[House Report 106-622] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] 106th Congress Report HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 106-622 ====================================================================== DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2001 _______ May 17, 2000.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union and ordered to be printed _______ Mr. Wolf, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following R E P O R T together with ADDITIONAL VIEWS [To accompany H.R. 4475] The Committee on Appropriations submits the following report in explanation of the accompanying bill making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2001. INDEX TO BILL AND REPORT _______________________________________________________________________ Page number Bill Report Narrative summary of Committee action...................... 2 Program, project, and activity............................. 4 Title I--Department of Transportation: Office of the Secretary............................ 2 5 Coast Guard........................................ 6 16 Federal Aviation Administration.................... 10 27 Federal Highway Administration..................... 16 55 Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration........ 18 75 Federal Railroad Administration.................... 21 87 Federal Transit Administration..................... 24 97 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration..... 19 80 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation...... 34 160 Research and Special Programs Administration....... 35 161 Office of Inspector General........................ 37 165 Surface Transportation Board....................... 38 167 Title II--Related Agencies: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board............................... 38 168 National Transportation Safety Board............... 39 169 Title III--General Provisions.............................. 39 170 House Report Requirements: Appropriations not authorized by law............... 180 Changes in existing law............................ 173 Comparison with budget resolution.................. 180 Constitutional authority........................... 172 Financial assistance to state and local governments 181 Five-year projections of outlays................... 180 Ramseyer........................................... 173 Rescissions........................................ 181 Transfers of funds................................. 172 Tabular summary of the bill................................ 182 Summary and Major Recommendations of the Bill The accompanying bill would provide $15,764,474,000 in new budget (obligational) authority for the programs of the Department of Transportation and related agencies, $389,263,000 less than the $16,153,737,000 requested in the budget. In total, the bill includes obligational authority (new budget authority, guaranteed obligations contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21), limitations on obligations, and exempt obligations) of $55,236,650,000. This is $5,209,010,000 more than the comparable fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $605,737,000 more than the budget request. Selected major recommendations in the accompanying bill are: (1) An appropriation of $12,585,366,000 for the Federal Aviation Administration, consistent with provisions of AIR21, an increase of $2,503,871,000, or 25 percent, above fiscal year 2000; (2) A limitation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, as required by provisions of AIR21, and an increase of $1,250,000,000, or 64 percent, above the fiscal year 2000 level and the budget request; (3) An appropriation of $3,192,000,000 for operating expenses of the Coast Guard, including $557,963,000 for drug interdiction activities, a 14 percent increase over last year's level; (4) An appropriation of $521,476,000 for grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak), to cover capital expenses; (5) A total of $62,109,000 for the office of the secretary, $7,077,000 below the budget request; (6) Highway program obligation limitations of $29,661,806,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21, and $1,960,456,000 over fiscal year 2000; (7) Transit program obligations of $6,271,000,000, consistent with provisions of TEA21, and $485,647,000 over fiscal year 2000; and (8) A total of $269,194,000 for the recently established Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, including $177,000,000 for the national motor carrier safety program, an increase of $164,194,000 above fiscal year 2000. The Effect of Guaranteed Spending Over the objections of the Appropriations and Budget Committees, in 1998 the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two new additional spending categories or ``firewalls'', the highway category and the mass transit category. Earlier this year, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21) provided a similar treatment for certain aviation programs. Although using different procedures, each of these Acts produced the same results: they significantly raised spending, and they effectively prohibited the Appropriations Committee from reducing those spending levels in the annual appropriations process. As the Committee noted during deliberations on these bills, the Acts essentially created mandatory spending programs within the discretionary caps. This undermines Congressional flexibility to fund other equally important programs, including non-guaranteed transportation programs such as FAA Operations, the Coast Guard, and Amtrak. As a result of these Acts, $46.7 billion of the $55.2 billion in budgetary resources addressed by this bill--or 85 percent of the bill's total resources--are either ``guaranteed'' by federal legislation and/or protected by unprecedented legislated points of order passed into law at the initiative of the authorization committees. The Committee will continue to do all it can in this environment to produce a balanced bill which provides adequately for all modes of transportation. However, clearly the expanding use of spending guarantees to ``wall-off'' parts of the discretionary budget for particular constituencies will cause both transportation and non-transportation programs all across the government to be under more severe budget pressure, in order to keep the overall budget in balance. The effect of the guarantees will especially leave its mark on non-covered transportation programs and activities, since they must compete within this bill for leftover funding. The Committee continues to be concerned that bills such as TEA21 and AIR21 skew transportation priorities inappropriately, by providing a banquet of increases to highway, transit, and airport spending while leaving safety-related operations in the FAA, Coast Guard, and FRA to scramble for the remaining crumbs. The Committee continues to believe that safety--not concrete-- should remain the Federal Government's highest responsibility in the transportation area. Tabular Summary A table summarizing the amounts provided for fiscal year 2000 and the amounts recommended in the bill for fiscal year 2001 compared with the budget estimates is included at the end of this report. Committee Hearings The Committee has conducted extensive hearings on the programs and projects provided for in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for fiscal year 2001. These hearings are contained in seven published volumes. The Committee received testimony from officials of the executive branch, Members of Congress, officials of the General Accounting Office, officials of state and local governments, and private citizens. The bill recommendations for fiscal year 2001 have been developed after careful consideration of all the information available to the Committee. Program, Project, and Activity During fiscal year 2001, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99-177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in an appropriations Act (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to capital investment grants, Federal Transit Administration. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each ``budget item'' that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations Acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. Safety Programs In this bill, the Committee has worked hard to protect funding for essential safety-related programs of the Department of Transportation and the independent agencies. This has been difficult, but not impossible, given the budget constraints faced by the Federal Government this year. In some cases, funds have been added to the administration's request for safety- related activities. However, if, in the judgment of departmental officials any of the Committee's recommendations would significantly harm transportation safety, or if unanticipated safety needs arise during the course of the appropriations process, the Committee welcomes discussions with the administration to adjust individual funding levels and provide the funding needed. The bill also allows significant flexibility through the reprogramming process, which requires no further legislative action. The Committee will work with administration officials to reprogram funds for safety programs if that should be required. TITLE I DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Salaries and Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\.................... ($60,852,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\................... 69,186,000 Recommended in the bill \1\............................ (62,109,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000.................... +1,257,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001................... -7,077,000 \1\ Total amount appropriated in separate accounts. \2\ Amount requested in this consolidated account. The bill provides a total of $62,109,000 for the salaries and expenses of the various offices comprising the Office of the Secretary. The Committee has not approved the consolidated appropriations request for the various offices within the office of the secretary and has continued to provide appropriations for each office within the office of the secretary. Specific program recommendations are discussed in this report under the individual appropriations accounts. Congressional justifications and supporting materials.--The Committee appreciates the timely submission of the department's fiscal year 2001 Congressional justifications. The Committee again directs the department to submit all of the department's fiscal year Congressional justifications on the first Monday in February, concurrent with official submission of the President's budget to Congress. While the Committee was pleased that the Congressional justifications were submitted to the Committee concurrent with the official budget of the President, the Committee was not satisfied with the timeliness of the submission of responses to questions for the record and the editing of the transcript. These materials are as--if not more--important than the Congressional justifications and the Committee cannot fully review the budget requests of the department in the absence of these materials. The Committee expects that the department will take actions to ensure that the materials submitted to the Committee for review are completed and submitted on a far more timely basis. The department is also directed to submit its fiscal year 2002 Congressional justification materials for the salaries and expenses of the office of the secretary at the same level of detail provided in the Congressional justifications presented in fiscal year 2001. In addition, the justification materials for the individual modal administrations for fiscal year 2002 and thereafter shall include tables detailing a ten-year history of appropriations. Staffing levels.--The offices comprising the offices of the secretary are directed not to fill any positions in fiscal year 2000 that are currently vacant if such vacancies are proposed in this Act for elimination in fiscal year 2001. Assessments.--The Committee directs that assessments charged by the office of the secretary to the modal administrations shall be for administrative activities, not policy initiatives. General Provision Limitation on political and Presidential appointees.--The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), similar to provisions in past Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The ceiling for fiscal year 2001 is 104 personnel, which is four more than the level enacted in fiscal year 2000. This increase reflects the additional political appointees associated with the creation of the new Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The bill specifies that no political or Presidential appointee may be detailed outside the Department of Transportation or any other agency funded in this bill. Immediate Office of the Secretary Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,867,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (2,031,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 1,756,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -111,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -275,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary responsibility to provide overall planning, direction, and control of departmental affairs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,756,000 for expenses of the immediate office of the secretary, which represents a decrease of $111,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $275,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes the following staffing reductions: Eliminate second deputy chief of staff.................... -$200,000 Eliminate one scheduling and advance assistant............ -75,000 Staffing reductions.--The Committee recommendation assumes the elimination of a second deputy chief of staff and a scheduling and advance assistant in fiscal year 2001. The Committee believes that a second deputy chief of staff is unnecessary and that current staffing levels in the immediate office of the secretary and the resources provided in the bill are sufficient to enable the secretary to carry out his legislative agenda, formulate national transportation policy, and to promote an intermodal transportation system, economic growth and trade. The positions proposed in the bill for elimination in fiscal year 2001 are currently vacant. Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $600,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................... (587,000) Recommended in the bill.................................... 587,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ -13,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ........... \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility to assist the Secretary in the overall planning, direction and control of the departmental affairs. The Committee recommends $587,000 for expenses of the immediate office of the deputy secretary, which is a decrease of $13,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level assumed in the budget request. Office of the General Counsel Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $9,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (11,172,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 9,760,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +760,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -1,412,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of the General Counsel provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary and coordinates and reviews the legal work of the chief counsels' offices of the operating administrations. The bill provides an appropriation of $9,760,000 for expenses of the office of general counsel, which represents an increase of $760,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and $1,412,000 less than the level assumed in the budget request. Due to budget constraints, the bill provides limited resources, $300,000, for the department's ``Accessibility for all America'' initiative and exclusionary pricing activities. These resources are expected to support three new positions. There are several vacancies currently in the office of the general counsel which may be filled to augment the new staffing and resources provided by the Committee in this Act. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $2,824,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (3,131,500) Recommended in the bill................................... 3,131,500 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +308,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............ \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the chief domestic policy officer of the department and is responsible to the Secretary for analysis, development, communication and review of policies and plans for domestic transportation issues. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,131,500 for the office of the assistant secretary for policy, which represents an increase of $308,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level as assumed in the budget request. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $7,650,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (7,702,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 7,182,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -468,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -520,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs is responsible for administering economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and provides departmental leadership and coordination on international transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade, technical assistance and cooperative programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,182,000 for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for aviation and international affairs, which represents a reduction of $468,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $520,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes the elimination of four transportation industry specialists (-$400,000) and disallows a proposed new position of special assistant to the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs (-$120,000). The bill includes a provision that permits the collection and crediting to this appropriation of up to $1,250,000 received in user fees, as requested in the budget. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $6,870,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (7,241,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 7,241,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +371,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... .............. \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is responsible for developing, reviewing and presenting budget resource requirements for the department to the Secretary, Congress and the Office of Management and Budget. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $7,241,000 for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for budget and programs, which represents an increase of $371,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and the same level assumed in the budget request. Reception and representation expenses.--The Committee has approved the request to increase to $60,000 the amount to be available for costs related to reception and representation expenses. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $2,039,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (2,176,000) Recommended in the bill................................... 2,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -39,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -176,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs is responsible for coordinating all Congressional, intergovernmental, and consumer activities of the department. The bill provides an appropriation of $2,000,000 for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for governmental affairs, which represents a decrease of $39,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $176,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes the elimination of one congressional affairs specialist (-$76,000) and a general reduction due to budget constraints (-$100,000). The bill continues a provision (sec. 329) that has been carried in previous appropriations Acts that requires the department to notify the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not less than three business days before any discretionary grant award, letter of intent, or full funding grant agreement in excess of $1,000,000 is announced by the department or its modal administrations from: (1) any discretionary program of the Federal Highway Administration other than the emergency relief program; (2) the airport improvement program of the Federal Aviation Administration; and (3) any program of the Federal Transit Administration program other than the formula grants and fixed guideway modernization programs. Such notification shall include the date on which the official announcement of the grant is to be made and no such announcement shall involve funds that are not available for obligation. Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $17,767,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (20,139,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 18,359,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +592,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -1,780,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration is responsible for coordinating, overseeing and conducting various accounting, procurement, personnel management, and ADP operations of the department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $18,359,000 for expenses of the office of the assistant secretary for administration, which represents an increase of $592,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $1,780,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes the following reductions: Eliminate proposed increases for employee development... -$1,160,000 General reduction due to budget constraints............. -500,000 Eliminate 1 personnel management specialist............. -120,000 Personnel reductions.--The Committee recommendation deletes funding requested for one personnel management specialist. This position is currently vacant. General reduction.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommendation reduces the budget request for the office of administration by $500,000. The Committee directs that such reductions be taken from non-personnel activities, such as contractor support, overhead and other related activities, to avoid personnel reductions not otherwise directed by the Committee. Office of Public Affairs Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,800,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,714,000) Recommended in the bill................................... 1,454,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -346,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -260,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of Public Affairs is responsible for news releases, articles, fact sheets, briefing materials, publications, and audio-visual materials of the department. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,454,000 for expenses of the office of public affairs, which represents a decrease of $346,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $260,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation assumes the elimination of 2 public affairs specialists (-$160,000), which are currently vacant, and a proposed new position of special assistant to the associate director for speech writing (-$100,000). Executive Secretariat Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,102,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,181,000) Recommended in the bill................................... 1,181,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +79,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............ \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Executive Secretariat assists the Secretary and Deputy Secretary in carrying out their management functions and responsibilities by controlling and coordinating internal and external written materials. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,181,000 for expenses of the executive secretariat, which is $79,000 more than the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level assumed in the budget request. Board of Contract Appeals Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $520,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\....................... (496,000) Recommended in the bill.................................... 496,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ -24,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ........... \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Board of Contract Appeals provides an independent forum for considering all contract-related claims by or against a contractor involving any element of the department. The bill provides an appropriation of $496,000 for expenses of the Board of Contract Appeals, which is a reduction of $24,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level assumed in the budget request. Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $1,222,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\...................... (1,192,000) Recommended in the bill................................... 1,192,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -30,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... ............ \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization is responsible for promoting small and disadvantaged business participation in the department's procurement and grants programs. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,192,000 for expenses of the office of small and disadvantaged business utilization, which is a decrease of $30,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same level assumed in the budget request. Office of Intelligence and Security Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,454,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (3,494,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 1,490,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +36,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -2,004,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of Intelligence and Security was created during fiscal year 1990 to address transportation intelligence and security issues. The primary purposes of the office are to provide intelligence and security oversight of the operating administrations to increase the safety and security of the traveling public, and to provide the Secretary and Deputy Secretary with current intelligence and security information, with special emphasis on potential or actual terrorist threats to transportation interests. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $1,490,000 for expenses of the office of intelligence and security, which is an increase of $36,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $2,004,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation disallows funding requested in this account for infrastructure protection activities (-$2,000,000). These activities are funded, albeit at lower levels, within amounts provided to the Research and Special Programs Administration. In addition, funding is provided within the model administration's budgets for these activities. Office of the Chief Information Officer Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $5,075,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................... (6,929,000) Recommended in the bill................................. 6,279,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... +1,204,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... -650,000 \1\ Requested in the consolidated salaries and expenses account. The Office of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) serves as the principal advisor to the Secretary on matters involving information resources and information systems management. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $6,279,000 for expenses of the office of the chief information officer, which is an increase of $1,204,000 from the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $650,000 below the level assumed in the budget request. The recommendation disallows funding requested to implement in fiscal year 2002 a pilot project that has yet to be defined or determined by the department's architecture working group. The Committee directs that no major Information Technology (IT) procurement within the department occur until after a review by the CIO has been conducted to determine system deficiencies, vulnerabilities, compatibility with, and relative need of such systems compared to other departmental systems requirements. The CIO must direct and approve all IT and telecommunications infrastructure items and expenditures for all systems that are non-mode specific (e.g., common grants systems). The CIO review and concurrence, however, shall not apply to real-time air traffic control data. In addition, the Committee expects that each agency of the department shall appoint a person to carry out that agency's CIO function, who shall report to the administrator or deputy administrator of each agency and shall be in control of both implementing IT policy and running operations. The agency CIO contact shall report both to the agency and the departmental CIO, where the agency head and the department CIO shall agree on the performance plan and performance evaluations. Office of Intermodalism Appropriation, fiscal year 2000......................... $1,062,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................ (\1\) Recommended in the bill................................. (\1\) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..................... -1,062,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................... .............. \1\ Included within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on administrative expenses. Funding for the office of intermodalism is recommended within the Federal Highway Administration's limitation on administrative expenses, consistent with the budget request. Office of Civil Rights Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $7,200,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.......................... 8,726,000 Recommended in the bill................................... 8,140,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +940,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -586,000 The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal opportunity matters and ensuring full implementation of civil rights opportunity precepts in all of the department's official actions and programs. This office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations that prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. This office also handles all civil rights cases related to Department of Transportation employees. The recommendation provides a total of $8,140,000 for the office of civil rights, which represents an increase of $940,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, and $586,000 less than the budget request. The recommendation includes $300,000 for alternative dispute resolution and three additional FTEs, as requested in the budget. The recommendation assumes the following reductions from the budget request due to budget constraints: Hold automated tracking system to current level............ -$314,000 Hold section 504 studies and evaluations to $80,000........ -80,000 Hold web site development to current level................. -70,000 Hold reimbursable agreements to current level.............. -44,000 Hold travel to $200,000.................................... -78,000 Transportation Planning, Research, and Development Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $3,300,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................... 5,258,000 Recommended in the bill.................................... 3,300,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ ........... Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... -1,958,000 This appropriation finances those research activities and studies concerned with planning, analysis, and information development needed to support the Secretary's responsibilities in the formulation of national transportation policies. The overall program is carried out primarily through contracts with other federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $3,300,000 for transportation planning, research and development, which is the same level as provided in fiscal year 2000 and $1,958,000 below the budget request. Adjustments to the budget request include the following: Disallow funding for airline profitability modeling and -$1,148,000 associated staffing increases............................ Disallow funding for the dockets management system and -600,000 electronic grant making standards activities............. Defer lower priority studies and evaluations due to budget -210,000 constraints.............................................. Transportation Administrative Service Center Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\..................... ($148,673,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \2\................. (163,811,000) Recommended in the bill \3\.......................... (119,387,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 2000..................... (-29,286,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001................. (-44,424,000) \1\ In fiscal year 2000, the limitation on transportation administrative service center expenses was reduced by $15,000,000. \2\ Proposed without limitation. Amount reflected is the estimated program level for non-DOT activities anticipated in fiscal year 2001. \3\ In fiscal year 2001, the limitation on transportation administrative service center expenses is also reduced in a general provision (- $4,000,000). The transportation administrative service center was created in fiscal year 1997 to provide common administrative services to the various modes and outside entities that desire those services for economy and efficiency. The fund is financed through negotiated agreements with the department's operating administrations and other governmental elements requiring the center's capabilities. The Committee agreed to create the transportation administrative service center in fiscal year 1997 at the department's request. In agreeing to that request, the Committee limited: (1) the activities that can be transferred to the transportation administrative service center to only those approved by the agency administrator, and (2) special assessments or reimbursable agreements levied against any program, project or activity funded in this Act to only those assessments or reimbursable agreements and the basis for them are presented to and approved by the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. These limitations are continued in fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends a limitation of $119,387,000 be imposed on the transportation administrative service center. This is a decrease of $29,286,000 from the fiscal year 2000 obligations of $148,673,000 and a reduction of $44,424,000 from the level anticipated in the budget request. The recommended reductions from the budget request reflect the following adjustments: Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and -$43,963,000 Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography to the TASC................... Disallow request for additional staffing increases...... -461,000 Disallow proposed transfer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography to the TASC.--The budget proposed that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography (AC&C) be transferred from the Department of Commerce and placed within the TASC. While the department believes that the AC&C product offerings are closely aligned with the services provided by TASC, the Committee asserts that the aeronautical charting services ultimately support aviation safety missions within the FAA, and it is more logical that these services be performed within the FAA. Moreover, the recent reauthorization for the Federal Aviation Administration places the AC&C within the FAA. Consequently, the Committee recommendation includes funding for this activity within the FAA's appropriation for fiscal year 2001. Accordingly, the TASC obligation limitation has been reduced by $43,963,000 and staffing reduced by 379 FTE. General provision.--The Committee has included a general provision (sec. 323) which provides that amounts budgeted for the transportation administrative service center in this bill are reduced, on a pro-rata basis, to a limitation of $115,387,000. These reductions should be borne by TASC, through administrative efficiencies, such as reducing its significant carry-over balances, and not by the modal administrations. The Committee has included other reductions in the modal administrations' operating budgets. Payments to Air Carriers (airport and airway trust fund) The essential air service program was originally created by the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 as a temporary measure to continue air service to communities that had received federally mandated air service prior to deregulation. The program currently provides subsidies to air carriers serving small communities that meet certain criteria. Subsidies, ranging from $5 to $320, currently support air service to 82 communities and serve about 700,000 passengers annually. This program was established to provide a smooth phaseout of federal subsidies to airlines that serve small airports. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-264) authorized the collection of user fees for services provided by the Federal Aviation Administration to aircraft that neither take off from, nor land in the United States, commonly known as overflight fees. In addition, the Act permanently appropriated these fees for authorized expenses of the FAA. Consistent with the FAA reauthorization legislation enacted in 1996, this program became a mandatory program in fiscal year 1998. Over the years, Congress and the department have worked to streamline the essential air service program and to increase its efficiency by eliminating communities that are within an easy drive of a major hub airport or where the costs clearly outweigh the benefits. Federal law now limits the number of communities that receive essential air service funding by excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are located fewer than seventy highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger, unless such point is more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium airport. Minority Business Resource Center Program Limitation on Appropriation guaranteed loans Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\.... $1,900,000 ($13,775,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001\2\... 1,900,000 (13,775,000) Recommended in the bill\2\............ 1,900,000 (13,775,000) Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ............... ............... Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ............... \1\ The fiscal year 2000 limitation on loan authority applies to direct loans. \2\ The fiscal year 2001 budget request and Committee recommendation converts this loan program into guaranteed loans. The minority business resource center of the office of small disadvantaged business utilization provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses. The program enables qualified businesses to obtain loans at prime interest rates for transportation-related projects. Prior to fiscal year 1993, loans under this program were funded by the office of small and disadvantaged business utilization without a limitation. Reflecting the changes made by the Credit Reform Act of 1990, beginning in fiscal year 1993, a separate appropriation was proposed in the President's budget only for the subsidy inherently assumed in those loans and the cost to administer the loan program. The recommendation fully funds the budget request, which provides a limitation on guaranteed loans of $13,775,000 and subsidy and administrative costs totaling $1,900,000. Minority Business Outreach Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............................ $2,900,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001........................... 3,000,000 Recommended in the bill.................................... 3,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................ +100,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001....................... ........... This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve Federal spending. It also provides grants and contract assistance that serve DOT-wide goals and not just OST purposes. The Committee has provided $3,000,000, $100,000 more than provided in fiscal year 2000 and the same level as requested in the budget. COAST GUARD Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program The Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service. This was followed by transfers to the Coast Guard of the United States Lighthouse Service in 1939 and the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities enforcing all applicable federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promoting safety of life and property at sea; aiding navigation; protecting the marine environment; and maintaining a state of readiness to function as a specialized service of the Navy in time of war. Including funds for national security activities and retired pay accounts, the Committee recommends a total program level of $4,616,506,000 for activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001. This is $594,453,000 (14.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 program level. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Program ------------------------------------ Committee 2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating expenses........................................ $2,781,000,000 $3,199,000,000 $3,192,000,000 Acquisition, construction, and improvements............... 389,326,000 520,200,000 515,000,000 Environmental compliance and restoration.................. 17,000,000 16,700,000 16,700,000 Alteration of bridges..................................... 15,000,000 ................ 14,740,000 Retired pay............................................... 730,327,000 778,000,000 778,000,000 Reserve training.......................................... 72,000,000 73,371,000 80,375,000 Research, development, test, and evaluation............... 19,000,000 21,320,000 19,691,000 Across the board rescission............................... -1,600,000 ................ ................ ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 4,022,053,000 4,608,591,000 4,616,506,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operating Expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 2000\1\.................... $2,781,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001\2\.................. 3,199,000,000 Recommended in the bill\2\............................ 3,192,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +411,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -7,000,000 \1\ Includes $300,000,000 in funds for national security activities in budget function 050. \2\ Includes $341,000,000 in funds for national security activities in budget function 050. This appropriation provides funding for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas. Including $341,000,000 for national security activities, the Committee recommends a total of $3,192,000,000 for operating activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2001, an increase of $411,000,000 (14.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation and $7,000,000 below the budget request. The following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Program, Project & Activity ------------------------------------ Committee 2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Personnel Resources.................................... $1,779,842,000 $2,069,719,000 $2,068,187,000 A. Military pay & allowances.......................... 1,264,852,000 1,471,495,000 1,470,976,000 B. Civilian pay & benefits............................ 220,631,000 243,119,000 242,946,000 C. Military health care............................... 139,070,000 174,769,000 174,718,000 D. Permanent Change of station........................ 63,528,000 78,103,000 77,734,000 E. Training & education............................... 71,793,000 85,557,000 85,137,000 F. Recruiting......................................... 8,877,000 5,585,000 5,585,000 G. FECA/UCX........................................... 11,091,000 11,091,000 11,091,000 II. Operating Funds and Unit Level Maintenance............ 635,972,000 700,795,000 703,100,000 A. Atlantic area command.............................. 103,366,000 125,702,000 125,702,000 B. Pacific area command............................... 111,740,000 118,891,000 122,691,000 C. District commands.................................. 1. 1st district (Boston).......................... 40,429,000 36,566,000 36,566,000 2. 7th district (Miami)........................... 45,454,000 49,043,000 49,043,000 3. 8th district (New Orleans)..................... 28,483,000 28,674,000 28,674,000 4. 9th district (Cleveland)....................... 17,418,000 17,775,000 17,775,000 5. 13th district (Seattle)........................ 13,721,000 13,030,000 13,030,000 6. 14th district (Honolulu)....................... 7,332,000 9,734,000 9,734,000 7. 17th district (Juneau)......................... 20,174,000 20,972,000 20,972,000 D. Headquarters offices............................... 198,871,000 223,413,000 222,972,000 E. Headquarters-managed units......................... 42,096,000 55,342,000 54,288,000 F. Other activities................................... 6,888,000 1,653,000 1,653,000 III. Depot-Level Maintenance.............................. 405,186,000 428,486,000 426,981,000 A. Aircraft maintenance............................... 156,862,000 170,101,000 168,596,000 B. Electronic maintenance............................. 38,079,000 42,395,000 42,395,000 C. Shore maintenance.................................. 101,792,000 105,785,000 105,785,000 D. Vessel maintenance................................. 108,453,000 110,205,000 110,205,000 IV. Account-Wide Adjustments.............................. -40,000,000 ................ -6,268,000 A. Funding previously provided........................ -40,000,000 ................ ................ B. Nonpay COLA........................................ ................ ................ -6,268,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total appropriation................................. 2,781,000,000 3,199,000,000 3,192,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are discussed below: Repricing of civilian personnel compensation and benefits.--The President's budget proposed to reduce civilian full-time equivalent (FTE) staffing by 40 based upon analysis showing a higher than anticipated lapse rate due to unused FTE. The reduction in the President's budget would revise upward the civilian lapse rate assumption, effectively resulting in less civilian staffing. The Committee believes this is unnecessary, and undermines the foundation of a strong civilian manpower base within the Coast Guard just at the time the GAO has determined the Coast Guard should have more civilian personnel. A stronger recruiting effort could address any issues over the lapse rate. Polar icebreaker reimbursement.--The Committee recommendation restores $3,800,000 of the $7,800,000 proposed reduction in polar icebreaking. In hearings this year, the Commandant of the Coast Guard advised the Committee that he did not support this proposal. International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS).-- The International Maritime Information Safety System (IMISS) is a voluntary, non-attribution system which collects data from the maritime industry, and analyzes it through a commercially- operated data center to allow the industry to take necessary steps to prevent marine accidents. While this appears to be a worthwhile effort of value to ship owners, marine insurers, shippers, and employee organizations, it appears more appropriately funded by industry, and not by the Coast Guard. This results in a reduction of $398,000 below the budget estimate. Maritime transportation system leadership and coordination.--The Committee defers the $801,000 requested for this new activity due to lack of justification. Coast Guard workstation support.--The Committee defers the $750,000 requested for this activity, without prejudice, due to higher budget priorities. National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) fees.--The Committee deletes the additional $426,000 in user fees intended for reimbursement of NTIA operations costs due to lack of justification. The Coast Guard has presented no information explaining why its frequency spectrum use will need to rise to the extent indicated by this proposed increase. Given budget constraints, the Committee believes the Coast Guard can manage its spectrum usage to maintain within the current funding level. ``One DOT'' initiatives.--The Committee defers the $304,000 requested due to lack of justification. Aviation detachment support.--The Committee defers the $3,904,000 requested for personnel, fuel, and maintenance to operate 3 additional HH-65 helicopters as a detachment to the new polar icebreaker during fiscal year 2001. Since initial funding for the manufacture of these new helicopters is also in the 2001 budget, the Committee finds it highly unlikely that the Coast Guard will be ready to operate these assets next year. Since the service will need time to complete the contracting, manufacturing, and testing process, the Committee believes these funds can be deferred. Non-pay cost of living adjustment (COLA).--The recommendation allows a non-pay cost of living adjustment of 1.0 percent versus the 1.5 percent in the budget estimate, due to higher priority needs. This provides funding to cover general inflation for items other than personnel compensation. This results in a reduction of $6,268,000 below the budget estimate. Drug interdiction funding.--The bill provides $565,168,000 for drug interdiction activities. This is an increase of $46,240,000 (8.9 percent) over the estimated expenses for fiscal year 2000. Status of Search and Rescue Capabilities The recent report of the National Transportation Safety Board into the sinking of the sailboat Morning Dew, considered with other relevant reports and information, convinces the Committee that the Coast Guard has not placed adequate management or budgetary priority on maintaining and improving the performance of the nationwide network of small boat stations. In many coastal communities, these stations are the backbone of the Coast Guard's rescue capability, yet most of them are understaffed and plagued by inadequate training and obsolete equipment. While the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2001 budget requests an 11.6 percent increase in search and rescue activities, even this increase will not restore the budget to the level reached in fiscal year 1999. Combined with these budgetary pressures, the current economy has resulted in large percentage increases in the number of new boaters, and experienced boaters purchasing more complex vessels with which they have minimal familiarity. It is critical that the Coast Guard provide an effective safety net to catch those boaters when distress calls come in. Today that safety net has too many holes which need to be repaired. The Committee bill makes a number of initiatives to help address this problem. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to allocate to search and rescue activities at least the level of $383,026,000 included in the President's budget, and more if possible, during the coming fiscal year. Furthermore, the Committee expects the Coast Guard to make whatever personnel and organizational changes are necessary to ensure that the small boat stations have an effective voice in resource allocation and staffing decisions. Nokomis, FL.--The Committee recognizes the Coast Guard's important effort to increase its presence on the West Coast of Florida and urges the Coast Guard to continue those efforts. In addition, the Committee would not agree with any decision to vacate the Nokomis site. The Committee is pleased with the Coast Guard's plan to use existing operating funds to improve the existing infrastructure at the Nokomis facility, including upgrades to the bulkhead and electrical systems. The Committee is also supportive of the service's plan to increase Auxiliary presence at this facility. The Committee directs the Coast Guard to report on the adequacy of coverage by Coast Guard assets for search and rescue, fisheries enforcement, drug and alien interdiction and specifically address whether there is sufficient criminal deterrent for marine crime between Fort Myers and St. Petersburg, Florida. The Coast Guard is directed to submit this report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than sixty days after enactment of this Act. Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program.--Consistent with recommendations elsewhere in the bill, no funding is provided to continue the Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program. National ballast water management program.--Of the funds provided, $3,500,000 is only to continue the national ballast water management program. This is the same level of funding as provided for fiscal year 2000. Southern Lake Michigan air facility.--The Committee bill fully funds continued operation of the new Coast Guard air facility to support Southern Lake Michigan in fiscal year 2001. Oil spill geographic information system.--Of the funds provided, $2,000,000 is only for development of an oil spill geographic information system for oil spill planning, response, and damage assessment in Alabama and Mississippi, including the state waters within the Gulf of Mexico. A similar system already developed for the State of Louisiana provides oil spill managers with timely base maps and related database information to be used before, during, and after the occurrence of oil spills. Bill Language Defense-related activities.