--The ISTEA also established
a new surface transportation program (STP). The STP is a block
grant type 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 now collectively referred to as federal-aid
highways. Bridge projects paid for 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. Once the funds are distributed to the states, each
state must set aside these 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 to be used in any
areas of the state.
Also, areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an
amount based on previous secondary system funding. The federal
share for the STP is 80 percent and has a four-year
availability period.
Interstate construction.--The designation of a 40,000-mile
interstate system was authorized by Congress in 1944 to serve
the needs of national defense, to link the nation's largest
cities, and to connect with key Canadian and Mexican highways
at suitable border points. Since 1944, the system has gradually
been expanded, now encompassing 42,796 miles of designated
routes. From December 31, 1992, to December 31, 1993, an
additional 49 miles of the interstate system were opened to
traffic. This brings the total number of miles open to traffic
as of December 31, 1993, to 42,740, or 99.9 percent of the
total system. In addition, the remaining 55 miles included 48
miles under construction and seven miles under design
development and right-of-way acquisition.
Interstate maintenance.--The Federal-Aid Highway Act of
1976 first established the resurfacing, restoration, and
rehabilitation (3R) program as a means to preserve the
approximately $100,000,000,000 investment in the interstate
system. The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1981 provided for
enhanced emphasis on preservation with a significant increase
in authorized funding levels and added a fourth ``R'',
reconstruction, as an eligible type of work. ISTEA replaced the
interstate 4R program with the interstate maintenance program,
which continues funding of resurfacing, restoration, and
rehabilitation as well as reconstruction (except addition of
non-HOV lanes) and also allows funding of certain preventive
maintenance activities.
Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This
program provides for major rehabilitation as well as
replacement of deficient bridges on any public road. A minimum
of 15 percent must be spent for bridges not on federal-aid
highways (off-system) with another 20 percent that may be spent
for bridges on federal-aid highways or off-system. During
fiscal year 1994, the states obligated $1.88 billion of federal
highway bridge replacement and rehabilitation program funds.
Total federal funds for new bridge construction and bridge
rehabilitation, including bridge program funds authorized
during calendar year 1994, amounted to $1.73 billion for 2,530
bridges.
Highway construction safety programs.--Ten percent of the
surface transportation program funds are set aside to carry out
the hazard elimination and railroad-highway crossings programs.
The hazard elimination program, established by section 168 of
the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1978 (now codified in 23 U.S.C.
152), is aimed at correcting high hazard locations; eliminating
roadside obstacles that are hazardous to motorists or
pedestrians; improving signals and pavement markings; and
installing traffic control or warning devices at high or
potentially high accident locations. Section 203 of the
Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973 (now codified in 23 U.S.C. 130)
established the railroad-highway crossings program to reduce or
eliminate potential or existing conflicts between trains and
highway vehicles.
Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program.--The congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program is intended to improve air quality in non-attainment
areas for ozone and carbon monoxide. A wide range of
transportation activities are eligible, as long as the
Department of Transportation, after consultation with EPA,
determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air
quality standards. If a state has no non-attainment areas
(there are 12 such states currently), the funds may be used as
if they were STP funds. The federal share for this program is
80 percent.
Federal lands program.--The federal lands program
authorizations, previously available through four categories,
are now provided through three categories: Indian reservation
roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways
(incorporates the previous forest highway category). The funds
are allocated on the basis of relative need.
The forest highway portion of public lands highways and
Indian reservation roads authorizations are allocated by
administrative formula. The federal lands program has a federal
share of 100 percent and an availability period of four years.
Emergency relief program.--This program was established by
the Hayden-Cartwright Act of 1934 and is now codified in 23
U.S.C. 125. Emergency funds are available through this program
to repair roads and bridges damaged by natural disasters or
catastrophic failures from external causes. Eligible facilities
must be on the federal-aid highway system, including the
interstate system, or federal roads. Normally each state is
limited to receiving a maximum of $100,000,000 per disaster.
The funding source is the highway trust fund and the federal
share is 100 percent of emergency repairs done in the first 180
days after a disaster and the normal pro rata share for other
necessary repairs.
Highway trust fund financing mechanism
The highway trust fund was originally established in the
U.S. Treasury in accordance with provisions of the Highway
Revenue Act of 1957, as amended (23 U.S.C. 12 note). It has
been extended several times, most recently by the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (Public Law 102-
240). Amounts equivalent to taxes on gasoline, diesel fuel,
special motor fuels, tires, commercial motor vehicles, and
truck use are designated by the Act to be appropriated and
transferred from the general fund of the Treasury to the trust
fund. These transfers are made at least monthly on the basis of
estimates by the Secretary of the Treasury, subject to
adjustments in later transfers based on the amount of actual
tax receipts. Amounts available in the fund in excess of outlay
requirements are invested in public debt securities and
interest thereon is credited to the fund. There are also
credited to the fund repayable advances from the general fund,
as authorized and made available by law, to meet outlay
requirements in excess of available revenues during a portion
of a fiscal year, if necessary.
The Surface Transportation Assistance Act (STAA) of 1982
established a mass transit account within the trust fund to be
funded by one-ninth of the excise tax collections under
sections 4041 and 4081 of the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.)
imposed after March 31, 1983. The funds from this account are
used for expenditures in accordance with section 21 of the
Federal Transit Act.
Subsequent legislation has increased the total federal tax
levied on each gallon of gasoline to 14.1 cents, of which 10
cents is applied to the highway account, 1.5 cents to the mass
transit account and .1 cent to the leaking underground storage
tank trust fund. The balance (2.5 cents) remains in the general
fund of the Treasury. This 2.5 cents will revert to the trust
fund on September 30, 1995.
Amounts required for outlays to carry out the federal-aid
highway program are appropriated to the Federal Highway
Administration. Other charges to the trust fund are made by the
Secretary of the Treasury for transfers of certain taxes to the
land and water conservation fund and to the aquatic resources
trust fund, for refunds of certain taxes, repayment of advances
from the general fund, and for the interest on advances. The
amendments to the Internal Revenue Code in the 1982 STAA
related to the highway trust fund require that before an
apportionment is made, the Secretary of the Treasury must
determine that adequate revenues will be available to meet
these expenditures within 24 months after the close of the
fiscal year for which the apportionment is made.
Highway trust fund spending versus receipts
In recent years, there has been much discussion about
alleged shortfalls in the amount spent by the federal
government for highway programs compared to the amount of
highway user taxes it collects. Charges have been made that
highway spending has been set significantly below the level of
taxes being collected in an effort to make the federal deficit
seem smaller. A closer examination of expenditures and receipts
shows that this is not the case. As can be seen from the table
in this section, total highway trust fund (highway account)
outlays have exceeded trust fund tax receipts in 14 of the 20
years since 1976. Because of this, the federal-aid highway
program has contributed roughly $20,394,000,000 to the budget
deficit during this time period.
Part of the confusion results from a failure to distinguish
between the unexpended and unobligated balances in the trust
fund. For example, there will be an estimated $7,900,000,000
cash balance in the highway trust fund's highway account at the
end of fiscal year 1994. Following is a description of this
situation contained in a May 1989 GAO report:
According to FHWA, the balance in the Highway Account
has often been misunderstood, with many believing that
the balance represents excess cash that will not be
needed to pay commitments. This view, however, is not
an accurate portrayal of the Highway Account balance
since these funds are, in fact, needed to pay
outstanding commitments. It should also be noted that
the Highway Trust Fund exists only as an accounting
record. User taxes are actually deposited in the U.S
Treasury and amounts equivalent to these taxes are
transferred to the Trust Fund, as needed.
How the Trust Fund functions becomes clearer when it
is compared with an individual's charge account. For
discussion purposes, assume that an individual has
$1,000 in cash from previous monthly paychecks but also
has outstanding charges amounting to over $1,500. In
this case, the $1,000 in cash cannot be considered
excess because it is needed to pay the incoming
charges. On the other hand, the individual is also not
in a deficit situation since at the end of the month
his or her $900 paycheck will be available to help pay
the outstanding charges. This scenario is repeated in
each succeeding month. Thus, the cash the individual
has on-hand plus a future paycheck helps to ensure
there will be sufficient funds to pay all outstanding
charges.
Similarly, according to FHWA Office of Policy Development
data, the Highway Account had a balance of $9 billion at the
end of fiscal year 1988, which is analogous to the $1,000 cash-
on-hand. At the same time, these FHWA data show that unpaid
commitments (charge account balance) amounted to almost $31
billion; $22 billion more than the account balance. This
situation, however, is acceptable under a reimbursable system
because, although commitments to make payment have been made,
payment is not made until the states submit actual bills for
completed work at a later date. In the interim, revenues, like
the individual's paycheck in the previous example, continue to
accrue in the Highway Account.
The Committee also notes that cumulative highway account
tax receipts since 1957 are expected to total approximately
$297 billion and cumulative highway outlays are expected to
total approximately $309 billion by the end of fiscal year
1995. The principal reason for the current cash balance is the
interest paid to the fund from the general fund of the
Treasury. These intragovernmental transfers from the general
fund to the trust fund have exceeded $19 billion since the
highway trust fund was established in 1957. However, such
transfers have no effect on the federal deficit. This mechanism
is explained in a February 1990 Congressional Research Service
report as follows:
While specific taxes and premiums are often levied on
segments of the population to help cover a trust fund
program's expenditures, trust funds also receive
``income'' from the government--i.e., ``credit'' from
one government account to another--or what in essence
is paper income. No economic resources are moved, no
actual money collected.
Following is a table of federal highway trust fund spending
compared to receipts for fiscal years 1976 to 1995:
HIGHWAY ACCOUNT OF THE HIGHWAY TRUST FUND
[In millions of dollars]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Outlays Income Tax revenue Interest Cash balance
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1976............................ $6,521 $6,000 $5,413 $587 $9,077
TQ.............................. 1,758 1,689 1,676 13 9,009
1977............................ 6,147 7,302 6,709 593 10,164
1978............................ 6,058 7,567 6,904 662 11,673
1979............................ 7,154 8,046 7,189 857 12,564
1980............................ 9,212 7,647 6,620 1,027 10,999
1981............................ 9,174 7,434 6,305 1,129 9,259
1982............................ 8,035 7,822 6,744 1,079 9,046
1983............................ 8,838 8,853 7,777 1,076 9,062
1984............................ 10,384 11,533 10,507 1,027 10,210
1985............................ 12,756 12,908 11,801 1,106 10,362
1986............................ 14,180 13,304 12,250 1,054 9,486
1987............................ 12,802 12,727 11,793 934 9,412
1988............................ 14,038 13,645 12,836 809 9,019
1989............................ 13,602 15,134 14,358 776 10,551
1990............................ 14,375 13,453 12,472 981 9,629
1991............................ 14,686 15,303 14,494 810 10,246
1992............................ 15,518 16,572 15,664 908 11,300
1993............................ 16,641 16,864 16,046 817 11,523
1994............................ 19,011 15,414 14,660 754 7,926
1995 estimate................... 19,622 18,404 17,898 505 6,708
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total..................... 240,512 237,623 220,118 17,506
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: 1976 and later Presidents' Budgets.
Limitation on obligations
The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal
year 1996 federal-aid highway obligations to $18,000,000,000,
which represents an increase of $840,000,000 above the fiscal
year 1995 level. An additional $2,311,932,000 is estimated to
be obligated for federal-aid highways programs exempt from the
obligation limitation in the bill. This compares with
exemptions of $2,267,701,000 in fiscal year 1995. Therefore,
total fiscal year 1996 obligations for federal-aid highways
will be $20,311,932,000, an increase of $884,231,000 more than
fiscal year 1995.
The Committee has denied the administration's request to
place all programs currently exempt from the obligation
limitation (with the exception of emergency relief) under the
limitation. A tabular summary of the programs exempt from the
obligation limitation follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Program 1995 enacted 1996 proposed Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Emergency
relief........ $100,000,000 ................. $100,000,000
Minimum
allocation.... 1,186,532,000 ................. 1,220,255,000
ISTEA demos.... 735,366,000 ................. 738,490,000
Bonus
limitations... 180,000,000 ................. 208,000,000
Other programs. 65,803,000 ................. 45,187,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.... 2,267,701,000 (\1\) 2,311,932,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into
the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment program.
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 highways spending.
FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS PROGRAM ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS
[In thousands of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
Program -----------------------------------------
1995 enacted 1996 request 1996 House
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject to limitation:
National highway system... $3,186,721 (1) $3,383,150
Surface trans. prog....... 4,402,116 (1) 4,733,993
Bridge program............ 2,445,602 (1) 2,596,568
Interstate completion..... 1,575,404 ............ ............
Interstate maintenance.... 2,580,190 (1) 2,738,472
Interstate substitutions.. 212,507 ............ ............
Interstate system reimb... ............ (1) 1,879,528
Cong. mit./air quality
impr..................... 910,239 (1) 967,017
Congestion relief init.... ............ ............ ............
Donor state bonus......... 455,119 (1) 483,039
Intelligent veh. hwy sys.. 133,000 (1) 111,210
Federal lands............. 448,000 (1) 348,432
Admin. and research....... 735,281 (1) 580,849
Miscellaneous programs.... 75,821 (1) 177,742
Minimum allocation........ ............ (1) ............
P.L. 102-240 demos........ ............ 200,000 ............
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, limitation.... 17,160,000 200,000 18,000,000
-----------------------------------------
Exemption from limitation:
Emergency relief: 100,000 ............ 100,000
Regular program....... (174,837) ............ (100,000)
Midwest flood......... (25,973) ............ ............
CA earthquake......... (177,496) ............ ............
Minimum allocation........ 1,186,532 ............ 1,220,255
Bonus limitation.......... 180,000 ............ 208,000
P.L. 102-240 and other
demos.................... 801,169 ............ 783,677
-----------------------------------------
Subtotal, exempt........ 2,267,701 (1) 2,311,932
=========================================
Grand total, Federal-aid 19,427,701 200,000 \1\ 20,311,932
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate these programs into
the Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment program.
A list of the federal highway programs under the limitation
follows:
Interstate Construction.
Interstate Maintenance.
Interstate Gap Closing.
Interstate 4R.
Interstate Discretionary--Construction.
Interstate Discretionary--4R Maryland.
Interstate Discretionary--4R.
Interstate Substitution--Apportioned.
Interstate Substitution--Discretionary.
Rail-Highway Crossings on Any Public Road.
Hazard Elimination.
Combined Road Plan.
Consolidated Primary.
Rural Secondary.
Urban System.
Highway Planning and Research.
Public Lands.
Indian Reservation Roads.
Parkways and Park Highways.
Forest Highways.
Special Urban High Density.
Special Bridge Replacement.
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation--Apportioned,
Discretionary, and Talmadge Bridge.
Franconia Notch.
Bypass Highway Demonstration.
Urgent Supplemental Bridges.
Los Angeles Freight Transportation Demo, CA-131(a).
Baton Rouge Interchange Congestion, Demo, LA-131.
Louisville Primary Connector Accel. Demo, KY-131(e).
Vermont Certification Demo-131(f).
Devils Lake Erosion Demo, ND-131(g).
Bridge Over Intracoastal Waterway Demo, FL-131(h).
Idaho Truck Safety/Railroad Elimination Demo-131(i).
Acosta Bridge, Florida.
Administration.
Studies (Sections 158, 159, 164 & 165 under P.L. 100-17).
Demonstration Projects--149(d).
Strategic Highway Research Program.
Operation Lifesaver.
Congestion Pricing Pilot.
National Highway System.
Bridge Rehabilitation and Replacement.
Surface Transportation Program.
Interstate Substitution.
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality.
Donor State Bonus.
Metropolitan Planning.
Apportionment Adjustment.
Model Intermodal Transportation Plans.
Transportation Assistance Program.
Seismic Research and Development.
Fundamental Properties of Asphalt.
Eisenhower Transportation Fellowship.
Timber Bridge Research and Demonstration.
Intelligent Vehicle Highway Systems.
Ferry Boat Construction.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
University Transportation Centers.
University Research Institute.
Scenic Byways Technical Assistance.
Scenic Byways Interim Program.
Tax Evasion Project.
Safety Belt/Helmet Incentive Grants.
Alcohol Impaired Driving Countermeasures.
International Truck Registry Uniformity.
Applied Research and Development Program.
Border Crossings.
Infrastructure Investment Commission.
High Speed Rail Corridor Crossings.
Administration of obligation limitation.--The bill includes
language regarding the administration of this obligation
limitation. The provision provides for an equitable
distribution of the available obligational authority based upon
the funds apportioned by legislative or administrative formula
and upon funds allocated without a formula. In making such a
distribution, it is intended that discretionary and other non-
formula fund allocations also be considered in the distribution
of obligational authority. If these allocations are unknown at
the time obligational authority is initially made available to
the states, an estimated fair proportion of obligational
authority should be reserved for distribution at the
appropriate time.
Under the provision, total first quarter obligations are
limited to 12 percent, sufficient authority is provided to
prevent lapses, funds are to be redistributed after August 1,
1996, and amounts authorized for administrative expenses, the
federal lands program, the intelligent vehicle highway systems
program, and amounts made available under sections 1040, 1047,
1064, 6001, 6005, 6006, 6023 and 6024 of Public Law 102-240 are
not to be distributed.
The Committee believes that there is adequate legislative
history with respect to the intentions of the Congress in
enacting annual limitations on obligations. The Committee is
reiterating, however, the language on pages 25 and 26 of House
Report 94-1221 stating that this limitation should not be used
by the Secretary as discretionary authority to distort the
priorities established in federal highway legislation. The
Committee expects the Secretary to control obligations in
accordance with Congressional intent and directs that the
Department of Transportation continue to provide on a monthly
basis a report on the cumulative amount of obligations by state
for each program in the federal-aid highways and highway safety
construction program categories. This report should include the
amount of unobligated contract authority available to each
state for each program, as well as a complete description of
any actions taken by the department or the Office of Management
and Budget for the purpose of complying with this obligation
limitation.
intelligent transportation systems
The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to
distribute funds for intelligent transportation systems to the
following programs:
I-10 Mobile, Alabama Causeway........................... $4,000,000
Hazardous materials fleet management and monitoring
system (NIER)....................................... 5,000,000
Green light CVO project, Oregon......................... 6,000,000
Capital Beltway......................................... 6,000,000
Houston, Texas.......................................... 2,400,000
Syracuse, New York congestion management................ 3,000,000
I-95 Corridor........................................... 7,000,000
University of Texas at El Paso.......................... 1,000,000
Johnson City, Tennessee................................. 3,000,000
Texas Transportation Institute.......................... 600,000
University of North Dakota.............................. 1,000,000
I-675/SR 844/Col. Glenn, Fairborn, Ohio................. 1,000,000
1996 Paralympic Games.--The Federal Highway Administration
is urged to give serious consideration to demonstrating an
individualized routing system to maximize the ability of people
with disabilities to move about independently during the
Paralympic Games in Atlanta in 1996.
Capital Beltway.--The Committee has included $6,000,000 for
ITS technologies to manage traffic and improve safety in the
highly congested corridor of the Capital Beltway. The FHWA is
directed to work with the Departments of Transportation of the
states of Maryland and Virginia to implement the
recommendations of the Capital Beltway Safety Task Force. Of
the funds provided, each State shall receive fifty percent of
the amount allocated.
Transportation center at the University of Texas at El
Paso.--The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,000,000
for an intermodal transportation center in El Paso, Texas to
enhance the implementation of a national, coordinated
transportation system to help both public and private sectors
benefit from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).
The El Paso, Texas-Long Island, New York consortium shall work
in tandem with the Department's Office of Intermodalism and
other federal agencies to provide objective, technology-based
intermodal transportation data to the private sector; to border
communities on both the Northern and Southwest borders; to
state, local and federal government policy makers, and small
businesses to maximize the opportunities for the movement of
U.S. goods and services to new markets in Mexico. The Committee
believes that this innovative program will improve coordination
of all modes of transportation in the border regions, and will
contribute to the successful implementation of the NAFTA.
Texas Transportation Institute.--The Committee has provided
$600,000 for the Texas Transportation Institute. These funds
are available for a public/private partnership to establish an
intelligent systems laboratory to develop advanced ITS
technologies and systems.
estimated fiscal year 1996 obligation limitation
The following table portrays estimated 1996 activity by
state for the Federal-aid highways program under the obligation
limitation recommended in the bill:
State Estimated distribution
Alabama................................................. $275,293,952
Alaska.................................................. 221,506,568
Arizona................................................. 202,521,862
Arkansas................................................ 168,457,145
California.............................................. 1,341,607,447
Colorado................................................ 194,700,464
Connecticut............................................. 338,435,718
Delaware................................................ 71,404,595
District of Columbia.................................... 92,768,938
Florida................................................. 540,061,668
Georgia................................................. 427,104,457
Hawaii.................................................. 115,984,210
Idaho................................................... 121,936,644
Illinois................................................ 619,062,161
Indiana................................................. 318,614,447
Iowa.................................................... 210,421,345
Kansas.................................................. 197,828,586
Kentucky................................................ 233,416,658
Louisiana............................................... 253,299,075
Maine................................................... 86,544,391
Maryland................................................ 342,118,235
Massachusetts........................................... 762,163,236
Michigan................................................ 407,370,546
Minnesota............................................... 276,965,432
Mississippi............................................. 179,517,826
Missouri................................................ 340,728,428
Montana................................................. 168,128,809
Nebraska................................................ 135,741,938
Nevada.................................................. 107,505,883
New Hampshire........................................... 82,335,897
New Jersey.............................................. 516,266,178
New Mexico.............................................. 183,182,908
New York................................................ 935,774,705
North Carolina.......................................... 393,434,371
North Dakota............................................ 107,594,582
Ohio.................................................... 598,461,979
Oklahoma................................................ 215,675,133
Oregon.................................................. 206,448,429
Pennsylvania............................................ 859,709,531
Rhode Island............................................ 99,872,134
South Carolina.......................................... 183,188,956
South Dakota............................................ 121,810,368
Tennessee............................................... 328,448,015
Texas................................................... 1,001,945,443
Utah.................................................... 129,015,216
Vermont................................................. 76,539,424
Virginia................................................ 366,914,838
Washington.............................................. 230,422,867
West Virginia........................................... 164,185,070
Wisconsin............................................... 282,648,816
Wyoming................................................. 111,402,471
Puerto Rico............................................. 78,681,608
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Subtotal.......................................... 16,025,169,607
Administration.......................................... 520,825,507
Federal Lands........................................... 348,432,000
Allocation reserve...................................... 1,105,572,886
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 18,000,000,000
Congestion relief and mitigation projects.--The Committee
has not funded a new program, the congestion relief and
mitigation program, as requested in the budget. The program
appears to extend the ITS program from the Intelligent Vehicle-
Highway System's Act's intent of researching and testing
promising technologies, such as traveler information systems.
The initiative also departs from the ITS program goals of
allowing the commercial deployment of ITS technologies to occur
based on state and local government's needs. Furthermore,
should states determine that congestion mitigation projects are
desired, additional resources have been provided under the
surface transportation program and congestion mitigation/air
quality program.
Symms National Recreational Trails Act.--The Committee does
not recommend that $30,000,000 be set-aside from the federal-
aid highway obligation limitation to fund the Symms National
Recreational Trails Act.
Right-of-Way Revolving Fund
(limitation on direct loans)
(highway trust fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................ ($42,500,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996............(.........................)
Recommended in the bill......................(.........................)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (-42,500,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996........(.........................)
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1968 authorized $300,000,000
for the establishment of a right-of-way revolving fund. The
fund is used to make interest-free cash advances to the states
for the purpose of purchasing right-of-way parcels in advance
of highway construction and thereby preventing the inflation of
land prices from causing a significant increase in construction
costs.
The initial legislation for this program required the
states to construct the highway and reimburse the revolving
fund within seven years from the date of the advance. This
provision was necessary to assure that the fund would be
replenished and allow advances to be made to other states
requiring right-of-way acquisition. Since the 1968 Act, the
1973 Highway Act extended the required time limit for
construction to ten years and the 1976 Highway Act extended the
time limit indefinitely, if deemed necessary by the Secretary.
When right-of-way acquisition has been made and highway
construction is initiated, the state becomes eligible for
federal grants under the various federal-aid highways programs.
At the point when progress payments are made to the state for
construction, the state in turn reimburses the revolving fund
for advances made to the state for right-of-way acquisition.
Using this method of funding, all reimbursements made to the
revolving fund may be reallocated to other states requiring
advances.
The Committee recommends that the program be terminated in
1996, as requested in the budget. The program will continue,
however, to be shown for reporting purposes as balances remain
outstanding. Like the budget request, a prohibition on further
obligations is recommended for 1996.
Motor Carrier Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Liquidation of
contract Limitation on
authorization obligations
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995....................... ($73,000,000) ($74,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996....................... (68,000,000) (85,000,000)
Recommended in the bill..... (68,000,000) (79,150,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal
year 1995.............. (-5,000,000) (+5,150,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal
year 1996.............. (...................
.) (-5,850,000)
The motor carrier safety grants program is intended to
assist states in developing or implementing 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.
The Committee recommends the budget request of $68,000,000
in liquidating cash for this program.
limitation on obligations
The Committee recommends a $79,150,000 limitation on
obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This provides an
increase of $5,150,000 over the 1995 level and a decrease of
$5,850,000 below the budget request. The recommendation
provides the following allocation among MCSAP activities:
MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY GRANTS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
--------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
1995 enacted 1996 request the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Basic grants to
states.............. $55,550,000 $62,800,000 $60,000,000
Traffic enforcement.. 6,375,000 7,000,000 6,875,000
Hazardous materials
training............ 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
Research and
development......... 500,000 775,000 500,000
Public education..... 850,000 850,000 850,000
CDL enforcement...... 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000
Truck and bus
accidents........... 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,750,000
Uniformity grants.... 3,450,000 5,000,000 3,800,000
Uniformity working
groups.............. 450,000 1,000,000 450,000
Commercial vehicle
information system.. 1,500,000 2,000,000 1,500,000
Drug interdiction
assistance program
\1\................. 500,000 ...............
........... ...............
..........
Administrative
expenses............ 825,000 1,063,000 875,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total.......... 74,000,000 85,000,000 79,150,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Drug interdiction assistance is an eligible activity under the basic
grants to states.
committee recommendations
Basic grants.--The Committee recommends $60,000,000 for
motor carrier basic grants to the states, an increase of
$4,450,000 over the fiscal year 1995 level and a decrease of
$2,800,000 below the budget request. The Committee believes
that the recommended amount will allow states to improve on the
current level of roadside inspection programs, while taking
into account normal inflationary costs. The office of motor
carriers is also encouraging states to develop a more
comprehensive program, including participating in drug
interdiction activities. The increased funding should allow
states to incorporate both of these activities.
Reallocation funds.--Under MCSAP, funds not fully utilized
by some states are available for reallocation to other states
for high priority needs. The Committee directs that not less
than $750,000 of those funds available for reallocation in
fiscal year 1996 be for covert operations and other enforcement
projects to ensure correction of out-of-service violations.
Data supplied to the Committee by the office of motor carriers
indicated that in fiscal year 1994, about 24 percent of all
vehicles and 8 percent of all drivers are placed out-of-service
for serious safety problems as a result of MCSAP inspections.