--The bill specifies that $341,000,000 of the total amount provided is for defense- related activities, $41,000,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000, and the same as the budget estimate. User fees.--The Committee continues the provision, first enacted in fiscal year 2000, precluding the Coast Guard from using funds to plan, finalize, or implement any new user fees unless legislation signed into law after the date of enactment of this Act specifically authorizes them. General Provision Vessel traffic safety fairway, Santa Barbara/San Francisco.--The bill continues as a general provision (Sec. 311) language that would prohibit funds to plan, finalize, or implement regulations that would establish a vessel traffic safety fairway less than five miles wide between the Santa Barbara traffic separation scheme and the San Francisco traffic separation scheme. On April 27, 1989, the Department published a notice of proposed rulemaking that would narrow the originally proposed five-mile-wide fairway to two one-mile-wide fairways separated by a two-mile-wide area where offshore oil rigs could be built if Lease Sale 119 goes forward. Under this revised proposal, vessels would be routed in close proximity to oil rigs because the two-mile-wide non-fairway corridor could contain drilling rigs at the edge of the fairways. The Committee is concerned that this rule, if implemented, could increase the threat of offshore oil accidents off the California coast. Accordingly, the bill continues the language prohibiting the implementation of this regulation. Acquisition, Construction, and Improvements Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $389,326,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 520,200,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 515,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +125,674,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -5,200,000 The bill includes $515,000,000 for the capital acquisition, construction, and improvement programs of the Coast Guard for vessels, aircraft, other equipment, shore facilities, and related administrative expenses, of which $20,000,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund. Consistent with past practice, the bill also includes language distributing the total appropriation by budget activity and providing separate obligation availabilities appropriate for the type of activity being performed. The Committee continues to believe that these obligation availabilities provide fiscal discipline and reduce long-term unobligated balances. budget justifications The Committee directs the Coast Guard to submit, with the fiscal year 2002 budget submission, a three-year funding profile for each AC&I project requested in the budget. The current budget justification listing includes only the budget year. Committee Recommendation The following table compares the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal year 2001 estimate, and the recommended level by program, project and activity: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Program Name ---------------------------------- Committee 2000 enacted 2001 estimate recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vessels...................................................... $134,560,000 $257,180,000 $252,640,000 Survey and design--cutters and boats..................... 500,000 500,000 500,000 Seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement................... 77,000,000 123,730,000 120,990,000 47-foot motor lifeboat (MLB) replacement project......... 24,360,000 ............... ............... Buoy boat replacement project (BUSL)..................... 5,000,000 ............... ............... Polar icebreaker--USCGC Healy............................ 1,900,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Configuration management................................. 3,700,000 3,600,000 3,600,000 Surface search radar replacement project................. 4,000,000 1.150,000 1,150,000 Polar class icebreaker reliability improvement program... 4,100,000 4,500,000 4,500,000 Barracuda coastal patrol boat (CPB)...................... 1,000,000 ............... ............... Mackinaw replacement..................................... 13,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000 87-Foot Patrol Boat (WPB) replacement.................... ............... 7,000,000 7,000,000 Alex Haley Conversion Project--Phase II.................. ............... 3,200,000 1,400,000 Over-The-Horizon Cutter Boats............................ ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000 Coast Guard Patrol Craft (WPC) Conversion Project........ ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000 Integrated deepwater systems program......................... 44,200,000 42,300,000 42,300,000 Aircraft..................................................... 44,210,000 43,650,000 43,650,00 HC-130 engine conversion................................. 1,100,000 ............... ............... HH-65A helicopter kapton rewiring........................ 3,360,000 ............... ............... HH-65A helicopter mission computer replacement........... 3,650,000 3,650,000 3,650,000 HH-65A engine control program............................ 7,000,000 ............... ............... HH-65 conversion, AIRFAC Southern Lake Michigan.......... 8,000,000 ............... ............... Long range search aircraft capability preservation....... 5,900,000 ............... ............... HU-25 A avionics improvements............................ 2,900,000 ............... ............... HH-60J navigation upgrade................................ 3,800,000 ............... ............... SLAR upgrade............................................. 2,500,000 ............... ............... C-130H oil debris detection/burnoff technology........... ............... ............... ............... HU-25 re-engining........................................ 6,000,000 ............... ............... HH-65 LTS-101 Engine Life Cycle Cost Reduction........... ............... 1,000,000 1,000,000 Aviation Simulator Modernization Project................. ............... 3,000,000 3,000,000 Coast Guard Cutter Healy Aviation Support................ ............... 36,000,000 36,000,000 Other Equipment.............................................. 51,626,000 60,313,000 60,113,000 Fleet logistics system................................... 6,000,000 5,500,000 5,500,000 Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS)................ 4,500,000 8,100,000 6,100,000 Marine information for safety and law enforcement (MISLE) 10,500,000 8,500,000 8,500,000 Aviation logistics management information system (ALMIS). 2,700,000 1,100,000 1,100,000 National distress system modernization................... 16,000,000 22,000,000 23,800,000 Personnel MIS/Jt uniform military pay system............. 4,400,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Local notice to mariners automation...................... ............... 600,000 600,000 Defense message system implementation.................... 3,477,000 2,471,000 2,471,000 Commercial satellite communications...................... 4,049,000 5,459,000 5,459,000 Human resources information system....................... ............... ............... ............... Loran-C continuation..................................... ............... ............... ............... Global Maritime Distress and Safety System (GMDSS)....... ............... 3,083,000 3,083,000 Search and Rescue Capabilities Enhancement Project....... ............... 1,500,000 1,500,000 Shore Facilities and Aids to Navigation...................... 63,800,000 61,606,000 61,606,000 Survey and design--shore projects........................ 6,000,000 7,000,000 7,000,000 Minor AC&I shore construction projects................... 6,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 Housing.................................................. 7,800,000 12,400,000 12,400,000 Waterways ATON projects.................................. 5,000,000 4,706,000 4,706,000 Air Station Kodiak, AK--renovate hangar.................. 8,300,000 8,200,000 8,200,000 Air Station Elizabeth City, NC--ramp improvements........ 3,800,000 ............... ............... Air Station Miami, FL--renovate fixed wing hangar........ 3,500,000 ............... ............... Coast Guard Academy, New London, CT--educ. Facilities.... 5,000,000 ............... ............... Base San Juan, PR--patrol boat maintenance facility...... 3,100,000 ............... ............... Station Shinnecock, NY--modernize........................ 3,500,000 ............... ............... MOS/Station Cleveland OH--relocate....................... 1,000,000 ............... ............... Drug interdiction assets--homeporting.................... 2,800,000 ............... ............... Unalaska, AK--pier....................................... 8,000,000 ............... ............... Transportation improvements--Coast Guard Island, Alameda, ............... 8,000,000 8,000,000 CA...................................................... Coast Guard MEC Waterfront Improvements--Portsmouth, VA.. ............... 2,400,000 2,400,000 Modernize Coast Guard Facilities--Phase 1--Cape May, NJ.. ............... 5,800,000 5,800,000 Rebuild Coast Guard Station, Port Huron, MI--Phase 1..... ............... 1,300,000 1,300,000 Modernize Air Station Port Angeles Hangar, Port Angeles, ............... 3,800,000 3,800,000 WA...................................................... Personnel and Related Support................................ 50,930,000 55,151,000 54,691,000 Direct personnel costs................................... 50,180,000 54,151,000 53,691,000 Core acquisition costs................................... 750,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total appropriation.................................... 389,326,000 520,200,000 515,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Vessels The Committee recommends $252,640,000 for vessels, an increase of $118,080,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and $4,540,000 below the administration's request. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below. Seagoing buoy tender replacement.--The Committee recommendation provides $120,990,000 for the seagoing buoy tender (WLB) replacement program, an increase of $43,990,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $2,740,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee bill anticipates that this funding level will be sufficient to acquire three WLBs, as proposed in the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints. Alex Haley conversion project, phase II.--The Committee recommends $1,400,000 for this project, a reduction of $1,800,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to budget constraints and the need to fund other high priority initiatives. Integrated deepwater systems program The Committee recommends $42,300,000 for the integrated deepwater systems program, the same as the budget estimate and $1,900,000 below the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2000. aircraft The Committee recommends $43,650,000 for aircraft, the same as the budget estimate and $560,000 less than the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. other equipment The Committee recommends $60,113,000 for other equipment, a reduction of $200,000 below the budget estimate and $8,487,000 above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. Specific adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below. Ports and waterways safety system (PAWSS).--The Committee recommendation allows a 35.5 percent increase in this program instead of the 80 percent increase requested. The Committee believes the expansion of this program to other ports can proceed at a slower pace given other high priority needs. National distress and response system (ND&RS) modernization.--The Committee recommends $23,800,000 for this program, an increase of $1,800,000 above the budget estimate and 48.8 percent above the level appropriated for fiscal year 2000. The increased funding is specifically for the Coast Guard to conduct a test of digital selective calling (DSC) technology and its impact on ND&RS system requirements. The Coast Guard should conduct this test expeditiously, in order to consider these important requirements without impacting the overall ND&RS program schedule. shore facilities and aids to navigation The Committee recommends $61,606,000 for shore facilities and aids to navigation, the same as the budget estimate and $2,194,000 below the amount appropriated for fiscal year 2000. This amount includes $12,400,000 for construction of Coast Guard family and unaccompanied personnel housing, an increase of almost 60 percent above fiscal year 2000. personnel and related support The Committee recommends $54,691,000 for personnel and related support, an increase of $3,761,000 (7.4 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000 and $460,000 below the administration's request. The reduction is due to higher budgetary priorities. Bill Language Capital investment plan.--The Committee is disappointed that the administration flagrantly violated a provision in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 which called for submission of a five- year capital investment plan no later than the date of initial submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The President's budget was initially submitted on February 7, 2000. As of the date of this report--three months later--the report has not been submitted. This has severely inhibited the Committee's review of Coast Guard capital programs during the budget process. The Committee does not request reports lightly, and this particular report should pose no unusual difficulties in research or administration. To provide a more effective mechanism for timely completion of this report next year, the bill includes a provision rescinding this appropriation by $100,000 per day for each day the report has not been submitted to the Congress after initial submission of the fiscal year 2002 President's budget. If this is not sufficient to compel adherence to the law, the Committee will consider taking stronger actions next year. A similar provision has been provided in the Federal Aviation Administration section of the bill. Disposal of real property.--The bill includes a provision crediting to this appropriation proceeds from the sale or lease of the Coast Guard's surplus real property, and provides that up to $10,000,000 of such receipts are available for obligation in fiscal year 2001, only for the national distress and response system (ND&RS) modernization project. The bill does not include proposed language which would have reduced the appropriation as asset sale receipts were credited. The Committee believes such language would provide a disincentive for timely disposal of unneeded assets. Navigation user fees.--The bill does not include proposed bill language regarding offsetting collections from new navigation user fees, contingent upon authorization by the Congress. These fees have not been authorized. Environmental Compliance and Restoration Appropriation, fiscal year 2000........................... $17,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001......................... 16,700,000 Recommended in the bill................................... 16,700,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... -300,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... ............ This appropriation assists in bringing Coast Guard facilities into compliance with applicable federal, state and environmental regulations; conducting facilities response plans; developing pollution and hazardous waste minimization strategies; conducting environmental assessments; and conducting necessary program support. These funds permit the continuation of a service-wide program to correct environmental problems, such as major improvements of storage tanks containing petroleum and regulated substances. The program focuses mainly on Coast Guard facilities, but also includes third party sites where Coast Guard activities have contributed to environmental problems. The recommended funding level of $16,700,000 is the same as the budget estimate and $300,000 below the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of the funds provided, $200,000 is only for asbestos removal activities at a former Coast Guard facility in Traverse City, Michigan. Alteration of Bridges Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $15,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... ................ Recommended in the bill............................... 14,740,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -260,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +14,740,000 The bill includes funding for alteration of bridges deemed a hazard to marine navigation pursuant to the Truman-Hobbs Act. The Committee does not agree with the approach of the administration that obstructive highway bridges and combination rail/highway bridges should be funded out of the Federal Highway Administration's discretionary bridge account, and notes that this proposal was not included in the TEA21 conference report. The purpose of altering these bridges is to improve the safety of marine navigation under the bridge, not to improve surface transportation on the bridge itself. Since in some cases, there are unsafe conditions on the waterway beneath a bridge which has an adequate surface or structural condition, Federal-aid highways funding is not appropriate to address the purpose of the Truman-Hobbs program. The Committee recommends $14,740,000 for four bridges. The Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $5,740,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, Georgia; $1,000,000 shall be allocated to the Fourteen Mile Bridge over the Mobile River in Mobile, Alabama; $3,000,000 shall be allocated to the Elgin, Joliet, and Eastern Bridge in Morris, Illinois; and $5,000,000 shall be allocated to the Florida Avenue railroad/highway combination bridge in New Orleans, Louisiana. These bridges have each received funding in prior years. Retired Pay Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $730,327,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 778,000,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 778,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +47,673,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. ................ This appropriation provides for the retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve. Also included are payments to members of the former Lighthouse Service and beneficiaries pursuant to the retired serviceman's family protection plan and survivor benefit plan, as well as payments for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act and 15 year career status bonus payments under the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2000. The bill provides $778,000,000, the same as the budget estimate and $47,673,000 (6.5 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. This is scored as a mandatory appropriation in the Congressional budget process. Reserve Training Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $72,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 73,371,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 80,375,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +8,375,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +7,004,000 This appropriation provides for the training of qualified individuals who are available for active duty in time of war or national emergency or to augment regular Coast Guard forces in the performance of peacetime missions. Program activities fall into the following categories: 1. Initial training.--The direct costs of initial training for three categories of non-prior service trainees. 2. Continued training.--The training of officer and enlisted personnel. 3. Operation and maintenance of training facilities.--The day-to-day operation and maintenance of reserve training facilities. 4. Administration.--All administrative costs of the reserve forces program. The bill includes $80,375,000 for reserve training. This will support a Selected Reserve level of 8,000, which is approximately the current level. The President's budget proposed to reduce the reserves to a level of 7,300. However, in this year's hearing, the Commandant stated, ``One of the concerns that I have, sir, is that the RT [Reserve Training] appropriation appears to fund only 7,300 reserves for the year. We have recruited to an 8,000 point, and I would like very much to stay there. So my concern is that there is about a $7,000,000 shortfall in the reserve training appropriation, and I would ask you to take note of that.'' The Committee has taken note, and agrees with the Commandant that the reserves should not be reduced. Reimbursement to ``Operating expenses''.--The recommendation continues a provision which limits to $21,500,000 the amount of ``Reserve training'' funds which may be transferred to ``Operating expenses''. Given the small size of the reserve training appropriation, the Committee wants to ensure the reserves are not assessed excessive charge-backs to the Coast Guard operating budget. The bill also maintains the provision relating to the assessment of ``direct charges'' which were not in effect during fiscal year 1997. Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $19,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 21,320,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 19,691,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +691,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -1,629,000 The bill includes $19,691,000 for applied scientific research and development, test and evaluation projects necessary to maintain and expand the technology required for the Coast Guard's operational and regulatory missions. Of this amount, $3,500,000 is to be derived from the oil spill liability trust fund, as requested in the budget estimate. This is $691,000 (3.6 percent) above the amount provided for fiscal year 2000. The reduction is due to budget constraints. The Committee believes that some of this work can be appropriately conducted under the operating account. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is responsible for the safety and development of civil aviation and the evolution of a national system of airports. Most of the activities of the FAA will be funded with direct appropriations in fiscal year 2001. The grants-in-aid for airports program, however, will be financed under contract authority with the program level established by a limitation on obligations contained in the accompanying bill. The bill assumes continuation of the aviation ticket tax and other related aviation excise taxes throughout fiscal year 2001 and assumes no new user fees. The recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2001 totals $12,585,366,000, including a $3,200,000,000 limitation on the use of contract authority. This is $2,503,871,000 (24.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $1,363,765,000 (12.2 percent) above the President's request. Since submission of the President's budget estimate, Public Law 106-181 was enacted, authorizing and guaranteeing higher appropriations than contemplated in the President's budget. This bill complies with the guaranteed funding levels of P.L. 106-181. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests, and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Program -------------------------------------------------------- 2000 enacted \1\ 2001 estimate 2001 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Operations............................................. $5,900,000,000 $6,592,235,000 $6,544,235,000 Facilities and equipment............................... 2,075,000,000 2,495,000,000 2,656,765,000 Research, engineering and development.................. 156,495,000 184,366,000 184,366,000 Grants-in-aid for airports (AIP) \2\................... 1,950,000,000 1,950,000,000 3,200,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- Total............................................ 10,081,495,000 11,221,601,000 12,585,366,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes $84,362,000 in rescissions and across-the-board reductions. \2\ Limitation on obligations from contract authority. Operations (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $5,900,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 6,592,235,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 6,544,235,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +644,235,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. -48,000,000 This appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistical support of the air traffic control and air navigation systems. It also covers administrative and managerial costs for the FAA's regulatory, airports, medical, engineering and development programs. The operations appropriation includes the following major activities: (1) operation on a 24-hour daily basis of a national air traffic system; (2) establishment and maintenance of a national system of aids to navigation; (3) establishment and surveillance of civil air regulations to assure safety in aviation; (4) development of standards, rules and regulations governing the physical fitness of airmen as well as the administration of an aviation medical research program; (5) administration of the acquisition, research and development programs; (6) administration of the civil aviation security program; (7) headquarters, administration and other staff offices; and (8) development, printing, and distribution of aeronautical charts used by the flying public. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $6,544,235,000 for FAA operations, an increase of $644,235,000 (10.9 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The recommended level compares to $6,592,235,000 in the President's budget request. A breakdown of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation by budget activity is as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- Budget Activity -------------------------------------------------------- 2000 enacted 2001 estimate 2001 recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Air traffic services................................... $4,666,766,000 $5,210,434,000 $5,183,177,000 Aviation regulation & certification.................... 667,416,000 691,979,000 694,979,000 Civil aviation security................................ 138,642,000 144,328,000 144,328,000 Research and acquisition............................... 168,305,000 196,497,000 189,988,000 Commercial space transportation........................ 6,838,000 12,607,000 12,607,000 Financial Services..................................... 42,054,000 ................. 48,707,000 Human Resources........................................ 48,736,000 ................. 58,364,000 Regional Coordination.................................. 97,831,000 ................. 