Compared to fiscal year 1993, the percent of vehicles being
placed out-of-service is declining; however, the percent of
drivers is increasing. Correction of these safety deficiencies
still remains a substantial problem, especially in the driver
area. The Committee strongly urges the office of motor carriers
to ensure that these funds are used to support covert
operations in addition to those originally planned in each
state's enforcement plan.
The Committee directs that not less than $750,000 of the
MCSAP funds available for reallocation be provided to states
sharing a common border with Mexico. The motor carrier
enforcement resources of these states will need to ensure the
safety of a substantially increased flow of commercial vehicle
traffic resulting from the North American Free Trade Agreement.
The administrator shall ensure that these funds are made
available before December 17, 1995.
Performance-based grants.--The Committee notes that while
many states have significantly improved their programs since
the inception of MCSAP, 18 states and territories still do not
operate comprehensive programs that offer the significant
potential to reduce commercial vehicle crashes and related
fatalities. The Committee believes that a comprehensive MCSAP
program should include roadside enforcement, compliance
reviews, traffic enforcement, hazardous materials training,
drug and alcohol enforcement, verification of out-of-service
repairs, including covert operations, and a fully-implemented
SAFETYNET program.
In the House report accompanying the fiscal year 1995
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, the Committee
directed the office of motor carriers to submit a report to the
House and Senate Appropriations Committees by March 1, 1995
that discusses the feasibility of awarding a portion of the
MCSAP basic grant funding to the states based on the
achievement of certain performance criteria. The House has yet
to receive this report. The Committee continues to believe that
further increases in MCSAP basic grant funding should be
contingent upon states meeting predetermined performance
outcomes. Examples of such performance outcomes include
conducting a targeted number of roadside inspections,
conducting a required percentage of Level 1 inspections,
expanding the locations where traffic enforcement is conducted,
or increasing the proportion of reinspections to assure
correction of out-of-service violations. The Committee directs
the office of motor carriers to issue this report as soon as
possible.
Traffic enforcement.--The Committee recommends $6,875,000
for traffic enforcement. This is an increase of $500,000 over
fiscal year 1995 but $125,000 less than requested. Traffic
enforcement is a strategy that identifies thousands of drivers
each year that are in violation of duty status regulations
(hours of service) or other driver specific requirements.
Furthermore, money for traffic enforcement also addresses a
major cause of truck-involved crashes, namely violations of the
rules of the road, such as speeding and improper lane changes.
Recently, the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators (AAMVA) issued a statement noting that in 23
states, there were over 30,700 speeding citations and 23,300
following-too-closely citations against commercial vehicle
drivers.
Research and development.--The Committee recommends holding
research and development at the 1995 enacted level due to
budget constraints. This is a decrease of $225,000 from the
1996 requested level.
Truck and bus accident data.--The Committee recommends
$1,750,000, an increase of $250,000 over the fiscal year 1995
level, for grants to assist states in improving truck and bus
accident data. Funds for the truck and bus accident grant
program are primarily used for the training of state and local
law enforcement officers to improve their ability to collect
much needed statistics on crashes involving commercial motor
vehicles. These grants are also used to facilitate the
uploading of crash data from states currently participating in
the SAFETYNET accident module. Twenty three states and American
Samoa now consistently upload all 22 of the National Governors'
Association (NGA) truck and bus accident data elements to the
Federal Highway Administration's SAFETYNET system; and another
23 states upload some of the NGA data elements. The additional
funds could either help increase the number of states that use
the SAFETYNET accident module or help states find ways to enter
data more rapidly. The office of motor carriers plans on having
the SAFETYNET system operating nationwide (for interstate
carriers) by mid-1997.
In last year's House report, the Committee requested that
the Federal Highway Administration, in consultation with the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, submit a report
to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March
1, 1995 that discusses the progress being made in improving
federal and state truck and bus accident data systems. The
Committee is very disappointed that it has not yet received
this report and requests that it be expedited. This report will
be a keystone in helping this Committee determine future
limitations on obligations for truck and bus accident programs.
Uniformity grants.--The Committee recommends $3,800,000 for
the uniformity grants program. This is an increase of $350,000
over the 1995 enacted level but $1,150,000 less than requested
by the administration. This funding will provide direct grants
to states to comply with the requirements of the International
Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA) and the International Registration
Program (IRP), by the end of fiscal year 1996 as required by
section 4008 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act. Specifically, the Act allows a motor carrier to
register all or part of a fleet in one state instead of
multiple states for the purpose of fuel use tax reporting. With
only 1\1/2\ years left, 3 states have not joined IRP and 10
states need to come into IFTA. Five states belong to regional
fuel tax agreements and are exempt from belonging to IFTA.
Considerable technical assistance, training, and data
processing needs must be met. The federal funds will supplement
some of the expenses that the states incur.
Uniformity grants working group.--The Committee recommends
holding the uniformity grants working group at the fiscal year
1995 level, which is $550,000 less than requested, because the
requested increase for funding is not well justified. Holding
this program to the 1995 enacted level of $450,000 should be
sufficient to ensure an effective operation of the base working
group.
Commercial vehicle information system.--The Committee
recommendation includes $1,500,000 for commercial vehicle
information system (CVIS) implementation, which is the same
amount provided in fiscal year 1995 but a reduction of $500,000
below the budget request. The Committee notes that this
activity is receiving a sizable infusion of funding through the
Federal Highway Administration's commercial vehicle operations
component of the intelligent transportation system program. The
recommended funds will support the development and pilot
testing of CVIS in the states participating in this project.
Administrative expenses.--The Committee recommends
increasing the funds available for administrative expenses to
$875,000, which is $50,000 more than appropriated in 1995 but
$188,000 less than requested. The administrative takedown
largely covers the costs of training purposes, equipment, and
printing of materials, such as the Roadcheck pamphlets and
newsletters. The Committee believes that a six percent increase
in obligations is sufficient.
Hours-of-service.--The Committee is aware of an ongoing
rulemaking that considers altering the restrictions on the
``hours of service''. This rulemaking is considering whether
farmers and agricultural suppliers could be exempt from the
maximum driving and on-duty time limitations, when transporting
agricultural commodities or farm supplies within a 50 mile
radius. Currently, the ``hours of service'' regulation, found
in 49 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 395, contains three
basic rules which apply to maximum allowable driving time. They
are: (1) no driver shall drive more than 10 hours following 8
consecutive hours off, (2) no driver shall drive after having
been on duty 15 hours following 8 consecutive hours off, and
(3) no driver shall drive after having been on duty 60 hours in
any 7 consecutive day period or 70 hours in any 8 consecutive
day period. Farmers and agricultural suppliers must abide by
these rules, even though some other drivers are exempt. For
example, local retail drivers are exempt during the Christmas
holidays. The Committee notes that, during crop planting and
harvesting seasons, farmers and agricultural suppliers face a
situation similar to that of local retail drivers during the
holiday season. The Committee directs the office of motor
carriers to consider carefully the issue and promulgate the
rule soon as possible, preferably before the 1995 harvest
season.
Surface Transportation Projects
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $352,055,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -352,055,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
The Committee recommends no appropriations for surface
transportation projects, more commonly referred to as
demonstration projects. Rather than making scarce federal
resources available for specific earmarked projects, the
Committee has rolled back $352,055,000 into the federal-aid
highway obligation limitation and increased further the
obligation limitation over the levels contained in Public Law
103-331. The Committee's recommendation will enable the states
to determine the best expenditure of limited highway
expenditures, will lead to greater cost efficiencies, improve
highway planning and management, and provide greater equity
among all states. The American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has stated that, no matter
how meritorious demonstration projects may be, ``the fact that
they are outside the program mainstream * * * skews funding and
disrupts funding priority * * * the ongoing drain of these
projects * * * is significant and should not continue.''
The need for transportation projects should be and is best
determined through a state and regional planning process, which
includes the identification of potential federal and state
funding sources for projects planned within the next one to
three years. The General Accounting Office has concluded that
often times special demonstration projects are not included in
any state or regional transportation plans or, if they are
included, they are included without any identified funding.
Furthermore, demonstration projects typically have not been
considered by state and regional transportation officials as
critical to their transportation needs, and as a result, funds
made available for these projects often go unspent for many
years. Projects languish in early development or never get
started at all, depriving others that are ready-to-go and
limiting the overall Federal-aid program.
The following table displays the 1995 obligation
limitation distributed by state, the amount of appropriations
provided to each state for specific highway demonstration
projects in 1995, the amount each state will receive under the
1996 obligation limitation, and the difference between 1995 and
1996:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 1995 FAH FY 1995 Appr. Total FY 1995 Est. FY 1996 FAH FY 1995/FY 1996
State limitation demos distribution limitation difference
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............... $258,165,555 $5,650,000 $263,815,555 $275,293.052 $11,478,397
Alaska................ 207,830,381 ................ 207,830,381 221,506,568 13,676,187
Arizona............... 189,969,436 2,000,000 191,969,436 202,521,862 10,552,426
Arkansas.............. 158,004,797 10,150,000 168,154,797 168,457,145 302,348
California............ 1,258,423,359 12,503,000 1,270,926,359 1,341,607,447 70,681,088
Colorado.............. 182,670,708 ................ 182,670,708 194,700,464 12,029,756
Connecticut........... 317,532,042 668,000 318,200,042 338,435,718 20,235,676
Delaware.............. 66,993,309 ................ 66,993,309 71,404,595 4,411,286
Dist. of Columbia..... 87,038,323 ................ 87,038,323 92,768,938 5,730,615
Florida............... 506,550,460 8,168,000 514,718,460 540,061,868 25,343,208
Georgia............... 400,620,042 3,850,000 404,470,042 427,104,457 22,634,415
Hawaii................ 108,820,384 3,500,000 112,320,384 115,984,210 3,663,826
Idaho................. 114,407,151 ................ 114,407,151 121,936,644 7,529,493
Illinois.............. 580,816,882 2,800,000 583,616,882 619,062,161 35,445,279
Indiana............... 298,701,740 14,125,000 312,826,740 318,614,447 5,787,707
Iowa.................. 197,428,280 17,376,000 214,804,280 210,421,345 -4,382,935
Kansas................ 185,612,947 3,600,000 189,212,947 197,838,586 8,615,639
Kentucky.............. 218,857,951 17,550,000 236,407,951 233,416,658 -2,991,293
Louisiana............. 237,592,383 11,500,000 249,092,383 253,299,075 4,206,692
Maine................. 81,198,504 ................ 81,198,504 86,544,391 5,345,887
Maryland.............. 320,982,585 13,000,000 333,982,585 342,118,235 8,135,650
Massachusetts......... 715,092,872 ................ 715,092,872 762,163,236 47,070,364
Michigan.............. 382,007,459 46,463,000 428,470,459 407,370,546 -21,099,913
Minnesota............. 259,861,866 4,625,000 264,486,866 276,965,432 12,478,566
Mississippi........... 168,393,923 2,900,000 171,293,923 179,517,826 8,223,903
Missouri.............. 319,550,558 2,953,000 322,503,558 340,728,438 18,224,870
Montana............... 157,748,214 500,000 158,248,214 168,128,809 9,880,595
Nebraska.............. 127,358,354 2,000,000 129,358,354 135,741,938 6,383,584
Nevada................ 100,865,181 7,975,000 108,480,181 107,505,883 -1,334,298
New Hampshire......... 77,249,674 ................ 77,249,674 82,335,897 5,086,223
New Jersey............ 484,366,841 24,000,000 508,366,841 516,266,178 7,899,337
New Mexico............ 171,874,396 10,300,000 182,174,396 183,182,908 1,008,512
New York.............. 877,945,910 4,050,000 881,995,910 935,774,705 53,778,795
North Carolina........ 369,054,372 11,250,000 380,304,372 393,434,371 13,129,999
North Dakota.......... 100,949,670 ................ 100,949,670 107,594,582 6,644,921
Ohio.................. 561,090,014 6,462,000 567,552,014 598,461,979 30,909,965
Oklahoma.............. 202,311,858 ................ 202,311,858 215,675,133 13,363,275
Oregon................ 193,697,344 2,500,000 196,197,344 206,448,429 10,251,085
Pennsylvania.......... 806,605,093 22,029,000 828,634,093 859,709,531 31,075,438
Rhode Island.......... 93,702,999 ................ 93,702,999 99,872,134 6,169,135
South Carolina........ 171,873,784 ................ 171,873,784 183,188,956 11,315,172
South Dakota.......... 114,288,193 2,000,000 116,288,183 121,810,368 5,522,175
Tennessee............. 308,050,243 1,000,000 309,050,243 328,448,015 19,397,772
Texas................. 939,798,012 14,000,000 953,798,012 1,001,945,443 48,147,431
Utah.................. 121,045,662 3,000,000 124,045,662 129,015,216 4,969,554
Vermont............... 71,811,156 ................ 71,811,156 76,539,424 4,728,268
Virginia.............. 344,247,331 7,300,000 351,547,331 366,914,838 15,367,507
Washington............ 216,184,320 6,308,000 222,492,320 230,422,867 7,930,547
West Virginia......... 154,045,529 44,000,000 198,045,529 164,185,070 -33,860,459
Wisconsin............. 265,097,654 ................ 265,097,654 282,648,816 17,551,162
Wyoming............... 104,522,012 ................ 104,522,012 111,402,471 6,880,459
Puerto Rico........... 73,815,400 ................ 73,815,400 78,681,608 4,866,208
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal........ 15,032,723,113 352,055,000 15,384,778,113 16,025,169,607 640,391,494
Administration........ 573,704,000 ................ 570,159,000 520,825,507 -49,333,493
Federal Lands......... 448,000,000 ................ 448,000,000 348,432,000 -99,568,000
Allocation Reserve.... 1,105,572,887 ................ 1,105,572,887 \2\ 1,105,572,88
6 \1\
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........... \1\ 17,160,000,0
00 352,055,000 17,508,510,000 18,000,000,000 491,490,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Federal aid obligation limitation for FY 1995 was reduced by $3.545 million in accordance with sections
323, 330 and 331 of P.L. 103-331.
\2\ This estimate is the amount set aside for FY 1996; it does not reflect any reductions that may result from
section 1003(c) of P.L. 102-240.
Note.--The FY 1996 state distribution estimated above is based on the actual FY 1995 distribution.
It is the Committee's expectation that each state will
provide the sufficient resources from its federal-aid program
to continue or complete the planning, design or construction of
any project that has received categorical funding in the past.
The Committee directs the Federal Highway Administration to
assist each state in identifying the highway projects that have
received previous appropriations.
NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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.
NHTSA's programs currently are authorized under three major
laws: (1) the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act;
(2) Chapter 4 of title 23, United States Code; and (3) the
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act (MVICS). 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.
Title 23 U.S.C. chapter 4 provides for coordinated national
highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out with
the states together with supporting 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 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 included amendments to title 23. It reauthorized section
402 formula grants, provided for modified section 410 alcohol-
impaired driving countermeasures grants, and authorized new
section 153 safety belt and motorcycle helmet grants. Section
153(j) grants were concluded in fiscal year 1994 and replaced
by section 153(h) sanction provisions. ISTEA also authorized
additional funding for the national driver register and for an
expanded drug recognition expert training program.
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 Committee recommends new budget authority and
obligation limitations for a total program level of
$278,728,500 for NHTSA programs and activities in fiscal year
1996. This is $775,500 more than was provided in fiscal year
1995, and $61,613,500 less than the level proposed in the
President's budget. The following table summarizes the fiscal
year 1995 program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program
requests, and the Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year-- Bill compared
Program -------------------------------------- Recommended in with fiscal year
1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill 1996 estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operations and research............. $126,553,000 $144,342,000 $125,328,500 -$19,013,500
Highway traffic safety grants....... 151,400,000 196,000,000 153,400,000 -42,600,000
Total......................... 277,953,000 340,342,000 278,728,500 -61,613,500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
traffic safety trends
In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest ever number of
highway fatalities despite an increasing amount of travel on
the roads. This trend reversed itself in 1993, with traffic
fatalities increasing to 40,150, or 900 more fatalities than in
1992. The latest NHTSA data indicates fatalities in 1994 were
40,676, or 526 higher than the 1993 level. Likewise, overall
fatality rates (based on deaths per 100 million vehicle miles
traveled) have leveled off to 1.8 fatalities in 1992, 1993 and
1994. The following charts show these safety trends.
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
Operations and Research
(including highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................\1\ $126,553,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 144,342,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 125,328,500
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -1,224,500
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -19,013,500
\1\ Reductions of $792,000 to comply with working capital fund,
awards and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $81,500 for
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.
The Committee recommends a total of $125,328,500 for NHTSA
operations and research in fiscal year 1996. This represents a
reduction of $1,224,500 below the level provided in fiscal year
1995 and $19,013,500 below the budget request. The bill
specifies that $73,316,570 (58.5 percent of the total) shall be
derived from the general fund and $52,011,930 (41.5 percent of
the total) shall be derived from the highway trust fund. In
addition, the bill includes language to limit the availability
of the operations and research appropriations to a three-year
period. Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recommended in
1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rulemaking..... $ 11,136,000 $14,787,000 $12,420,000
(Positions) (95) (95) (95)
Enforcement.... 18,028,000 19,737,000 19,210,500
(Positions) (103) (103) (103)
Highway safety. 39,039,000 50,681,000 44,455,000
(Positions) (203) (203) (203)
Research and
analysis...... 50,885,000 52,437,000 42,737,000
(Positions) (132) (132) (132)
Office of
administrator. 3,683,000 3,820,000 3,820,000
(Positions) (41) (41) (41)
General
administration 8,952,000 9,038,000 8,938,000
(Positions) (90) (90) (90)
Grant
administration
reimbursement. -6,043,000 -6,158,000 -6,043,000
Accountwide
adjustments... +873,000 ................. -209,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.... 126,553,000 144,342,000 125,328,500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
committee recommendation
In reviewing NHTSA's budget request, the Committee has
placed the highest priority on programs aimed at reducing
alcohol impaired driving and providing greater occupant
protection. The Committee recommends the following changes to
the budget request:
Rulemaking:
Reduce vehicle safety standards (new public
promotion activity)............................... -$200,000
Reduction in NCAP (frontal, side impact and
promotional activities)........................... -1,057,000
Decrease fuel economy technical studies (EIS and
fuel economy studies)............................. -2,000,000
Theft program pilot project......................... +890,000
Enforcement:
Reduction in auto safety hotline.................... -486,500
Reduce per state funding for odometer fraud......... -40,000
Highway Safety Programs:
Delete safe communities injury control centers...... -5,600,000
Eliminate pedestrian and bicycle demonstrations..... -224,000
Reduce emergency medical services................... -252,000
Reduce driver education research.................... -150,000
Research and Analysis Program:
Defer some biomechanics research (National
Transportation Center)............................ -2,000,000
Delete funding for national advanced driving
simulator......................................... -2,000,000
Reduce fatal accident reporting system.............. -300,000
Reduce data analysis program........................ -400,000
Reduce state data program........................... -500,000
Reduce most partnership for new generation vehicle
funding........................................... -4,500,000
General Administration:
Hold strategic planning to 1995 level............... -100,000
Grant Administration:
Hold expenses at 1995 level......................... +115,000
Accountwide Adjustments:
One percent base reduction in operating expenses.... -137,000
Reduce printing costs............................... -72,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to budget................................ -19,013,500
Vehicle safety standards.--The Committee recommends
$650,000 for the vehicle safety standards program, an increase
of $150,000 from the 1995 enacted level. NHTSA plans to conduct
a new public information campaign designed to seek public input
on what safety information the public wants and how best to
present it. NHTSA had requested $300,000 for this effort;
however, due to budget constraints the Committee has provided
$100,000.
New car assessment program (NCAP).--The Committee
recommends $1,735,000 for this program. This is an increase of
$50,000 over 1995 enacted levels and a decrease of $1,057,000
from the budget request. Historically, under the frontal crash
testing program, NHTSA has tested 39 cars per year, or about 80
percent of the cars sold. In fiscal year 1996, NHTSA plans to
test 4 additional cars. The Committee recommendation will
continue the testing of 39 cars annually.
The Committee has denied the request to expand the program
to include side impact testing. In a May 1995 report, GAO
questioned the reliability and repeatability of NCAP data.
Because side impact testing will give consumers another piece
of data about car safety, which may not be accurate, the
Committee's action will defer the beginning of NCAP side impact
testing until the National Academy of Sciences completes its
study on motor vehicle safety needs. This study is scheduled to
be issued in March 1996. NHTSA may test the automobile's
ability to meet side impact standards under a separate NHTSA
program ``vehicle safety compliance.'' The administration will
test 20 cars at 30 miles per hour to verify that they meet the
side impact protection standard. The NCAP testing is done at 35
miles per hour. Consistent with the Committee's decision not to
expand NCAP to include side impact testing, the Committee has
deleted $150,000 for promotional activities, such as new
brochures, video releases, and NCAP exhibits.
Fuel economy program.--The Committee recommends decreasing
the fuel economy program by $2,000,000. This program consists
of two areas: (1) a fuel economy environmental impact statement
and (2) technical studies. NHTSA has not adequately addressed
the need for a $1,500,000 environmental impact statement to be
used to help set light truck fuel economy standards for 1998-
2006. According to a 1992 National Academy of Sciences study,
the most direct method to increase significantly fuel economy
is to reduce the vehicle's size and weight. Currently scheduled
modifications to improve vehicle safety, including air bags,
antilock brakes, and side impact protection, will increase the
vehicle's weight and thereby could lower fuel economy. However,
weight reductions are possible through the use of lighter and
more expensive materials. Since light trucks, vans, and sport-
utility vehicles now account for about 40 percent of all new
passenger vehicles sold, it seems unlikely that if gains in
fuel economy are obtained in new vehicles at the expense of
other attributes consumers value (e.g. performance, size,
safety, cargo space) that consumers will have such a high
demand for these vehicles. Instead, consumers may retain their
current vehicles longer. Also, since size and weight are
related to safety, having more fuel efficient light trucks and
vans could force a downsizing of these vehicles, which could
adversely affect occupant safety. If NHTSA wishes to pursue
increased fuel economy in these vehicles, this Committee
believes that the agency should stay within narrower bounds,
such as a 2 to 3 year period, where automotive technology and
consumer preferences are more certain.
The Committee has decreased funds for fuel economy
technology studies by $500,000. The automobile industry and
Department of Energy already undertake a variety of fuel
economy studies. The Committee believes NHTSA should prevent a
duplication of efforts and reduce the number of fuel economy
studies it planned for 1996.
The Committee has adopted a general provision (Sec. 330)
that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe or
promulgate corporate average fuel economy 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
1998 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard
established for such automobiles for model year 1997.
Theft protection program.--The Committee has provided
$1,000,000 to analyze insurance information and to establish
pilot National Motor Vehicle Title Information System (NMVTIS)
programs. Currently, motor vehicle departments cannot
electronically verify the validity of titles of vehicles being
registered from other states. The NMVTIS has the potential to
fix this problem by establishing a national system, based on
each automobile's unique vehicle identification number, that
states could use to verify, within seconds, the validity of
titles and other documents, prior to issuing new titles. This
system may prevent thieves from obtaining legitimate vehicle
ownership documentation.
The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators
testified before the Committee about this problem and noted
that in a three-month period, the motor vehicle department in
Indiana accepted 631 applications for registration and title on
vehicles which were eventually verified as stolen. In the same
period, the state also issued titles to 59 vehicles that were
identified as already having been exported.
Uniform tire quality grading standards.--The bill includes
a provision which prohibits any agency funded in this Act from
planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which
would require that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate
their low rolling resistance. There is evidence showing that
the promotion of low rolling resistance characteristics
negatively impacts safety. At the same time, there is little
evidence showing a positive impact on fuel economy. Until
independent analysis has been conducted and validated by NHTSA,
the Committee believes no further regulatory action should be
taken to add this as a grading standard.
Automobile Safety Hotline.--The Committee recommends
reducing the auto safety hotline request by $486,500. NHTSA
plans to expand its auto safety hotline to handle one million
calls in 1996. In 1994, the hotline handled 533,801 calls.
Although there is an increasing demand for this hotline, the
Committee does not expect the number of telephone calls to
roughly double in two years. The Committee has provided funds
to enhance the hotline's infrastructure (e.g. adding more
telephone lines, buying more hardware and software, and
building additional work stations) and half of the 12 new
contractors NHTSA planned to hire to handle the automobile
safety hotline calls.
Odometer fraud.--The Committee has reduced the odometer
fraud program by $40,000, which will provide $15,000 to four
states' enforcement agencies for these efforts instead of
$25,000 per state as proposed in the budget. Odometer fraud
costs the public more than $3 billion per year. In 1994 and
1995, no money was appropriated, even though states have
recovered over $700,000 for defrauded consumers. Some NHTSA
funding in this program is necessary to ensure assistance from
states to recover funds for defrauded consumers and to
publicize the odometer fraud problem.
Safe communities injury control program.--The Committee
does not recommend funding the new safe communities injury
control centers program due to budget constraints and
insufficient justification. NHTSA had requested $5,600,000 to
establish 15 injury control centers in various communities
across the United States and planned to expand this program to
45 communities over a three year period. Rather, the Committee
has provided $3,000,000 for three prototypes under the Section
402 safe communities program.
Pedestrian and bicycle.--The Committee has deferred
demonstration funding under the alcohol, drugs, and state
programs' pedestrian and bicycle program (-$224,000). The
National Center for Injury Control and Prevention has a variety
of pedestrian and bicycle intervention efforts underway that
are similar to what NHTSA has proposed in its fiscal year 1996
budget request. For example, the Center has ongoing work on the
effects of alcohol related crashes on pedestrians and
bicyclists, child pedestrian safety, community pedestrian
safety, pedestrian and bicycle crash intervention, and school/
community based intervention programs. NHTSA should work in
conjunction with this Center instead of developing three of its
own demonstration projects. The Committee has provided funding
at the 1995 level so that work involving older pedestrians, the
Hispanic community, and the development of guidance for
transporting pre-kindergarten children can continue.
National occupant protection program.--Data collected
during a national traffic study showed that, in moving traffic,
seat belt usage was 62.8 percent in passenger cars and 50.2
percent in light trucks. This is significantly lower than the
67 percent U.S. average that NHTSA has published. With seat
belt usage only slowly increasing--up one percent from 1993 to
1994--and the low figures in this nationwide study, the
Committee believes that more aggressive action needs to be
taken to achieve a 75 percent seat belt usage rate by 1997.
Specifically, the Committee directs NHTSA to develop and
distribute it to all states a model seat belt use law as part
of its 1996 program.
Emergency medical services (EMS).--The Committee
recommendation includes $870,000 for this program, an increase
of $215,000 over fiscal year 1995 enacted levels, and a
reduction of $252,000 from the budget request. NHTSA plans to
revise national EMS curricula, many of which date back to the
late 1970s or early 1980s. Due to advances in medical
technology and the widespread use of safety systems in today's
automobiles, the Committee strongly supports this effort.
However, in light of budget constraints, the Committee has not
provided other proposed increases in the EMS program for public
information, communication systems, and research and evaluation
activities.
The Committee is aware that NHTSA, in collaboration with
the Maternal and Child Health Bureau of the Department of
Health and Human Services, is working with the Emergency
Medical Services for Children Program (EMSC). This program
involves training on the care of critically ill and injured
children in all aspects of the health care continuum, including
rural hospitals and trauma centers. The Committee directs NHTSA
to give high priority to this program, especially as it moves
to develop a new data resource center to assist states, trauma
centers, and pre-hospital providers because of the importance
of these services to this population group and to continue to
report to the committee on this issue.
Driver education research.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has provided $200,000 for the new driver education
research initiative. This is a reduction of $150,000 from the
budget request.
Biomechanics.--The Committee recommendation for the
biomechanics program includes $5,450,000, which is $150,000
less than 1995 and $2,000,000 less than requested. The
Committee has deleted the proposed evaluation of a National
Transportation Biomechanics Center to address biomechanical
issues and undertake modeling efforts for all DOT modes and
manage other university activities. The Committee notes NHTSA
currently has contracts with between 4 and 6 universities to
conduct biomechanical research, which it manages internally. In
addition, NHTSA has not adequately explained the need for
another university to manage the work of its centers.
The Committee strongly supports the highway traffic injury
work being undertaken by the William Lehman Injury Research
Center. This center has developed a multidisciplinary approach
to study automobile injuries and computerize investigative
findings. The Committee encourages NHTSA to continue working
with the research center on these efforts.
National advanced driving simulator (NADS).--The Committee
has deleted funding for the national advanced driving
simulator. The 1995 Department of Transportation Appropriations
Conference Report stated that several requirements must be met
before NADS would receive additional funding. These
requirements included: (1) NHTSA providing the House and Senate
with a new estimate of the project's total costs; (2) having
$11,000,000 in non-DOT matching contributions; (3) GAO
certification that the matching contributions and commitments
to the simulator have been secured; and (4) the Transportation
Research Board (TRB) determining whether the driving simulator
will be operated at 80 percent capacity with no more than 50
percent usage by NHTSA within 2 years. To date, 3 of the 4
requirements have been met. The State of Iowa and the
University of Iowa have provided a total of $12,470,000 in cash
and computer software. GAO has certified this.
For the remaining two requirements, NHTSA has not provided
a new estimate of the project's total costs to the Committee.
In 1990, the simulator was estimated to cost $32,000,000;
however, TRB's study notes that ``in view of NHTSA's
inexperience with procuring driving simulators, the [TRB]
committee believes that [the NADS] is unlikely to achieve its
proposed functionality within the fixed budget of $32,000,000
and will probably experience many software integration
challenges and component adjustments before it operates
smoothly''. GAO's reports state that the total project cost for
the NADS program is now estimated at $37,100,000 including
project management.
In their report analyzing potential usage of the simulator,
TRB stated that ``it would take at least two years for the
driving simulator to operate at 80 percent capacity.
However, the report qualified this endorsement by
noting to reach this capacity level, NADS usage by
researchers not under contract with NHTSA would cost
between $7,000,000 and $8,400,000 per year * * *
Although TRB could identify other users interested in
using the simulator, their usage is dependent upon
federal research dollars, which in this budgetary
climate is likely to decline. In addition, automobile
manufacturers did not express any interest in using the
simulator * * * Part of TRB's difficulty in assessing
future use of NADS stemmed from the fact that the
scientific need has not been demonstrated for a driving
simulator with a large motion base. To attract other
users, TRB suggested that the University of Iowa and
NHTSA would have to engage in very aggressive
marketing.''
Because of a large number of qualifications TRB placed on
usage of the simulator and the fact that the Committee does not
have an updated version of cost, the Committee does not include
funding for the simulator.
Partnership for new generation of vehicles (PNGV).--The
Committee has provided $500,000 for the new PNGV initiative,
which is $4,500,000 less than requested. NHTSA's participation
in this program is important. However, it will be necessary in
the future once the automobile manufacturers, in conjunction
with the Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Defense, have
identified what types of materials could significantly reduce
the weight and emission of automobiles. Of the total, NHTSA had
requested $3,500,000 to develop the computer capabilities and
models necessary to simulate the crashworthiness of new
vehicles. The Committee has provided $500,000 so NHTSA can
begin procuring the computer hardware and software for this
work. Once these lightweight materials are identified, NHTSA
could begin its safety investigation work. The Committee has
deleted $1,500,000 to begin PNGV transportation infrastructure
analyses and a peer review study of the conceptual designs as
NHTSA has not made a convincing case for conducting this work
without knowing whether this new type of vehicle is
technologically feasible or what it will look like.
Intelligent transportation system.--The Committee has
previously expressed its support for intelligent transportation
system research centers. This includes an operational test to
evaluate improvements in safety and efficiency of emergency
services that utilize in-vehicle technologies which provide
automatic notification of automobile collisions to police and
emergency medical personnel. The Committee continues to support
demonstration of this technology in rural areas that most need
improved emergency medical services. The Committee has received
information about the need for such services in rural areas of
Texas, including El Paso County, and again recommends that
NHTSA consider this location in conducting its test.
Other research and analysis programs.--Due to budget
constraints, the Committee is funding the data analysis
program, the state data systems program and the fatal accident
reporting system, at near the fiscal year 1995 levels. NHTSA
had sought significant increases--35, 43 and 17 percent
respectively--which cannot be accommodated.
Strategic planning.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has funded the strategic planning initiative at
$100,000, which is the same level as last year and a decrease
of $100,000 from the request.
Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommends $209,000
in accountwide reductions. This consists of a one percent
reduction in operating expenses ($137,000) and a $72,000
reduction in printing expenses.
Operations and Research
(rescissions)
Rescission, fiscal year 1995............................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill................................. (-$4,547,185)
Bill compared with:
Rescission, fiscal year 1995........................ (-4,547,185)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (-4,547,185)
The Committee has rescinded $4,547,185 of unobligated
balances from the national advanced driving simulator project.
These funds were appropriated through fiscal year 1995.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... ($151,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (180,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (153,400,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... (+2,400,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (-26,600,000)
The Committee recommends $153,400,000 to liquidate contract
authorizations for state and community highway safety grants
(23 U.S.C. 402), safety belt and motorcycle helmet use grants
(23 U.S.C. 153), alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures
grants (23 U.S.C. 410), and section 211(b) of the National
Driver Register Act of 1982, as amended, and section 209 of
Public Law 95-599, as amended. The recommendation represents an
increase of $2,400,000 over the 1995 level.
Limitation on Obligations
As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred
under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. The
bill includes separate obligation limitations with the
following funding allocations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Recommended in
1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402.... $123,000,000 $168,600,000 $126,000,000
Section 410.... 25,000,000 25,000,000 25,000,000
National Driver
Register...... 3,400,000 2,400,000 2,400,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.... 151,400,000 196,000,000 153,400,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 402 formula 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; and improve traffic record
systems. The grants also provide additional support for state
data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries.
An obligation limitation of $126,000,000 is included in the
bill, which is $3,000,000 more than was provided in 1995 and
$42,600,000 less than requested. The Committee recommends that
NHTSA use $3,000,000 under section 402 to implement a
demonstration of the safe communities program in three states.
These funds will not be subject to the apportionment formula.
NHTSA should endeavor to choose three communities that are
different in terms of geography, demographics, and traffic
safety regulations so that a good representation of the United
States can be displayed. The Committee directs NHTSA to provide
an evaluation of this demonstration before consideration of the
fiscal year 1997 budget request. Based on the results of this
report, the Committee will consider funding the safe
communities program on a broader scale.
Last year, the Committee directed that $8,000,000 of total
section 402 funding be earmarked to address alcohol-impaired
driving among young drivers. The Committee continues to be
concerned about youth involvement in alcohol-related highway
crashes. Statistics collected by NHTSA indicate that some
progress is being made. Despite this success, underage drivers
continue to be significantly over represented in alcohol-
involved crashes. A recent report from NHTSA noted that there
were 15 young drivers involved in fatal crashes for every
100,000 young licensed drivers in 1993. This is almost twice
the rate for drivers ages 21 and older. Automobile crashes
remain the leading cause of death for youth and the most
significant contributing factors are alcohol use and non-use of
seat belts. Therefore, for fiscal year 1996, the Committee has
increased the amount earmarked under section 402 for the youth
program to $9,200,000 to reduce speeding and drinking and
driving among teenagers. Better enforcement of minimum drinking
age laws, promotion of lower blood alcohol content laws for
younger drivers, and provisional licensing programs for younger
drivers are among the effective strategies and eligible
activities that the designated funding could support.
The Committee recommends that child passenger safety
education should be considered an eligible activity under
states' occupant protection programs during 1996. Child
restraint systems can reduce the chance of serious or fatal
injury in a crash by 70 percent or more; however the
effectiveness of child restraint systems is considerably
reduced when it is installed improperly. A panel on child
restraint and vehicle compatibility found that approximately 50
percent of the current child restraints are not properly
installed, which places the child in serious risk.
The Committee expects NHTSA to encourage the states to use
their section 402 funds according to the following
distribution:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------- Recommended in the
1995 enacted 1996 estimate bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alcohol safety...................................... $38,760,000 $38,760,000 $39,960,000
(youth)......................................... (8,000,000) (8,000,000) (9,200,000)
Police traffic services............................. 44,864,000 44,864,000 44,864,000
Emergency medical services.......................... 3,174,000 3,174,000 3,174,000
Occupant protection................................. 19,009,000 19,009,000 19,009,000
Traffic records..................................... 5,761,000 5,761,000 5,276,000
Motorcycles......................................... 482,000 482,000 482,000
All Other........................................... 5,797,000 5,682,000 5,082,000
Safe communities.................................... 0 45,600,000 3,000,000
Grant administration................................ 5,153,000 5,268,000 5,153,000
-----------------------------------------------------------
Total......................................... 123,000,000 168,600,000 126,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Language is included in the bill limiting the funds
available for federal grant administration costs to $5,153,000.
The bill also recommends that no funds under Section 402 can be
used to purchase office furnishing, automobiles, or
motorcycles. Federal funding for this program acts as ``seed
money'' so that beneficial projects can be implemented at the
state and local levels. The federal funding is only available
for three years. Purchasing office furnishing, motorcycles, and
automobiles is not an appropriate use of this ``seed money.''
Section 410 alcohol-impaired countermeasure grants.--
Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasure grants are provided to
states that qualify by adopting specified laws and program
measures to reduce safety problems stemming from driving while
impaired by alcohol and other drugs. The program, first enacted
in 1988, was subsequently restructured in 1991 in the
Intermodal Transportation Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
to expand the eligibility requirements and increase incentive
funds. The program's eligibility requirements and funding
procedures were further amended in Public Law 102-388. Basic
grants are issued for achieving criteria that include
administrative driver license actions within stated timeframes,
lower blood-alcohol content (BAC) laws, statewide police
roadside checkpoints, effective under age 21 impairment
deterrence, mandatory sentences for repeat offenders, and
programs that are financially self-sufficient. Supplemental
grants are provided to states that adopt additional specified
measures, including 0.02 BAC laws for under age 21 drivers,
license plate confiscation, laws against open alcohol
containers in vehicles and mandatory BAC testing by police of
suspected DWI offenders.
The bill includes an obligation limitation of $25,000,000
for the section 410 program and language providing that
$500,000 of section 410 funds be available for technical
assistance to the states, as requested. Thirty to 33 states are
expected to qualify for section 410 awards during fiscal year
1996.
National driver register.--The bill includes an obligation
limitation of $2,400,000 for the national driver register
(NDR), $1,000,000 less than the 1995 obligation limitation and
the same level as requested. The national driver register
program assists state motor vehicle administrators in
communicating effectively and efficiently with other states to
identify problem drivers; that is, drivers whose licenses are
suspended or revoked for certain serious traffic offenses,
including vehicle operation under impairment by alcohol and
other drugs.
NHTSA plans to complete the transfer of the problem driver
pointer system to all states in 1995, making license
information exchange on problem drivers available. The states
will benefit from greater cross-state uniformity in driver
licensing and traffic record systems. Other key functions, such
as computer timesharing and the user help desk of the NDR will
be transferred to the American Association of Motor Vehicle
Administrators. This transfer would require the states, which
are the primary users of the NDR, to assume all or a portion of
its operating costs, resulting in reduced federal costs
associated with operating the NDR. NHTSA will continue to
process state inquiries and updates, and provide technical and
administrative support.
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 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 1996, including a limitation on contract authorization,
amounts to $827,940,660. This is $293,878,340 less than the
fiscal year 1995 level, and $52,480,340 less than the budget
request. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995
program levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests and the
Committee's recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
-------------------------------------- Recommended in Bill compared
Program 1995 enacted the bill with 1996
level 1996 request estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office of the Administrator \1\..... $13,090,000 $17,370,000 $14,000,000 -$3,370,000
Local rail freight assistance....... \2\ 17,000,000 ................. ................. .................
Railroad safety..................... 47,729,000 51,104,000 49,940,660 -1,163,340
Railroad research and development... 20,500,000 48,947,000 21,000,000 -27,947,000
Northeast corridor improvement
program \3\........................ 200,000,000 ................. 100,000,000 NA
Next generation high speed rail..... \4\ 25,000,000 \4\ 35,000,000 \4\ 15,000,000 -20,000,000
Rhode Island rail development \3\... 5,000,000 ................. ................. NA
Grants to National Passenger
Railroad Corporation \3\<SUP>,\5\ ...... \6\ 793,500,000 ................. 628,000,000 NA
Railroad rehabilitation and
improvement financing fund......... ................. ................. ................. .................
National magnetic levitation
prototype development.............. ................. ................. ................. .................
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 1,121,819,000 152,421,000 827,940,660 -52,480,340
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Does not include transfer of $611,950 from the Section 511 loan guarantee program to the Office of the
Administrator, as enacted in the 1995 rescission bill.
\2\ Does not include a rescission of $6,563,000.
\3\ The President's budget proposal to consolidate these programs into the United Transportation Infrastructure
(UTIIP) Investment Program.
\4\ Includes limitation on obligations of $5,000,000.
\5\ Includes mandatory passenger rail service payments and the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project.
\6\ Includes a rescission of $40,000,000 from the Pennsylvania station redevelopment project and an additional
appropriation of $21,500,000 for capital grants.
Office of the Administrator
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $13,090,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 17,370,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 14,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +910,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -3,370,000
\1\ Does not include transfer of $611,950 to the Office of the
Administrator from section 511 loan guarantees or reductions of $93,000
to comply with working capital fund and award provisions and transfer of
$127,900 for consolidated civil rights office.
This account provides funds for executive direction and
administration, policy support, passenger and freight services
salaries and expenses, and contractual support. The Committee
recommends an appropriation of $14,000,000 to continue the
office of the administrator and passenger and freight service
assistance functions. This is $3,370,000 less than the budget
request and $910,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year
1995.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
President's budget request for this appropriation:
Changes
Reduce new technical assistance program................. -$130,000
Reduce FRA's cost-sharing of the national implementation
of Operation RESPOND................................ -18,000
Increase non-pay inflationary adjustments............... +500,000
Offset to account for unobligated balance............... -3,722,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment.................................... -3,370,000
Technical assistance program.--The Committee recommendation
reduces a new program that provides technical assistance to
state and local transportation officials in their planning
efforts from $150,000 to $20,000 due to budget constraints. FRA
has stated that without this type of assistance, rail issues
are not adequately considered. The Committee finds this
justification unlikely and, consequently has reduced the
program to a more moderate level.
Operation RESPOND.--The Committee has provided $20,000 for
this program, a decrease of $18,000 from the budget request.
FRA plans to implement the results from a Houston-based
demonstration in other areas. This program teaches states and
local responders, and railroad employees how to respond to
hazardous material incidents in a timely and coordinated
fashion. Because RSPA and FHWA are sharing in these costs, some
decrease in FRA's allocation is warranted. The Committee urges
FRA to consider having states and local communities pay for
this type of training.
Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee's
recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for all non-pay
inflation for all modes of the department (+$500,000).
Unobligated balances.--The Committee has reduced the Office
of the Administrator's request by $3,722,000 due to high
unobligated balances from prior years, which could be used to
fund programs under this account. At the end of the fiscal year
1994, this office still had $11,408,000 in unobligated funds
available. At the end of April 1995, the unobligated balance in
this office was $15,493,000. Some of this balance is necessary
to fund the yearly mortgage payment at Union Station in
Washington DC in case the Union Station Redevelopment
Corporation cannot pay. This mortgage payment is $1,418,000 per
year. Another $1,000,000 is set aside for unexpected payments
for Alaskan railroad liabilities.
Air rights over Union Station.--The Committee recommends
that FRA request the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation to
have the air rights over Union Station assessed for their
property value. FRA should report back to the House and Senate
no later than March 31, 1996 about the results of the
assessment.
Local Rail Freight Assistance
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -17,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
\1\ Of this amount, $6,563,000 was rescinded.
The local rail service assistance (LRSA) program was
established by the Regional Rail Reorganization Act of 1973 to
provide financial support to states for the continuation of
rail freight service on abandoned light density lines in the
Northeast. The Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory Reform
Act of 1976 expanded the program to all states. In 1978 the
program was further expanded and amended to allow capital
assistance for rehabilitation prior to, rather than after,
abandonment. Amendments in 1981 prohibited the use of these
funds for operating subsidies. The program was reauthorized in
1989 and renamed local rail freight assistance (LRFA).
The Committee recommends no funds for this program, as
requested in the budget. This program provides benefits which
are predominately local, not federal, and should be financed by
local units of government.
Railroad Safety
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\$47,729,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 51,104,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 49,940,660
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +2,211,660
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -1,163,340
\1\ Reductions of $93,000 to comply with working capital fund and award
provisions not reflected.
The federal role in the railroad safety program is to
protect railroad employees and the public by ensuring the safe
operation of passenger and freight trains. The authority to
accomplish this role is found in the Federal Railroad Safety
Act of 1970 (as amended), the Department of Transportation Act,
and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. Greatly
expanded railroad safety authority was granted to the FRA under
the Rail Safety Improvement Act of 1988.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$49,940,660 for railroad safety programs in fiscal year 1996.
This is an increase of $2,211,660 (5 percent) above the level
provided in fiscal year 1995, and a reduction of $1,163,340
below the level proposed in the President's budget.
Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as
follows:
Changes
Decrease other services costs by 2 percent.............. -$105,340
Hold supplies and materials costs increase to 34 percent -566,000
Defer new partnership program........................... -400,000
Decrease equipment costs................................ -150,000
Increase non-pay inflationary adjustment................ +58,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net adjustment.................................... -1,163,340
Other services.--The Committee recommends $5,161,660 for
other services due to budget constraints. This is an increase
of $130,660 over 1995 but a decrease of $105,340 (or 2 percent)
from the budget request.
Supplies and materials.--The Committee recommends $350,000
for supplies and materials, which is $51,000 more than 1995
enacted levels. FRA had requested $916,000 (or a 206 percent
increase over 1995 funding levels). This increase is not well
justified, and consequently, the Committee has reduced funding
accordingly.
Labor-management partnership program.--The Committee
recommends deferring funding for the new labor-management
partnership program. This is a decrease of $400,000 from the
budget request. This program was designed to create and
increase the level of partnerships FRA has with its customers
in the railroad community. FRA currently works with a number of
railroad associations and with most of the railroad companies.
In these tight budgetary times, the Committee does not believe
that further outreach is well justified.
Equipment costs.--The Committee recommends $401,000 for
equipment costs, which is an increase of $40,000 over 1995
levels. This will allow an 11 percent increase in equipment
costs over last year, as opposed to an increase of 53 percent
as requested in the budget.
Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee's
recommendation allows a 1.5 percent increase for all non-pay
inflation for all modes of the department (+$58,000).
Railroad Research and Development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\$20,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 48,947,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 21,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -27,947,000
\1\ Reductions of $301,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The railroad research and development appropriation
finances contract research activities as well as salaries and
expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and
administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to
reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to
provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and
enforcement activities.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommends an appropriation of $21,000,000
for fiscal year 1996, which represents an increase of $500,000
above the fiscal year 1995 appropriation and a decrease of
$27,947,000 below the budget request. The budget requested a
137 percent increase in its railroad research and development
program, with the majority of this increase in the high speed
rail ground transportation system activity.
Recommended adjustments to the budget estimate are as
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Fiscal year 1996 Recommended
1995 enacted request in the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment, operations, and
hazardous materials.......... $5,413,000 $5,010,000 $5,010,000
Track, structures, and train
control...................... 9,165,000 8,082,000 8,082,000
High speed ground
transportation............... 3,300,000 33,225,000 5,378,000
R&D facilities................ 200,000 400,000 400,000
Administration................ 2,121,000 2,230,000 2,130,000
-----------------------------------------
Total................... \1\ 20,199,000 48,947,000 21,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes reduction of $301,000 for working capital fund, awards, and
procurement reform provisions.
High speed ground transportation.--The Committee
recommends $5,378,000 for the high speed rail ground
transportation system activity. This is an increase of
$2,078,000 over 1995 enacted levels and $27,947,000 less than
requested. The Committee recommendation provides an increase of
63 percent, rather than 907 percent requested in the budget.
The significant growth in this program would have allowed FRA
to begin initiatives in a variety of projects, such as
passenger/freight interaction, communications reliability,
evaluating corridor results, developing flywheel energy
storage, and demonstrating warning and protective signals. Such
significant growth in the high speed activity is not warranted,
especially since funding for this program just began in 1993
and no funds were appropriated in 1994. The Committee notes
that FRA appears not to have a focus or priority among its
various projects.
The Committee believes that there are few places at the
present time in the United States that have the market demand
or the financial ability to establish a high speed rail
corridor without significant federal contribution. GAO reported
that an electrified high speed rail corridor would cost at
least $10,000,000 per mile (or $2 billion for a 200-mile
corridor). A non-electrified high speed rail corridor would be
less costly. Based on preliminary planning studies for the
three corridors on which FRA has initiated high speed rail
demonstrations, the costs to construct a non-electrified
corridor range between $1,400,000 and $8,000,000 per mile.
Maximum speeds range between 110 and 125 miles per hour. Faster
speeds would require electrification, new alignment and
trackage, new or upgraded stations, and total separation of
freight trains, all of which add more to the cost.
If the Administration is going to focus on high speed rail,
it makes more sense to work on achieving high speed service in
one corridor before expanding it to other parts of the United
States. The GAO stated in their testimony before this
Subcommittee that the Northeast Corridor is the most likely
candidate for a high speed rail corridor. Amtrak has initiated
contracts for procurement of high speed trainsets, and has an
established market. Even in the Northeast Corridor, achieving
high speed service involves overcoming a liability problem.
Amtrak and freight railroads are currently discussing this
issue and there are proposed legislative changes. However, this
issue still remains problematic.
Corridor development.--Last year, the Committee deleted
funding for corridor risk analytical model development and
requested a plan that incorporated joint funding with the
railroad industry, which would be the primary beneficiary of
advanced train control system (ATC). In 1995, FRA began
evaluating ATC in various proposed high speed rail corridors,
such as Detroit to Chicago, Chicago to St. Louis, and Seattle
to Portland. The Committee directs FRA to submit the plan to
the House and Senate Committees on Appropriation for evaluation
before further corridor development work outside the Northeast
Corridor occurs.
National Academy of Sciences high speed rail study.--The
Committee directs FRA to request the National Academy of
Sciences to undertake a study that will provide the House and
Senate Committees on Transportation and the Department of
Transportation with guidance on how to promote the advances
derived from FRA's high speed rail projects and how these
sponsored programs could be best deployed by the states and/or
the private sector. This study should focus on FRA's ongoing
high speed ground safety and technology research and
development program, next generation high speed rail program,
the integration of the research and development program, and
federal policies and programs to promote high speed rail
corridor planning and implementation. The Committee requests
that the study be submitted by April 1, 1996.
Magnetic levitation systems.--The Committee recommends
$425,000 for magnetic levitation systems. The Committee has
provided sufficient resources to enable the FRA to particiate
in the few magnetic levitation projects ongoing in the United
States including Atlanta for the 1996 Olympics and the State of
Florida. Furthermore, the Committee notes the low probability
that magnetic levitation systems will enter revenue service in
this country in the near future.
Administrative costs.--The Committee recommends reducing
administrative costs by $100,000 consistent with the
Committee's reduction in FRA's overall research and development
program.
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\1\)
Recommended in the bill................................. 100,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -100,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP)
Title VII of the Railroad Revitalization and Regulatory
Reform Act of 1976 (4R Act) authorized $2,500,000,000 for the
Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. That Act was later
amended to add a list of projects to be funded in the event the
total amount of authorized funding became available. This
project list was again amended in the Rail Safety Improvement
Act of 1988 to authorize new safety-related projects which the
Committee initiated in the aftermath of the Chase, Maryland,
Conrail-Amtrak accident. Currently, the program includes a
major upgrade of the north end of the corridor to improve
running speeds between New York City and Boston, including
electrification of the rail line between New Haven, Connecticut
and Boston, Massachusetts. The program also includes routine
upgrades and rehabilitation of the south end of the corridor
between Washington, D.C. and New York City.
committee recommendation
The Committee recommendation would provide $100,000,000 for
Northeast Corridor improvements in fiscal year 1996, which
represents a reduction of $100,000,000 below the level provided
in fiscal year 1995.
The budget requested $200,000,000 (85 percent) for the
northern portion of the corridor (from New York to Boston) for
electrification, high-speed trainsets, equipment maintenance
facilities, and track and fixed facilities. The remaining
$35,000,000 (15 percent) was requested for the southern part of
the corridor (from Washington D.C. to New York) to upgrade the
electric traction and the New York tunnels. Since the
transmittal of the President's budget, Amtrak has redefined its
needs along the Northeast Corridor and now intends to focus
financial resources on the southern end of the corridor. GAO
has reported that Amtrak will need at least $2.5 billion to
return the southern end of the corridor to a state of good
repair. This need is immediate, although the work will continue
over 15 years because of its complexity and volume. This is
Amtrak's most profitable route segment and the flagship for
high speed rail service in the United States. As such, the
Committee emphasizes funding support for the critical southern
end of the corridor, and recommends the following distribution
of total funding:
New York-Boston Corridor:
Infrastructure in the northern corridor............. $20,700,000
Washington D.C.-New York Corridor:
Track Improvements.................................. 30,000,000
Electric traction................................... 13,000,000
Communications and Signals.......................... 11,000,000
Structures.......................................... 21,000,000
Station/yards/shops/vehicles........................ 4,300,000
High-speed trainsets.--The Committee has not provided any
funding for trainsets because Amtrak has $115,000,000 that can
be used to cover the trainset costs during fiscal year 1996.
The procurement of high-speed trainsets is one year behind
schedule. As such, Amtrak does not expect to begin receiving
trainsets until the second half of 1999.
Electrification.--The Committee has not provided any
funding for electrification. Amtrak has funds available for
electrification purposes, which it can use to supplement its
northern corridor work. Through fiscal year 1995, $298,200,000
was appropriated for electrification, of which most remains
unexpended by the corporation.
Electrification-related construction on the New Haven to
Boston rail line has not yet begun. This is a delay of two
years from the original plan. Amtrak has told the Committee
that this occurred for two reasons: first, the design of the
electrification system has taken longer than expected; second,
FRA took longer to complete its environmental impact statement
(EIS). The EIS was issued in May, 1995. Amtrak believes that
electrification-related construction can begin in September
1995; however, the Committee has some doubts about this time
frame. Specifically, one of the three contractors Amtrak
awarded the electrification project to is experiencing
financial difficulties. Amtrak believes that this contractor's
financial difficulties should not impact design or construction
of the electrification. However, the Committee believes the
joint venture will have difficulties obtaining financing, which
is backed by a surety and guarantees the completion of the work
even if the joint venture is unable to undertake the
construction after receiving the notice to proceed. If the
joint venture cannot begin construction, then Amtrak would have
to rebid the construction phase of the project this summer,
which would delay the project by an estimated six months.