99,347,000 Staff offices.......................................... 78,789,000 336,390,000 112,738,000 Account-wide adjustments............................... -15,377,000 ................. ................. Total............................................ 5,900,000,000 6,592,235,000 6,544,235,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- User Fees The bill assumes the collection of no additional user fees in fiscal year 2001 that were not Congressionally authorized for collection during fiscal year 2000. The FAA estimates that $22,100,000 in overflight user fees will be collected during fiscal year 2001. However, these funds will not be available to augment the FAA's budget, since under current law, these receipts must be transferred to the Office of the Secretary for the Essential Air Service and Rural Airports program. Should the FAA experience a shortfall in overflight fee collections necessitating a transfer of FAA budgetary resources to the EAS program during fiscal year 2001, the Committee directs that those transfer resources be derived from unobligated balances of the F&E appropriation. trust fund share of faa budget The bill derives $4,403,869,000 of the total appropriation from the airport and airway trust fund, consistent with current law. The balance of the appropriation ($2,140,366,000) will be drawn from the general fund of the Treasury. The Committee's specific recommendations by budget activity are discussed below. Air Traffic Services The Committee recommends $5,183,177,000 for air traffic services, an increase of $516,411,000 (11.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. As the following chart indicates, this is well above the estimated increase in FAA's air traffic workload for fiscal year 2001.Changes to the budget estimate are as follows: Contract security guard services........................ -$1,725,000 ADTN 2000 (telecommunications).......................... -5,000,000 NADIN (telecommunications).............................. -1,750,000 FTS 2001 (telecommunications)........................... -3,550,000 LINCS (telecommunications).............................. -6,295,000 PCS maintenance personnel............................... -1,000,000 Regional administrative telecommunications.............. -7,948,000 Infrastructure maintenance.............................. -7,739,000 Centennial of Flight Commission......................... +750,000 Contract tower cost sharing............................. +5,000,000 MARC.................................................... +2,000,000 RTCA support.--The Radio Technical Commission for Aeronautics (RTCA, Inc.) serves as a ``utilized'' federal advisory committee subject to the legal requirements and oversight of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Many years ago, Congress enacted the Advisory Committee Act to bring about more oversight, openness, and accountability for advisory committees. RTCA is unusual among federal advisory committees, since it is one of only two ``utilized'' advisory committees, and since a primary source of funding is the dues paid largely by industry members. Last year, Congress directed the Office of Inspector General to conduct a review of the FAA's arrangement with RTCA, to determine whether procedures were adequate to ensure openness, a balance of viewpoints, and an ``arms length'' relationship with industry. The Inspector General's review, recently completed, raises a number of serious concerns which require attention of the FAA. The Inspector General found that FAA's presence at RTCA meetings is so extensive that there is an appearance the agency is providing advice to itself. The Committee agrees with the IG that FAA must take steps to reduce its participation in the RTCA Policy Board, the Free Flight Steering Committee, and related working groups and task forces. Secondly, FAA needs to establish procedures to ensure that potential conflicts of interest are identified, as recommended by the IG. Thirdly, FAA needs to take steps to open the activities of the Free Flight committees and working groups, to provide more open and documented information on the deliberations of these important groups and to reduce the perception that companies represented on Free Flight panels are gaining a competitive advantage over those not represented. Fourthly, the FAA should discontinue using RTCA for coordination or review of safety and certification issues, which are inherently governmental. The Committee is pleased that the OIG affirmed the valuable contribution of RTCA to air traffic control modernization, and believes that these necessary changes in the FAA-RTCA advisory committee relationship will make that contribution even more valuable. Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested $268,363,000 for new program initiatives or expanded programs in air traffic services. While providing the full amount of base funding, the Committee bill provides $233,256,000 for new initiatives, a reduction of $35,007,000 from the budget estimate. Even with the reduction, in each of these cases more funding is provided than is available for the current year, and in some cases, very significant increases are provided. The Committee believes such a high rate of growth in these administrative programs and activities can be deferred without impacting the agency's ability to meet its critical missions. A comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the President's budget request, and the Committee recommendation for those programs reduced is shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- ------------------------------------------------------ Activity 2000 Change to enacted 2001 2001 budget level estimate recommended estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contract security guard services......................... ........... $6,725,000 $5,000,000 -$1,725,000 ADTN 2000................................................ $13,510,000 24,248,000 19,248,000 -5,000,000 NADIN.................................................... 1,334,000 4,715,000 2,965,000 -1,750,000 FTS 2001................................................. ........... 8,550,000 5,000,000 -3,550,000 LINCS.................................................... 75,846,000 84,641,000 78,346,000 -6,295,000 Permanent change of station--maintenance personnel....... 6,650,000 10,650,000 9,650,000 -1,000,000 Regional administrative telecommunications............... 10,900,000 22,848,000 14,900,000 -7,948,000 Infrastructure maintenance............................... 8,843,000 26,843,000 19,104,000 -7,739,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- MARC.--The bill includes $2,000,000 to continue operating support for the Mid-America Aviation Resource Consortium (MARC) in Minnesota. This program has been funded for many years. Inclusion of Boca Raton, Florida in the contract tower program.--The Committee bill recommends $5,000,000 above the budget estimate for the contract tower cost-sharing program. The Committee understands that, based on FAA analysis, the Boca Raton Airport in Florida is eligible, and should receive consideration, for inclusion in the contract tower program in fiscal year 2001. Centennial of Flight Commission.--The bill includes $750,000 for continued activities of the Centennial of Flight Commission. Runway incursions.--The Committee continues to be disturbed over the excessive number of runway incursions at our nation's airports. At the Committee's urging, the FAA this year announced a National Summit on Runway Incursions, to be held this summer. The summit is being preceded by a series of workshops, in each FAA region, where experts focus on the unique characteristics of airports and air traffic to come up with individualized plans of action. The summit will integrate these local plans into a unified plan of national action. The Committee is also pleased that FAA has requested increased funding for runway incursion prevention systems in the fiscal year 2001 budget. The Committee bill goes even further by including the following initiatives: (1) providing additional funding for production of low-cost ASDE systems and directing FAA to accelerate the program; and (2) making AIP funds eligible for runway prevention systems and devices, and directing FAA to give such grant requests the highest priority for discretionary funding. The Committee also believes that FAA has not adequately utilized the runway incursion expertise and services of the NASA Langley Research Center, and directs the FAA to more fully utilize that center in addressing the runway incursion problem. Airspace redesign.--The Committee directs the FAA to spend $5,800,000 to further the redesign of the New Jersey/New York metropolitan airspace. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to complete the New Jersey/New York airspace redesign in an expeditious manner. Aviation Regulation And Certification The Committee recommends $694,979,000 for aviation regulation and certification, $3,000,000 above the budget request and an increase of $27,563,000 (4.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Training initiative.--The bill includes $3,000,000 for implementation of the safety and security training program developed by the George Washington University/Virginia Campus Aviation Institute and the George Mason University Institute for Public Policy. This program, recommended for funding last year by the Committee, will prepare the workforce for careers in aviation safety and security management and will train civil aviation personnel in category II and category III countries, as rated by FAA's International Aviation Safety Assessment (IASA) program, to assist in raising the country's safety level to category I. Aviation safety program.--FAA's flight standards service conducts a program known as the aviation safety program (ASP), which produces and distributes safety educational programs and materials for general aviation pilots. Since the large majority of aviation accidents in this country are general aviation accidents, the Committee believes this is a valuable program and should not be reduced in funding below the fiscal year 2000 level. Civil Aviation Security The Committee recommends $144,328,000 for civil aviation security, the same as the budget estimate and an increase of $5,686,000 (4.1 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The Committee is extremely disappointed over management issues which continue to plague the civil aviation security program. Many of these issues have been unresolved for some time. For example: --Although FAA has paid for, and assisted in, the deployment of advanced security technologies such as explosive detection systems (EDS) and computer-based training aids, the agency continues to allow industry to underutilize these systems with impunity. Even though Congress required air carriers to certify in fiscal year 1999 that usage rates were being increased, the IG found that the increases in that year were largely insignificant, and that bulk EDS systems are still taking a full day to screen as many bags as these machines are capable of screening in an hour. This low utilization rate affects the proficiency of screeners, who continue to have high failure rates in FAA tests. --In response to Congressional and departmental criticism that EDS systems were underutilized, FAA agreed in 1998 to conduct a study to determine the minimum utilization rates needed to maintain operator proficiency. However, the study was never conducted. --Although recommended by the Gore Commission and mandated by Congress in 1996, FAA has still not promulgated a rule requiring the certification of baggage screening companies. --FAA has not modified its background investigation requirements for access to secure airport areas, even though access control has been a major problem at our nation's airports; and FAA has failed to develop a strategic plan for pursuit of its civil aviation security program, even though the Inspector General recommended such a plan in 1998. The Committee has provided substantial budgetary increases for FAA's civil aviation security program over the past few years, and is unsure whether these additional resources are paying off in significantly improved security. The Committee is reluctant to reduce these appropriations, but expects the FAA to address the recommendations of the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office expeditiously. Certification of baggage screening firms.--The Committee reiterates to the FAA that improvements in the performance of baggage screening personnel are seriously needed at our nation's airports. The agency's continued delay in promulgation of a final rule requiring the certification of baggage screening companies allows these serious security weaknesses to continue. This rule was recommended by the Gore Commission over 3\1/2\ years ago and subsequently mandated by Congress in Public Law 104-264. Testimony over many years has discussed the high turnover rates, low pay, and inadequate training which lead to the inadequate performance all too often seen. Although Congress directed FAA to expedite this rulemaking last year, to the Committee's disappointment, the agency did not do so. A final rule is now expected during fiscal year 2001. Research And Acquisition The Committee recommends $189,988,000 for research and acquisition, a reduction of $6,509,000 below the budget request and $21,683,000 (12.9 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. This activity finances the planning, management, and coordination of FAA's research and acquisition programs. Next generation e-mail.--The Committee recommends $6,082,000 for upgrades to the FAA's e-mail systems, an increase of $5,000,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, but $5,000,000 below the budget estimate. The Committee believes a smaller rate of growth for administrative activities will be sufficient for next year. Telecommunications bandwidth.--The Committee defers the $1,509,000 requested for upgrades to the bandwidth of certain telecommunications systems. The Committee believes this can be deferred without substantial impact on the agency's mission. Commercial Space Transportation The Committee recommends $12,607,000 for the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST), the same as the budget request and $5,769,000 (84.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Financial Services The Committee recommends $48,707,000 for financial services, an increase of $6,653,000 (15.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $14,556,000 below the budget estimate. Reductions to growth.--The President's budget requested significant funding for new program initiatives or expanded programs in financial services under ``staff offices''. While providing the full amount of base funding, the Committee bill provides a lesser amount for new initiatives. These reductions are due to budget constraints. Even with the reduction, in all but one of these cases significantly more funding is provided than is available for the current year. The Committee believes a higher rate of growth in these administrative programs and activities can be deferred without impacting the agency's ability to meet its critical missions. A comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the President's budget request, and the Committee recommendation for those programs reduced is shown below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year-- --------------------------------------------------------------- Activity Change to 2000 enacted 2001 estimate 2001 budget level recommended estimate ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DELPHI implementation........................... $100,000 $10,800,000 $3,800,000 -$7,000,000 Cost accounting system.......................... 1,296,000 8,296,000 6,296,000 -2,000,000 Asset management................................ 2,516,000 8,072,000 2,516,000 -5,556,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Human Resources The Committee recommends $58,364,000 for human resources, $2,000,000 below the budget estimate and $9,628,000 (19.8 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The recommendation provides $4,314,000 for replacement of the integrated personnel and payroll system (IPPS), a reduction of $2,000,000 below the budget estimate. The amount provided is still a large increase above the $50,000 provided for this activity in fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes a smaller rate of growth will be sufficient, given the need to fund other priorities. The President's budget requested these funds under ``Staff offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting approach enacted in fiscal year 2000. Consistent with other recommendations in the bill, none of the funding under this appropriation may be used to continue the Garrett Morgan Transportation Futures Program. Regional Coordination The Committee recommends $99,347,000 for regional coordination, the same as the budget estimate and $1,516,000 (1.5 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The President's budget requested these funds under ``Staff offices''. The Committee bill maintains the budgeting approach enacted in fiscal year 2000. Staff Offices The Committee recommends $112,738,000 for staff offices, which is $678,000 below the level requested for comparable activities, and $33,949,000 (43.1 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000. Office of chief counsel.--The Committee deletes the $453,000 requested to increase staffing in this office. The Committee believes the existing staffing level is sufficient to handle high priority activities. Employee development.--The Committee deletes the $225,000 requested for additional employee development activities. The Committee believes the existing level of funding is adequate. English language proficiency.--The Committee continues to strongly support the activities of FAA, the Department of State, and the International Civil Aviation Organization at improving the English language proficiency of foreign flightcrews and air traffic controllers around the globe. The FAA is encouraged to advise the Committee promptly if funding concerns arise in this program during fiscal year 2001. International Civil Aviation Organization support.--Section 103(a) of Public Law 106-181 authorizes $9,100,000 in FAA payments for U.S. membership obligations in the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). While the Committee is unable to provide a specific appropriation for this purpose, the Committee continues to support FAA's involvement and participation in ICAO activities, and encourages the agency to identify additional resources for ICAO during the coming fiscal year. Bill Language Manned auxiliary flight service stations.--The Committee bill includes the limitation requested in the President's budget prohibiting funds from being used to operate a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. The FAA budget includes no funding to operate such stations during fiscal year 2001. Second career training program.--Once again this year, the Committee bill includes a prohibition on the use of funds for the second career training program. This prohibition has been in annual appropriations Acts for many years, and is included in the President's budget request. Sunday premium pay.--The bill retains a provision begun in fiscal year 1995 which prohibits the FAA from paying Sunday premium pay except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. The statute governing Sunday premium pay (5 U.S.C. 5546(a)) is very clear: ``An employee who performs work during a regularly scheduled 8-hour period of service which is not overtime work as defined by section 5542(a) of this title a part of which is performed on Sunday is entitled to * * * premium pay at a rate equal to 25 percent of his rate of basic pay.'' Disregarding the plain meaning of the statute and previous Comptroller General decisions, however, in Armitage v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court held in 1993 that employees need not actually perform work on a Sunday to receive premium pay. The FAA was required immediately to provide back pay totaling $37,000,000 for time scheduled but not actually worked between November 1986 and July 1993. Without this provision, the FAA would be liable for significant unfunded liabilities, to be financed by the agency's annual operating budget. This provision is identical to that in effect for fiscal years 1995 through 2000, and as requested by the administration in the fiscal year 2001 President's budget. O'Hare Airport slot management.--The bill does not include the general provision enacted beginning in fiscal year 1995 related to slot allocations for international operations at O'Hare Airport. The comprehensive amendments to the slot rules in Public Law 106-181 supercede this limitation. Restriction on multiyear leases.--The bill maintains a restriction on multiyear leases as enacted in fiscal year 2000. Aeronautical charting and cartography.--The bill includes a provision which prohibits funds in this Act from being used to conduct aeronautical charting and cartography (AC&C) activities through the transportation administrative services center (TASC). Public Law 106-181 authorizes the transfer of these activities from the Department of Commerce to the FAA, a move which the Committee supports. The Committee believes this work should be conducted by the FAA, and not administratively delegated to the TASC. Facilities and Equipment (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $2,075,000,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 2,495,000,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 2,656,765,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +581,765,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. +161,765,000 The Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account is the principal means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airway facilities. The appropriation also finances major capital investments required by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends an appropriation of $2,656,765,000 for this program, an increase of $581,765,000 (28 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000 and $161,765,000 above the budget estimate. The amount proposed is required by Public Law 106-181. The bill provides that of the total amount recommended, $2,334,112,400 is available for obligation until September 30, 2003, and $322,652,600 (the amount for personnel and related expenses) is available until September 30, 2001. These obligation availabilities are consistent with past appropriations Acts and the same as the budget request. The bill does not include the requested advance appropriations, because the administration has done little to justify the requirement and because many of the systems are still in development, where advance appropriations are inappropriate. The following table shows the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate and the Committee recommendation for each of the projects funded by this appropriation:
Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation The Committee recommends $655,833,500 for engineering, development, test and evaluation. Adjustments to the budget request are explained below. Free flight phase one.--The Committee recommends $173,800,000 for continued development of free flight phase one technologies. This is $3,000,000 above the budget estimate. The bill includes $3,000,000 to implement the departure spacing program (DSP) in support of Dulles International Airport, Virginia. Last year, $2,000,000 was provided for DSP under this program. A comparison of the fiscal year 2000 enacted, the President's budget, and the recommended levels is as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Project Fiscal year Fiscal year 2001 2000 enacted 2001 budget recommended ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- User request evaluation tool (URET)............................. $79,000,000 $87,600,000 $87,600,000 Center/tracon automation system (CTAS).......................... .............. 57,900,000 57,900,000 Traffic management advisor (TMA)/passive final approach spacing 59,825,000 .............. .............. tool (pFAST)................................................... Collaborative decision-making................................... 29,400,000 13,800,000 13,800,000 Surface movement advisor........................................ 4,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 Free flight phase one integration............................... 5,400,000 8,600,000 8,600,000 Departure spacing program....................................... 2,000,000 .............. 3,000,000 Independent operational test and evaluation..................... .............. 900,000 900,000 ----------------------------------------------- Total..................................................... 179,625,000 170,800,000 173,800,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free flight phase two.--While remaining strongly supportive of free flight phase one, the Committee cannot support such a large expansion of this program to additional sites in fiscal year 2001. FAA budget justifications indicate that several critical development milestones are yet to be reached in this program. A program expansion of the magnitude proposed would result in unnecessary technical and cost risk, jeopardizing the successful completion of program milestones. The Committee notes that the agency has had problems in past years with excessive concurrency between development and implementation, and recommends that the expansion proceed at a slower pace. The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program. Advanced technology development and prototyping.--The Committee recommendation of $50,000,000 includes $40,620,000 for items in the President's budget request a reduction of $228,000, $7,380,000 for airport-related research which was proposed for funding under the ``Grants-in-aid for airports'' program, and $2,000,000 for the airfield pavement improvement program authorized under section 905 of Public Law 106-181. Oceanic automation program.--The bill provides $75,000,000 for this program, which is $23,030,000 above the budget estimate. The additional funding is necessary to accelerate this important program, which has already experienced significant delay. Local area augmentation system (LAAS).--The Committee recommends $31,000,000 for continued development of the local area augmentation system (LAAS). This is $21,700,000 above the budget estimate. The Committee believes this is a critical new technology and should be accelerated. Wide area augmentation system (WAAS).--The Committee recommends total funding of $75,000,000 for continued research into, and development of, the wide area augmentation system (WAAS). The FAA requested $111,000,000 for this program. However, since submission of the budget request, this program experienced additional technical difficulties. While no formal budget amendment has been submitted, the FAA has acknowledged that a lower level of funding will be adequate. The Committee believes the FAA will require no more than $75,000,000 for this program next year, and has provided that amount in the bill. Evidence to date indicates that much of this funding will be used by university researchers and personnel at national laboratories to conduct research into the basic principles of this technology and to help determine what ultimate requirements are possible. Procurement of Air Traffic Control Facilities and Equipment The bill includes $1,172,796,294 for the procurement of air traffic control facilities and equipment. En route communications and control facilities improvement.