Assuming the current schedule and significant federal funding,
electrification would be completed by the end of 1998. If the
contract needs to be rebid; however, electrification would not
be completed until mid-1999, at the same time that Amtrak
begins receiving high-speed trainsets. Reliable, three hour
service will occur subsequent to these actions being completed.
Detailed market and ridership survey.--The Committee is
still concerned that up-to-date and detailed market and
ridership estimates have not been performed to validate the
estimates being made for the electrified New York to Boston
service. While the Committee directed more work in this area
three years ago, little has been done. According to Amtrak, a
survey and demand model produced in 1986 ``continues to serve
as the foundation for all projections of northeast corridor
rail ridership''. These estimates will be fifteen years old by
the time reliable three hour electrified service begins in the
year 2001. Amtrak, in conjunction with the Volpe National
Transportation System Center, should complete this study, as
directed in the 1995 Department of Transportation conference
report, as soon as possible.
rhode island rail development
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... <SUP>(1)
Recommended in the bill................................. 0
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -5,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP)
The Committee does not recommend any funding for the Rhode
Island rail development project. Language in the 1995
Department of Transportation Appropriations Act requires that
the project have matching state funds. As of June 1, 1995, the
state has not been able to match the federally appropriated
money.
The Governor of Rhode Island has committed $2,500,000 in
funding for this project; however, it will not be available
until after September 15, 1995. Thus, fiscal year 1995 money
will not be obligated until that date, at the earliest. The
first chance that the state could match the remaining 1995
amount of $2,500,000 is in a November 1995 bond referendum,
when voters will decide whether or not to provide money for
this project. If the referendum is successful, then the state
could receive the remaining federally appropriated fiscal year
1995 dollars during fiscal year 1996.
The Rhode Island project relates directly to Amtrak's
electrification project along the northern section of the
Corridor. Since the Committee is not funding much work on the
northern section (including any electrification work) further
funding on this project can be deferred. However, the Committee
is willing to reconsider funding for this project in fiscal
year 1997 if the available funds are obligated.
Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Program
Section 511 of Public Law 94-210, as amended authorizes
obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs
of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism
to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or
consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new
loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 1996
consistent with the budget request.
National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Development
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................ ($0)
Limitation, fiscal year 1996............................ (0)
Recommended in the bill................................. (0)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995..............(........................)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.........(........................)
Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a national magnetic
levitation prototype program. Contract authority totaling
$500,000,000 through fiscal year 1997 was provided for this
program, to be derived from the highway trust fund. This
includes $5,000,000 in fiscal year 1992, $45,000,000 in fiscal
year 1993, $100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1994 and 1995,
and $125,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1996 and 1997. The
Act authorized an additional $225,000,000 from the general fund
of the Treasury.
The Committee recommends a zero obligation limitation for
this program in fiscal year 1996, which is the same as provided
for fiscal years 1993, 1994, and 1995.
Next Generation High Speed Rail
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $20,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 30,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 10,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -20,000,000
\1\ Reductions of $1,000 to comply with award provisions not reflected.
In fiscal year 1995 a new program was established to
develop, demonstrate, and implement high speed rail
technologies, to be managed in conjunction with the program
authorized in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency
Act of 1991 for similar purposes.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends $10,000,000 from the general fund
for this program in fiscal year 1996, and an additional
$5,000,000 obligation limitation under ``Trust fund share of
next generation high speed rail''. Total program funding is
therefore $15,000,000, which is $10,000,000 less than enacted
in 1995 and $20,000,000 less than the budget request.
Adjustments in total program funding from the budget estimate
are as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1996 Committee
request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Advanced train control............ $10,000,000 $9,000,000
Non-electric locomotive........... 15,500,000 0
Grade crossing hazards............ 7,000,000 4,500,000
Corridor planning technology...... 2,000,000 1,000,000
Administrative.................... 500,000 500,000
-------------------------------------
Total \1\................... 35,000,000 15,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes $5,000,000 in limitation on obligation from the highway
trust fund.
Non-electric locomotives.--The Committee is not providing
any funds for non-electric locomotives because Amtrak is
already procuring two non-electric locomotives as part of its
high speed trainset acquisition. Further investments in this
area would be a duplication of federal dollars and work. Also,
Congress has previously provided funds to retrofit two existing
turbine locomotives with engines to demonstrate the potential
of a fossil fuel operating locomotive to achieve 125 miles per
hour. This demonstration occurred in March 1995 between
Schenectady and Albany, New York. After completing this
successful demonstration and in light of Amtrak's procurement,
the Committee believes that the federal government's role
should largely be safety related. Developing rolling stock that
railroads might acquire is a more appropriate role for private
industry.
Before the Committee would consider additional funding for
the development of non-electric locomotives, FRA should submit
a report on the results of the high speed rail demonstration
between Schenectady and Albany, New York. This report should
include information on how FRA plans to use the two retrofitted
locomotives for service and for other planned high speed rail
demonstrations throughout the United States.
Other reduction in the next generation high speed rail
account.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has reduced
the advanced train control program by $1,000,000, grade
crossing hazards by $2,500,000, and corridor planning studies
by $1,000,000. The Committee finds that a lot of this work is
duplicative of efforts ongoing under FRA's research and
development program.
Trust Fund Share of Next Generation High Speed Rail
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... ($3,400,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (7,118,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (5,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... (+1,600,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (-2,118,000)
Section 1036 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 establishes a program of research,
development, and demonstrations of high speed ground
transportation technologies, and provides $5,000,000 in
contract authorization for each of fiscal years 1993 through
1997. In fiscal year 1994 a general fund portion was added to
the program.
The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation
of $5,000,000 for the high speed ground transportation program
in fiscal year 1996. This is $1,600,000 more than enacted in
fiscal year 1995 and $2,118,000 less than the budget request.
Limitation on Obligations
The Committee recommends an obligation limitation of
$5,000,000 for this program in fiscal year 1996. This
limitation provides the trust fund share of overall program
funding, discussion of which can be found under the heading
``Next generation high speed rail''.
Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................\1\ $793,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\2\)
Recommended in the bill................................. \3\ 628,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -165,500,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ Includes $150,000,000 for mandatory payments and a supplemental
appropriation of $21,500,000 for capital grants.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
United Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP).
\3\ Assumes $120,000,000 for mandatory payments and $62,000,000 for
transition costs.
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.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a total funding level of
$628,000,000 for grants to Amtrak to cover operating losses,
capital expenses, and transition costs in fiscal year 1996
subject to authorization. The total funding recommended in the
bill compares to $793,500,000 for comparable expenses in fiscal
year 1995. The budget proposed to consolidate Amtrak funding
under the UTIIP; however, agency officials specified funding
requests for Amtrak as reflected in later sections of this
report.
The President of Amtrak testified before this Committee
that in order to reduce operating expenses, legislative reform
must occur. He cited 13 specific examples, including liability
costs, contracting out, and labor reforms. For example, Amtrak
could save between $20,000,000 and $40,000,000 on maintenance
of equipment costs if it could contract out. In addition, he
later wrote to the Committee that removing constraints on
Amtrak's ability to negotiate with non-freight Northeast
Corridor users would reduce Amtrak's dependence on federal
operating support. Estimates show that Corridor maintenance
costs are $200,000,000 per year, of which the commuter
railroads pay Amtrak approximately $60,000,000. By removing
these constraints, Amtrak could collect up to $30,000,000 more.
The Committee's recommended funding is predicated on the belief
that reforms will occur, reducing Amtrak's cost.
Budget Justifications
In the past, Amtrak has provided grant requests detailing
operating and capital expenses. In 1996, Amtrak did not provide
a comparable document. This made it extremely difficult for the
Committee to compare 1995 revenue and expenses to the 1996
request. Because of the new grant request format, Amtrak was
unable to provide information on maintenance facility
workloads, station renovations, insurance and interest
expenses, administrative costs, wage and price increases,
depreciation, and inflation. The Committee expects these types
of issues to be addressed in Amtrak's grant request next year.
Status of Amtrak
Since its establishment, Amtrak's financial condition has
always been precarious. This condition has deteriorated
steadily since 1990, as the gap between operating expenses and
total financial resources has widened. At the same time,
requirements for capital investments, such as the need for new
equipment and improvements to facilities and tracks, have grown
significantly. For example, GAO has estimated that Amtrak will
require $5 billion to complete electrification, improve
capacity, rehabilitate or replace aging right-of-way components
along the northern end of the Northeast Corridor, and
rehabilitate the southern end of the Corridor. To meet its
needs, Amtrak has had to draw down its working capital from a
positive balance to a negative balance of $227,000,000 in 1994.
In addition, Amtrak has deferred maintenance and reduced staff.
On December 14, 1994, Amtrak announced an aggressive, five-
year strategic business plan to improve its service quality and
productivity. As part of this plan, Amtrak expects to decrease
its annual expenses by reducing service by 21 percent through
route eliminations and route adjustments, retiring its oldest
cars, and reducing 5,500 staff. Also, Amtrak plans to replace
all of its non-diner, non-specialty Heritage cars with modern
cars, and is promoting the more profitable product lines, like
the Auto Train, to provide incremental profits where possible.
In addition, Amtrak has formed stronger partnerships with
states and cities. In turn, the localities have increased their
contributions to reflect the true costs of operating these
services. Amtrak expects these actions will close the gap
between the operating deficit and federal grants for fiscal
year 1995. If successful, the Plan will yield more than $2.1
billion in net savings between the years 1996 and 2000.
Monthly financial performance reports show that Amtrak has
achieved $81,300,000, or 47 percent of the goal highlighted in
the Plan. From October 1994 through March 1995, budget results
were better than expected; however, in April and May, 1995,
budget results were slightly worse than expected. Amtrak
currently predicts that, in the best case, it will have a
positive cash flow of $700,000 by the end of fiscal year 1995.
In the worst case, if results continue to decline, Amtrak
predicts that it would have a $108,300,000 negative cash flow
by the beginning of fiscal year 1996.
Although these results are encouraging, the Committee
continues to remain concerned about the status of Amtrak in
light of today's fiscal realities. The gulf between Amtrak's
needs and the federal funding available is just too great.
While this Committee and the Congress have proven their
willingness to finance Amtrak's needs in increasing amounts,
the huge magnitude of those needs for the long-term is only now
coming to light. The Committee plans to monitor this situation
closely.
operating expenses
The Committee's recommendation provides $398,000,000 for
Amtrak's operating losses in fiscal year 1996. This is
$144,000,000 less than the level provided for comparable
activities in fiscal year 1995 and $122,000,000 less than the
administration's request. Included in this total is funding for
operating expenses, mandatory retirement payments, and long-
term transition and restructuring costs. In this bill, the
Committee has reduced operating subsidies for other modal
Administrations in addition to Amtrak.
The Committee has provided $216,000,000 for routine
operating expenses, which is $44,000,000 less than Amtrak had
requested and $84,000,000 less than the administration's
request. Under its new Strategic Business Plan, Amtrak proposed
to reduce its federal operating assistance needs. The Committee
has reduced this assistance because monthly financial
performance reports show that Amtrak's budget results, year to
date, are ahead of the plan. Based on the better than expected
results from changes made, the Committee is optimistic that
with further service adjustments in June and September, as well
as the fact that states are buying back some of the truncated
services, Amtrak will have lower operating expenses than
earlier projected.
Also, the Committee has provided $120,000,000 for mandatory
passenger rail service payments. This is the same amount as
requested by the administration. These payments are made by
Amtrak to the railroad retirement fund and the railroad
unemployment insurance account. Should the requirement for
these funds be less than anticipated, as has occurred in the
past, Amtrak has the flexibility immediately to use those funds
for other purposes, rather than await further Congressional
action.
Finally, the Committee included $62,000,000 for long-term
transition and restructuring costs as part of the operating
subsidy. The Administration had requested $100,000,000 in a
separate line item for these costs. The Committee believes that
Amtrak will have fewer transition costs than earlier estimated
and, as such, provide funding in the following manner:
Management Buyouts...................................... $33,000,000
Route and Service, C-2.................................. 17,000,000
Asset Retirement........................................ 0
Relocation, Training, and Other......................... 12,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 62,000,000
Route and Service Liabilities (C-2).--Proposed changes to
Amtrak's C-2 liabilities may occur during the reauthorization
process. Currently, Amtrak is required to provide six years of
severance pay for those employees whose routes are terminated
or whose frequency is reduced to less than three times per
week. There are ongoing discussions to reduce these payments,
which could decrease the costs related to route reductions in
September significantly.
States' Services.--The Committee believes that some of the
transition costs can be reduced or delayed because many states
have bought back the reduced or truncated services. For
example, in California, the San Jose/Roseville line bought back
half a year's service, which reduced C-2 liabilities by
$850,000. These buybacks mean that some of the C-2 liability
cost will not be incurred in 1995.
Asset Retirement.--As part of these transition costs,
Amtrak is requesting $48,000,000 for asset retirement. This
money is for the value of the fleet being retired (or
depreciation). This is a capital requirement, not a transition
cost. This Committee has never appropriated money for
depreciation and will not do so now.
Capital
The Committee's recommendation provides $230,000,000 for
Amtrak's capital program in fiscal year 1996. This is
$21,500,000 less than provided in 1995 and the same as the
administration's request. Consistent with the budget request
and action taken in fiscal year 1995, the availability of funds
is delayed until July 1, 1996.
Amtrak has made a compelling case over the past few years
that to become self-sufficient, it needs to replace and
modernize its physical assets, such as getting rid of its old
equipment, overhauling cars and locomotives, and renovating
maintenance facilities. In the past, Amtrak has deferred these
efforts to save money. Equipment that is not overhauled or
serviced on a regular basis has a higher incidence of failure.
Both Amtrak and GAO have reported that, by not undertaking
these efforts, Amtrak has created costly and inefficient
operations.
Due to a high backlog of equipment requiring overhaul,
Amtrak implemented a progressive overhaul and maintenance
program, that is designed to maximize the use of available
funds for these efforts as well as increase annual inspections
and target component replacement. Amtrak has reported some
successes from this effort. For example, in the first quarter
of 1995, the total number of locomotive failures declined by
close to 30 percent below the failure rate in the preceding
year. Funding capital at the budget request will allow Amtrak
to more effectively address these issues and reflects the
Committee's emphasis on capital investment across all
transportation modes.
Statutory and regulatory requirements.--Proposed changes to
regulatory and statutory requirements may allow Amtrak to
postpone when capital is required to meet these deadlines from
1996 to 2001. The Committee directs Amtrak to determine if any
of the $35,000,000 requested in the budget for these
requirements could be postponed to later years, which would
free up funds for other capital needs.
Maintenance facilities.--Officials from GAO testified last
year about the extremely dilapidated condition of Amtrak's
maintenance facilities. At the Beech Grove, Indiana facility,
for example, there were holes in the roof and scaffolds on the
walls to catch falling masonry. This year, officials from Beech
Grove testified about the importance of this maintenance
facility. Specifically, Beech Grove overhauls 61 percent of
Amtrak's fleet today, including 1,200 cars and 265 locomotives
that operate outside of the Northeast Corridor. The Committee
sees no way for Amtrak to achieve its new progressive
maintenance requirements, or adequately maintain its rolling
stock as new equipment is delivered, unless rehabilitation of
this and other facilities is undertaken. For this reason, the
Committee suggests that Amtrak allocate some funding to
rehabilitation of maintenance facilities unless action in the
Amtrak reauthorization process makes this unnecessary.
Revenue utilization.--The Committee is concerned that
Amtrak is not collecting sufficient revenue and is incurring
high costs which reduce the amount of funding available for
capital improvements, especially along the Northeast Corridor.
A recent Amtrak Inspector General report found that Amtrak had
a number of uncollected revenues. For example, the report noted
that Amtrak had collected $1,550,000 less in rent payments in
and around Pennsylvania Station than it was due. In addition,
the same report noted that changes in commuter and Amtrak
operations were not adequately reflected in data to accurately
apportion electric traction maintenance and propulsion power
costs. As such, Amtrak incurred a disproportionate percentage
of these costs. The report noted that Amtrak should be
reimbursed $1,700,000 from commuter agencies. The Committee
directs Amtrak to undertake a study to determine if there are
better ways to utilize their assets so that Amtrak would have
more funds available for its operating and capital needs in
future years.
Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\2\)
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ Amount rescinded in April 1995 but provided $21,500,000 for
emergency, life safety needs under Amtrak's capital grant.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
United Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (UTIIP).
The Committee recommends no funding for grants to Amtrak to
redevelop Pennsylvania Station in New York City in fiscal year
1996.
Because of emerging priorities in the southern end of the
corridor and delays in the electrification project and in
procurement of high-speed trainsets, the time it takes Amtrak
to reach reliable 3-hour service on the New York to Boston
corridor may be delayed further. Since the requirement for
Pennsylvania Station redevelopment is based on ridership from
high speed service, which is likely to be delayed, Amtrak will
not have as many riders using Pennsylvania Station and thus,
its redevelopment of the station can be delayed.
Overestimation of contract costs.--A recent Amtrak
Inspector General report identified a number of problems that
Amtrak has at Pennsylvania Station, such as tenants underpaying
rent, as previously noted. In addition, the report identified
contractual weaknesses. For example, a purchase order for a
comprehensive design to rehabilitate and modify the electrical
and mechanical systems in the Pennsylvania Station tunnels
revealed a number of overstated costs. In another tunnel
contract, the Inspector General questioned costs related to
asbestos abatement compliance monitoring. The Committee directs
Amtrak to pay closer attention to the sole source contracts and
purchase orders it enters into for the tunnel work.
FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program
The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as
a component of the Department of Transportation by
Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968,
which transferred most of the functions and programs under the
Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.),
from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The
Federal Transit Administration administers the 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 contract authority, with program levels
established by annual limitations on obligations provided in
appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are
required for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
as well as for portions of certain other accounts.
The total recommended funding for FTA for fiscal year 1996
is $3,992,510,000 including $1,217,510,000 in direct
appropriations and $2,775,000,000 in limitations on the use of
contract authority. This is $621,830,000 less than the enacted
fiscal year 1995 program level.
The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program
levels, the fiscal year 1996 program requests, and the
Committee's recommendations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year
Program Fiscal year 1996 budget Committee
1995 enacted estimate recommendation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative expenses... \1\ $43,060 \2\ ($44,202
) $39,260
Formula grants............ 2,500,000 \2\ (500,000
) 2,000,000
Discretionary grants \3\.. 1,725,000 \4\ (724,976
) 1,665,000
Transit planning and
research................. 92,250 \2\ (100,027
) 82,250
University transportation
centers.................. 6,000 \2\ (6,000) 6,000
Interstate transfer
grants--transit.......... 48,030 ............ ..............
Washington Metro.......... 200,000 \2\ (200,000
) 200,000
Violent Crime Reduction
Program.................. .............. 5,000 ..............
---------------------------------------------
Total............... 4,614,340 5,000 3,992,510
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Reductions of $277,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $188,300 for
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.
\2\ Funding included under UTIIP.
\3\ Includes obligation limitation on contract authority in 1995 and
1996.
\4\ Full Funding grant agreements included under Unified Transportation
Infrastructure Investment Program within the line item ``Prior
Commitments''.
Administrative Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $43,060,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 44,202,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 39,260,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -3,800,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -4,942,000
The bill includes a total of $39,260,000 for administrative
expenses of the Federal Transit Administration. This amount,
plus the use of any available unrestricted authorities, should
provide sufficient funds for FTA's personnel and support
requirements. The recommendation should fund 492 full time
equivalent staff years, a reduction of 13 from 1995 levels.
The recommendation assumes the following adjustments to the
request:
Disallow transfer of external civil rights functions.... +$953,000
Hold non-pay inflationary adjustment to 1.5 percent..... -53,000
Reduce funds for employee relocation and training....... -300,000
Reduce funds for electronic grant making and area wide
network systems to $450,000......................... -777,000
Undistributed........................................... -4,871,000
WMATA oversight.--The Committee is displeased to learn that
the Federal Transit Administration has elected to transfer the
oversight of Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
(WMATA) to the regional office located in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Regional offices were created to bring the
federal government closer to the grantee. This transfer moves
the federal government farther from the grantee and adds an
additional layer of red tape. With the transfer, all
significant decisions will have to go through Philadelphia and
will inevitably be referred to FTA headquarters. This appears
to make little sense since WMATA is located in the nation's
capital and literally a few blocks from the Department of
Transportation's Washington metropolitan offices. Furthermore,
the Department has not provided an analysis of the efficiencies
and cost-savings associated with this transfer. Therefore, the
bill includes language that requires FTA oversight of WMATA be
conducted from FTA's Washington metropolitan offices.
Grants management.--The Committee has provided $450,000 to
support full implementation of the grants management system in
fiscal year 1996. The Committee commends the Federal Transit
Administration for the substantial progress that it has made in
addressing its grants management weaknesses. Over the last two
years, a concerted effort has been sustained to improve FTA
oversight procedures, and, more importantly, change the
attitudes of its oversight staff and its grantees toward
safeguarding federal funds.
However, the Committee is concerned that the FTA has no
mechanism in place to assess the effectiveness of its actions.
The FTA is directed to develop and establish performance
measures to evaluate whether the actions being implemented are
achieving their expected results. These performance measures
are to be developed and implemented by December 31, 1995.
Formula Grants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation(General Limitation(Trust
Fund) Fund)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995......................... <SUP>1 $1,350,000,000 ($1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996......................... (-) (<SUP>2)
Recommended in the bill....... 890,000,000 (1,110,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year
1995..................... -460,000,000 (-40,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal
year 1996................ NA NA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>1 Reductions of $89,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards and
procurement reform provisions not reflected.
<SUP>2 The president's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Program.
The Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 for formula grants.
This amount is $500,000,000 less than the 1995 levels. Formula
grant funds are available for capital and operating assistance
to both urbanized and non-urbanized areas, and for capital
assistance to organizations providing service to elderly and
disabled persons.
Operating assistance.--The administration's budget proposed
to reduce transit operating assistance by $210,000,000, or 30
percent below the level provided in fiscal year 1995. Transit
operating grants have been funded at approximately $800,000,000
for seven years. The effects of inflation alone have greatly
eroded the purchasing power of the federal contribution to
operating assistance. In 1980, federal operating assistance
represented 16.8 percent of all transit revenue for operations.
By 1992, federal operating assistance had declined to only 5.8
percent. At the same time that the federal contribution for
operating assistance has declined, the federal government has
placed additional unfunded mandates on transit operators. When
fully implemented, the Americans with Disabilities Act will
result in additional operating costs for transit operators of
$700,000,000 to $900,000,000. The Clean Air Act, Buy American,
and federal alcohol and drug testing requirements place
additional burdens on transit authorities.
Numerous transit authorities and Members of Congress
communicated to the Committee the hope that transit operating
subsidies could be restored to the 1995 level. Unfortunately,
budget limitations preclude the Committee from making a
restoration. The Committee's recommendation for operating
subsidies is $400,000,000. The Committee notes that for larger
cities, federal operating assistance generally represents 10
percent or less of total operating expenses. A reduction of 25
percent in the federal contribution for the larger cities is
painful but they have more resources on which to rely. For
smaller communities, where federal assistance may represent 30
to 40 percent or more of total operating costs, such a
reduction could be painful. Without adequate time to prepare
for alternative funding sources, such reductions could pose
special difficulties. Many smaller authorities might face
options of either cutting back on service or raising prices
significantly to make up the shortfall.
The Committee urges the Federal Transit Administration to
review the program thoroughly in conjunction with submittal of
the fiscal year 1997 budget and make further recommendations as
appropriate. Further reductions in the level of operating
assistance may be unavoidable, and the Committee would hope
that a system could be devised that would take performance-
based criteria into account, rather than merely reducing
properties by a uniform percentage across the board. The
Committee also encourages the appropriate authorizing
committees to review the formula by which operating assistance
is distributed and take appropriate action to minimize the
effect on small and rural authorities. In addition, the FTA is
urged to work with various transit agencies and their
associations to determine what additional regulatory relief may
be necessary.
In light of this difficult funding decision, the Committee
has included two provisions that should mitigate the reductions
in operating assistance by at least $200,000,000 annually: (1)
repeal of 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act and an abrogation of
existing labor agreements, and (2) a provision that will permit
bus overhauls to be considered as a capital expense.
13(c) of the Federal Transit Act.--The Committee has
included a provision (Sec. 343) that repeals Section 13(c) of
the Federal Transit Act, and cancels existing agreements.
Section 13(c) generally requires, as a precondition to a grant
of federal assistance by the Federal Transit Administration,
that protective arrangements must be made by the grantee to
protect employees affected by such assistance. The statute
requires that provisions addressing specific matters, including
preservation of collective bargaining rights, must be included
in such protective arrangements. Like Amtrak, these protective
arrangements also provide transit workers, depending on their
length of employment, up to 6 years of full compensation and
benefits.
Many transit authorities have informed the Committee that
section 13(c) labor protection has become a costly, outdated
and burdensome component of the federal transit program that
has impeded innovation, efficiency and growth in the provision
of transit services, including the institution of new or
restructured services. Last year, the Committee noted that
numerous grants for section 3 and 9 transit projects had been
delayed due to processing by the Department of Labor under
section 13(c) of the Federal Transit Act. In many instances,
these transit projects provide not only critical operating and
capital assistance to improve transit services, but also
provide needed jobs and funding for compliance with
Congressional mandates, such as the Clean Air Act and the
Americans with Disabilities Act.
When Federal support for transit operating assistance and
capital programs is diminishing, transit authorities must have
the flexibility to adjust to these reductions. At this time,
transit authorities cannot forgo cost savings inherent in
contracting out services, using part-time workers,
restructuring routes or schedules and using more cost effective
equipment which have been lost due to 13(c) obligations or the
threat of 13 (c) claims.
Bus overhauls.--The Committee has also included language
(Sec. 334) that amends federal transit laws to permit periodic
bus overhauls to be considered as a capital expense, as
requested in the budget and advocated by the American Public
Transit Association. Under existing law, bus rehabilitations
are eligible as capital expenses after March 31, 1996, only if
they increase the useful life of the vehicle by more than 5
years, and bus remanufacturing is eligible if it extends the
useful life by more than 8 years. The provision would make the
ground rules for bus remanufacturing consistent with the
legislation already in place for rail rolling stock.
The intent of this provision is to provide transit
operators with increased flexibility to use federal funds in
the most effective manner, remove the bias towards purchasing
new equipment rather than maintaining existing equipment (much
of which was acquired with federal funds), and make federal
highway and transit funding requirements more consistent. This
change will help alleviate the impact of federal operating
assistance reductions and help assure that transit service and
fare levels are maintained. Bus operators will immediately
benefit from greater flexibility in how they manage and
maintain federally funded assets. The Committee and the
Administration estimates that allowing periodic bus overhauls
to be considered as a capital expense could make eligible for
capital grants as much as $200,000,000 per year in rebuilding
costs.
The Committee notes that capital costs for transit projects
eligible for assistance under the Federal Transit Act and
publicly owned intracity or intercity bus terminals and
facilities are eligible expenses under the surface
transportation program (STP). Public transportation facilities
and equipment and intermodal transportation facilities and
systems, where it can be demonstrated they are likely to
contribute to the attainment of a national ambient air quality
standard are eligible expenses of the congestion mitigation/air
quality improvement program (CMAQ). Funds made available for
these programs may be ``flexed'' and alleviate reductions in
transit capital funds. The Committee recommendation includes
$4,733,993,000 for STP and $967,017,000 for CMAQ, increases of
$331,877,000 and $56,778,000, respectively, over last year.
Flexible funds transferred from the FHWA to the FTA have
increased significantly since the passage of the Intermodal
Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA),
especially funding from the STP and CMAQ programs. The FTA
reports that nearly $2 billion in flexible funding from STP and
CMAQ programs has been transferred to transit and intermodal
projects since ISTEA's passage, indicating that transit
systems, metropolitan planning organizations, and state
departments of transportation are succesfully implementing the
planning provisions of ISTEA.
SUMMARY TABLE OF FLEXIBLE FUNDING TRANSFERS TO FTA AND OBLIGATIONS
[As of May 31, 1995, In millions of dollars]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year--
---------------------------------------- Cumulative
1992 1993 1994 1995
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transfers to FTA:
CMAQ............ $177.0 $298.4 $317.0 $353.6 $1,146.0
STP............. 25.2 146.9 183.2 117.1 472.4
Interstate
substitute..... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 266.7
FHWA earmarks... 1.4 23.8 26.2 31.3 82.7
FAUS............ 0.2 ........ ........ ........ 0.2
---------------------------------------------------
Total
transfers to
FTA.......... 303.6 469.2 609.7 585.3 1,967.8
Carryover from
previous year
(including
recoveries/
adjustments):
CMAQ............ n/a 55.8 65.8 106.9
STP............. n/a 4.4 25.3 112.6
Interstate
substitute..... n/a ........ ........ ........
FHWA earmarks... n/a ........ 9.9 20.1
FAUS............ n/a ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------
Total
carryover.... n/a 60.2 \1\ 101.
0 239.6
Available to FTA:
CMAQ............ 177.0 354.2 382.8 460.5
STP............. 25.2 151.3 208.5 229.7
Interstate
substitute..... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3
FHWA earmarks... 1.4 23.8 36.1 51.4
FAUS............ 0.2 ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------
Total
available to
FTA.......... 303.8 529.4 710.7 824.9
Obligated by FTA:
CMAQ............ 121.2 289.0 259.7 340.1 1,010.0
STP............. 20.8 125.7 114.8 138.7 400.0
Interstate
substitute..... 100.0 0.1 83.3 83.3 266.7
FHWA earmarks... 1.4 13.8 16.0 44.8 76.0
FAUS............ 0.2 ........ ........ ........ 0.2
---------------------------------------------------
Total
obligated by
FTA.......... 243.6 428.6 473.8 606.9 1,752.9
Pending obligation
(carryover):
CMAQ............ 55.8 65.2 123.1 120.4
STP............. 4.4 25.6 93.7 91.0
Interstate
substitute..... ........ ........ ........ ........
FHWA earmarks... ........ 10.0 20.1 6.6
FAUS............ ........ ........ ........ ........
----------------------------------------
Total pending
obligation... 60.2 100.8 236.9 218.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note.--Carryover includes current year recoveries/adjustments from
prior year(s) obligations/transfers.
FY 92 obligations represent 26 projects in 18 states.
FY 93 obligations represent 155 projects in 38 states.
FY 94 obligations represent 166 projects in 38 states.
FY 95 obligations represent 134 projects in 30 states.
The Committee encourages the Federal Transit Administration
to work with transit authorities to maximize the full potential
of the flexible funding provisions of ISTEA.
Formula grants apportionments.--The Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) made a number of
major changes in the formula grants program of the Federal
Transit Administration. As indicated, the Federal Transit Act
still provides formula allocated programs of capital and
operating assistance for urbanized areas under section 9 and
for non-urbanized areas under section 18. However, as a result
of ISTEA, the section 16(b)(2) program of grants for services
to elderly and disabled persons is now distributed by a
statutory formula rather than by a discretionary administrative
formula and thus becomes a part of the FTA's formula grants
program. In addition, the rural transit assistance program,
which was formerly a part of the formula grants program, is now
a part of the authorization for transit planning and research
and is described under that heading.
The amount recommended would be distributed as follows:
Urbanized areas with populations of 200,000 or more.--These
areas would receive $1,656,335,386 (not including the one-half
percent set-aside).
Urbanized areas under 200,000 population.--These areas
would receive $176,382,304 (not including the one-half percent
set-aside) to be distributed 50 percent based on population and
50 percent based on population density.
Non-urbanized areas.--These areas would receive
$107,202,119. These funds are distributed based on non-
urbanized area population.
Elderly and disabled.--The section 16(b)(2) program would
receive $50,870,554. The ISTEA made the following changes in
the elderly and disabled program: (1) the former administrative
allocation is now statutory; (2) eligibility is expanded to
public bodies that coordinate elderly and disabled services;
(3) project eligibility is expanded to cover certain capital
costs in operating contracts; and (4) vehicles purchased under
this program may be leased to public bodies and may be used for
meals-on-wheels service.
Table showing the distribution of formula grant funding
recommended in the bill follow:
Fiscal Year 1996 Section 9 Formula Apportionments
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS OVER 1,000,000 IN POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Ubanized area Total assistance
apportionment limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta, GA....................... $24,614,444 $3,029,801
Baltimore, MD..................... 22,462,363 4,849,442
Boston, MA........................ 49,857,478 9,104,802
Chicago, IL-Northwestern IN....... 125,994,715 25,224,844
Cincinnati, OH-KY................. 9,065,773 2,626,818
Clevland, OH...................... 15,354,750 4,806,205
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX............. 23,167,191 4,309,939
Denver, CO........................ 14,064,351 2,942,363
Detroit, MI....................... 23,737,452 10,670,060
Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood-Pompano
Bch, FL.......................... 12,858,244 3,659,453
Houston, TX....................... 26,760,365 4,528,840
Kansas City, MO-KS................ 6,586,626 2,225,760
Los Angeles, CA................... 117,234,520 28,459,056
Miami-Hialeah, FL................. 26,952,080 4,180,275
Milwaukee, WI..................... 11,310,759 2,723,649
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN.......... 16,225,779 3,631,574
New Orleans, LA................... 10,244,538 3,294,360
New York, NY-Northeastern NJ...... 402,078,449 65,909,181
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport
News, VA......................... 7,698,559 2,092,594
Philadelphia, PA-NJ............... 73,506,364 15,866,092
Phoenix, AZ....................... 14,268,460 2,346,418
Pittsburgh, PA.................... 21,619,779 4,736,007
Portland-Vancouver, OR-WA......... 13,689,336 2,194,440
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA...... 10,668,751 1,254,240
Sacramento, CA.................... 8,200,858 1,734,602
San Antonio, TX................... 12,169,587 2,282,428
San Diego, CA..................... 22,496,954 3,641,907
San Francisco-Oakland, CA......... 74,426,318 9,697,006
San Jose, CA...................... 18,718,182 3,294,592
San Juan, PR...................... 16,567,835 3,744,556
Seattle, WA....................... 31,053,345 3,077,101
St. Louis, MO-IL.................. 14,131,498 4,781,113
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
FL............................... 10,447,664 2,603,143
Washington, DC-MD-VA.............. 61,140,220 8,417,938
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 1,349,373,587 257,940,602
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO URBANIZED AREAS 200,000 TO 1,000,000 IN
POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
Urbanized area Total assistance
apportionment limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Akron, OH......................... $3,753,207 $1,148,687
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY....... 4,485,474 1,114,100
Albuquerque, NM................... 3,598,403 769,914
Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, PA-NJ. 2,821,851 1,164,829
Anchorage, AK..................... 1,535,538 380,142
Ann Arbor, MI..................... 2,403,474 488,418
Augusta, GA-SC.................... 1,303,574 389,076
Austin, TX........................ 7,331,311 732,699
Bakersfield, CA................... 2,340,553 477,745
Baton Rouge, LA................... 1,858,541 638,412
Birmingham, AL.................... 3,706,281 1,172,716
Bridgeport-Milford, CT............ 3,962,452 1.018,133
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY......... 8,218,665 2,988,539
Canton, OH........................ 1,263,221 562,523
Charleston, SC.................... 1,964,142 533,329
Charlotte, NC..................... 3,812,871 642,938
Chattanooga, TN-GA................ 1,597,602 484,686
Colorado Springs, CO.............. 2,413,191 481,153
Columbia, SC...................... 1,738,934 544,473
Columbus, GA-AL................... 1,131,383 407,956
Columbus, OH...................... 7,324,428 2,167,529
Corpus Christi, TX................ 2,347,424 428,127
Davenport-Rock Island-Moline, IA-
IL............................... 1,919,302 557,060
Dayton, OH........................ 8,048,369 1,442,320
Daytona Beach, FL................. 1,404,776 386,832
Des Moines, IA.................... 1,748,300 542,546
Durham, NC........................ 1,773,523 398,718
El Paso, TX-NM.................... 5,357,699 887,385
Fayetteville, NC.................. 972,805 366,925
Flint, MI......................... 2,947,988 754,704
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL......... 1,391,332 281,786
Fort Wayne, IN.................... 1,274,563 538,143
Fresno, CA........................ 3,398,317 724,199
Grand Rapids, MI.................. 2,831,669 765,449
Greenville, SC.................... 1,355,759 369,980
Harrisburg, PA.................... 1,649,004 558,765
Hartford-Middletown, CT........... 5,904,933 1,133,925
Honolulu, HI...................... 14,292,094 1,404,341
Indianapolis, IN.................. 5,518,618 1,886,916
Jackson, MS....................... 1,263,106 446,062
Jacksonville, FL.................. 5,214,342 999,771
Knoxville, TN..................... 1,594,193 444,669
Lansing-East Lansing, MI.......... 2,175,867 574,012
Las Vegas, NV..................... 6,437,138 681,390
Lawrence-Haverhill, MA-NH......... 2,304,442 421,807
Lexington-Fayette, KY............. 1,355,989 639,856
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR. 1,657,790 511,637
Lorain-Elyria, OH................. 857,444 385,955
Louisville, KY-IN................. 7,048,873 1,927,119
Madison, WI....................... 3,243,770 492,277
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX...... 891,131 408,979
Melbourne-Palm Bay, FL............ 2,252,910 347,717
Memphis, TN-AR-MS................. 5,945,993 1,786,033
Mobile, AL........................ 1,619,882 497,703
Modesto, CA....................... 1,918,493 489,838
Montgomery, AL.................... 1,055,846 506,435
Nashville, TN..................... 3,530,254 828,076
New Haven-Meriden, CT............. 6,164,211 1,144,081
Ogden, UT......................... 1,958,844 345,789
Oklahoma City, OK................. 3,414,538 1,146,097
Omaha, NE-IA...................... 3,824,408 1,175,399
Orlando, FL....................... 6,851,996 864,885
Oxnard-Ventura, CA................ 2,620,873 670,751
Pensacola, FL..................... 1,249,359 374,848
Peoria, IL........................ 1,487,534 522,279
Providence-Pawtucket, RI-MA....... 10,497,418 2,347,879
Provo-Orem, UT.................... 1,757,036 402,524
Raleigh, NC....................... 1,796,819 361,204
Reno, NV.......................... 2,580,586 416,401
Richmond, VA...................... 4,251,141 956,723
Rochester, NY..................... 4,798,391 1,533,651
Rockford, IL...................... 1,247,727 480,621
Salt Lake City, UT................ 8,328,259 1,213,000
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL............ 2,434,998 626,163
Scranton-Wilkes-Barre, PA......... 2,249,759 860,514
Shreveport, LA.................... 1,732,155 521,516
South Bend-Mishawaka, IN-MI....... 1,568,347 569,709
Spokane, WA....................... 3,763,931 552,822
Springfield, MA-CT................ 4,312,934 1,004,381
Stockton, CA...................... 2,069,073 663,194
Syracuse, NY...................... 3,395,661 941,616
Tacoma, WA........................ 6,039,100 769,671
Toledo, OH-MI..................... 3,792,671 1,111,998
Trenton, NJ-PA.................... 2,970,471 981,809
Tucson, AZ........................ 5,567,145 822,607
Tulsa, OK......................... 2,984,602 778,857
West Palm Bch-Boca Raton-Delray
Bch, FL.......................... 8,464,696 819,758
Wichita, KS....................... 2,038,667 673,803
Wilmington, DE-NJ-MD-PA........... 3,818,567 996,549
Worcester, MA-CT.................. 2,223,483 575,229
Youngstown-Warren, OH............. 1,637,365 886,167
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 306,961,799 72,237,949
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMOUNTS APPORTIONED TO STATE GOVERNORS FOR URBANIZED AREAS 50,000 TO
200,000 IN POPULATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Operating
State/Urbanized areas Total assistance
apportionment limitations
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $3,312,538 $1,480,233
Alaska............................ 0 0
Arizona........................... 525,971 155,467
Arkansas.......................... 1,265,629 599,943
California........................ 19,386,682 5,108,923
Colorado.......................... 3,572,184 1,381,582
Connecticut....................... 11,888,266 3,412,754
Delaware.......................... 269,494 71,673
Florida........................... 8,213,586 2,368,432
Georgia........................... 3,596,112 1,629,865
Hawaii............................ 955,758 357,448
Idaho............................. 1,891,612 608,269
Illinois.......................... 8,664,535 4,034,863
Indiana........................... 5,053,534 2,301,402
Iowa.............................. 2,751,078 1,335,448
Kansas............................ 1,335,736 570,870
Kentucky.......................... 1,052,778 477,421
Louisiana......................... 3,117,891 1,403,885
Maine............................. 1,356,961 607,297
Maryland.......................... 1,509,010 564,518
Massachusetts..................... 5,976,384 3,012,942
Michigan.......................... 5,099,999 2,466,676
Minnesota......................... 1,817,491 819,479
Mississippi....................... 1,560,348 681,074
Missouri.......................... 2,150,185 905,344
Montana........................... 1,431,385 650,382
Nebraska.......................... 1,591,263 588,626
Nevada............................ ................. .................
New Hampshire..................... 1,932,360 699,260
New Jersey........................ 1,464,117 872,978
New Mexico........................ 797,291 260,185
New York.......................... 4,423,632 2,168,937
North Carolina.................... 7,181,334 2,860,008
North Dakota...................... 1,395,326 522,021
Ohio.............................. 3,836,494 1,844,101
Oklahoma.......................... 597,129 290,265
Oregon............................ 3,114,023 1,070,503
Pennsylvania...................... 8,140,607 3,853,309
Puerto Rico....................... 7,520,213 2,487,985
Rhode Island...................... 478,682 185,005
South Carolina.................... 2,027,155 761,051
South Dakota...................... 1,006,544 393,123
Tennessee......................... 1,557,802 666,941
Texas............................. 14,423,855 5,774,321
Utah.............................. 288,287 76,674
Vermont........................... 505,860 183,576
Virginia.......................... 3,357,868 1,510,205
Washington........................ 3,173,247 1,083,128
West Virginia..................... 2,438,801 1,360,681
Wisconsin......................... 6,676,323 2,955,935
Wyoming........................... 698,945 346,441
-------------------------------------
Total....................... 176,382,304 69,821,449
=====================================
over 1,000,000 in population...... 1,349,373,587 257,940,602
200,000-1,000,000 in population... 306,961,799 72,237,949
50,000-200,000 in population...... 176,382,304 69,821,449
-------------------------------------
Totals...................... 1,832,717,690 400,000,000
Section 23 Set-Aside.............. 9,209,637 .................
-------------------------------------
National Totals............. 1,841,927,327 400,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 16 APPORTIONMENTS AMOUNTS ALLOCATED TO STATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................................ $882,486
Alaska......................................... 169,522
American Samoa................................. 51,753
Arizona........................................ 782,367
Arkansas....................................... 627,542
California..................................... 4,620,468
Colorado....................................... 614,985
Connectiut..................................... 699,407
Delaware....................................... 237,388
District of Columbia........................... 235,897
Florida........................................ 3,129,691
Georgia........................................ 1,133,542
Guam........................................... 130,830
Hawaii......................................... 292,096
Idaho.......................................... 298,073
Illinois....................................... 2,035,960
Indiana........................................ 1,085,471
Iowa........................................... 671,906
Kansas......................................... 569,161
Kentucky....................................... 847,253
Louisiana...................................... 849,876
Maine.......................................... 363,595
Maryland....................................... 853,724
Massachusetts.................................. 1,213,668
Michigan....................................... 1,747,157
Minnesota...................................... 865,249
Mississippi.................................... 610,703
Missouri....................................... 1,100,274
Montana........................................ 276,472
Nebraska....................................... 412,003
Nevada......................................... 315,815
New Hampshire.................................. 300,362
New Jersey..................................... 1,449,798
New Mexico..................................... 366,726
New York....................................... 3,311,609
North Carolina................................. 1,284,166
North Dakota................................... 240,751
Northern Marianas.............................. 51,601
Ohio........................................... 2,123,177
Oklahoma....................................... 736,126
Oregon......................................... 686,925
Pennsylvania................................... 2,538,362
Puerto Rico.................................... 653,508
Rhode Island................................... 327,622
South Carolina................................. 712,760
South Dakota................................... 257,080
Tennessee...................................... 1,035,435
Texas.......................................... 2,620,396
Utah........................................... 344,223
Vermont........................................ 218,817
Virgin Islands................................. 132,403
Virginia....................................... 1,075,698
Washington..................................... 968,491
West Virginia.................................. 530,611
Wisconsin...................................... 988,018
Wyoming........................................ 191,555
------------------------
Total.................................... 50,870,554
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 18 FORMULA APPORTIONMENTS AND RURAL TRANSIT ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
ALLOCATIONS TO THE STATES FOR NONURBANIZED AREA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 18
State apportionment RTAP allocation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama........................... $2,546,646 $92,760
Alaska............................ 379,760 56,376
American Samoa.................... 54,128 10,909
Arizona........................... 1,167,922 69,610
Arkansas.......................... 2,035,938 84,185
California........................ 4,969,061 133,434
Colorado.......................... 1,060,696 67,810
Connecticut....................... 962,151 66,155
Delaware.......................... 240,034 54,030
Florida........................... 3,194,332 103,635
Georgia........................... 3,723,468 112,520
Guam.............................. 154,089 12,587
Hawaii............................ 417,902 57,017
Idaho............................. 843,106 64,156
Illinois.......................... 3,416,074 107,358
Indiana........................... 3,299,850 105,407
Iowa.............................. 2,122,496 85,638
Kansas............................ 1,688,378 78,349
Kentucky.......................... 2,787,144 96,798
Louisiana......................... 2,305,170 88,705
Maine............................. 1,112,334 68,677
Maryland.......................... 1,388,696 73,317
Massachusetts..................... 1,488,260 74,989
Michigan.......................... 4,030,463 117,674
Minnesota......................... 2,319,299 88,943
Mississippi....................... 2,263,334 88,003
Missouri.......................... 2,701,386 95,358
Montana........................... 682,982 61,468
Nebraska.......................... 1,030,534 67,303
Nevada............................ 336,454 55,649
New Hampshire..................... 890,841 64,958
New Jersey........................ 1,273,714 71,387
New Mexico........................ 1,001,332 66,813
New York.......................... 4,483,625 125,283
North Carolina.................... 4,762,934 129,973
North Dakota...................... 505,096 58,481
Northern Marianas................. 50,161 10,842
Ohio.............................. 4,848,998 131,418
Oklahoma.......................... 2,072,897 84,805
Oregon............................ 1,645,898 77,636
Pennsylvania...................... 5,409,108 140,823
Puerto Rico....................... 1,616,412 77,141
Rhode Island...................... 207,065 53,477
South Carolina.................... 2,383,873 90,027
South Dakota...................... 615,672 60,338
Tennessee......................... 3,077,307 101,670
Texas............................. 6,497,051 159,092
Utah.............................. 466,714 57,836
Vermont........................... 550,464 59,243
Virgin Islands.................... 117,817 11,978
Virginia.......................... 2,728,331 95,811
Washington........................ 1,911,707 82,099
West Virginia..................... 1,625,502 77,293
Wisconsin......................... 2,808,677 97,160
Wyoming........................... 392,825 56,596
-------------------------------------
Total....................... $106,666,108 $4,381,000
=====================================
Section 23 set-aside.............. 536,011 .................
-------------------------------------
National total.............. $107,202,119 $4,381,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
University Transportation Centers
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $6,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\1\)
Recommended in the bill................................. 6,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.
The Committee has approved the budget request of $6,000,000
for the university transportation centers program. ISTEA added
three centers to the ten previously established. These centers
conduct research, training, and development activities related
to the transportation of passengers and property.
The Regional Centers and their focus areas are:
Region I--Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Strategic
Management of Transportation Systems.
Region II--City University of New York, Regional Mobility
and Accessibility Investment Strategies.
Region III--Pennsylvania State University, Advanced
Technologies in Transportation Operations and Management.
Region IV--University of Tennessee, Transportation Safety.
Region V--University of Michigan, Commercial Highway
Transportation.
Region VI--Texas A&M University, Mobility for Regional
Development.
Region VII--University of Nebraska, Midwestern and Rural
Transportation Policy, Planning, and System Management.
Region VIII--North Dakota State University, Rural and Non-
Metropolitan Transportation.
Region IX--University of California, Berkeley, Improving
Accessibility for All.
Region X--University of Washington, Operations Management
and Planning.
The National Centers are:
National Center for Transportation and Industrial
Productivity at the New Jersey Institute of Technology,
National Center for Transportation Management, Research &
Development at Morgan State University, and
Mack-Blackwell National Rural Transportation Study Center
at the University of Arkansas.
Transit Planning and Research
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $92,250,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 100,027,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 82,250,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -10,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -17,777,000
\1\ Reductions of $171,000 to comply with procurement reform provision
not reflected.
The Committee recommends a total of $82,250,000 for the
planning and research, training, and human resources programs
of the FTA. The bill reduces appropriations for all programs of
the transit planning and research by five percent due to budget
constraints, other than the national program which is reduced
by $14,472,000. The bill contains language specifying that
$39,436,250 shall be available for the metropolitan planning
program, $4,381,000 for the rural transit assistance program,
$8,051,250 for the transit cooperative research program,
$19,480,000 for the national program, $8,051,250 for the state
program and $2,850,000 for the National Transit Institute.
National program.--The Committee has reduced the national
transit planning and research program in fiscal year 1996. A
number of low-priority, non-essential programs, including the
transit ambassadors program, step-by-step diversity training
for FTA grantees, outreach activities, grants to universities
and colleges to create transportation courses, the
environmental justice program, transit educational materials
for children, the ``Coming and Going'' education program, and
livable communities initiatives have been deleted.
Continued support in fiscal year 1996 is provided for a
number of important, ongoing initiatives including:
Team transit program of the Minnesota Metropolitan
Commission.......................................... $500,000
Project ACTION (Accessible Community Transportation in
our Nation)......................................... 2,000,000
Advanced technology transit bus......................... 2,000,000
Fuel cell bus technology................................ 2,000,000
Research on large circuit breakers and switch gears..... 1,000,000
Dulles corridor studies................................. 1,000,000
Hennepin County, Minnesota community works program...... 1,000,000
Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute.--The FTA
is urged to give consideration to a proposal developed by the
Santa Barbara Electric Transportation Institute relating to an
automatic data collection and safety monitoring program to
assist driver, safety and maintenance functions.
Battery-powered buses.--Recognizing the potential for U.S.
industry expansion, the Committee has consistently expressed
its support for alternative fueled vehicles and advanced
transportation technology. The Committee urges the
administrator to assist the Santa Barbara Metropolitan Transit
District in acquiring state-of-the-art battery-powered buses to
contribute to the planned demonstration of battery-powered
buses at the 1996 Olympic games so not to diminish the scope of
the demonstration.
Hennepin County, Minnesota community works program.--The
Committee has provided $1,000,000 for the Hennepin County
community works program. This program will show how public
works programs can be developed in communities nationwide to
promote alternative forms of transportation, employment and
tax-base development. The Hennepin County community works
program shall examine potential unique and alternative
transportation and transportation corridor enhancement projects
in Hennepin County and serve as a national model.
Trust Fund Share of Expenses
(Liquidation of Contract Authorization)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................$(1,150,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (1,120,850,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,120,850,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... (-29,150,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (--)
For fiscal year 1996, the Committee has provided
$1,120,850,000 in liquidating cash for the trust fund share of
transit expenses.
Discretionary Grants
(Limitation on obligations)
(Highway Trust Fund)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................\1\ ($1,725,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (\2\)
Recommended in the bill................................. (1,665,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (-60,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... NA
\1\ Reductions of $96,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
\2\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.
The bill includes language limiting to $1,665,000,000
obligations for the discretionary grants program. This level
represents the fully-authorized amount for expenditures from
the trust fund. The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 provides $1,665,000,000 in contract
authority for the discretionary grants program from the mass
transit account of the highway trust fund. In addition, the
legislation authorizes $385,000,000 in general Treasury funds
for this program.
The following table shows the fiscal year 1995 limitation,
fiscal year 1996 budget estimate, and Committee recommendation:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1995 Enacted 1996 Request Recommended
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed guideway
mod........... $725,000,000 (\1\) 666,000,000
Bus and bus
facilities.... 353,330,000 (\1\) 333,000,000
New starts..... 646,670,000 (724,926,000) 666,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
Total...... 1,725,000,000 (\1\) 1,665,000,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The President's budget proposed to consolidate this program into the
Unified Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program.
bus and bus facilities
The Committee recommends $333,000,000 for bus purchases and
bus facilities, including maintenance garages. Bus systems are
expected to continue to play a vital role in the mass
transportation systems of virtually all cities. FTA estimates
that approximately 95 percent of the areas that provide mass
transit service do so through bus transit only and over 60
percent of all transit passenger trips are provided by bus. The
Committee believes that the $333,000,000 recommended under this
heading, together with other appropriations that are available
for bus projects, should provide the funding necessary to
retain existing bus riders as well as to attract new riders who
currently use private automobiles.
Under ISTEA the federal share for most bus projects is 80
percent. However, the federal share increases to 90 percent for
the incremental costs of bus-related equipment needed to meet
the requirements of the Clean Air Act and Americans with
Disabilities Act.