--The Committee recommends $7,631,000 for this program, compared to the budget estimate of $5,031,606. Of the amount provided, $3,200,000 is only for relocation of RTR-A and RTR-D systems at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in Missouri. Airport surface detection equipment.--The Committee recommends $4,000,000, an increase of $2,500,000 above the budget estimate. Of the additional funding, $500,000 is only for FAA to conduct a test and evaluation of roll ring technology for the current ASDE radar system. The Committee is aware of the unique capabilities and qualities of new roll ring technology for ASDE radar systems. The current ASDE antenna system uses slip rings--rotating bearings through which electrical current passes. This technology requires periodic maintenance, during which time the radar system is out of service. New technology roll rings, by contrast, are virtually maintenance free, which would reduce FAA operating costs and allow for uninterrupted usage of ASDE and AMASS. The Committee directs FAA to use these additional funds to conduct a side-by- side evaluation of roll rings and slip rings. Evaluation testing shall be conducted in an apparatus with an accelerated rotation rate, in order to verify specified operating life within a test period of five months. The tests shall apply full electrical current and voltage of the ASDE-3 specifications to all channels of the slip ring and roll ring continuously and provide measurements of performance, including torque and electrical resistance and noise of each circuit. No maintenance or parts replacement of the slip ring or roll ring shall be performed during the test period. The FAA shall provide the results of this testing to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than March 1, 2001. The remaining $2,000,000 of the increase is for ASDE-3 issues at Washington Reagan National Airport, as discussed below. Runway incursion technology, Washington Reagan National Airport, VA.--The Committee is very concerned to learn of potentially lengthy delays in commissioning of the ASDE-3 and AMASS runway safety systems at Washington Reagan National Airport in Virginia. Last year, the FAA expected to commission the ASDE-3 in November 1999 and the AMASS in March 2000 at this airport. Currently, the agency has no schedule estimate due to recently-discovered radar difficulties. Especially given the high volume and complexity of traffic at this airport, the prevention of runway incursions must remain a high priority. The FAA is directed to address this situation as soon as possible, and to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than August 31, 2000 detailing the problem, the proposed resolution, and a corresponding program schedule leading to system commissioning at the earliest possible date. The bill includes $2,000,000 to address this problem. Airport surface detection equipment-X (ASDE-X).--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for this program, an increase of $6,600,000 above the budget estimate and $7,400,000 above the level provided last year. The Committee directs that these funds be used only for one or more contracts, on a firm fixed- price basis, to procure at least 10 systems involving multilateration technology which can be delivered, installed, and commissioned by September 30, 2002. The Committee believes FAA's proposed schedule is excessive, especially given the seriousness of the runway incursion problem in the United States. Terminal voice switch replacement.--The Committee recommends $15,000,000, an increase of $10,000,000 above the budget estimate and $4,100,000 above the level provided for fiscal year 2000. The Committee believes this is a critically needed upgrade worthy of acceleration. Potomac metroplex.--The Committee recommends $32,100,000 for this program. Airport surveillance radar.--The Committee recommends $11,122,000, an increase of $6,400,000 above the budget estimate. Of the funds provided, $4,000,000 is specifically for a transportable/shelterized ASR-9 radar system with a co- mounted integrated monopulse secondary surveillance radar for Palm Springs Regional Airport, California. The Committee notes the serious radar coverage problems which have been experienced at Palm Springs, and the unacceptably long schedule of FAA's current proposal to resolve the issue. The Committee believes the ASR-9/MSSR system, as proposed by the prime contractor, will provide the best near-term solution to this critical problem. Cherry Capital Airport, Michigan.--The Committee is concerned about the effect of ``lake effect'' weather on the ability of air traffic controllers to manage air traffic at the Cherry Capital Airport in Traverse City, Michigan, and urges the FAA administrator to reassess the airport's air traffic control needs with regard to an upgraded radar system. Control tower/Tracon facilities improvement.--The $1,500,000 added to this program is to continue the cable loop relocation project at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport in Missouri. In addition, $2,400,000 of the funding is provided only for removal and relocation of the existing ASR-9 radar at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. Terminal air traffic control facilities replacement.--The Committee recommends $140,000,000 for this program, an increase of $61,100,000 above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and $35,000,000 above the budget estimate. These funds are to be distributed as follows: Location Amount Vero Beach, FL.......................................... $5,200,000 Albert Whitted, FL...................................... 75,000 Dayton International, OH................................ 4,725,000 WK Kellogg, MI.......................................... 3,000,000 Sky Harbor, AZ.......................................... 10,000,000 Cleveland, OH........................................... 4,000,000 Richmond, VA............................................ 5,767,500 Martin State, MD........................................ 2,000,000 Stewart Airport, Newburgh, NY........................... 1,000,000 Oakland, CA............................................. 25,912,347 LaGuardia, NY........................................... 25,440,000 Boston, MA.............................................. 24,944,308 Savannah, GA............................................ 7,741,015 Topeka, KS.............................................. 4,361,840 St. Louis, MO........................................... 3,317,000 Newark, NJ.............................................. 2,407,500 Roanoke, VA............................................. 2,140,000 Birmingham, AL.......................................... 1,359,540 Pt. Columbus, OH........................................ 1,000,000 Wilkes Barre, PA........................................ 959,200 Houston Hobby, TX....................................... 818,550 Champaign, IL........................................... 749,000 Little Rock, AR......................................... 642,000 Bedford, MA............................................. 535,000 Merrill Field, AK....................................... 321,000 Wilmington, DE.......................................... 305,000 Salina, KS.............................................. 267,500 N. Las Vegas, NV........................................ 214,000 Orlando, FL............................................. 177,900 Atlanta, GA............................................. 167,900 Chantilly, VA........................................... 75,000 Gulfport, MS............................................ 75,000 Kalamazoo, MI........................................... 75,000 Deer Valley, AZ......................................... 75,000 Broomfield, CO.......................................... 75,000 Miami, FL............................................... 51,900 Seattle, WA............................................. 25,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 140,000,000 Terminal digital radar (ASR-11).--The Committee recommends $69,690,000 for continued production of the digital airport surveillance radar system (ASR-11). This is a reduction of $38,560,000 from the budget estimate. Through fiscal year 2000, FAA has financed the procurement of 18 radars, and the fiscal year 2001 budget requested funds for an additional 16 systems. Air Force operational tests completed in February 2000 indicated several serious development problems with the ASR-11 system. Problems included generation of false weather cells, loss of aircraft detection capability close to the airport, and a shortfall in computer processor capability which would limit the system's ability to handle future requirements. The Air Force Operational Test and Evaluation Center recommended that these deficiencies be corrected prior to the fielding of low initial production units. Congress appropriated $76,100,000 for the production of 13 systems in fiscal year 2000. The delivery, testing, and commissioning of these systems is likely to experience significant delay because of the current problems. The Committee does not believe that further low rate production is justified until the development issues are resolved. Automated observation of visibility for cloud height and cloud coverage (AOVCC).--To address the issues of weather- related accidents at airports, the Committee believes it is critical to upgrade the existing automated weather information programs. Therefore, the conferees expect FAA to implement product improvements and upgrades to the current systems and to report to Congress on the agency's plans to accelerate the deployment of upgrade technology upon successful demonstration of the automated observation of visibility for cloud height and cloud coverage (AOVCC) system. Instrument landing systems establishment.--The Committee recommends $62,000,000, to be distributed as follows: Location Amount Items included in budget................................ $16,000,000 National replacement program (I/II/III)................. 25,000,000 Lonesome Pine Airport, VA............................... 1,000,000 Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA............................... 855,000 Lafayette Regional Airport, LA.......................... 1,000,000 Statesboro-Bulloch County Airport, GA................... 1,797,000 Buffalo Niagara International, NY (ILS/MALSR)........... 3,848,000 Searcy Airport, AR...................................... 2,000,000 Dulles International, VA (DME).......................... 300,000 Wichita MidContinent Airport, KS........................ 1,100,000 Colonel James Jabara Airport, KS........................ 1,100,000 Cleveland Hopkins International, OH..................... 6,000,000 Orlando International, FL (install category III)........ 2,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 62,000,000 Transponder landing system.--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for acquisition and installation of transponder landing systems at Leesburg Executive Airport, Virginia; Hayward Municipal Airport, Wisconsin; Ely Municipal Airport, Minnesota; and Grand Marais Municipal Airport in Minnesota. Runway visual range (RVR).--The Committee recommends $9,000,000, including $6,000,000 for continued acquisition of a next generation runway visual range system. The budget request included $3,000,000 for RVR installations. Approach lighting system improvement program (ALSIP).-- The Committee recommends $26,100,000, to be distributed as follows: Location Amount Items included in budget................................ $1,040,000 ALSF-2 acquisition...................................... 9,575,000 MALSR acquisition....................................... 3,500,000 ALSIP Newport & North Bend, OR.......................... 4,000,000 ALSF-2 Cleveland International, OH...................... 3,000,000 MALSR Starkville, MS.................................... 560,000 MALSR, Millington Airport, TN........................... 425,000 MALS Salt Lake City, UT (installation runway 34L)....... 3,000,000 MALSR/REIL, Monroe Municipal, Union County, NC.......... 1,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................... 26,100,000 Precision approach path indicators (PAPI).--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for acquisition of additional precision approach path indicators (PAPI), including $600,000 for a PAPI system at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport in Ohio. Loran-C upgrade and modernization.--The Committee recommends $25,000,000 for this program, an increase of $5,000,000 above the budget estimate. In recent years, the Committee has taken numerous actions and provided sustantial new resources for Loran-C system improvements. The Committee continues to believe that Loran is a well-proven, cost- effective technology. ANICS.--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for continuation of the Alaskan NAS interfacility communication system (ANICS), which is $2,500,000 above the budget estimate. Procurement of Non-ATC Facilities and Equipment The Committee recommends $240,852,606 for the acquisition of non-air traffic control facilities and equipment. Explosive detection systems.--The Committee recommends $136,417,606 for this program. A comparison of the Committee recommendation to the budget estimate is as follows: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 2001 budget Committee Activity estimate recommended ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Bulk EDS systems.................... $31,200,000 $57,100,000 Trace detection systems............. 15,200,000 20,000,000 Threat image projection (TIP) 25,320,000 25,320,000 systems............................ Threat containment units............ 750,000 ................ Computer-based training (CBT) ................ 8,000,000 systems............................ System integration.................. 25,030,000 25,997,606 ----------------------------------- Total......................... 97,500,000 136,417,606 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The Committee is very disappointed at FAA's lack of progress in improving airport security through the utilization of advanced technology. Since fiscal year 1997, Congress has appropriated over $550,000,000 in research and acquisition funds for advanced explosive detection systems. Despite the abundance of funding, recent testimony of the DOT Inspector General highlighted a number of weaknesses in FAA's management of this effort. FAA is directed to address expeditiously the recommendations of the Inspector General. In addition, the Committee is concerned that FAA has not been successful at developing a viable second source for the acquisition of bulk EDS systems, several years after the program was initiated. The Committee believes that competition among vendors is critical for minimizing government costs and lowering technical risk. FAA's lack of enthusiasm for second source development continues to be disappointing to the Committee. If the air carrier industry continues to underutilize these systems, and costs remain high due to lack of a second source, the continued viability of this program may be threatened. Mission Support The recommendation provides $264,630,000 for mission support activities. Funding of $222,500,000 was provided in fiscal year 2000. Adjustments to the budget estimate are explained below. FAA systems architecture.--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this program, the same level as enacted for fiscal year 2000, and a reduction of $2,534,000 from the budget estimate. The Committee does not believe this program is sufficiently justified or of high enough priority to merit expansion. Center for advanced aviation system development.--The Committee recommends $67,000,000 for the center for advanced aviation system development (CAASD) at the Mitre Corporation. This is a 10 percent increase above the level provided for fiscal year 2001. CAASD provides valuable and broad-based support for the F&E program. Since the F&E appropriation increases 28.6 percent in this bill, the Committee believes additional resources are required for CAASD as well. The President's budget proposed $63,400,000, an increase of 3.8 percent. Personnel and Related Expenses The recommendation provides $322,652,600, an increase of $27,652,600 (9.4 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the budget estimate. This appropriation finances the installation and commissioning of new equipment and modernization of FAA facilities. Capital Investment Plan The Committee is disappointed that the administration flagrantly violated a provision in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 which called for submission of a five-year capital investment plan no later than the date of initial submission of the President's fiscal year 2001 budget. The President's budget was initially submitted on February 7, 2000. As of the date of this report--three months later--the report has not been submitted. This has severely inhibited the Committee's review of FAA capital programs during the budget process. The Committee does not request reports lightly, and this particular report should pose no unusual difficulties in research or administration. To provide a more effective mechanism for timely completion of this report next year, the bill includes a provision rescinding this appropriation by $100,000 per day for each day the report has not been submitted to the Congress after initial submission of the fiscal year 2002 President's budget. If this is not sufficient to compel adherence to the law, the Committee will consider taking stronger actions next year. A similar provision has been provided in the Coast Guard section of the bill. Research, Engineering, and Development (Airport And Airway Trust Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $156,495,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001..................... 184,366,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 184,366,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +27,871,000 Budget estimate, fiscal year 2001................. ................ This appropriation provides funding for long-term research, engineering and development programs to improve the air traffic control system and to raise the level of aviation safety, as authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the Federal Aviation Act. The appropriation also finances the research, engineering and development needed to establish or modify federal air regulations. national center of excellence in aviation operations research Under the authority of Public Law 101-508, the FAA awarded a long-term cooperative agreement to a consortium consisting of the University of California at Berkeley, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Maryland, the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, and 12 affiliated institutions, for the National Center of Excellence in Aviation Operations Research (NEXTOR). FAA has not proposed a specific budget line item for this center, but made the agreement available for any FAA program that needs NEXTOR's capabilities and can provide the needed funding. The Committee is advised that some FAA programs would like to use NEXTOR to perform research, but the agency has suspended such action until Congressional intent is clarified. The agency is not clear whether Congress intends for RE&D appropriations to be used for purposes such as NEXTOR, since similar activities were transferred to the F&E appropriation a few years ago. The Committee clarifies its intent that either F&E (budget activity one) or RE&D appropriations may be used for the NEXTOR cooperative agreement. When the Committee recommended transfer of these activities, the Committee did not intend that any activity be terminated or blocked as a result. According to the agency, NEXTOR is the only center of excellence for which the FAA has found significant difficulty in locating an appropriate funding source. Committee Recommendation The Committee recommends $184,366,000, an increase of $27,871,000 (17.8 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and the same as the President's budget request. A table showing the fiscal year 2000 enacted level, the fiscal year 2001 budget estimate, and the Committee recommendation follows:
System Development and Infrastructure The Committee recommends $17,425,000 for system development and infrastructure, an increase of $286,000 (1.7 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Technical laboratory facility.--The recommendation holds funding to the fiscal year 2000 level due to budget constraints, a reduction of $2,356,000 below the budget estimate. Information security.--The Committee recommendation deletes this new initiative due to budget constraints, a reduction of $5,500,000 below the budget estimate. Significantly increased funding for information security initiatives has been provided in the operating and capital appropriations. Weather The Committee recommends $27,789,000 to address the effects of hazardous weather on aviation, an increase of $8,489,000 (44 percent) above the level enacted for fiscal year 2000 and the same as the budget estimate. Aircraft Safety Technology The Committee recommends $58,880,000 for aircraft safety technology, $9,500,000 above the budget estimate and $14,423,000 above the level provided last year. Propulsion and fuel systems.--Although the United States has been very successful in reducing airborne lead pollution, general aviation aircraft still rely heavily on leaded fuel. The FAA has an ongoing research program to develop a minimum octane benchmark for the U.S. piston aircraft fleet; however, this research is currently limited by a lack of appropriate testing facilities. The Committee recommends an additional $2,500,000 to advance this program and provide the necessary facilities. Aging aircraft.--Of the funds provided, $5,000,000 is only for equipment upgrades at the National Institute for Aviation Research and $2,000,000 is only for upgrades to wind tunnels at Langley Research Center for the furtherance of aeronautical and aircraft research and testing. System Security Technology The Committee recommendation provides $49,374,000 for system security technology, the same as the budget estimate. Human Factors and Aviation Medicine The Committee recommendation provides $26,050,000, an increase of $951,000 (3.8 percent) above the budget request and $4,079,000 (18.6 percent) above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. The additional funding provides a 24 percent increase for research at the Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI) instead of the 4.6 percent increase requested. The Committee continues to value the work performed by CAMI and believes a greater level of effort is justified. Environment and Energy The recommendation provides $4,848,000, an increase of $1,367,000 (39.2 percent) above the level provided last year and a reduction of $2,595,000 from the budget estimate. This program researches ways to mitigate the impact of airport noise around the country. The Committee believes a 39 percent increase is adequate to further this area of research. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract (Limitation on authorization) obligations) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000. $1,750,000,000 ($1,950,000,000) Budget estimate, fiscal year 1,960,000,000 (1,950,000,000) 2001........................... Recommended in the bill......... 3,200,000,000 (3,200,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year +1,450,000,000 (+1,250,000,000) 2000........................... Budget estimate, fiscal year +1,240,000,000 (+1,250,000,000) 2001........................... The bill includes a liquidating cash appropriation of $3,200,000,000 for grants-in-aid for airports, authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended. This funding provides for liquidation of obligations incurred pursuant to contract authority and annual limitations on obligations for grants-in-aid for airport planning and development, noise compatibility and planning, the military airport program, reliever airports, airport program administration, and other authorized activities. This is $1,240,000,000 above the level requested in the President's budget, and is necessary to support the $1,250,000,000 in additional obligation authority supported by this bill. Limitation On Obligations The bill includes a limitation on obligations of $3,200,000,000 for fiscal year 2001. This is $1,250,000,000 (64.1 percent) above the President's budget request and the same amount above the fiscal year 2000 level. This level of funding is required by Public Law 106-181 and protected by points of order in the House. A table showing the distribution of these funds compared to the fiscal year 2000 levels and the President's budget request follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001 Recommended in enacted estimate the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Entitlements.............................................. $1,100,434,505 $1,127,704,636 $1,943,417,033 Primary airports...................................... 556,348,911 566,769,374 1,056,383,909 Cargo airports (3%)................................... 55,519,140 55,850,610 93,350,610 Alaska supplemental................................... 10,672,557 10,672,557 21,345,114 States (20%).......................................... 342,368,030 344,412,095 622,337,400 Carryover entitlement................................. 135,525,867 150,000,000 150,000,000 Small Airport Fund........................................ 142,204,990 146,461,513 274,936,625 Non hub............................................... 81,259,994 83,692,293 157,106,643 Non commercial service................................ 40,629,997 41,846,147 78,553,321 Small hub............................................. 20,314,999 20,923,073 39,276,661 Discretionary Set Asides.................................. 231,039,432 223,257,924 345,362,670 Noise (34% of discretionary).......................... 206,719,492 199,757,089 303,733,336 Reliever (0.66% of discretionary)..................... ................ ................ 5,896,000 Military airport program (4% of discretionary)........ 24,319,940 23,500,835 35,733,334 Other Discretionary....................................... 376,959,073 364,262,927 583,280,672 Capacity/Safety/Security/Noise........................ 282,719,305 273,197,195 410,978,004 Remaining discretionary............................... 94,239,768 91,065,732 172,302,671 Administration............................................ 45,000,000 53,003,000 53,000,000 Airport Research.......................................... ................ 7,380,000 ................ Essential Air Service..................................... ................ 