The recommended amount includes the following allocations:
Allegheny County, Pennsylvania; Busway system........... $8,000,000
Atlanta, Georgia; buses................................. 7,500,000
Altoona, Pennsylvania; ISTEA set-aside requirement...... 2,000,000
Ames, Marshalltown, Ottumwa, and regions 6, 14, 15, and
16, Iowa; bus and bus facilities.................... 4,000,000
Beaver County, Pennsylvania; bus facility............... 1,600,000
Buffalo, New York, Crossroads intermodal station........ 1,000,000
Clark County, Nevada; buses and bus facility............ 14,000,000
Cleveland, Ohio; Triskett bus facility.................. 2,500,000
Coachella Valley, California; SunLine bus facility...... 1,000,000
Corpus Christi, Texas; bus facilities................... 2,500,000
El Paso, Texas; alternatively fueled buses.............. 6,000,000
El Paso, Texas; bus equipment........................... 2,900,000
El Paso, Texas; satellite transit terminal.............. 1,500,000
Fort Collins and Greely, Colorado; buses................ 2,500,000
Gary and Hammond, Indiana; buses........................ 520,000
King County, Washington; buses.......................... 2,500,000
Lexington, Kentucky; buses.............................. 2,000,000
Los Angeles, California; Gateway intermodal center...... 8,000,000
Maryland Transit Authority, Maryland; buses............. 10,000,000
Metropolitan Council, Minnesota; articulated buses...... 15,000,000
Metropolitan Dade County, Florida; buses................ 4,000,000
Nashville, Tennessee; electric buses.................... 600,000
New Orleans, Louisiana; bus facility.................... 6,000,000
New Orleans, Louisiana; buses........................... 12,000,000
New Rochelle, New York; intermodal facility............. 1,500,000
North Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; intermodal center..... 6,000,000
Norwich, Connecticut; intermodal center................. 3,000,000
Orlando, Florida; Lynx buses and bus facility........... 8,500,000
Palm Beach County, Florida; bus facilities.............. 4,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; buses....................... 3,000,000
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; lift-equipped buses......... 15,000,000
Pierce County, Washington; Tacoma Dome station.......... 3,000,000
Rensselaer, New York; intermodal station................ 7,500,000
Saint Bernard Parish, Louisiana; intermodal facility.... 3,000,000
San Francisco, California; buses........................ 13,480,000
San Gabriel Valley, California; Foothill bus facilities. 12,500,000
Santa Cruz, California; bus facility.................... 3,000,000
Sonoma County, California; park and ride facilities..... 2,500,000
South Bend, Indiana; intermodal facility................ 5,000,000
Syracuse, New York; buses............................... 2,000,000
Syracuse, New York; intermodal station.................. 2,000,000
Utah Transit Authority, Utah; buses..................... 3,500,000
Ventura County, California; bus facility................ 1,200,000
Volusia County, Florida; buses and park and ride
facility............................................ 2,500,000
Westchester, New York; bus facility..................... 4,500,000
Worcester, Massachusetts; intermodal center............. 4,000,000
Yolo County, California; buses.......................... 3,000,000
State of Arkansas; buses................................ 6,000,000
State of Delaware; buses................................ 2,700,000
State of Illinois; buses................................ 20,000,000
State of Indiana; buses and bus facilities.............. 13,000,000
State of Michigan; ISTEA set-aside requirement.......... 10,000,000
State of North Carolina; buses and bus facilities....... 10,000,000
State of Ohio, buses.................................... 20,000,000
State of Wisconsin; buses............................... 20,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................... 333,000,000
Alternatively fueled vehicles.--In the Energy Policy Act of
1992, Congress expressed its intent that the federal government
should promote the acquisition and use of alternative fueled
vehicles in public transit fleets. In light of this intent, the
Committee urges the Federal Transit Administration to give
special consideration to grant applications of transit
authorities seeking to purchase alternative fueled vehicles.
State of Michigan bus and bus-facilities.--The Committee
has provided $10,000,000 for buses and bus facilities for the
state of Michigan. This set-aside is required under the
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991. This
amount includes $4,400,000 for buses and bus facilities in
Flint; $2,600,000 for an intermodal facility in Lansing; and
$3,000,000 for the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional
Transportation (SMART).
Altoona bus testing facility.--$2,000,000 has been provided
for the Altoona bus testing facility, located in Altoona,
Pennsylvania. This recommendation is consistent with the
requirements of ISTEA.
Ames, Marshalltown, Ottumwa and regions 6, 14, 15, and 16,
Iowa.--The Committee has provided the following amounts for
buses and vans and bus facilities for various communities and
areas of the state of Iowa: $2,714,700 for buses and bus
facilities for Ames; $189,500 for buses for Marshalltown;
$708,600 for buses for Ottumwa; $17,600 for region 6 for
rehabilitation of vans; $121,100 for region 14 for bus
replacement and rehabilitation; $159,400 to region 15 for bus
replacement; and $89,100 for region 16 for buses and bus
rehabilitation.
State of Arkansas.--The Committee has provided $6,000,000
for the Arkansas Department of Transportation for buses and bus
facilities. The amount includes funds for the following transit
agencies: $250,000 for Pine Bluff Transit; $400,000 for
Razorback Transit Authority; $400,000 for Intra-City Transit of
Hot Springs; $150,000 for Miller County Area Transit in
Texarkana; $300,000 for South Central Arkansas Transit of
Malvern; and $1,000,000 for Southeast Arkansas Transit in Pine
Bluff.
State of Illinois.--The Committee has provided $20,000,000
for the Illinois Department of Transportation for replacement
buses and transit facilities. This amount includes funds for
replacement buses for the following transit agencies:
$1,760,000 for Champaign-Urbana, $528,000 for Decatur,
$2,640,000 for Madison County, $528,000 for Quincy, $528,000
for Rockford, $880,000 for Rock Island, $1,248,000 for
Springfield, and $1,840,000 for Pace. This amount also includes
$720,000 for a transfer facility in Peoria and $800,000 for bus
facilities for the South Central MTD. In addition, $7,000,000
is provided for a new bus communications system for the Chicago
Transit Authority.
Foothill transit zone.--The Committee has provided $12.5
million for Phase I of a bus facility project which will
further enhance the cost effectiveness and service delivery of
a bus transit system which the Committee believes could serve
as a national model for how government can tap private sector
know-how to provide better service at lower cost. Serving the
highly congested eastern portion of Los Angeles county,
Foothill Transit's decision-making is provided by a board of
directors comprised of elected officials in the 20 cities in
the San Gabriel Valley. Daily operations are provided by a
private contractor. Under this public-private partnership,
Foothill has increased ridership more than 50 percent while
holding operating costs to 1986 levels. By replacing its two
leased bus maintenance centers with owned facilities, Foothill
will be able to eliminate recurring depreciation costs and the
repeated equipment purchases triggered by each new contract.
Also, ownership of the facilities will allow for proper siting
to reduce dead heading. The Committee believes that Foothill
Transit Zone represents the kind of creative management and
financing that should be considered by transit properties
nationwide. Accordingly, the Committee encourages the Federal
Transit Administration to publicize this success story as a
model for other systems.
fixed guideway modernization
The Committee recommends $666,000,000 from the
discretionary grants program to modernize existing rail transit
systems. The funds are to be distributed as follows:
New York................................................ $228,317,868
Southwestern Connecticut................................ 30,238,186
Northeastern New Jersey................................. 59,852,995
Chicago/Northwestern Indiana............................ 94,083,037
Philadelphia/Southern New Jersey........................ 68,353,400
Boston.................................................. 46,966,395
San Francisco........................................... 43,346,200
Pittsburgh.............................................. 14,619,242
Cleveland............................................... 10,234,467
Baltimore............................................... 11,252,003
New Orleans............................................. 1,977,169
Los Angeles............................................. 5,163,433
Washington, DC.......................................... 14,498,674
Seattle................................................. 4,716,616
Atlanta................................................. 5,363,201
San Diego............................................... 1,865,716
San Jose................................................ 3,367,284
Providence.............................................. 886,831
Dayton.................................................. 1,415,918
Tacoma.................................................. 170,335
Wilmington.............................................. 278,710
Trenton................................................. 493,550
Lawrence-Haverhill...................................... 432,833
Chattanooga............................................. 17,404
Baltimore............................................... 2,077,988
Minneapolis............................................. 970,638
St. Louis............................................... 134,739
Denver.................................................. 323,695
Norfolk................................................. 341,533
Kansas City............................................. 18,106
Honolulu................................................ 221,697
Hartford................................................ 376,909
Madison................................................. 176,241
San Juan................................................ 891,176
Detroit................................................. 165,760
Dallas.................................................. 266,485
Sacramento.............................................. 841,768
Houston................................................. 1,413,969
Buffalo................................................. 378,659
Portland................................................ 743,813
Miami................................................... 2,752,667
Phoenix................................................. 997,690
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. 661,005,000
\3/4\-percent takedown.......................... 4,995,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total appropriation............................... 666,000,000
========================================================
____________________________________________________
new systems
The bill includes a total of $666,000,000 for preliminary
engineering, right-of-way acquisition, project management,
oversight, and construction for new systems and extensions.
Though the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of
1991 authorizes the federal share for transit programs up to 80
percent of the project costs, the Committee encourages local
transit authorities to consider contributing more than the
minimum 20 percent required under the law. Such an overmatch
would indicate significant local and state support and
commitment to a project. Inasmuch as federal assistance for
many programs may be declining in the future, including transit
capital and operating programs, an overmatch leverages limited
federal funds and may provide the basis for continuing federal
support in the future.
The Committee has deferred consideration of funding in
fiscal year 1996 for projects that have not received funding in
the past. The section 3 program has become increasingly
oversubscribed and the cost for completing all projects in the
development process at any one time far exceeds the amount of
federal funds likely to be available. In fact, the federal cost
for completing the projects currently under development is now
$20 billion, compared to approximately $8 billion just four
years ago. Funding for new project systems and planning and
preliminary engineering should be borne by local authorities
and would indicate significant local commitment to a proposed
new system.
The funds are to be distributed as follows:
Atlanta--North Springs.................................. $42,410,000
Boston--South Boston MOS-2.............................. 17,500,000
Canton-Akron-Cleveland commuter rail.................... 6,500,000
Cincinnati Northeast/Northern Kentucky rail............. 2,000,000
Dallas--South Oak Cliff Line............................ 16,941,000
Dallas--North Central light rail extension.............. 2,500,000
Dallas-Ft. Worth RAILTRAN............................... 5,000,000
Florida Tri-County commuter............................. 10,000,000
Houston--Regional bus plan.............................. 22,630,000
Jacksonville--Automated skyway express.................. 12,500,000
Los Angeles MOS-3....................................... 125,000,000
Los Angeles-San Diego (LOSSAN).......................... 10,000,000
Maryland Rail Commuter.................................. 10,000,000
Maryland Central Corridor............................... 3,000,000
Miami-North 27th Avenue................................. 2,000,000
Memphis regional rail plan.............................. 2,500,000
New Jersey Urban Core--Secaucus......................... 75,000,000
New Orleans Canal Street Corridor....................... 10,000,000
New York Queens Connector............................... 114,989,000
Orange County transitway................................ 5,000,000
Pittsburgh--Airport phase I............................. 22,630,000
Portland--Westside...................................... 85,500,000
Whitehall ferry terminal, New York...................... 5,000,000
Wisconsin Central commuter.............................. 14,400,000
Sacramento.............................................. 2,000,000
St. Louis Metrolink..................................... 10,000,000
Salt Lake City.......................................... 5,000,000
San Francisco BART extension............................ 10,000,000
San Juan, Puerto Rico Tren-Urbano....................... 15,000,000
Tampa-Lakeland commuter rail............................ 1,000,000
Salt Lake City light rail project.--The Committee
recommends funding of $5,000,000 for the Salt Lake City light
rail project. The bill includes language that allows the funds
to be available for related high-occupancy vehicle lane and
intermodal corridor design costs.
San Francisco BART extension to the airport.--The Committee
recommends $10,000,000 for the BART extension to the San
Francisco airport. Numerous concerns have been raised regarding
the redesignation of the locally preferred alternative chosen
under the recently concluded draft environmental impact
statement in May of 1995. Alternative VI, calling for an
underground segment to the airport, is the most expensive
design option among all those considered. The current cost
estimates for completing this project exceed the ISTEA
authorization by approximately $270,000,000. The Committee
directs Bay Area Rapid Transit, the San Mateo County Transit
District and the Metropolitan Transit Commission to pursue
additional state and local funding sources while recognizing
that the airlines operating from the San Francisco Airport are
already participating in a $2.5 billion airport expansion. The
Committee directs a re-examination of the design alternatives
should non-federal and non-airport financing not materialize.
Jacksonville Automated Skyway Express (ASE).--The Committee
recommends $12,500,000 to complete the 2.5 mile Jacksonville
Automated Skyway Express. Funding is provided to construct .35
mile of dual guideway and the duPont Center Station as well as
the guideway access between the Acosta Bridge and the operation
and maintenance center on Riverside Avenue. It is the
Committee's understanding that the Jacksonville Transit
Authority (JTA) has a cash fund consisting of sales tax dollars
that can be used on highway and bridge projects but cannot be
used for Skyway construction or operation. The Committee
expects that the JTA will contribute $25,000,000 to the Florida
Department of Transportation exclusively for the reconstruction
of the Fuller Warren Bridge as a condition of funding for the
Jacksonville ASE.
Chicago central area circulator.--The City of Chicago
central area circulator project has a full funding grant
agreement (FFGA) with the Federal Transit Administration
pursuant to a completed final environmental impact statement,
which concludes that the proposed light rail transit system is
the most effective approach. Due to the failure of the state of
Illinois to appropriate funding for its share of the project
this year, the full project cannot go forward at this time. The
project is now proposing a phased plan to proceed initially
with the design and construction of a core system, whereby the
federal share of the core system will not exceed 50 percent nor
the $258,000,000 currently designated in the FFGA. The city's
local funding is in place. The Federal Transit Administration
believes that a core system could work. Due to the uncertainty
caused by the failure of the state of Illinois to appropriate
funds for the project this year, the Committee is not
allocating any new fiscal year 1996 funding to the project.
However, this does not prejudice the project from receiving
funding in future appropriations bills. The Committee
encourages the city to seek FTA approval for its core system
phasing approach and incorporate the plan into an amended FFGA
reflecting the new project scope. The Committee will then make
every effort to provide funding according to FFGA funding
schedule.
St. Louis Metro Link.--The Committee has provided
$10,000,000 for the Illinois-Missouri Metro Link project. This
amount includes $8,000,000 for additional cars to address
extraordinary ridership increases on the system and $2,000,000
for design for Illinois extension.
Tacoma-Seattle commuter rail.--The Committee, in previous
years, has appropriated $22,500,000 to establish commuter rail
service over existing railroad rights-of-way in the heavily
congested Puget Sound area, including the Tacoma-Seattle-
Everett corridor. The Committee notes that a Regional
Transportation Authority (RTA) has been created which could
operate such service and that the legislature of the state of
Washington has enacted legislation permitting city governments
to construct, operate and maintain passenger rail systems. The
Committee expects, therefore, that significant progress shall
be made in fiscal year 1996 toward implementing the commuter
rail project for which funding has been provided by this
Committee.
Mass Transit Capital Fund
(liquidation of contract authorization)
(highway trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................($1,500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (1,700,000,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (2,000,000,000)
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... (+500,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (+300,000,000)
This liquidating cash appropriation covers obligations
incurred under contract authority provided for activities
previously discussed under the discretionary grant program. The
Committee recommends $2,000,000,000 in liquidating cash for
mass transit capital programs. The Department has indicated
that an increase over the President's request is necessary due
to an increased pace of obligations and outlays in 1995 and
anticipated in 1996 and insufficient reestimates of liquidating
cash in prior years. This appropriation does not score as new
budget authority under the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.
Interstate Transfer Grants--Transit
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $48,030,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996.......................................
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -48,030,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
This program, established by the Federal-aid highway act,
allowed state and local officials to withdraw planned
interstate highway segments and substitute transit projects.
The cut-off date for approval of new interstate withdrawal
requests was September 30, 1983. Funding in 1995 exhausts the
Federal commitment to transit capital projects substituted for
previously withdrawn segments of the interstate highway system
under the provisions of 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4). No funds are
requested or made available in fiscal year 1996 to carry out
the provisions of section 1045 of Public Law 102-240 given
funding provided in fiscal year 1995.
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $200,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 200,000,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 200,000,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
The bill includes the budget estimate of $200,000,000 for
the construction of the Washington, D.C. Metrorail system. The
Committee recognizes that the administration, the transit
authority and the state and local governments in the
metropolitan Washington region have reached agreement on
financing the remaining 13.5 miles of the adopted regional
system and are committed to completion of the system on the
``fast track'' schedule. The Committee further recognizes that
a reliable federal appropriation is critical to securing the
necessary credit arrangement required to keep the ``fast
track'' construction program on schedule. The Committee
supports the completion of the remaining 13.5 miles and is
recommending the budget request to permit WMATA to proceed with
the ``fast track'' construction program.
Violent Crime Reduction Program
(violent crime trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $5,000,000
Recommended in the bill.................................................
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -5,000,000
Section 40131 of the Violent Crime Control and Law
Enforcement Act of 1994 authorizes $10,000,000 to establish
programs for capital improvements and studies to prevent crime
in public transportation. The Committee has not funded this new
program in fiscal year 1996 given the current budget
constraints. Further, a separate, categorical program is
duplicative and unnecessary as the capital expenses described
above are allowable expenses under the formula program.
SAINT LAWRENCE SEAWAY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
The Corporation's operations program consists of lock and
marine operations, maintenance, dredging, planning and
development activities related to the operation and maintenance
of that part of the Saint Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and
Lake Erie within the territorial limits of the United States.
The Committee maintains a strong interest in maximizing the
commercial use and competitive position of the Saint Lawrence
Seaway. The general language under this heading is the same as
the language provided last year and requested in the fiscal
year 1996 budget. Continuation of this language in addition to
that under the operations and maintenance appropriation will
provide the Corporation the flexibility and access to available
resources needed to finance costs associated with unanticipated
events which could threaten the safe and uninterrupted use of
the Seaway. The language permits the Corporation to use sources
of funding not designated for the harbor maintenance trust fund
by Public Law 99-662, but which have been historically set
aside for non-routine or emergency use-cash reserves derived
primarily from prior-year revenues received in excess of costs;
unused borrowing authority; and miscellaneous income.
Operations and Maintenance
(harbor maintenance trust fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $10,251,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 10,243,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 10,190,500
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -60,500
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -52,500
\1\ Reducations of $22,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions not reflected.
The bill includes an appropriation of $10,190,500 for the
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, a decrease of
$60,500 from the 1995 level and $52,500 below the budget
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
request. The Committee recommends the changes to the request:
Reduce travel and transportation costs.................. -$6,000
Reduce other miscellaneous services..................... -5,500
Decrease non-pay inflationary adjustment................ -41,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to the budget.............................. -52,500
Travel and transportation of persons.--The Committee
recommends $196,000. This is the same amount as 1995 but $6,000
less than requested. Included in the budget request is money to
pay for the five-member Board's travel; however, the Seaway has
only had one Board member for the past several years. Thus, the
request was reduced to reflect travel for only one Board
member. Furthermore, if the Seaway becomes an independent
agency as proposed by the Department of Transportation, this
Board will be abolished and travel funds will not be necessary.
Other services.--The Committee recommends $608,500, which
is $67,500 less than 1995 and $5,500 less than requested. Under
this account, the Seaway provides bottled water for its
employees in Massena, New York, at a cost of $5,500 per year.
In other government agencies, employees typically buy their own
bottled water. This Committee believes that the Seaway should
follow suit.
Non-pay inflationary adjustment.--The Committee has reduced
the Seaway's non-pay inflationary adjustment by $41,000 so that
every Administration within the Department of Transportation
has a 1.5 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment. The Seaway
had requested a 3 percent non-pay inflationary adjustment in
its 1996 budget request.
RESEARCH AND SPECIAL PROGRAMS ADMINISTRATION
The Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was
originally established by the Secretary of Transportation's
organizational changes dated July 20, 1977. The agency received
statutory authority on October 24, 1992. RSPA has a broad
portfolio. Its diverse jurisdictions include hazardous
materials, pipelines, aviation statistics, international
standards, emergency transportation, and university research.
As the department's only multimodal administration, RSPA
provides research, analytical and technical support for
transportation programs through headquarters offices and the
Volpe National Transportation Systems Center.
Summary of Fiscal Year 1996 Program
The Committee recommends $65,261,000 in new budget
authority and obligation limitations to continue the
operations, research and development, and grants-in-aid
administered by the Research and Special Programs
Administration. This is $20,557,000 less than the budget
request and $9,601,000 less than the 1995 amount. The bill
includes language to limit the availability of research and
development, state pipeline safety grant funds, and emergency
preparedness grants to a three-year period, rather than
providing for unlimited availability as requested. Also, the
bill includes language to transfer $2,322,000 to the Bureau of
Transportation Statistics for the necessary expenses to conduct
activities related to airline statistics. The following table
summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program levels, the fiscal year
1996 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Recommended in
Program 1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and special
programs............ $26,238,000 $31,662,000 $26,030,000
Pipeline safety...... 37,424,000 42,418,000 29,941,000
Emergency
preparedness
training curriculum. 400,000 400,000 400,000
Emergency
preparedness grants
\1\................. 10,800,000 11,338,000 8,890,000
--------------------------------------------------
Total............ 74,862,000 85,818,000 65,261,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Limitation on obligation.
Research and Special Programs
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $26,238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 31,662,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 26,030,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -208,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -5,632,000
\1\ Reductions of $225,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $17,900 for
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.
Research and special programs administers a comprehensive
nationwide safety program to protect; (1) the nation from the
risks inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials by
water, air, highway and railroad; (2) oversee the execution of
the Secretary of Transportation's statutory responsibilities
for providing transportation services during national
emergencies; and (3) coordinate the department's research and
development policy planning, university research, and
technology transfer. Overall policy, legal, financial,
management and administrative support to RSPA's programs also
is provided under this appropriation. The total recommended
program level for research and special programs is $26,030,000.
This is an decrease of $208,000 below the amount provided in
1995 and a reduction of $5,632,000 below the budget request.
Budget and staffing data for this appropriation are as follows:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year Fiscal year Recommended in
1995 enacted 1996 estimate the bill
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hazardous materials safety................................. $12,879,000 $12,782,000 $12,600,000
(Positions)............................................ (113) (111) (111)
Aviation information management............................ 2,453,000 2,282,000 2,322,000
(Positions)............................................ (29) (24) (22)
Emergency transportation................................... 1,326,000 1,301,000 1,086,000
(Positions)............................................ (7) (7) (7)
Research and technology.................................... 2,530,000 7,604,000 3,209,000
(Positions)............................................ (13) (14) (13)
Program support............................................ 7,032,000 7,693,000 7,394,000
(Positions)............................................ (45) (45) (46)
Accountwide adjustment..................................... ................. ............... -581,000
Total, Research and Special Program.................... 26,238,000 31,662,000 26,030,000
(Positions)........................................ (207) (201) (199)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
The Committee recommends the following changes to the
budget request for this appropriation:
Changes
Hazardous materials:
Reduce registration program's administrative costs.. -$182,000
Airline information management:
Aviation statistics program operating expenses...... +40,000
Emergency transportation:
Reduce funding for crisis management center......... -215,000
Research and technology:
Reduce technology planning and development.......... -2,951,000
Delete technology promotion activities.............. -874,000
Reduce technology deployment........................ -500,000
Do not fund new FTE................................. -70,000
Program and administrative support:
Hold policy and program support at 1995 level....... -30,000
Decrease civil rights............................... -25,000
Hold personnel support at 1995 level................ -15,000
Hold information resource management at 1995 level.. -45,000
Reduce contract program to 6 percent increase....... -53,000
Reduce working capital fund costs to reflect
transfer of programs and FTEs to BTS and OST...... -231,000
Add one FTE for airline statistics program.......... +100,000
Accountwide adjustments:
Recommend a five percent reduction in operating
expenses.......................................... -170,000
Hold training to 1995 level......................... -109,000
Hold equipment costs to 1995 level.................. -302,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Net change to budget request...................... -5,632,000
Hazardous material registration program.--The Committee
recommends $750,000 for this program, which is $182,000 less
than requested. A $50.00 administration and processing fee is
collected from over 26,000 shippers and carriers who register
annually under the hazardous materials program. This year, RSPA
tried to increase the total fee that was collected, from $300
up to a maximum of $5,050; however, due to numerous concerns,
RSPA decided against raising this fee.
Under this program, RSPA collects between $6,000,000 and
$6,500,000 per year. Based on current collections, about one-
sixth of the total amount is required to administer and process
registration fees. The remainder of the money is distributed to
states and Indian tribes to support their emergency response
programs. The Committee is concerned about the high costs of
administering and processing this program and believes that
RSPA should undertake measures to reduce these costs.
Airline statistics program.--The Committee recommends
increasing this program by $40,000. In June, 1995, RSPA signed
a memorandum of understanding to transfer the airline
statistics program and its associated positions to the bureau
of transportation statistics (BTS). The Committee approves this
transfer because it will put the responsibility for the
compilation and analysis of airline economic data with the
office that has broad authority to collect and analyze
transportation statistics across a wide spectrum. The program's
small field office in Anchorage, Alaska, which provides
consumers with airline data related to essential air service
and intra-Alaskan mail rate will continue under BTS. The
additional $40,000 will provide working capital funds for this
program after its transfer to the BTS.
Airline tariff program.--RSPA has proposed transferring one
full-time equivalent and the associated expenses to the office
of aviation and international affairs in office of the
secretary. OST administers the Department's program of air
carrier tariff filings, which analyzes proposed tariff rate
changes for international flights, makes recommendations for
approval/disapproval, and maintains the official record file.
The transfer of RSPA's airline tariff program to OST will merge
tariff program administration with the air tariff policy and
approval responsibility. The Committee approves the transfer of
these functions. One FTE and $91,000 has been transferred from
this program to the OST.
Crisis response management.--The Committee recommends
reducing funding for the crisis management center by $215,000.
This center is used by the Secretary of Transportation and
other staff during times of national emergencies and during
national or technological disasters. In the past, the center
became overwhelmed by unexpected demands during major emergency
events. As such, in 1995, the Committee funded a one-time
increase to upgrade this center. However, the 1996 budget
request included this increase for a second year. The Committee
will fund part of the request because the center's role has
expanded to include national security issues due to the
Oklahoma City bombing. This money would allow the center to
improve its communications capabilities and acquire software to
interact with the Department of Defense's and the Department of
Energy's proprietary systems, as well as continue funding the
basic emergency training programs.
Technology planning and development.--The Committee
recommends $1,266,000 for technology planning and development
activities. This is a decrease of $2,951,000 from the budget
request. This account more than doubled between 1994 and 1995,
and RSPA has requested a 416 percent increase in funding for
1996. The Committee does not believe that such a significant
growth in planning and development is warranted in such a short
time frame and urges RSPA to focus on a few priority items,
such as the surface transportation technology plan and the
national transportation system/national information
infrastructure, instead of seven varied activities.
The Committee has not provided any funding for the
partnership for new generation of vehicles because it is too
early in the prototype's development process for RSPA to begin
peer review of advanced vehicle research or begin developing
alternative design data bases. According to current plans, a
prototype vehicle will not be constructed until the year 2004.
Technology promotion.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee has not funded this new effort (-$874,000). According
to RSPA management, the technology promotion activities were
its least important priority under the research and technology
program.
Technology deployment.--The Committee has provided $500,000
for technology deployment activities, which is $500,000 less
than requested. This is a new initiative for RSPA. The agency
will work with the national science and technology counsel to
identify and deploy promising, commercially viable
transportation technology applications based on marketing
demands and to make sure that there is no overlap among various
government agencies. In 1995, over half a year's work in this
area was done by the office of the secretary for $400,000. A
slightly higher amount has been provided to RSPA.
Full-time equivalent position.--The Committee does not a
approve one new full-time equivalent position under the
research and technology account because the program is not
increasing as much as requested in fiscal year 1996. As such,
the request has been reduced by $70,000.
Civil rights.--The Committee recommends $29,000 for civil
rights activities. In 1994 and 1995, RSPA operated its office
of civil rights on $4,000; however, the Administration is
requesting a 1,250 percent increase in the office for 1996 to
monitor the civil rights compliance by recipients of grants and
for travel and training. The Committee believes that these
efforts are important; however, travel and training expenses
could be reduced.
Working capital fund.--The Committee has appropriated
$1,407,000 for the working capital fund. This is $231,000 less
than requested and it reflects the transfer of the airline
statistics program and FTEs to the bureau of transportation
statistics and the office of the secretary. These transfers are
based on two memorandums of understandings that RSPA signed
with BTS and OST in June 1995.
Full-time equivalent positions.--The Committee has approved
a $100,000 increase to the program and administrative support
office. This increase reflects a transfer of one full-time
equivalent position from the airline information management
program.
Other program and administrative support.--Due to budgetary
constraints, the Committee recommends holding policy and
program support, personnel support, and information management
resources at the 1995 levels. The requested increase for these
activities has not been well justified. Also, the Committee
recommends reducing the contract program to a 6 percent
increase instead of the 16 percent increase requested.
Accountwide adjustments.--The Committee recommends reducing
operating expenses by $170,000. RSPA is requesting a fifteen
percent increase in operating expenses. The Committee believes
that this administration should make every effort possible to
reduce these expenses, and has reduced the amount funded to ten
percent.
The Committee recommends $470,000 for equipment costs. This
is the same level of funding as 1995, but a decrease of
$302,000 from the budget request. RSPA has just modernized most
of its offices and computer services. The Committee does not
believe that an additional increase in this area is necessary.
Furthermore, the Committee notes that the department may not be
reorganized in 1996.
The Committee recommends $183,000 for training, which does
not allow for the requested increase of $107,000. RSPA is
requesting additional funds for training needs based on the
department's reorganization.
Pipeline Safety
(pipeline safety fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\$37,424,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 42,418,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 29,941,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -7,483,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -12,477,000
\1\ Recuctions of $84,000 to comply with working capital fund provisions
not reflected.
The pipeline safety program is responsible for a national
regulatory program to protect the public against the risks to
life and property in the transportation of natural gas,
petroleum and other hazardous materials by pipeline. The
enactment of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 also expanded the
role of the pipeline safety program in environmental protection
and resulted in a new emphasis on spill prevention and
containment of oil and hazardous substances from pipelines. The
office develops and enforces federal safety regulations and
administers a grants-in-aid program to state pipeline programs.
committee recommendation
The bill includes $29,941,000 to continue pipeline safety
operations, research and development, and state grants-in-aid
in fiscal year 1996. This represents a decrease of $7,483,000
below the level provided in 1995 and a reduction of $12,477,000
below the budget request. The bill specifies that, of the total
appropriation, $2,698,000 is to be derived from the oil spill
liability trust fund and $27,243,000 is to be derived from the
pipeline safety fund.
The proposed Pipeline Safety Act of 1995, which has passed
in both the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee
and the House Energy and Commerce Committee, reduces
authorization of appropriations from the pipeline safety fund
to $20,700,000 in fiscal year 1996. This is a 6 percent
increase over the level authorized in fiscal year 1995, but it
is a 41 percent decrease below the 1995 enacted level. No
changes were made to the authorized level derived from the oil
spill liability trust fund.
The Committee believes that a reduction to the proposed
authorized level would require a draconian cut of $19,020,000
in the office of pipeline safety (OPS). The Committee
recommends funding the office at $29,941,000 to assure that the
system operates safely, while seeking not to impose an undue
burden on the natural gas and liquid petroleum industries. The
Committee recommends the following changes to the President's
budget request for this appropriation:
Changes
Provide salaries and benefits for 85 FTEs............... -$532,000
Decrease operating expenses............................. -306,000
Reduce information systems operations................... -802,000
Decrease risk assessment and technical studies.......... -770,000
Delete most field engineering support for compliance.... -3,596,000
Reduce training and information dissemination........... -171,000
Postpone mapping program................................ -1,200,000
Delete non-destructive evaluation efforts............... -2,100,000
Maintain state grants at 1995 level..................... -1,200,000
Delete risk assessment grants........................... -1,800,000
--------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________
Total............................................. -12,477,000
Personnel.--The Committee has provided $6,590,000 for
personnel, compensation and benefits, which is $532,000 less
than requested. In 1995, the Committee increased pipeline
safety personnel by 33 positions, of which half the FTEs could
be hired in fiscal year 1995 and the remainder were to be hired
the following year. To date, RSPA has filled 10 of these
positions. The Committee recommends not hiring the remaining 5
FTEs allocated in fiscal year 1995 or hiring any additional
FTEs in 1996. Not filling the remaining positions will still
give RSPA a net increase in the number of pipeline inspectors
over 1994 levels. Also, since RSPA will not begin hiring the
remaining inspectors, there is no reason to annualize their
salaries.
Operating expenses.--Due to budget constraints, the
Committee recommends $2,450,000 for operating expenses, which
is $306,000 less than requested. At this level, staff will be
able to meet a 3 year inspection cycle for pipelines,
investigate a number of reported accidents, and inspect the new
inventory of low stress pipelines. RSPA would like to inspect
all pipelines once every two years; however, prior to 1995, the
staff inspected pipelines once every four years. This level of
operating expense will provide an improvement over 1994 levels.
Information systems.--The Committee recommends $950,000 for
information systems, which is a reduction of $802,000 from the
requested level. At this level, the OPS can continue to support
the systems it uses to maintain its pipeline data and support
risk assessment efforts. The Committee recommends that efforts
to acquire and standardize new software and hardware, as well
as upgrade communications should be implemented on a slower
schedule.
Risk assessment.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee
recommends $1,480,000 for risk assessment, which is a reduction
of $770,000 from the budget request. At the reduced level, OPS
will be able to gather information necessary to rank pipeline
risk factors (e.g. age of pipeline, material, location, soil),
determine the possibility of incidents, and develop national
standards, which will be used to evaluate operator risk
assessment plans. The Committee recommends postponing the
implementation of operator risk management programs until the
collection of this data is completed. Also, the Committee did
not provide funding for risk management demonstration projects.
Field engineering support for compliance.--The Committee
recommends $850,000 for compliance efforts, which is a
reduction of $3,596,000 from the budget request. Last year, the
Committee disagreed with the department's decision to use
contract personnel to inspect new pipeline construction and to
assess risk factors associated with gas transmission pipelines
nationwide. The Committee believed that these inspection
activities should be done periodically by permanent inspectors.
However, the Committee did not require permanent inspectors
until 1996. In this year's budget, RSPA is planning on
continuing to use contract personnel as inspectors. In light of
the significant decrease in the proposed authorization, this
Committee recommends deleting most of this program. The
remaining funding should be used to contract out for
metallurgical, fracture mechanics, and radiography expertise
and continue the drug testing portion of this program.
Training and information dissemination.--The Committee
recommends $700,000 for training and information dissemination,
which is a decrease of $171,000 from the budget request. At
this level, the Committee believes that core training,
dissemination of related training materials and guidance should
continue, but that less training for new federal inspectors and
state pipeline inspectors is needed because fewer will be
hired. The Committee also recommends that the risk management
curriculum should be postponed.
Mapping.--The Committee has not funded the $1,200,000
request for a nationwide, digitized mapping system because the
office of pipeline safety has not yet completed its long range
plan for this project, which will explain, among other things,
how available industry and state mapping will be incorporated.
Once this plan is completed, the Committee believes that RSPA
could use the funds appropriated in 1995 and other available
funds in fiscal year 1996 to begin work in this area.
Non-destructive evaluation efforts.--Due to budgetary
constraints, the Committee recommends that the OPS scale back
its non-destructive evaluation efforts. In fiscal year 1995,
$1,742,000 was appropriated to begin research on stress
corrosion and detection of outside force damage. The 1995 work
should continue; however, the Committee has not provided the
$2,100,000 that was requested for fiscal year 1996. The
Committee believes that it is more appropriate for the private
sector to invest in the research and development of these new
technologies. The office of pipeline safety should work with
the industry and with the new gas research institute, which are
already undertaking a variety of similar research efforts on
these issues.
State pipeline safety grants.--The Committee recommends
$12,000,000 for state grants. This maintains funding for this
program at the 1995 level and reduces it by $1,200,000 from the
budget request.
Currently, under both the Natural Gas Pipeline Safety Act
and the Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Safety Act, RSPA can
reimburse states for up to 50 percent of their incurred costs
for carrying out pipeline safety programs. Until 1995, RSPA did
not fund near the 50 percent ceiling. For example, in 1994,
RSPA only reimbursed states for $7,500,000 in costs. However,
beginning in 1995, RSPA placed additional burdens on the states
to inspect state liquid pipelines, to improve program
performance through the adoption of federal regulations, and to
take over safety jurisdiction of all intrastate pipelines.
Funding at $12,000,000 for state grants is $1,236,000
higher than the proposed authorized level. If the Committee
wanted to reach this authorized level, it would need to reduce
the amount of money RSPA provides to states for pipeline safety
grants, perhaps significantly below the proposed authorized
level. Deep cuts to the grant program means states might
consider eliminating their intrastate pipeline safety
responsibilities. Then, OPS must assume jurisdiction for states
who lack pipeline safety programs, which could be time
intensive and expensive. For example, OPS has responsibility
for the inspection of the city of Philadelphia's gas
distribution system. This requires one inspector from the
eastern region to dedicate 10-20 percent of his workload to the
gas works. Those states remaining in the program could cut back
on intrastate inspections to offset the loss in grant funding.
Also, funding to states to establish one-call notification
systems might be eliminated at the lower authorized level.
Risk assessment grants.--The Committee has not funded the
$1,800,000 risk assessment grant program to states. OPS already
conducts these types of assessments. If states want to
undertake this work, the Committee recommends that RSPA
consider reimbursing this work under the pipeline safety grant
program.
One-call notification.--The Committee believes that the
adoption of comprehensive one-call notification systems by the
states may be the single most important action that states
could take to prevent future pipeline incidents. About 60
percent of all damages to pipelines occur due to third party
damages. For example, a third party may have caused excavation
damage to pipelines in both the Texas Eastern gas explosion in
New Jersey and the Colonial oil spill in Virginia. The
Committee recommends that $1,000,000 of the state pipeline
safety grant program be earmarked for grants to states in
developing and implementing a comprehensive ``one-call''
program.
Emergency Preparedness Grants
(emergency preparedness fund)
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $400,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 400,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 400,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
\1\ Reductions of $71,000 to comply with procurement reform provisions
not reflected.
The Hazardous Materials Transportation Uniform Safety Act
of 1990 (HMTUSA) requires RSPA to: (1) develop and implement a
reimbursable emergency preparedness grant program; (2) monitor
public sector emergency response training and planning and
provide technical assistance to states, political subdivisions
and Indian tribes; and (3) develop and update periodically a
mandatory training curriculum for emergency responders.
The bill includes $400,000, the same amount provided in
1995 and requested for fiscal year 1996, for activities related
to emergency response training curriculum development and
updates, as authorized by section 117(A)(i)(3)(B) of HMTUSA.
Limitation on Obligations
As in fiscal year 1995, and requested in the budget, the
bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred
for the public sector emergency response training and planning
grants, technical assistance and administrative activities. For
fiscal year 1996, the Committee recommends a total limitation
of $8,890,000 for these activities, a decrease of $1,910,000
below the 1995 level and $2,448,000 below the budget request.
The Committee's recommendations are detailed as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 Recommended in
enacted estimate the bill
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grants......... $9,650,000 $9,738,000 $7,350,000
Technical
assistance.... 400,000 400,000 400,000
Administrative
costs......... 500,000 500,000 440,000
Emergency
response
guidebook..... .................
........ 700,000 700,000
Supplemental
training
grants........ 250,000 .................
........ .................
........
--------------------------------------------------------
Total.... 10,800,000 11,338,000 8,890,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Recommendation
Public sector emergency response training and planning
grants.-- The Committee recommends $7,350,000 for emergency
preparedness planning and training grants. This is $2,300,000
less than enacted in 1995 and $2,388,000 less than the budget
request. During fiscal year 1995, the agency reduced the 1995
grant level to $7,351,000 because it could not collect the
$9,650,000 allowed for under the obligation limitation. Thus,
the Committee's 1996 recommendation is based on what RSPA
actually believes it can collect.
The 1996 budget requested a 32.5 percent increase, which
was based on an expected increase in collections from the
hazardous materials transportation registration and fee
assessment program. Each year, RSPA has experienced shortfalls
in hazardous materials registration receipts, that are used to
finance the grant program. In January, 1995, RSPA sought to
increase the fees it charges shippers and carriers of hazardous
materials to register with the Department of Transportation.
Due to a significant number of concerns that were raised during
the rulemaking process, the administration decided not to
increase the fees. The Committee recommends that the
administration try to determine ways to collect more revenues,
without increasing fees. For example, RSPA should review how
many shippers and carriers are subject to the registration
requirements and what compliance rates are being achieved.
Administrative costs.--The Committee recommends $440,000
for administrative costs, which is $60,000 less than the budget
request. The Committee recommends a reduction in the
administrative costs of this program because there is no
increase in fees collected.
Office of Inspector General
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... \1\ $40,000,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 40,238,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 40,238,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +238,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
\1\ Reductions of $97,000 to comply with working capital fund, awards
and procurement reform provisions and transfer of $11,800 for
consolidated civil rights office not reflected.
The Inspector General's office was established in 1978 to
provide an objective and independent organization that would be
more effective in: (1) preventing and detecting fraud, waste,
and abuse in departmental programs and operations; and (2)
providing a means of keeping the Secretary of Transportaion and
the Congress fully and currently informed of problems and
deficiencies in the administration of such programs and
operations. According to the authorizing legislation, the
Inspector General is to report dually to the Secretary of
Transportation and to the Congress.
The bill provides a $238,000 increase over the fiscal year
1995 enacted level, which is an increase of less than one
percent. The recommendation fully funds the budget request.
Audit reports.--The Committee requests the Inspector
General to continue forwarding copies of all audit reports to
the Committee immediately after they are issued, and to
continue to make the Committee aware immediately of any review
that recommends cancellation or modifications to any major
acquisition project or grant, or which recommends significant
budgetary savings.
Office of legal counsel.--The Committee continues to
believe that the office of inspector general should be
supported by its own legal counsel. Accordingly, within the
total resources provided, the IG should ensure sufficient
resources are available, at a minimum, to (1) provide legal
advice, guidance, and analysis; (2) draft legal opinions,
briefs, pleadings, and memoranda on significant litigation and
policy matters; and (3) represent the IG on matters involving
the Merit Systems Protection Board, Equal Opportunity
Employment Commission, and other employee relations issues.
Defense Contract Audit Agency audits.--The Committee is
disturbed to learn that, once again this year, the office of
inspector general (OIG) may experience problems in obtaining
contract audits, primarily from the Defense Contract Audit
Agency (DCAA). Semiannual reports of the IG to Congress
indicate that these audits save the Department of
Transportation (primarily the FAA and Coast Guard) millions of
dollars each year, by providing valuable assistance to
government contract negotiators and contract oversight
personnel. The Committee views the inability to obtain these
audits as a serious problem, and strongly encourages the
department to consider transferring funding responsibility for
these audits from the OIG to the operating administrations.
This is consistent with recommendations made by OMB in its
December 3, 1992 Interagency Task Force Report on the Federal
Contract Audit Process, and would require those agencies
receiving the direct benefit of the service to pay for it.
TITLE II
RELATED AGENCIES
ARCHITECTURAL AND TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS COMPLIANCE BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $3,350,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 3,656,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 3,656,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +306,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
The Committee recommends $3,656,000 for the operations of
the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
an increase of $306,000 above the 1995 levels, and the same as
the budget estimate. This level will maintain the Board at the
fiscal year 1995 level and provide a one-time appropriation for
accounting systems acquistions.
The activities of the Board include: ensuring compliance
with the standards prescribed by the Architectural Barriers
Act; ensuring that public conveyances, including rolling stock,
are readily accessible to and usable by physically handicapped
persons; investigating and examining alternative approaches to
the elimination of architectural, transportation, communication
and attitudinal barriers; determining what measures are being
taken to eliminate these barriers; developing minimum
guidelines and requirements for accessibility standards; and
providing technical assistance to all programs affected by
Title V of the Rehabilitation Act.
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $37,392,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... 38,774,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 38,774,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... +1,382,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996...................................
Under the Independent Safety Board Act, the National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is responsible for improving
transportation safety by investigating accidents, conducting
special studies, developing recommendations to prevent
accidents, evaluating the effectiveness of the transportation
safety programs of other agencies, and reviewing appeals of
adverse actions involving airman and seaman certificates and
licenses, and civil penalties issued by the Department of
Transportation.
The bill includes an appropriation of $38,774,000 for the
NTSB, an increase of $1,382,000 above the 1995 level. This
amount is the same as the budget request. The amount
recommended provides for a full-time equivalent employment
(FTE) level of 350.
On May 5, 1995, the Committee received correspondence from
NTSB of an internal realignment of the Board's administrative
functions. The impetus for these changes is a recommendation of
an internal audit and review committee and is designed to
better align the Board's administrative functions with the
organizational units with which they primarily interface. The
realignment is subsequent to the budget request and the
Committee's recommendation reflects these changes. The
following table summarizes the fiscal year 1995 program level,
the President's fiscal year 1996 request, and the Committee's
recommendations:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fiscal year 1995 Fiscal year 1996 estimate Recommended in bill
enacted -----------------------------------------------------
Program ----------------------
Staff Budget Staff years Budget Staff Budget
years authority authority years authority
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Policy and direction................ 50 $5,879,000 45 $5,662,000 45 $5,662,000
Aviation safety..................... 122 12,859,000 122 13,334,000 122 13,334,000
Surface transportation.............. 91 9,782,000 94 10,473,000 94 10,473,000
Research and engineering............ 51 5,411,000 48 5,281,000 48 5,281,000
Administration...................... 32 2,689,000 31 2,692,000 31 2,692,000
Administrative law judges........... 4 781,000 10 1,332,000 10 1,332,000
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... 350 37,392,000 350 38,774,000 350 38,774,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee expects to be advised if the Board proposes
to deviate in any way from its total FTE allocations or by more
than ten percent from the funding allocations listed above.
Emergency Fund
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.........................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... $360,802
Recommended in the bill................................. 160,802
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995.....................................
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -200,000
The bill includes an appropriation of $160,802 for the
emergency fund, which is $200,000 less than the 1996 budget
request. Under Public Law 97-267, Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 1982, Congress provided a $1,000,000 emergency fund to be
used for accident investigation expenses when investigations
would otherwise have been hampered by lack of funding. The
emergency fund has been used twice--in 1985 to assist in
recovery of portions of an Air India wreckage and in 1989 to
locate and recover the cargo door separated from a United
Airlines flight. Because this emergency fund has been below the
$1,000,000 mark since 1985 and NTSB has been able to carry out
its unpredictable accident investigations without any
difficulties, the Committee has only increased the emergency
fund to $800,000.
INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION
Salaries and Expenses
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995......................... $30,302,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... \1\ 28,844,000
Recommended in the bill................................. 13,379,000
Bill compared with:
Appropriation, fiscal year 1995..................... -16,923,000
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... -15,465,000
\1\ The President's budget request was for $33,202,000; however, it was
later amended to $28,844,000.
The Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) is an independent
federal agency responsible for regulating interstate surface
transportation within the United States. In carrying out its
regulatory responsibilities, the Commission attempts to ensure
that competitive, efficient, and safe transportation services
are provided to meet the needs of shippers, receivers, and
consumers.
The ICC today maintains jurisdiction over approximately
60,000 for-hire companies providing surface transportation in
the United States. These companies include railroads, trucking
firms, bus lines, water carriers, one coal slurry pipeline,
freight forwarders, and transportation brokers.
The administration plans to sunset ICC in 1996. As part of
this effort, the administration has proposed legislation that
would make sweeping changes to current ICC functions. These
changes include deregulating some motor carrier and railroad
functions, deregulating both inland and offshore domestic
shipping, and eliminating all remaining restrictions against
intermodal transportation.
Although the President's budget proposes half a year of
funding for the ICC before the Commission's relevant functions
are sunsetted or transferred, the ICC has been working towards
a September 30, 1995 sunset date. To do so, the ICC requires
authorizing legislation 90 days prior to the Commission's
closure so that it can provide its employees with 60 days
termination notices, close field offices, transfer ongoing work
to the appropriate departments, and dispose of property. At
this time, the legislation to sunset ICC has not been reported
by the appropriate authorizing committees.
Committee Recommendation
The Committee recommends a total appropriation of
$13,379,000. This is $16,923,000 less than was appropriated in
fiscal year 1995 and is $15,465,000 less than was requested.
This appropriation consists of the following components:
Salaries and expenses................................... $8,395,000
Severance and closedown costs........................... 4,984,000
Salaries and expenses.--The Committee has included
$8,395,000 to provide for the salaries and expenses of 392
staff years in fiscal year 1996. This funding level is provided
to ensure that the Commission terminates it operations by
December 31, 1995.
Severance and closedown costs.--The Committee has provided
$4,984,000 for severed employees and for closure and transition
costs. Of this sum, $3,600,000 has been provided to separate
headquarter and regional employees by December 31, 1995. The
remainder ($1,384,000) has been provided for closure and
transition expenditures, such as closing out personnel records,
boxing records, microfilming records, and disposing of the
library. The Committee strongly encourages that Commission to
work with the telephone company so that ICC does not incur a
$900,000 charge for disconnecting the telephone service.
User fees.--In fiscal year 1994, ICC collected $8,178,500
in user fees from various motor and rail activities, such as
case processing, tariffs, insurance, licensing, and
registration. In fiscal year 1995, the Commission expects to
collect $8,941,600. The Committee has included language
continuing the collection of these fees in fiscal year 1996.
These fees will supplement the expenses incurred by the ICC and
will be made available in monthly increments.
Payments for Directed Rail Service
(limitation on obligations)
Limitation, fiscal year 1995............................ ($475,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996....................... (475,000)
Recommended in the bill................................. (475,000)
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995........................ (.............)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996................... (.............)
If a railroad ceases operations due to the lack of cash or
a court order, the ICC is authorized under 49 U.S.C. 11125 to
direct other railroads to continue the service of the railroad
that ceased its operations. The directed carriers are
reimbursed for the losses incurred and paid six percent of
gross revenues on the service performed. This authority is
limited to an initial 60-day period. The Commission may extend
this period for up to an additional 180 days.
The bill includes an obligation limitation of $475,000 for
fiscal year 1996, as proposed in the budget. The ICC has
indicated that no directed rail costs are anticipated.
PANAMA CANAL COMMISSION
The Commission was established by the Panama Canal Act of
1979 to carry out the responsibilities of the United States
with respect to the Panama Canal under the Panama Canal Treaty
of 1977. The authority of the President of the United States
with respect to the Commission is exercised through the
Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of the Army. The
Commission is supervised by a nine-member Board. Five members
are nationals of the United States and four are Panamanians.
Board members who are U.S. nationals are appointed by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
Commission will remain in existence until the treaty terminates
on December 31, 1999, when the Republic of Panama will assume
full responsibility for the Canal.
The Commission is the successor agency to the Panama Canal
Company and Canal Zone Government and has as its primary
function the operation and maintenance of the interoceanic
Panama Canal. The operation of the waterway is conducted on a
commercial basis with revenues derived from tolls collected
from vessels and other essential supporting services. These
revenues are deposited into the Panama Canal revolving fund.
Public Law 100-203, approved December 22, 1987, amended the
Panama Canal Act of 1979 to convert the Panama Canal Commission
from an appropriated-fund agency to a revolving-fund agency
beginning on January 1, 1988. This legislation provided for the
termination of the Panama Canal Commission special fund and
established the Panama Canal revolving fund. The legislation
prescribed that on the effective date of the Panama Canal
Revolving Fund Act: (1) the unappropriated balance of the
Panama Canal Commission fund, including undeposited receipts as
of the close of business on the day before the effective date
of the Act, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal revolving
fund; and (2) the unexpended balance of appropriations,
including the $10,000,000 unobligated emergency fund
appropriation, shall be transferred to the Panama Canal
revolving fund. Such amounts, including amounts appropriated
for capital expenditures, remain available until expended. In
addition, Public Law 100-203 establishes borrowing authority
for the Commission, the amount of which cannot exceed
$100,000,000 at any time.
Administrative Expenses and Limitation on Operating and Capital
Expenses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Administrative Limitation on
expenses operating/capital
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Limitation, fiscal year 1995...... ($50,030,000) ($540,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year 1996. (50,741,000) .................
Recommended in the bill........... (50,741,000) .................
Bill compared with:
Limitation, fiscal year 1995.. (+711,000) (-540,000,000)
Budget estimate, fiscal year
1996......................... ................. .................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee recommends the budget estimate of $50,741,000
for the administrative expenses of the Panama Canal Commission.
The activities funded under administrative expenses include:
executive direction, operations direction, financial
management, personnel administration, and those employment
costs of the Commission that are general in nature and not
identifiable with other specified activities.
Reception and representation expenses, as provided in the
bill, would be limited to $11,000 for the Board, $5,000 for the
Secretary, and $30,000 for the Administrator.
The bill has deleted language limiting obligations for non-
administrative operating expenses and capital projects,
consistent with the budget request.
TITLE III
GENERAL PROVISIONS
(including transfers of funds)
The Committee concurs with the general provisions that
apply to the Department of Transportation and related agencies
as proposed in the budget with the following changes:
The Committee has not approved the requested deletion of
the following sections, all of which were contained in the
fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act:
Section 316 prohibits the use of funds for regulations that
would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway in California.
Section 323 prohibits the use of funds to enforce certain
regulations relating to slot management at O'Hare International
Airport.
Section 325 pertains to the collection of tolls on bridges
connecting the boroughs of Brooklyn and Staten Island, New
York.
Section 326 limits funds to compensate in excess of 335
staff years under the federally-funded research and development
contract between the Federal Aviation Administration and the
Center for Advanced Aviation Systems Development.
Section 332 provides for a full and open competition for
the Coast Guard acquisition of 47-foot motor life boats for
fiscal years 1995 through 2000.
Section 333 prohibits the use of funds to be used for
planning, engineering, design or construction of a sixth runway
at the new Denver International Airport.
The Committee has included the following general provisions
as requested with modifications:
Section 310 would be continued with modifications. The
Committee would limit first quarter obligations to 12 percent
instead of 15 percent. The Committee would not subject to the
obligation limitation for federal-aid highways programs and
activities currently exempt from the limitation. Also, the
Committee would not set-aside $30,000,000 for the Symms
National Recreational Trails Act, and $300,000,000 for
congestion relief and mitigation projects.
Section 334 that allows for the use of transit capital
funds to overhaul buses that extend the economic life of the
bus. The Committee would include an effective date of March 31,
1996.
The Committee has not included provisions proposed in the
budget: (1) prohibiting the change in status of the Volpe
National Transportation Center or the Turner-Fairbank Highway
Research Systems Center; and (2) pertaining to the
reorganization of the Department of Transportation and the
creation of a unified transportation infrastructure investment
program.
In addition, the following new general provisions are
recommended by the Committee:
Section 327 reduces funding for activities of the working
capital fund of the Department of Transportation and limits
obligational authority of the fund to $92,231,000.