27,900,000 ................ ----------------------------------------------------- Total limitation on obligations..................... 1,895,638,000 1,950,000,000 3,200,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- third chicago airport, chicago, illinois The Committee urges FAA to expeditiously conclude its negotiations with state and local officials regarding aviation forecasts for a proposed Chicago third airport, and initiate promptly the environmental impact statement. Discretionary Grants Within the overall obligation limitation in this bill, $900,743,342 is available for discretionary grants to airports. This is approximately $293,000,000 (48 percent) more than provided for fiscal year 2000. Within this obligation limitation, the Committee directs that priority be given to grant applications involving further development of the following airports: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ State Location Project description ------------------------------------------------------------------------ AK................... Atka Airport............ Upgrade airport and expand. AL................... Dothan Regional Airport. Acquire rescue firefighting vehicle; rehab lighting control cables to ATCT; replace electronic vault equipment. AL................... Huntsville Airport...... Taxiway, runway extension, noise mitigation/land acquisition. AL................... Mobile Regional and Construct parallel Mobile Downtown runway, international Airports. concourse according to master plan. AL................... Monroe County Airport... Reseal runway, restripe markings and legends, install AWOS, other improvements. AL................... Bay Minette Municipal Extend runway, Airport. construct aircraft turnaround, construct apron area, install AWOS, funding for airport master plan, other improvements. AL................... Decatur Pryor Field..... New terminal. AL................... Dothan Regional Airport. Repave and repair taxiways A, B, and E; demolition/disposal of existing terminal and apron; new apron, safety fencing; vehicle access/ construction. AL................... Birmingham International Purchase approximately 208 properties within the expansion corridor. AL................... Montgomery Regional Extend runway, widen Airport. taxiway, extend taxiway, and sealcoat; new passenger terminal/ cargo facilities. AL................... Gadsen Airport Resurfacing and Industrial Park. lighting. AL................... Walker County Airport... Automated observation system and runway extension. AR................... Benton Airport.......... Airport relocation. AR................... Searcy Airport.......... Runway extension. AR................... Dexter Memorial Field... Provide AWOS III system. AZ................... Williams AFB............ Support conversion from military to civilian airport. CA................... San Bernardino Various improvement International Airport. projects. CA................... Napa County Airport..... Runway, taxiway, and ramp maintenance; master plan; taxiway project. CA................... Jack McNamara Field, Del Resurface runways. Norte County. CA................... Fresno Yosemite Design and construct International Airport. midfield air cargo taxiways, design and construct midfield air cargo apron, design and construct airfield drainage imrpovements, design and construct midfield air cargo access road. CA................... General William J. Fox Extend the existing Field Airport, county airport runway. Lancaster. CA................... Stockton Metropolitian Lengthen runway. Airport. CA................... Bishop Airport, Inyo Facility, utility and County. infrastructure improvements. CA................... Ontario International Grove Corridor Airport. improvements; structure and ramp improvements; right-of- way acquisition; cargo demand study. CA................... Mammoth/Yosemite Upgrade airport to Airport, Mammoth Lakes. handle jets. CA................... Meadows Field Airport, New terminal, ramp and Bakersfield. access road. CA................... Gnoss Field Airport, Runway extension. Marin County. CA................... Sacramento Mather Runway, taxiway, and Airport. apron pavement rehabilitation and runway/taxiway lighting. CA................... March Air Reserve Base.. Civilian refueling system. CA................... Southern California Runway extension. Logistics Airport. CNMI................. Rota International Resurface main runway. Airport, CNMI. CT................... Greater Rockford Airport Reimbursement for costs associated with runway extension and adjustments to the belt line road. CT................... Freeport Albertus Runway construction and Airport. safety area. FL................... Ft. Lauderdale-Hollywood Mega-zone transport International. study. FL................... St. Petersburg- Runway expansion and Clearwater other improvements. International. FL................... Orlando International Runway construction. Airport. IN................... Monroe County Airport, Land acquisition. Bloomington. IN................... Freeman Municipal Runway and taxiway Airport, Seymour. reconstruction. IN................... Perry County Municipal Runway extension. Airport, Tell City. IN................... Gary Regional Airport... Maintenance facility. KS................... Lawrence Municipal Various improvements. Airport. KS................... Newton City-County Various improvements. Airport. KY................... Louisville International Noise mitigation. KY................... Caldwell County Airport. Runway extension and overlay. KY................... Madisonville Municipal Various improvements. Airport. KY................... Marion/Crittenden County Master plan development Airport. and engineering. KY................... Cynthiana Airport, Apron overlay and Harrison County. taxiway; runway extension. KY................... Estill County Airport... Feasibility study for new airport. LA................... Lakefront Airport, New Repair and restoration Orleans. Airport/Lake Pontchartrain retaining wall. LA................... Baton Rouge Noise mitigation; Metropolitian. taxiway and runway reconstruction; overlay and construct runways; perimeter road; ARFF vehicle. LA................... Lafayette Airport....... Rubber removal, seal coating, grooving, and mark and strip the runway. Construct bridge over Bayou, correct grade differential, and extend the runway safety area. MI................... Southwest Michigan Runway extension. Regional Airport, Benton Harbor. MI................... Lenawee County Airport.. Extend the runway and shift the threshold; airport expansion. MI................... Cherry Capital Airport, New passenger terminal. Traverse City. MI................... Oakland Pontiac Various improvements. International. MI................... Detroit City Airport.... Land acquisition for expansion. MO................... Lee's Summit Municipal, Land acquisition to Kansas City. extend runway and creation of required runway protection zone. MS................... Starkville Airport...... Runway extension. MS................... Jackson International Design and construction Airport. of air cargo apron. MS................... Olive Branch Airport.... Various improvements. MS................... Iuka Airport............ Various improvements. MS................... Ackerman Airport........ Various improvements. MT................... Helena Regional Airport. Taxiway construction. NC................... Piedmont Triad Runway construction and International Airport. related improvements. NC................... Concord Regional Runway extension, Airport, Cabarrus runway protection zone County. completion, ramp/ILS zone, Construction to lower a road. NC................... Stanly County Airport... Perimeter security fencing, airfield lighting, access roads. NC................... Rockingham-Hamlet Parallel taxiway, Airport, Richmond eastern half; apron County. expansion. NC................... Monroe Municipal Terminal area apron Airport, Union County. expansion; land acquisition. ND................... Minot Municipal Airport. Safety and security needs. NY................... Niagara Falls Rehabilitation of International Airport. taxiway D. NY................... Buffalo Niagara Runway improvements and International Airport. extension; east access improvements; expansion of east terminal apron phase II; acquisition and demolition. NY................... LaGuardia International. Noise mitigation. OH................... Port Columbus Terminal apron International Airport. reconstruction and glycol retention/ treatment facility. OH................... Fairfield County Airport Airport master plan. OH................... Ohio University Airport, Extend runway. Athens. OH................... Toledo Express Airport.. Expansion of taxiway and apron capacity. OH................... Rickenbacker Airport.... Various infrastructure needs. OH................... Akron-Canton Regional Expansion of runway 1/ Airport. 19 safety upgrade. OH................... Pickaway County Airport. Runway and taxiway extension. OK................... Stillwater Airport...... Runway lengthening. OK................... McAlester Airport....... Runway extension and strengthening. OK................... Will Rogers World Extension of runway Airport, Oklahoma City. protection zone; relocation of MacArthur Boulevard. OR................... Roberts Field/Redmond Expand commercial Municipal. terminal ramp. PA................... Erie International Extend main runway Airport. 1,000 ft. PA................... Jimmy Stewart Airport, Runway expansion and Indiana County. related improvements. RI................... T.F. Green Airport, Various improvements. Providence. TN................... Memphis Shelby County Extend taxiway; Airport. construct aircraft apron; reconstruct taxiways; and reconstruct runway. TN................... Millington Airport...... Infrastructure improvements. TN................... Chattanooga Metropolitan Shift taxiway to meet Airport. design standards. TX................... Abilene Regional........ Terminal expansion/ taxiway upgrade. TX................... George Bush New runway and International, Houston. associated projects. TX................... Alliance Airport........ Runway extension; cargo apron; noise compatibility program. TX................... Sugar Land Municipal Property acquisition Airport. and taxiway construction. TX................... Laredo Airport.......... Noise compatibility program. TX................... Robert Gray Army Support joint use Airfield, Fort Hood. development. USVI................. Henry E. Rohlsen Runway extension and Airport, St. Croix. terminal expansion. UT................... Wendover Airport........ Expansion of commercial service ramp. UT................... Salt Lake City Expand cargo facilities International. to handle Olympic demand; expand and modernize terminals. VA................... Danville Regional Apron expansion, fillet Airport. widening, taxiway lighting, apron overlay. VA................... Lee County Airport...... Replace airport. VA................... Lonesome Pine Airport, Construct parallel Wise County. taxiway. VA................... Mountain Empire Airport, Construct security Smyth County. fence, parallel taxiway, move fuel farm, relocate windsock, and install beacon. VA................... Virginia Highlands Construct apron. Airport, Abingdon. VA................... Charlottesville- Extend runway safety Albemarle Airport. area. VA................... New River Valley Environmental review of Airport, Dublin. an overlay. WI................... Rock County Airport..... Reconstruction and extension of runway facilities. WI................... Chippewa Valley Regional Runway and taxiway. Airport. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jackson International Airport, MS.--The Committee is aware that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has undertaken the phased construction of a new air cargo park at the Jackson International Airport, for which $7,000,000 in FAA, EDA and local funding has already been committed. Consistent with the priority designation of this project in the House and Senate committee reports and the conference report last year, and in order to meet the schedule requirements for final design and construction of segment 1 of the project, the Committee encourages FAA to give priority consideration to requests by the Jackson International Airport for discretionary funding to complete construction of the air cargo apron and related improvements, including the paving of the taxiway connection to Runway 16R/34L. Alliance Airport, TX.--The Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to the City of Fort Worth's application for a letter of intent for a runway extension project at Alliance Airport in Texas. The Committee believes that FAA's review of grant and LOI applications should not discriminate against cargo airport projects by relying too heavily on formal benefit-cost analyses. The FAA's benefit-cost procedures rely heavily on passenger air service. While appropriate in many instances, if used inflexibly to make award decisions, such a process could unfairly place a low priority on a balanced national aviation system, which includes general aviation and cargo aviation requirements. Abilene Regional Airport, TX.--The Committee is aware of plans for essential infrastructure improvements to enhance competition, capacity and safety at the Abilene Regional Airport. Given the economic potential and immediate needs of this regional facility, the Committee encourages FAA to give priority consideration to requests for discretionary funding that will assist the Abilene Regional Airport with various capital improvements such as a terminal expansion, taxiway extension and emergency response vehicle procurement. St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport, FL.--The Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to a letter of intent for runway expansion and other improvements at the St. Petersburg-Clearwater International Airport in Florida. Piedmont Triad International Airport, NC.--The Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to the Piedmont Triad Airport Authority's application for a letter of intent for construction of a parallel runway (5L-23R), and related improvements described in the authority's application, which are necessary to integrate this new runway into existing facilities. The Committee is informed that substantial safety, capacity and economic benefits will accrue from the completion of this project. DeKalb Taylor Municipal Airport, IL.--The Committee encourages FAA to give priority consideration to a request for discretionary funding for reconstruction of the east-west taxiway, replacement of airfield lighting, and acquisition of land for placement of an ODAL system. Akron-Canton Regional Airport, OH.--The Committee urges the FAA to give priority consideration to requests for discretionary funding for the safety upgrades and extension of runway 1/19 at Akron-Canton Regional Airport in Ohio. Louisville International Airport, Kentucky.--The Committee is aware of Louisville International Airport's ambitious relocation program associated with a major expansion of the airport. Currently, Louisville is limited to receiving $5,000,000 per year in noise mitigation funds due to an administrative policy of the FAA. Under this bill, funds for noise mitigation activities will increase from $206 million in fiscal year 2000 to $347 million in fiscal year 2001. The Committee understands that, given the substantially higher funding level next year, the FAA intends to discontinue the administrative cap and review each case on its merits. The Committee believes the FAA should review each airport's need without regard to an administrative cap, and should give strong consideration to Louisville International's noise mitigation needs for fiscal year 2001. administration The bill provides that, within the overall obligation limitation, $53,000,000 is available for administration of the airports program by the FAA. Prior to fiscal year 2000, these expenses were included in the FAA's operating budget. The recommended amount is $8,000,000 (17.8 percent) above the level provided for fiscal year 2000 and essentially the same as the budget estimate. Since overall AIP program funding is raised by 64.1 percent pursuant to Public Law 106-81, it is imperative that administrative costs be raised also, so that grant requests can be reviewed thoroughly and executed in a timely manner. In addition, the airports office must review and approve requests for letters of intent and for additional passenger facility charges, both of which are expected to increase in the coming year. Airport-related research remains funded under ``Facilities and equipment.'' bill language Runway incursion prevention systems and devices.-- Consistent with the provisions of Public Law 106-181, the bill allows funds under this limitation to be used for airports to procure and install runway incursion prevention systems and devices. Because of the urgent safety problem related to runway incursions, the FAA is directed to consider such grant requests among the highest priorities for discretionary funding. Grants-in-Aid for Airports (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) (Rescission of Contract Authorization) The bill includes a rescission of $579,000,000 in contract authority. This budget authority was made available in P.L. 106-181 for obligation during fiscal year 2000. However, since such funds are above the obligation limitation for that year, they are not available for obligation and are therefore available for rescission. This recommendation will have no programmatic impact, since the funding is not currently available for use in the AIP program. Furthermore, since AIP authorized funding for fiscal years 2001 through 2003 is guaranteed by law and cannot be reduced in the appropriations process, the fiscal year 2000 funds will also not be needed to address any shortfalls in those years. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides financial assistance to the states to construct and improve roads and highways, and provides technical assistance to other agencies and organizations involved in road building activities. Title 23 and other supporting legislation provide authority for the various activities of the Federal Highway Administration. Funding is provided by contract authority, with program levels established by annual limitations on obligations in appropriations Acts. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary spending categories, one of which is the highway category. This category is comprised of all federal-aid highways funding, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's motor carrier safety funding, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA) highway safety grants funding and NHTSA highway safety research and development funding. The highway category obligations are capped at $27,158,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. If appropriations action forces highway obligations or outlays to exceed this level, the difference and the resulting outlays are charged to the non- defense discretionary spending category. In addition, if highway account receipts exceed levels specified in TEA21, automatic adjustments are made to increase or decrease obligations and outlays for the highway category accordingly. The Committee's recommendation fully comports with and does not exceed the levels guaranteed by TEA21. The following table summarizes the program levels within the Federal Highway Administration for fiscal year 2000 enacted, the fiscal year 2001 budget request and the Committee's recommendation: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal Year-- Program ------------------------------------ Recommended in 2000 enacted \1\ 2001 request the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Federal-aid highways...................................... $26,245,000,000 $26,603,806,000 $26,603,806,000 Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)................... 1,456,350,000 3,058,000,000 3,058,000,000 RABA transfer............................................. ................ -598,000,000 ................ Adjustment................................................ ................ 255,000,000 ................ Exempt obligations........................................ 1,206,702,000 1,039,576,000 1,039,576,000 ----------------------------------------------------- Total............................................... 28,908,052,000 30,358,382,000 30,701,382,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes $105,260,000 in across-the-board rescissions, but includes $76,058,000 in administrative expenses for motor carriers. Limitation on Administrative Expenses Limitation, fiscal year 2000 \1\...................... ($376,072,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... (315,834,000) Recommended in the bill............................... (290,115,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... (-85,957,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. (-25,719,000) \1\ Includes $76,058,000 for administrative expenses of the office of motor carriers. In fiscal year 2001, funding for motor carrier administrative expenses is included as a separate limitation in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. Comparable amounts for FHWA administrative expenses for fiscal year 2000 total $300,014,000. This limitation controls spending for the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration required to conduct and administer the federal-aid highways programs and most other federal highway programs. In the past, this limitation included a number of contract programs, such as highway research, development and technology; however, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) created a separate limitation for transportation research. Accordingly, in fiscal year 2001 costs related to highway research, development and technology are included under a separate limitation. The Committee recommends a limitation of $290,115,000. This level is sufficient to fund 2,437 FTEs. This limitation excludes funding for the operations of the office of motor carriers, which is now provided in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, consistent with the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. Legislated set-asides.--The budget request included a number of legislated set-asides within this limitation. The Committee has not included these items in the bill, but has instead addressed them in this accompanying report. The recommended level assumes the following adjustments to the budget request: Undistributed reduction in GOE administrative expenses.. -$6,004,000 Defer information technology increases pending CIO review.............................................. -2,400,000 Defer increases for workforce development............... -4,330,000 Delete funding requested for rural transportation planning initiatives................................ -1,000,000 Eliminate funding for climate change center............. -1,000,000 Deny funding for national rural development partnership program............................................. -500,000 Delete funding for the Garrett A. Morgan program........ -688,000 Delete funding for 2 new FTE for small and disadvantaged business activities................................. -230,000 Deny funding for development of regional transportation plan for the Mississippi River Delta Initiative..... -1,000,000 Delete funding for ``working better together'' activities.......................................... -500,000 Provide $1,000,000 for the office of intermodalism...... -317,000 Deny increases for technology transfer and sharing activities.......................................... -5,000,000 Disallow funds for the national personal transportation survey.............................................. -4,750,000 Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games (Section 1223 of TEA21)........ +2,000,000 Undistributed reduction in administrative expenses.--The Committee recommendation includes a reduction of $6,004,000 in administrative expenses and provides FHWA the flexibility to allocate that reduction among such expenses as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation and non-mandatory bonuses and incentives. The Committee notes that the FHWA is now approximately 200 FTE below the fiscal year 2000 authorized employment level, and therefore should be able to accommodate this reduction with little, if any, disruption. Information technology activities.--The Committee has deferred increases in information technology activities totaling $2,400,000 in fiscal year 2001 pending a review of the need and compatibility by the department's chief information officer of the proposed new systems and enhancements and a determination of outyear costs. Workforce development.--Due to budget constraints, the Committee has denied the request for increases of $4,330,000 for workforce development activities. Rural transportation planning initiative.--The Committee has not provided the $1,000,000 requested to establish an entity in two universities to support transportation planning in rural areas. This proposed activity is redundant of those activities funded within the local and rural technical assistance programs of the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration, respectively. Climate change center.--The Committee has denied the administration's request to establish a climate change center, which would conduct and coordinate the department's research on environmental strategies (-$1,000,000). The Committee has provided sufficient funds within the FHWA's research and technology program to conduct environmental research and does not believe such a center to be necessary. National rural development program support.--The Committee has deleted funding requested for the department's share of the national rural development program (-$500,000). This program is a government-wide initiative/partnership, led by the Department of Agriculture, and is a network of rural development leaders and officials committed to the vitality of rural areas. The Committee has deleted funds for this activity the last several years. Garrett A. Morgan program.--The Committee has deleted funds requested within this account for the Garrett A. Morgan transportation futures program (-$688,000), consistent with recommendations elsewhere in the bill. Small and disadvantaged business.--The Committee has deleted funds requested to support two new full time equivalent employees related to small and disadvantaged business activities due to budget constraints (-$230,000). Additional staff may be allocated for these activities within the current FTE authorization ceiling. Delta initiative.--The Committee has deleted funding requested to develop a regional transportation plan related to the delta initiative (-$1,000,000). This activity is unauthorized and includes plans to develop a tourism marketing strategy which will highlight the region's cultural and historical significance. This is an activity more appropriate for the Department of Commerce than the Department of Transportation. ``Working better together'' activities.