Section 330 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose,
or promulgate any regulation pursuant title V of the Motor
Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate
average fuel economy standards for automobiles as defined in
such title, in any model year that differs from standards
promulgated for such automobiles prior to enactment of this
section.
Section 336 cancels $25,000,000 for personnel compensation
and benefits and other administrative costs associated with
streamlining the Department of Transportation's regional and
division offices and providing the Secretary transfer authority
among appropriations accounts to carry out this restructuring.
Section 337 allows the Secretary to transfer funds from
other office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in
excess of the amounts provided in the bill.
Section 338 prohibits funds for any type of training which:
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e)
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
Section 339 allows parks on Hot Springs, Arkansas, airport
property to operate without regard to revenue diversion/rent
maximization laws.
Section 340 requires the Federal Aviation Administration's
retirement-eligible employees on workers' compensation to
retire.
Section 341 prohibits funds for technical training, tours,
research fellowships, or other forms of technology transfer
with citizens of the Peoples' Republic of China.
Section 342 requires Federal Transit Administration
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
Section 343 repeals 49 USC 5333(b) (section 13(c) of the
Federal Transit Act).
Section 344 provides $8,421,000 for certain rail and motor
carrier functions for the successor of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and provides for the collection of user fees by that
successor.
Section 345 requires the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation to submit a financial plan for the cost-to-
complete the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Such
plan must be approved by the Secretary before authorizing
funding for additional federal-aid projects, and the financial
plan must be updated and approved biannually until the project
is complete.
TITLE IV
PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF MANDATORY STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES
GOVERNING THE ACTIONS OF ARBITRATORS IN THE ARBITRATION OF LABOR
DISPUTES INVOLVING TRANSIT AGENCIES OPERATING IN THE NATIONAL CAPITAL
REGION
Title IV of the bill provides standards for an arbitrator
to consider in making an arbitration award involving the
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA). The
arbitrator may not make an award unless several factors have
been considered, including the financial ability of the transit
agency and the participating governments, the regional consumer
price index, and wages and benefits for comparable work
elsewhere in the region. This title ensures that the arbitrator
will consider financial ability of the local jurisdictions,
i.e., Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, and the
transit agency in making a determination. This measure will
assist WMATA manage its labor costs at a time when federal
dollars are increasingly scarce and state and local
jurisdictions, including the District of Columbia, are facing
severe budget constraints.
There is a clear federal interest in providing affordable
public transit in the national capital region. In view of the
large federal workforce and the millions of visitors each year
to the national capital region, Congress has a responsibility
to address this significant labor issue facing WMATA. It is the
Committee's expectation that this title will preserve
affordable transit in the nation's capital in perpetuity.
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES REPORT REQUIREMENTS
The following items are included in accordance with various
requirements of the Rules of the House of Representatives:
Inflationary Impact Statement
Clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the House of Representatives
requires that each Committee report on a bill or resolution
shall contain a statement as to whether enactment of such bill
or resolution may have an inflationary impact on prices and
costs in the operation of the national economy.
The accompanying bill contains appropriations and other new
spending authority totaling $37,754,558,806. Of the amount
recommended, about 22 percent is for personnel and operating
costs of the various transportation bureaus and agencies.
The Committee does not believe that these personnel costs
will have a measurable impact on the aggregate rate of
inflation. Approximately three percent of the amounts
recommended in the bill will finance transportation planning
and operating costs for states, cities, and certain private
organizations, and one percent will finance various
transportation research and development activities.
The remaining 73 percent will finance transportation
construction and development projects in various parts of the
nation. The Committee believes these activities will improve
our nation's transportation system. Improved and lower cost
transportation can reduce the prices of goods by lowering the
costs of production and by improving labor productivity through
specialization. The Committee also believes that improved and
lower cost transportation provides more producers with the
opportunity to sell their products in more markets, thereby
enhancing competition and providing consumers with broader
choices and lower prices. Consequently, the level of financing
provided for transportation construction activities would have
an inflationary impact only to the extent that the benefits
resulting from lower cost transportation were offset by higher
prices resulting from insufficient capacity in the construction
industry to meet all of the demands for construction by the
public and private sectors.
Rescissions
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following table is submitted describing
the rescissions recommended in the accompanying bill:
Office of the Secretary, Payments to air carriers....... -$30,386,971
Federal Aviation Administration, Facilities and
equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund)........... -60,000,000
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Operations and Research............................. -4,547,185
Transfers of Funds
Pursuant to clause 1(b) of rule X of the House of
Representatives, the following statement is submitted
describing the transfers of funds provided in the accompanying
bill.
The Committee recommends the following transfers between
accounts:
Under Federal Highway Administration, highway-related
safety grants: Provided, That not to exceed $100,000 of the
amount appropriated herein shall be available for ``Limitation
on general operating expenses.''
Under Research and Special Programs Administration,
Research and special programs: Provided, That $2,322,000 shall
be transferred to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics for
the expenses necessary to conduct activities related to Airline
Statistics.
Under section 322 of the general provisions:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any funds
appropriated before October 1, 1993, under chapter 53 of title
49 U.S.C., that remain available for expenditure may be
transferred to and administered under the most recent
appropriation heading for any such section.
Under section 336 of the general provisions: Provided
further, That the Secretary may for the purpose of
consolidation of offices and facilities other than those at
Headquarters * * * transfer the funds made available by this
Act for civilian and military personnel compensation and
benefits and other administrative expenses to other
appropriations made available to the Department of
Transportation as the Secretary may designate, to be merged
with and to be available for the same purposes and for the same
time period as the appropriations of funds to which
transferred.
Under section 337 of the general provisions: The Secretary
of Transportation is authorized to transfer funds appropriated
for any office of the Office of the Secretary to ``Rental
payments'' for any expense authorized by that appropriation in
excess of the amounts provided in this Act.
``Ramseyer'' Rule
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
TITLE 49, UNITED STATES CODE
* * * * * * *
Subtitle III--General and Intermodal Programs
* * * * * * *
CHAPTER 53--MASS TRANSPORTATION
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5302. Definitions
(a) General.--In this chapter--
(1) ``capital project'' means a project for--
(A) * * *
(B) rehabilitating a bus [that extends the
economic life for a bus for at least 5 years];
(C) remanufacturing a bus [that extends the
economic life of a bus for at least 8 years];
or
* * * * * * *
Sec. 5333. Labor standards
(a) Prevailing Wages Requirement.--The Secretary of
Transportation shall ensure that laborers and mechanics
employed by contractors and subcontractors in construction work
financed with a grant or loan under this chapter be paid wages
not less than those prevailing on similar construction in the
locality, as determined by the Secretary of Labor under the Act
of March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act) (40 U.S.C.
276a--276a-5). The Secretary of Transportation may approve a
grant or loan only after being assured that required labor
standards will be maintained on the construction work. For a
labor standard under this subsection, the Secretary of Labor
has the same duties and powers stated in Reorganization Plan
No. 14 of 1950 (eff. May 24, 1950, 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2
of the Act of June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c).
[(b) Employee Protective Arrangements.--(1) As a condition
of financial assistance under sections 5307-5312, 5318(d),
5823(a)(1), (b), (d), and (e), 5328, 5337, and 5338(j)(5) of
this title, the interests of employees affected by the
assistance shall be protected under arrangements the Secretary
of Labor concludes are fair and equitable. The agreement
granting the assistance under sections 5307-5312, 5318(d),
5323(a)(1), (b), (d), and (e), 5328, 5337, and 5338(j)(5) shall
specify the arrangements.
[(2) Arrangements under this subsection shall include
provisions that may be necessary for--
[(A) the preservation of rights, privileges, and
benefits (including continuation of pension rights and
benefits) under existing collective bargaining
agreements or otherwise;
[(B) the continuation of collective bargaining
rights;
[(C) the protection of individual employees against a
worsening of their positions related to employment;
[(D) assurances of employment to employees of
acquired mass transportation systems;
[(E) assurances of priority of reemployment of
employees whose employment is ended or who are laid
off; and
[(F) paid training or retraining programs.
[(3) Arrangements under this subsection shall provide
benefits at least equal to benefits established under section
11347 of this title.]
* * * * * * *
Changes in Existing Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following statements are submitted
describing the effects of provisions in the accompanying bill
which might be construed, under some circumstances, as directly
or indirectly changing the application of existing law.
The bill provides that appropriations shall remain
available for more than one year for a number of programs for
which the basic authorizing legislation does not explicitly
authorize such extended availability.
The bill includes limitations on official entertainment,
reception and representation expenses for the Secretary of
Transportation, National Transportation Safety Board, and
Panama Canal Commission. Similar provisions have appeared in
many previous appropriations Acts.
The bill provides for transfer of funds which might be
construed as changing the application of existing law. Similar
provisions have appeared in previous appropriations Acts. These
items are discussed under the appropriate heading in the
report.
The bill includes a number of limitations on the purchase
of automobiles, motorcycles, or office furnishings. Similar
limitations have appeared in many previous appropriations Acts.
Several limitations on obligations are contained in Title
I. Although these provisions are strict limitations, they do
have the effect of reducing obligations below the levels that
otherwise would be available.
Language is included in several instances permitting
certain funds to be credited to the appropriations recommended.
Language is included that does not permit the Department of
Transportation to maintain duplicate physical copies of airline
tariffs.
Language is included under Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and expenses,'' which would allow crediting the
account with up to $1,000,000 in user fees to support the
electronic tariff filing system.
Language is included that limits operating costs and
capital outlays of the Department of Transportation working
capital fund.
Language is included under ``Payments to air carriers''
limiting the liquidating cash under the program, stipulating
that no claims may be paid except in accordance with the
limitation, and requiring a matching share to participate in
the ``Payments to air carriers'' program.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' which specifies that the number of aircraft on hand
at any one time cannot exceed two hundred and eighteen.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' which specifies that none of the funds appropriated
shall be available for pay or administrative expenses in
connection with shipping commissioners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that limits the use of funds for yacht documentation
to the amount of fees collected from yacht owners.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that specifies that the Commandant shall reduce both
military and civilian employment levels to comply with
Executive Order No. 12839.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Operating
expenses'' that specifies that not less than $314,200,000 shall
be available for drug enforcement activities.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' that credits funds received
from the sale of the VC-11A and HU-25 aircraft to this account
to purchase new aircraft.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Acquisition,
construction, and improvements'' that allows the Secretary to
transfer $50,000,000 in total for the year solely for providing
funds for streamlining plans.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Research,
development, test, and evaluation'' that credits funds received
from state and local governments and other entities for
expenses incurred for research, development, testing, and
evaluation.
Language is included under the Coast Guard, ``Emergency
fund'' that limits obligations to $3,000,000.
Language is included under Federal Aviation Administration,
``Operations,'' that prohibits the use of funds for new
applicants of the second career training program.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,'' that
prohibits the use of funds for premium pay unless an employee
actually performed work during the time corresponding to the
premium pay.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Operations,''
permitting the use of funds to enter into a grant agreement
with a nonprofit standard setting organization to develop
safety standards.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Facilities and
equipment,'' that allows certain funds received for expenses
incurred in the establishment and modernization of air
navigation facilities to be credited to the account.
Language is included under the FAA, ``Research,
engineering, and development,'' that allows certain funds
received for expenses incurred in research, engineering and
development to be credited to the account.
Language is included providing borrowing of not to exceed
$1,600,000 for payment of defaulted aircraft loan guarantees.
The bill includes a limitation on general operating
expenses of the Federal Highway Administration.
The bill includes language prohibiting obligations for
right-of-way acquisition.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration, ``Operations and research'' prohibiting the
planning or implementation of any rulemaking on labeling
passenger car tires for low rolling resistance.
Language is included under National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration,'' highway traffic safety grants limiting
obligations for certain safety grant programs.
Language in the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration highway traffic safety grants that withholds
$3,000,000 from the Section 402 apportionment formula and
distributes it to three states to prototype and evaluate the
benefits of the safe communities program.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Office of the administrator,'' authorizing the Secretary to
receive payments from the Union Station Redevelopment
Corporation, credit them to the appropriation charged with the
first deed of trust, and make payments on the first deed of
trust.
Language is included authorizing the Secretary to issue
fund anticipation notes necessary to pay obligations under
section 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act and to expend proceeds from the sale of
fund anticipation notes.
The bill included language prohibiting obligations for the
National Magnetic Levitation Prototype Development program.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,'' that
provides that the funds for Amtrak are not available unless
authorized by law.
Language is included under Federal Railroad Administration,
``Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation,''
regarding the use of funds for lease or purchase of passenger
motor vehicles.
Language is included under Federal Transit Administration,
``Formula grants,'' limiting mass transportation operating
assistance.
Language is included under the Federal Transit
Administration, ``Discretionary grants,'' allowing Salt Lake
City light rail transit project funds to be used for high
occupancy vehicle lane and intermodal design costs.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' which would
allow up to $1,000,000 in fees collected under 49 U.S.C.
5108(g) to be deposited in the general fund of the Treasury as
offsetting receipts.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Research and special programs,'' that credits
certain funds received for expenses incurred for training and
other activities.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Pipeline safety'' that provides not to exceed
$1,000,000 for one-call notification systems.
Language is included under Research and Special Programs
Administration, ``Emergency preparedness grants,'' limiting the
individuals who may obligate funds provided under this head.
Language is included under ``Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, ``Salaries and
expenses,'' that provides that funds received for publications
and training may be credited to the appropriation.
Language is included under Interstate Commerce Commission,
``Salaries and expenses,'' allowing for the collection of fees
by the ICC and providing that one-twelfth of $8,300,000 of
those fees collected shall be available for salaries and
expenses each month the ICC remains in existence.
The Committee is recommending language limiting to $475,000
obligations for payments for directed rail service under the
Interstate Commerce Commission.
Language is included in several instances rescinding budget
authority previously provided.
Sections 301 through 345 of the bill contain a number of
general provisions that place limitations on the use of funds
in the bill and which might, under some circumstances, be
construed as changing the application of existing law.
The bill includes language regarding the administration of
the federal-aid highways obligation limitation.
The bill includes several new or modified provisions that
could be construed as changing existing law as follows:
Section 327 reduced funding for activities of the working
capital fund of the Department of Transportation and limits
obligational authority of the fund to $92,231,000.
Section 330 prohibits funds to be used to prepare, propose,
or promulgate any rule under title V of the Motor Vehicle
Information and Cost Savings Act prescribing corporate average
fuel economy standards for automobiles.
Section 334 that allows for the use of transit capital
funds to overhaul buses that extend the economic life of the
bus, effective after March 31, 1996.
Section 336 cancels $25,000,000 for personnel compensation
and benefits and other administrative costs associated with
streamlining the Department of Transportation's regional and
division offices and providing the Secretary transfer authority
among appropriations accounts to carry out this restructuring.
Section 337 allows the Secretary to transfer funds from
other office of the secretary accounts for rental payments in
excess of the amounts provided in the bill.
Section 338 prohibits funds for any type of training which:
(a) is personally offensive to students; (b) discusses or
teaches religious concepts or ideas; (c) attempts to teach or
modify one's personal values or lifestyle; (d) is for AIDS
awareness training, except for raising awareness of medical
ramifications of AIDS and workplace rights of employees; or (e)
does not meet needs for knowledge, skills, and abilities
bearing directly on the performance of official duties.
Section 339 allows parks on Hot Springs, Arkansas, airport
property to operate without regard to revenue diversion/rent
maximization laws.
Section 340 requires the Department of Transportation
(excluding the Maritime Administration) retirement-eligible
employees on workers' compensation to retire.
Section 341 prohibits funds for technical training, tours,
research fellowships, or other forms of technology transfer
with citizens of the People's Republic of China.
Section 342 requires Federal Transit Administration
oversight of the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
to be based in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area.
Section 343 repeals 49 USC 5333(b) (section 13(c) of the
Federal Transit Act).
Section 344 provides $8,421,000 for certain rail and motor
carrier functions for the successor of the Interstate Commerce
Commission and provides for the collection of user fees by that
successor.
Section 345 requires the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation to submit a financial plan for the approval of
the Secretary of Transportation based on the costs-to-complete
the Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project before any
additional federal-aid funding for projects may be authorized;
and requires that the financial plan be updated and approved
biannually until the project is complete.
The bill also includes a new title, ``National Capital Area
Interest Arbitration Standards Act of 1995.''
Appropriations Not Authorized by Law
Pursuant to clause 3 of rule XXI of the House of
Representatives, the following lists the appropriations in the
accompanying bill which are not authorized by law:
United States Coast Guard
Federal Aviation Administration, Operations, Office
of Commercial Space Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration,
Research and special programs
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Operations and Research
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration,
Highway traffic safety grants
Federal Railroad Administration, Northeast corridor
improvement program
Federal Railroad Administration, Grants to the
National Railroad Passenger Corporation
Research and Special Programs Administration,
Pipeline Safety
Comparison With Budget Resolution
Section 308(a)(1)(A) of the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, requires that the report accompanying a bill providing
new budget authority contain a statement detailing how the new
authority compares with the reports submitted under section
602(b) of the Act for the most recently agreed to concurrent
resolution on the budget for the fiscal year. This information
follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
602(b) allocation This bill
---------------------------------------------------
Budget Budget
authority Outlays authority Outlays
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discretionary....... 12,600 36,947 12,218 37,064
Mandatory........... 584 581 582 581
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note.--The amount included in this bill as shown above does not include
estimates of the effect of H.R. 1944, The Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescissions Bill for FY 1995. The estimates were
not included since H.R. 1944 had not received final Congressional
approval at the time this report was filed. If H.R. 1944 is approved,
the amount scored to this bill will change and the new amount will be
within the 602(b) subdivision.
The bill provides new spending authority as defined under
section 401(c)(2) of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as amended, as
follows: Under Federal Railroad Administration, Railroad
rehabilitation and improvement financing funds, authority is
provided to issue notes necessary to pay obligations under
sections 511 through 513 of the Railroad Revitalization and
Regulatory Reform Act. This provision has been included at the
request of the administration because the government's
financial obligations under this program are difficult to
determine in advance and may require immediate expenditures of
funds. The Committee has received no indication to date that
this authority will be used in fiscal year 1995. Similar
provisions have been included in many previous appropriations
Acts.
Five-Year Outlay Projections
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(C) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (Public Law 93-344), as
amended, the following information was provided to the
Committee by the Congressional Budget Office:
(In millions of dollars)
Budget authority in the bill............................ 12,218
Outlays:
1996................................................ 12,092
1997................................................ 14,077
1998................................................ 5,484
1999................................................ 1,977
2000................................................ 1,814
\1\ Excludes outlays from prior year budget authority.
Financial Assistance to State and Local Governments
In accordance with section 308(a)(1)(D) of Public Law 93-
344, the Congressional Budget Office has provided the following
estimates of new budget authority and outlays provided by the
accompanying bill for financial assistance to state and local
governments:
(In millions of dollars)
Budget authority........................................ 1,206
Fiscal year 1996 outlays................................ 3,720
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall number 1
Date: June 30, 1995.
Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill,
fiscal year 1996.
Motion by: Mr. Obey.
Description of motion: Adds $150 million for mass transit;
$4.9 million for FAA safety operations; and deletes funding for
essential air services.
Results: Rejected 20 to 28.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Coleman Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon Mr. Callahan
Mr. Fazio Mr. DeLay
Mr. Foglietta Mr. Dickey
Mr. Hefner Mr. Durbin
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Forbes
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Hobson
Mr. Murtha Mr. Istook
Mr. Obey Mr. Kingston
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Sabo Mr. Lewis
Mr. Skaggs Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Stokes Mr. Livingston
Mr. Thornton Mr. Miller
Mr. Torres Mr. Myers
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Wilson Mr. Neumann
Mr. Yates Mr. Packard
Mr. Porter
Mr. Regula
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall number 2
Date: June 30, 1995.
Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill,
fiscal year 1996.
Motion by: Mr. Coleman.
Description of motion: Strikes and inserts bill language
relating to labor protections in Federal transit programs.
Results: Rejected 23 to 25.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Bunn Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Coleman Mr. DeLay
Mr. Dicks Mr. Dickey
Mr. Dixon Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Durbin Mr. Hobson
Mr. Fazio Mr. Istook
Mr. Foglietta Mr. Kingston
Mr. Forbes Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Kolbe
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Lewis
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Livingston
Mr. Neumann Mr. Miller
Mr. Obey Mr. Myers
Mr. Riggs Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Sabo Mr. Packard
Mr. Skaggs Mr. Porter
Mr. Stokes Mr. Regula
Mr. Thornton Mr. Rogers
Mr. Torres Mr. Skeen
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Taylor
Mr. Wilson Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Yates Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
Full Committee Votes
Pursuant to the provisions of clause 2(1)(2)(b) of rule XI
of the House of Representatives, the results of each roll call
vote on an amendment or on the motion to report, together with
the names of those voting for and those voting against, are
printed below:
rollcall number 3
Date: June 30, 1995.
Measure: Department of Transportation appropriations bill,
fiscal year 1996.
Motion by: Mr. Foglietta.
Description of motion: Adds $135 million for transit
subsidies by limiting to $200 million the amount States could
spend on highway demonstration projects.
Results: Rejected 20 to 27.
Members Voting Yea Members Voting Nay
Mr. Coleman Mr. Bonilla
Mr. Dicks Mr. Bunn
Mr. Dixon Mr. DeLay
Mr. Durbin Mr. Dickey
Mr. Fazio Mr. Forbes
Mr. Foglietta Mr. Frelinghuysen
Mr. Hoyer Mr. Istook
Ms. Kaptur Mr. Kingston
Mrs. Lowey Mr. Knollenberg
Mr. Mollohan Mr. Kolbe
Mr. Obey Mr. Lewis
Ms. Pelosi Mr. Lightfoot
Mr. Sabo Mr. Livingston
Mr. Skaggs Mr. Miller
Mr. Stokes Mr. Myers
Mr. Thornton Mr. Nethercutt
Mr. Torres Mr. Neumann
Mr. Visclosky Mr. Packard
Mr. Wilson Mr. Porter
Mr. Yates Mr. Regula
Mr. Riggs
Mr. Rogers
Mr. Skeen
Mrs. Vucanovich
Mr. Wicker
Mr. Wolf
Mr. Young
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
<GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF HONORABLE DAVID OBEY, HONORABLE MARTIN OLAV SABO,
HONORABLE RICHARD J. DURBIN, HONORABLE RONALD D. COLEMAN, HONORABLE
THOMAS M. FOGLIETTA
The Department of Transportation Appropriations Bill is an
important bill for our nation's continued economic prosperity
and for the safety and security of the traveling public. All
Americans are touched by this bill as they travel to and from
work on the nation's highways and subways, travel by airplane
to conduct business and visit family and friends, and consume
goods transported across the country by truck, railroads,
barges and airplanes.
There is no doubt that this bill makes significant progress
toward providing funding for some of our nation's critical
infrastructure needs, particularly to address the nation's
roads, highways and bridges that are in desperate need of
repair and rehabilitation and to expand capacity at our most
heavily congested airports. We support the increases
recommended for the Federal-aid Highways Program and the
Airport Improvement Program.
We are deeply concerned, however, about the
disproportionate reductions in transit capital and operating
assistance. We believe that it is shortsighted not to provide
the level of federal assistance needed to ensure the viable and
safe operation of buses and rapid transit for the millions of
Americans who rely on mass transit. Twenty percent of our
nation's population, over 52 million people, live in rural
areas and many of them will be affected by the 44 percent
reduction in transit operating assistance recommended in this
bill. Further, the reductions in transit funding will impede
urban transit properties' efforts to move people to work, to
break the traffic gridlock that grips cities, and to improve
air quality in cities across the country. We believe that the
recommended $250 million reduction in funding to maintain,
revitalize and extend bus and transit infrastructure is penny-
wise and pound-foolish. Mass transit investments provide
mobility to disadvantaged individuals, ease congestion on our
already crowded highways, and provide jobs to middle-class
Americans. They are a wise investment in our nation's
productivity.
Further, we reject the arguments made by some that the
recommended reductions for transit somehow justify the
termination of the collective bargaining rights of transit
workers. While we share some legitimate concerns about the
Department of Labor's administration of Section 13(c) of the
Federal Transit Act, these concerns have largely been addressed
in its June 30, 1995 proposed notice of rulemaking which would
both streamline and expedite the program by guaranteeing
certification of all grants within sixty days and impose other
reforms that will make the 13(c) process more efficient. Not
only is it inappropriate to include provisions repealing
Section 13(c) and abrogating existing contracts in this bill,
but it is also unsound and unjust public policy. These
provisions threaten the jobs, pay and benefits of thousands of
middle-class families. They are simply wrong and we strongly
oppose them.
Moreover, we believe that many important transportation
technology and safety-enhancing activities are cut too deeply
in this bill, simply because they are funded in budget accounts
that ``spend out'' at a high rate. For example, one of the
deepest reductions in the bill is in the Federal Aviation
Administration's research and development program which is
reduced by nearly 50 percent below the fiscal year 1995 funding
level. It is folly to believe that a cut of this magnitude
would not affect the future safety and security of the nation's
skies. In light of recent terrorist and bomb threats, the $10.6
million cut in the bill for research on airport security
technologies, aviation security and aircraft hardening research
is particularly unwise. Equally ill-advised is the denial of
additional funding for aviation safety inspectors to address
commercial aviation safety concerns that are at an all-time
high after the several tragic air crashes last year. We note,
as well, that section 341 which prohibits funding for technical
training and assistance to the People's Republic of China would
potentially reduce the level of safety for U.S. air carriers
operating into China as well as U.S. citizens traveling on
China's domestic aviation system.
Important search and rescue and other maritime safety
operations of the Coast Guard will also not escape the impact
of recommended funding reductions. Funding for Coast Guard
operations in this bill is $37 million below current levels,
and will require the Coast Guard to decommission more boats,
cutters and aircraft, and reduce operating hours.
We remain disappointed with some of the reductions in the
bill that undermine our nation's ability to expand
transportation capacity, not through bricks and mortar, but
through capacity-enhancing transportation technologies and
innovations that have the by-product of encouraging greater
private investment in transportation. A careful analysis of the
bill reveals a bias against research, development, and
technology investments that could yield real gains in highway
safety and congestion relief.
Gains in streamlining the Department of Transportation
should also be made and the Secretary of Transportation has
taken on this task head-on. Nevertheless, it is unfair to
mandate the consolidation of DOT's offices and operations, as
recommended in the bill, while at the same time denying funding
for the development of automated systems that would facilitate
the mandated downsizing.
We also take issue with the bill's provisions which
prohibit funds from being used for certain types of training
activities, including AIDS awareness training. The Committee is
placing new restrictions on the Department for improper conduct
and a lack of oversight which existed under the Reagan and Bush
administrations--a negligence that this administration has
moved swiftly to correct. These new restrictions jeopardize all
training activities conducted by the Department--safety-related
technical training, as well as management training. Moreover,
we believe that these provisions will be extremely difficult to
enforce. We hope that this provision can be improved when the
bill is considered by the entire House.
We had hoped for a better vision, bolder ideas and a more
balanced approach to the critical transportation infrastructure
and safety issues financed in this bill.
David Obey.
Martin Olav Sabo.
Dick Durbin.
Ron Coleman.
Thomas M. Foglietta.
<greek-d>
|
|