--The Committee has deleted $500,000 for ``working better together'' activities due to a lack of justification. Technology sharing and transfer activities.--The Committee has not provided the $5,000,000 requested to encourage greater sharing among the department's modal administrations and their constituencies of research and technology. Sufficient funding of $14,000,000 is provided for training and education activities in fiscal year 2001 in the highway research and technology programs to support these activities. National personal transportation survey.--The Committee has not provided the $4,750,000 under this heading for activities related to the national personal transportation survey. The Committee recognizes the need for such data and has included limited funds for this activity within funds provided for policy research and the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. Transportation management planning for the Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games.--The Committee recommendation includes $2,000,000 for transportation management planning for the Salt Lake Winter Olympic Games, as authorized by section 1223(c) of TEA21. These funds shall be available for planning activities and transportation projects based on the transportation management plan approved by the Secretary. International trade data systems.--The Committee has provided $1,620,000, as requested, for an international trade data system, which is intended to create a single federal database and information system to process international trade and transportation transactions. Funding is included to upgrade the current tag/reader system for trucks and to include a railroad electronic notification and clearance process. The Committee directs, however, that the Department of Transportation provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by February 1, 2001 a detailed cost estimate for the development and deployment of the complete system, including cost sharing by other participating federal, state and local agencies, and a schedule for full deployment. Research and development administrative expenses.--The Committee's recommendation for general operating expenses includes funding to support various administrative activities related to research and development activities that were requested within the research and technology programs. Specifically, $400,000 is provided to support innovative financing administration; $200,000 for strategic planning; $400,000 for research and technology activities conducted by the resource centers; $645,000 for computer support for research and development activities; and $200,000 for the development of improved performance measures. Four Bears Bridge, North Dakota.--The bill does not provide $5,000,000 requested from funds made available under section 104(a) of TEA21 for the design and preliminary engineering of the Four Bears Bridge in North Dakota. Child passenger protection grants.--Of the funds available pursuant to section 104(a) of TEA21, the Committee has included $7,500,000 for child passenger protection grants. Limitation on Transportation Research Limitation, fiscal year 2000\1\....................... ................ Budget request, fiscal year 2001\1\................... ................ Recommended in the bill............................... ($437,250,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... (+437,250,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. (+437,250,000) \1\ Resources available in fiscal year 2000 and requested in fiscal year 2001 are assumed within the federal-aid highways obligation limitation. This limitation controls spending for the transportation research and technology contract programs of the Federal Highway Administration. This limitation includes a number of contract programs including intelligent transportation systems, surface transportation research, technology deployment, training and education, and university transportation research. In the past, funding under this limitation was provided in part from the limitation on general operating expenses and from contract authority provided in permanent law. The recommendation includes an obligation limitation for transportation research of $437,250,000. This limitation is consistent with the provisions of TEA21 and mirrors the House- passed fiscal year 2000 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill. The Committee recommendation does not provide an additional $221,500,000 for research and technology programs requested in the budget to be funded from an increase in contract authority. TEA21 authorizes $437,250,000 in fiscal year 2001 for the following transportation research programs: Surface transportation research......................... $98,000,000 Technology deployment program........................... 45,000,000 Training and education.................................. 18,000,000 Bureau of transportation statistics..................... 31,000,000 ITS standards, research, operational tests, and development......................................... 100,000,000 ITS deployment.......................................... 118,000,000 University transportation research...................... 27,250,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal............................................ 437,250,000 Within the funds provided for surface transportation research, the accompanying bill provides funding for the following activities in the specified amounts, consistent with the provisions of TEA21: Technology assessment and deployment.................... $14,000,000 International activities................................ 500,000 Research and technology support......................... 7,500,000 Highway research and development........................ 66,000,000 Long term pavement performance.......................... 10,000,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Subtotal.......................................... 98,000,000 Within the funds provided for surface transportation research, the Committee recommends that $66,000,000 be allocated for highway research and development for the following activities in the specified amounts: Highway research and development: Safety.............................................. $15,000,000 Pavements........................................... 15,000,000 Structures.......................................... 15,000,000 Environment......................................... 6,200,000 Policy.............................................. 4,600,000 Planning and real estate............................ 4,100,000 Advanced research................................... 900,000 Highway operations asset management................. 5,200,000 -------------------------------------------------------- ____________________________________________________ Total............................................. 66,000,000 The Committee has allocated the surface transportation research and development account in the same manner as it has historically, rather than in the new configuration proposed by FHWA. This allocation will not interfere with the performance- based approach required under GPRA, but will ensure that the flow of federal investments can be monitored easily. The Committee's allocation concentrates funds in the three foundations of FHWA's research and development program: safety, pavements, and structures. To respond to the pressing challenges of today's highway environment, increased funds also have been made available for highway operations and asset management. The Committee also seeks to ensure that FHWA continues to focus on research and development, and therefore does not approve the use of any funds specified under highway research and development to support technology deployment, assessment, or other programmatic purposes as proposed by FHWA. Instead, under the surface transportation research and development subaccount, the Committee directs that $14,000,000 be allocated for technology deployment and assessment activities to expedite the transfer of advanced technologies to state and local governments. Next year, FHWA should be prepared to show how funds to advance research and development were tracked separately from funds spent on technology deployment and assessment functions. In the fiscal year 2002 budget justification, the Committee expects FHWA to delineate the proposed allocation of surface transportation research and development funds using the same categorical basis displayed in this report. The FHWA also is expected to document how it proposes to allocate the technology assessment and deployment funds by specific projects or activities to be conducted by the core business units, state division offices, or resource centers. The justification will include a separate discussion of how the technology deployment program funds will be integrated with the surface transportation R&D funds. Safety.--The safety research and technology program develops engineering practices, analysis tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information materials that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for safety research and development activities. FHWA is required to implement a comprehensive research and technology program that will ensure safety R&D and deployment activities receive at least the same total amount of funds that were provided in fiscal year 2000. The Committee commends FHWA for the development of various safety-oriented technologies and its assistance to states to reduce run-off-the road crashes, increase pedestrian and bicycle safety, improve roadside design and hardware, reduce hazards in work zones, advance safety and speed management systems, and further highway safety information systems. The Committee has increased funds above the requested amount to allow FHWA to expand its efforts to improve traffic safety at various types of intersections. Almost 25 percent of all fatal motor vehicle crashes are intersection-related. Intersection safety is a concern in both urban and rural areas--44 percent of intersection-related fatal crashes occur in rural areas and 56 percent in urban areas. Providing increased funds for this area of research is consistent with the AASHTO Strategic Highway Safety Plan, which identifies improving the design and operation of highway intersections as one of its 22 strategies to reduce highway deaths and injuries. FHWA should identify the most common and severe safety problems at intersections and compile information on effective applications and design of innovative infrastructure configurations and treatments at both signalized and unsignalized intersections and interchanges. Pavements research.--The pavements research and technology program identifies engineering practices, analytic tools, equipment, roadside hardware, and safety promotion and public information that will significantly contribute to the reduction of highway fatalities and injuries. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for pavements research and development, including work on asphalt, cement concrete pavements, and recycled materials. This increase in funding above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation, along with the funds provided for long term pavement performance, will allow FHWA to undertake research projects to improve the nation's infrastructure. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is encouraged to support research into aggregates production and utilization, polymer additives, and the production of asphalt modifiers using rubber and waste oil. Structures.--The structures research and technology program develops technologies, advanced materials and methods to maintain efficiently and renew the aging transportation infrastructure, improve existing infrastructure performance, and enable efficient infrastructure response and quick recovery after major disasters. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $15,000,000 for structures research and development. These funds will help FHWA make progress towards its performance goal to reduce deficiencies on national highway system bridges from 25% to 20% and reduce deficiencies on all bridges from 31.4% to 25% by 2007. This funding will ensure continued progress on high performance materials and engineering applications to design, repair, rehabilitate, and retrofit bridges. Within the funds provided, the FHWA is encouraged to support research into advanced wood composites, research into the use of lithium technologies to mitigate damage from alkali silica reactions, and research into the use of high resolution imaging in non-destructive evaluations. Environment research.--The environment research and technology program develops improved tools for assessing highway impacts on the environment; techniques for the avoidance, detection, and mitigation of those impacts and for the enhancement of the environment; and expertise on environmental concerns within FHWA and state and local transportation agencies. The Committee recommends $6,200,000 for research on environmental issues affecting highway operations and construction. Further, within the funds provided for highway research and development, the department shall make available $250,000 for furtherance of the PM-10 study. Policy research.--The policy research and technology program supports FHWA policy analysis and development, strategic planning, and technology development through research in data collection, management and dissemination; highway financing, investment analysis, and performance measurement; and enhancements to highway program contributions to economic productivity, efficiency, and other national goals. For fiscal year 2001, the Committee recommends $4,600,000 for policy research. For several years, the Committee has provided funds for the department's truck size and weight study, which has been financed primarily from FHWA's policy research budget. This study has been in draft format for several years and has received considerable criticism. The Committee's allowance does not include any funds to continue or revise this study. The Committee will reconsider the need for updating this study when debate over highway reauthorization legislation draws closer. This savings of $450,000 and the additional funds recommended above the fiscal year 2000 appropriation will allow continued work on the National Personal Transportation Survey, which is funded under this category and not under the limitation on administrative expense as requested by the FHWA. Because of budgetary constraints, the Committee has deleted funds for research cooperation with various international organizations and expects to be consulted before future international agreements that are likely to require financial support are consummated. Planning and real estate research.--The planning and real estate research and technology program advances cost effective methods to evaluate transportation strategies and investments; develops and disseminates improved planning methods; develops more effective planning and data collection techniques for intermodal passenger and freight planning and programming; improves financial planning tools for use in developing transportation plans and programs; evaluates the characteristics of the National Highway System; and develops improved analytical tools to support metropolitan and statewide planning and for information and data sharing with state and local governments. The Committee recommends $4,100,000 for planning and real estate research, including an increase of $100,000 in the real estate services portion of the planning R&D budget above the amount specified last year. These additional funds will help FHWA respond to requests from AASHTO and other groups for increased research in the real estate service area. Advanced research.--The advanced research program addresses longer-term, higher risk research that shows potential benefits for improving the durability, efficiency, environmental impact, productivity and safety of highway systems. The Committee provides $900,000 for advanced research. Highway operations and asset management.--The highway operations research program is designed to develop, deliver and deploy advanced technologies and administrative methods to provide pavement and bridge durability, and to reduce construction and maintenance-related user delays. The Committee recommends $5,200,000 for highway operations and asset management. Funds provided under this category support a variety of research projects seeking to improve highway operations, including work to improve the manual on uniform traffic control devices, work zone operations, technologies that facilitate operational responses to changes in weather conditions, and freight management operations. Of the $600,000 provided for asset management, the Committee has not included any funds for statistical analysis of the National Quality Initiative. Such analysis shall be performed by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. R&T technical support.--The Committee has limited funds for R&T technical support to $7,500,000. Funding for other agency- wide initiatives requested under the category ``Agency R&T Programs'' have not been approved, unless otherwise specified under the limitation on general operating expenses. R&T partnership initiative.--The Committee continues to support FHWA's participation in the national R&T partnership initiative. As part of this partnership, five working groups have been formed to advance a national research agenda in the areas of safety, infrastructure renewal, operations and mobility, planning and environment, and policy analysis and systems monitoring. Key partners and stakeholders, including, state DOTs, academia, local governmental officials, and private sector representatives are participating along with FHWA as part of this effort. The products of this initiative will provide input to the FHWA and other participants in shaping R&D directions and priorities, and increase opportunities for collaborative approaches to conducting high-priority R&T activities. The Committee notes that the Transportation Research Board (TRB) has taken a significant role in facilitating this effort, and that the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has voiced strong support and participates actively in this effort. The Committee encourages FHWA's continued support of this partnership initiative and appreciates the involvement of TRB, AASHTO, and others to advance the overall highway R&T program. Advanced vehicle consortia program.--The Committee has not included funds for the advanced vehicle consortia program. The budget request had proposed to provide $20,000,000 for the program by diverting revenue aligned budget authority for this purpose. Last year the Committee directed the department to include with the fiscal year 2001 budget request a report that: delineates a detailed strategic spending plan outlining the scope and direction of each of the planned research, development, demonstration, and deployment projects expected to be funded as part of the program during the next five years; demonstrates that the activities to be conducted by the participating consortia will be coordinated and integrated into a cohesive program; provides documentation that the projects to be funded do not in any way overlap with other FTA, FRA, or Department of Energy activities; and demonstrates a financial participation of other federal departments. At the time of the writing of this report, the Committee had yet to receive the report. The Committee, therefore, has deferred future funding requests for this program until the reporting requirement is satisfied, the department is able to indicate how the disparate array of projects will be joined together to form a strategically designed program, and the Committee has had an opportunity to review the report fully. Revenue aligned budget authority (RABA) distribution.--The Committee directs that any RABA funds distributed under current law for surface transportation research and development be allocated only among the core research programs for pavements, structures or safety. None of the distributed RABA funds are to be used for activities originally requested under agency-wide R&T initiatives. ITS standards, research, operational tests and development.--The Committee recommends the $100,000,000 provided in TEA21 for ITS research be allocated in the following manner: Research and development................................ $48,680,000 Operational tests....................................... 11,820,000 Evaluation.............................................. 7,750,000 Architecture and standards.............................. 13,750,000 Integration............................................. 9,000,000 Program support......................................... 9,000,000 CVO research.--The Committee's allowance includes $7,300,000 for commercial vehicle research. The additional funds provided above the request shall be used to develop and test advanced technology for roadside identification. This technology is needed to identify commercial carriers and vehicles without transponders in advance of their approach to an inspection site. This technology will ensure that maximum use of the SAFER, ASPEN, Mailbox data system, PIQ, PRISM target file, and ISS2 systems is facilitated. Advancement of technology to promote the transfer of information from NLETS to MCSAP officers, including improved communications between the NLETS bridge and the PRISM target file and other information systems, should also be supported with the additional funds provided. IVI research.--The Committee's allowance includes $30,000,000 for the intelligent vehicle program. No less than $5,000,000 of those funds shall be used for the initial phase of an operational test to advance collision avoidance technologies in the light vehicle platform. This project should be designed so that it is completed before the end of fiscal year 2003. The solicitation shall encourage the participation of at least one light vehicle manufacturer or a tier I supplier. The department shall solicit projects that will address run-off-the road crashes and unsafe lane or intersection movements. Because of the importance of this initiative, the department is encouraged to employ innovative mechanisms, (such as cooperative agreements or other funding arrangements) that would facilitate an appropriately-sized test for the purpose of evaluating safety benefits and costs, while protecting proprietary technology. Specified ITS deployment projects.--It is the intent of the Committee that the following projects contribute to the integration and interoperability of intelligent transportation systems in metropolitan and rural areas as provided under section 5208 of TEA21 and promote deployment of the commercial vehicle intelligent transportation system infrastructure as provided under section 5209 of TEA 21. These projects shall conform to the requirements set forth in these sections, including the project selection criteria contained in section 5208(b) and the priority areas outlined in section 5209(c), respectively. Projects selected for funding shall use all applicable, published ITS standards. This requirement may be waived if the Secretary determines that the use of a published ITS standard would be counterproductive to achievement of the program objectives. Funding for ITS deployment activities are to be available as follows: Amount Alameda-Contra Costa, California........................ $1,000,000 Baton Rouge, Louisiana.................................. 2,000,000 Bay County, Florida..................................... 2,000,000 Bloomingdale Township, Illinois......................... 400,000 Calhoun County, Michigan................................ 500,000 Carbondale, Pennsylvania................................ 2,000,000 Charlotte, North Carolina............................... 1,000,000 College Station, Texas.................................. 1,000,000 Corpus Christi, Texas................................... 1,000,000 DuPage County, Illinois................................. 850,000 Houston, Texas.......................................... 2,000,000 Huntington Beach, California............................ 2,500,000 Inglewood, California................................... 1,000,000 Jackson, Mississippi.................................... 1,000,000 Jefferson County, Colorado.............................. 5,400,000 Johnsonburg, Pennsylvania............................... 2,000,000 Lake County, Illinois................................... 450,000 Montgomery County, Pennsylvania......................... 4,000,000 North Las Vegas, Nevada................................. 2,000,000 Norwalk and Santa Fe Springs, California................ 1,000,000 Oakland and Wayne counties, Michigan.................... 2,000,000 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.............................. 1,000,000 Puget Sound, Washington................................. 3,000,000 Rensselaer County, New York............................. 1,000,000 Rochester, New York..................................... 1,500,000 Sacramento County, California........................... 1,750,000 Sacramento, California.................................. 1,000,000 Shreveport, Louisiana................................... 2,000,000 Southhaven, Mississippi................................. 150,000 Spokane County, Washington.............................. 1,000,000 St. Louis, Missouri..................................... 1,000,000 State of Arizona........................................ 1,000,000 State of Delaware....................................... 1,500,000 State of Iowa........................................... 2,000,000 State of Maryland....................................... 2,000,000 State of Minnesota...................................... 10,000,000 State of Nebraska....................................... 1,500,000 State of North Carolina................................. 2,000,000 State of North Dakota................................... 1,000,000 State of Ohio........................................... 3,000,000 State of South Carolina................................. 4,000,000 State of Utah........................................... 5,000,000 Commonwealth of Virginia................................ 8,000,000 Washington, DC area..................................... 2,500,000 Wayne County, Michigan.................................. 8,000,000 Federal-Aid Highways (liquidation of contract authorization) (highway trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................ ($26,000,000,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001............... (28,000,000,000) Recommended in the bill........................ (28,000,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000............ +2,000,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001........... ....................... The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $28,000,000,000. This is an increase of $2,000,000,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and is needed to pay the outstanding obligations of the various highway programs at levels provided in TEA21. This appropriation is mandatory and has no scoring effect. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS Federal-aid highways and bridges are managed through a federal-state partnership. States and localities maintain ownership and responsibility for maintenance, repair and new construction of roads. State highway departments have the authority to initiate federal-aid projects subject to FHWA approval of plans, specifications, and cost estimates. The federal government provides financial support for construction and repair through matching grants, the terms of which vary with the type of road. There are almost four million miles of public roads in the United States and approximately 577,000 bridges. The Federal Government provides grants to states to assist in financing the construction and preservation of about 945,000 miles (24 percent) of these roads, which represents an extensive interstate system plus key feeder and collector routes. Highways eligible for federal aid carry about 85 percent of total U.S. highway traffic. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) reauthorized highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. TEA21 builds on programs and other initiatives established in the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, the previous major authorizing legislation for surface transportation programs. Under TEA21, Federal-aid highways funds are made available through the following major programs: National highway system.--The ISTEA of 1991 authorized--and the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 subsequently established--the National Highway System (NHS). This 163,000-mile road system serving major population centers, international border crossings, intermodal transportation facilities and major travel destinations, is the culmination of years of effort by many organizations, both public and private, to identify routes of national significance. It includes all Interstate routes, other urban and rural principal arterials, the defense strategic highway network, and major strategic highway connectors, and is estimated to carry up to 75 percent of commercial truck traffic and 40 percent of all vehicular traffic. A state may choose to transfer up to 50 percent of its NHS funds to the surface transportation program category. If the Secretary approves, 100 percent may be transferred. The federal share of the NHS is 80 percent, with an availability period of 4 years. Interstate maintenance.--The 46,000-mile Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and Defense Highways retains a separate identity within the NHS. This program finances projects to rehabilitate, restore, resurface and reconstruct the Interstate system. Reconstruction of bridges, interchanges, and over-crossings along existing interstate routes is also an eligible activity if it does not add capacity other than high occupancy vehicle (HOV) and auxiliary lanes. All remaining federal funding to complete the initial construction of the interstate system has been provided through previous highway legislation. The TEA21 provides flexibility to States in fully utilizing remaining unobligated balances of prior Interstate Construction authorizations. States with no remaining work to complete the interstate system may transfer any surplus Interstate Construction funds to their interstate maintenance program. States with remaining completion work on Interstate gaps or open-to-traffic segments may relinquish interstate construction fund eligibility for the work and transfer the federal share of the cost to their interstate maintenance program. Surface transportation program.--The surface transportation program (STP) is a very flexible program that may be used by the states and localities for any roads (including NHS) that are not functionally classified as local or rural minor collectors. These roads are collectively referred to as Federal-aid highways. Bridge projects paid with STP funds are not restricted to Federal-aid highways but may be on any public road. Transit capital projects are also eligible under this program. The total funding for the STP may be augmented by the transfer of funds from other programs and by minimum guarantee funds under TEA21 which may be used as if they were STP funds. Once distributed to the states, STP funds must be used according to the following percentages: 10 percent for safety construction; 10 percent for transportation enhancement; 50 percent divided among areas of over 200,000 population and remaining areas of the State; and, 30 percent for any area of the state. Areas of 5,000 population or less are guaranteed an amount based on previous funding, and 15 percent of the amounts reserved for these areas may be spent on rural minor collectors. The federal share for the STP program is 80 percent with a 4-year availability period. Bridge replacement and rehabilitation program.--This program is continued by the TEA21 to provide assistance for bridges on public roads including a discretionary set-aside for high cost bridges and for the seismic retrofit of bridges. Fifty percent of a state's bridge funds may be transferred to the NHS or the STP, but the amount of any such transfer is deducted from the national bridge needs used in the program's apportionment formula for the following year. Congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program.--This program provides funds to states to improve air quality in non-attainment and maintenance areas. A wide range of transportation activities are eligible, as long as DOT, after consultation with EPA, determines they are likely to help meet national ambient air quality standards. TEA21 provides greater flexibility to engage public-private partnerships, and expands and clarifies eligibilities to include programs to reduce extreme cold starts, maintenance areas, and particulate matter (PM-10) nonattainment and maintenance areas. If a state has no non-attainment or maintenance areas, the funds may be used as if they were STP funds. On-road and off-road demonstration projects may be appropriate candidates for funding under the CMAQ program. Both sectors are critical for satisfying the purposes of the CMAQ program, including regional emissions and verifying new mobile source control techniques. Federal lands highways.--This program provides authorizations through three major categories--Indian reservation roads, parkways and park roads, and public lands highways (which incorporates the previous forest highways category)--as well as a new category for Federally-owned public roads providing access to or within the National Wildlife Refuge System. TEA21 also establishes a new program for improving deficient bridges on Indian reservation roads. Funds provided for the federal lands program in fiscal year 2001 shall be available for the following activities: Amount 14th Street bridge, Washington DC/Virginia.............. $5,000,000 Acadia National Park.................................... 1,000,000 Broughton Bridge, Clay County, Kansas................... 100,000 Clark Fork River bridge replacement, phase 2, Idaho..... 3,000,000 Crescent Lake National Wildlife Refuge access road, Nebraska............................................ 1,000,000 Cumberland Gap, Kentucky................................ 900,000 Daniel Boone Parkway, Kentucky.......................... 1,000,000 Historic Kelso depot, Mojave National Preservation, California.......................................... 5,400,000 Hoover Dam bypass, Arizona.............................. 10,000,000 Lake Tahoe Binwall repair and drainage improvement...... 1,000,000 Lowell National Historic Park, western canal walkway improvements........................................ 500,000 Manassas Battlefield access............................. 500,000 Mongaup Visitor Center--Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River.................................. 900,000 Mount Saint Helen's National Park access from Coldwater visitor's Center to US 12, Randall, Washington...... 100,000 Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge visitor's center, Clark County, Washington............................ 400,000 Route 600, Virginia..................................... 3,100,000 SD 240 loop, Badlands National Monument................. 1,700,000 Second Access road for Fort Eustis, Virginia............ 3,500,000 Soldier Hallow, Utah.................................... 2,400,000 Timucuan Ecological and Historic Preserve, Florida...... 900,000 Traffic circle at Mount Vernon, Virginia................ 500,000 Upgrade US Hwy 26, Oregon............................... 3,000,000 Utah Trail, Joshua Tree National Park, California....... 1,500,000 Widen US 95, Nevada..................................... 2,000,000 The Committee directs that the funds allocated above are to be derived from the FHWA's public lands discretionary program, and not from funds allocated to the National Park Service's regions. Minimum guarantee.--Under TEA21, after the computation of funds for major Federal-aid programs, additional funds are distributed to ensure that each State receives an additional amount based on equity considerations. This minimum guarantee provision ensures that each State will have a return of 90.5 percent on its share of contributions to the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund. To achieve the minimum guarantee each fiscal year, $2.8 billion nationally is available to the States as though they are STP funds (except that requirements related to set-asides for transportation enhancements, safety, and sub- State allocations do not apply), and any remaining amounts are distributed among core highway programs. Emergency relief.--This program provides for the repair and reconstruction of Federal-aid highways and Federally-owned roads which have suffered serious damage as the result of natural disasters or catastrophic failures. TEA21 restates the program eligibility specifying that emergency relief (ER) funds can be used only for emergency repairs to restore essential highway traffic, to minimize the extent of damage resulting from a natural disaster or catastrophic failure, or to protect the remaining facility and make permanent repairs. If ER funds are exhausted, the Secretary of Transportation may borrow funds from other highway programs. High priority projects.--TEA21 includes 1,850 high priority projects specified by the Congress. Funding for these projects totals $9.5 billion over the 6 year period with a specified percentage of the project funds made available each year. Unlike demonstration projects in the past, the funds for TEA21 high priority projects are subject to the Federal-aid obligation limitation, but the obligation limitation associated with the projects does not expire. Appalachian development highway system.--This program makes funds available to construct highways and access roads under section 201 of the Appalachian Regional Development Act of 1965. Under TEA21, funding is authorized at $450,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1999-2003; is available until expended and distributed based on the latest available cost-to-complete estimate. National corridor planning and border infrastructure programs.--TEA21 established a new national corridor planning and development program that provides funds for the coordinated planning, design, and construction of corridors of national significance, economic growth, and international or interregional trade. Allocations may be made to corridors identified in section 1105(c) of ISTEA and to other corridors using considerations identified in legislation. The coordinated border infrastructure program is established to improve the safe movement of people and goods at or across the U.S./ Canadian and U.S./Mexican borders. Ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities.--Section 1207 of TEA21 reauthorized funding for the construction of ferry boats and ferry terminal facilities. TEA21 also included a new requirement that $20,000,000 from each of fiscal years 1999 through 2003 be set aside for marine highway systems that are part of the National Highway System for use by the states of Alaska, New Jersey and Washington. In fiscal year 2001, TEA21 provides $38,000,000. Transportation and community and system preservation pilot program.--TEA21 established a new transportation and community and system preservation program that provides grants to states and local governments for planning, developing, and implementing strategies to integrate transportation and community and system preservation plans and practices. These grants may be used to improve the efficiency of the transportation system; reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment; reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure; and provide efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade. Funds provided for the transportation and community and system preservation pilot program in fiscal year 2001 shall be available for the following activities: Project Amount Arkansas River, Wichita, Kansas pedestrian transportation facility............................. $1,000,000 Boca Raton, Florida traffic calming measures............ 500,000 Buckeye Greenbelt parkway beautification, Toledo, Ohio.. 250,000 Central Florida commuter rail........................... 1,000,000 City of Bedminister, New Jersey bike path............... 500,000 City of Ferndale, Michigan traffic signals.............. 50,000 City of Sulphur Springs, Texas mobility improvements.... 750,000 Clark County, Indiana mobility improvement project...... 750,000 Community and environmental transportation acceptability process............................................. 1,000,000 Decatur, Illinois mobility improvements................. 750,000 Development of Mitchell Marina, Greenport, New York..... 250,000 El Segundo, California intermodal facility improvements. 1,000,000 Ellenboro and Harrisville, West Virginia mobility improvements........................................ 250,000 Elwood bicycle/pedestrian bridge, County of Santa Barbara, California................................. 250,000 Fort Worth, Texas trolley study......................... 750,000 High capacity transportation system study, Albuquerque, New Mexico.......................................... 500,000 Humboldt Greenway project, Hennepin County, Minnesota... 1,000,000 Lafayette Street access improvement project, Norristown, Pennsylvania........................................ 500,000 Lodge freeway pedestrian overpass, Detroit, Michigan.... 900,000 Madison County, Kentucky................................ 400,000 Mercer County, Illinois mobility improvements........... 750,000 Mobility improvement study, Fayette, Lamar, Tuscaloosa, Marion and Franklin Counties, Alabama............... 500,000 New Jersey-Northeast Pennsylvania rail corridor study... 1,000,000 New Orleans, Louisiana intermodal transportation research............................................ 750,000 North Metro region improvement project, Minnesota....... 750,000 North Spokane, Washington trade corridor improvements and enhancements.................................... 500,000 NW 7th Avenue corridor improvement project, Miami, Florida............................................. 100,000 Ohio and Erie Canal corridor trail development.......... 1,000,000 Pedestrian and bicycle route projects, Henderson, Nevada 250,000 Pedestrian improvements, Lake Cumberland Trail, Kentucky 100,000 Revitalization project, Fitchburg, Massachusetts........ 1,000,000 Rockville, Maryland Town Center accessibility improvement plan.................................... 250,000 Soundview Greenway in the Bronx, New York, New York..... 1,000,000 South Kingshighway business district pilot program, St. Louis, Missouri..................................... 100,000 Street revitalization, Clovis, New Mexico............... 750,000 Town of South Brunswick, New Jersey..................... 250,000 Traffic calming and mitigation, South Pasadena, Pasedena, El Serano, California..................... 1,000,000 Uptown transportation management program, New Mexico.... 500,000 Van Buren and Russelville, Arkansas environmental assessments and improvements........................ 1,000,000 Walkable edgewater initiative, Chicago, Illinois........ 100,000 West Baden Springs preservation project, Indiana........ 1,000,000 Federal-Aid Highways (HIGHWAY TRUST FUND) Limitation, fiscal year 2000...................... ($27,701,350,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.............. (29,318,806,000) Recommended in the bill \2\....................... (29,661,806,000) Bill compared with: Limitation, fiscal year 2000.................. (+1,960,456,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001.............. (+343,000,000) \1\ The budget request includes new obligations of $3,058,000,000 associated with revenue aligned budget authority, of which $598,000,000 is transferred to other modal administrations. The request also includes $255,000,000 in additional obligation authority. \2\ The Committee recommendation includes $26,603,806,000 in guaranteed obligations, and $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority, consistent with current law. The accompanying bill includes language limiting fiscal year 2001 federal-aid highways obligations to $29,661,806,000, an increase of $1,960,456,000 over the fiscal year 2000 enacted level and $343,000,000 over the budget request. The recommended level is the level assumed in TEA21. These funds are guaranteed under the highway category and protected by points of order in the House. The obligation limitation for the federal-aid highways program included in this bill includes $3,058,000,000 in obligations resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. TEA21 provides for an automatic increase in the federal-aid highways program budget authority and obligation authority in any budget year in which projected income to the highway account of the highway trust fund exceeds estimates of income to the trust fund that were made at the time TEA21 was enacted. Under law, a determination of the size of this increase in so- called ``firewall'' spending levels is made in the President's budget submission. TEA21 calls for any such increases in budget authority to be distributed proportionately among federal-aid highways apportioned and allocated programs, and for the overall federal-aid obligation limitation to be increased by an equal amount, and certain amounts to be distributed to the motor carrier safety grants program of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. In total, the estimate of increased income, and therefore, budget authority and obligations for fiscal year 2001 is $3,058,000,000. The budget request--in contravention of provisions of TEA21--proposed to allocate this additional obligation authority in fiscal year 2001 to other programs, including NHTSA's operations and research program; FTA's job access and reverse commute program; high speed rail activities; and the commercial drivers license program. The accompanying bill allocates the additional obligation authority consistent with the provisions of TEA21. In addition, the budget request included several proposals which are not included in the Committee's recommendation. These proposals included: (1) a set aside of $1,200,000 from funds made available for administrative expenses for training on Indian reservations; (2) an additional $25,000,000 for the transportation and community and system preservation program; (3) an additional $140,000,000 for the national corridor planning and border infrastructure program; (4) an additional $221,500,000 for transportation research programs; and (5) $398,000,000 to implement an emergency relief reserve fund. These proposals have not been approved by the Committee as they are unauthorized and if adopted would have required corresponding reductions in the states' apportionments and their obligation authority in fiscal year 2001. Although the following table reflects an estimated distribution of obligations by program category, the bill includes a limitation applicable only to the total of certain federal-aid spending. The following table indicates estimated obligations by program within the $29,661,806,000 provided by this Act and additional resources made available by permanent law: FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS ESTIMATED OBLIGATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ FY 1999 FY 2000 FY 2001 Programs actual estimate estimate ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subject to limitation: Surface transportation $6,226,536 $6,216,069 $6,731,321 program..................... National highway system...... 4,888,225 5,318,526 5,761,790 Interstate maintenance....... 3,357,000 4,419,470 4,788,822 Bridge program............... 2,565,202 3,784,695 4,105,706 Congestion mitigation and air 1,145,000 1,509,389 1,636,014 quality improvement......... Minimum guarantee............ 2,167,156 1,762,941 2,000,000 Safety incentive grants for 54,137 80,148 98,758 use of seat belts........... Safety incentive to prevent 43,029 69,680 78,833 operation of motor carrier by intoxicated persons...... ITS standards, research and 75,122 98,068 96,821 development................. ITS deployment............... 70,938 124,315 114,249 Transportation research...... 208,076 220,214 216,127 Federal lands highways....... 339,287 652,820 673,305 National corridor planning 118,307 121,964 135,550 and coordinated border infrastructure.............. Administration............... 330,657 304,355 290,115 Other programs............... 2,162,020 432,209 589,212 High priority projects....... 581,338 1,560,397 1,631,221 Woodrow Wilson memorial 1,064 138,650 193,642 bridge...................... Transportation infrastructure 48,006 100,583 106,503 finance and innovation...... Appalachian development 318,658 393,950 388,253 highway system.............. Emergency Relief............. ........... ........... 9,229 Motor Carrier Administration. ........... ........... 16,335 -------------------------------------- Total subject to obligation 24,699,758 \1\ 27,308, \2\ 29,661, limitation................ 443 806 ====================================== Emergency relief program......... 128,866 111,151 100,000 Minimum allocation/guarantee..... 857,868 702,364 664,345 Demonstration projects........... 247,570 393,188 275,231 -------------------------------------- Total exempt programs...... 1,234,304 1,206,703 1,039,576 Emergency relief supplemental.... 97,074 14,668 ........... -------------------------------------- Grand Total, Federal-aid 26,031,136 28,529,814 30,701,382 highways (direct)......... ------------------------------------------------------------------------ \1\ Reflects estimated obligation which is less than the obligation limitation ($27.520 billion) adjusted for RABA, enacted transfers to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and enacted reduction in fiscal year 2000. \2\ At this level of obligation limitation, an estimated $29.677 billion will be obligated in fiscal year 2001. The following table reflects the estimated distribution of the federal-aid limitation by state: ESTIMATED FY 2001 OBLIGATIONS [In thousands of dollars] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimated FY 2001 FY 2001 Appalachian Change from FY State formula minimum development Total 2000 limitation guarantee highways ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Alabama................................ $421,012 $35,455 $42,749 $499,216 +$39,101 Alaska................................. 230,277 64,220 ........... 294,497 +23,460 Arizona................................ 378,708 43,559 ........... 422,268 +33,924 Arkansas............................... 296,154 26,842 ........... 322,996 +25,435 California............................. 2,171,962 149,017 ........... 2,320,978 +183,462 Colorado............................... 282,577 13,662 ........... 296,239 +23,695 Connecticut............................ 325,049 48,080 ........... 373,129 +29,519 Delaware............................... 106,679 7,772 ........... 114,541 +9,252 Dist. of Col........................... 99,053 292 ........... 99,345 +7,892 Florida................................ 1,047,364 159,429 ........... 1,206,792 +96,253 Georgia................................ 766,647 96,200 17,084 881,931 +69,778 Hawaii................................. 116,161 10,601 ........... 126,762 +9,990 Idaho.................................. 163,274 18,931 ........... 182,205 +14,121 Illinois............................... 778,026 46,500 ........... 824,526 +64,769 Indiana................................ 527,367 57,447 ........... 584,814 +46,226 Iowa................................... 286,598 11,172 ........... 297,769 +23,546 Kansas................................. 282,037 7,839 ........... 289,876 +22,896 Kentucky............................... 375,794 32,240 39,216 447,249 +35,129 Louisiana.............................. 362,538 27,771 ........... 390,309 +30,646 Maine.................................. 121,892 9,683 ........... 131,575 +10,466 Maryland............................... 375,212 27,701 6,685 409,598 +32,441 Massachusetts.......................... 419,046 35,486 ........... 454,533 +35,747 Michigan............................... 737,157 71,202 ........... 808,359 +63,806 Minnesota.............................. 343,656 19,628 ........... 363,284 +28,449 Mississippi............................ 286,918 18,581 4,794 310,293 +24,485 Missouri............................... 570,885 39,297 ........... 610,182 +48,096 Montana................................ 223,135 31,859 ........... 254,995 +20,580 Nebraska............................... 193,224 6,921 ........... 200,145 +16,109 Nevada................................. 163,714 18,647 ........... 182,362 +14,588 New Hampshire.......................... 114,570 9,838 ........... 124,408 +9,728 New Jersey............................. 614,547 42,281 ........... 656,828 +51,625 New Mexico............................. 222,845 21,952 ........... 244,796 +19,402 New York............................... 1,152,626 89,349 9,214 1,251,189 +98,004 North Carolina......................... 609,668 67,217 25,169 702,054 +55,488 North Dakota........................... 157,838 10,617 ........... 168,455 +13,562 Ohio................................... 789,757 53,858 19,278 862,893 +67,952 Oklahoma............................... 367,971 19,332 ........... 387,303 +30,787 Oregon................................. 283,192 12,755 ........... 295,947 +23,192 Pennsylvania........................... 1,016,899 69,324 104,528 1,190,751 +91,783 Rhode Island........................... 137,343 14,296 ........... 151,639 +12,172 South Carolina......................... 373,501 46,298 2,094 421,894 +33,720 South Dakota........................... 164,077 13,093 ........... 177,170 +14,036 Tennessee.............................. 485,985 37,823 47,927 571,735 +44,810 Texas.................................. 1,711,357 201,194 ........... 1,912,551 +152,417 Utah................................... 187,408 11,779 ........... 199,187 +15,700 Vermont................................ 109,720 6,767 ........... 116,487 +9,338 Virginia............................... 590,566 52,352 10,074 652,992 +51,789 Washington............................. 422,504 14,356 ........... 436,859 +34,318 West Virginia.......................... 199,319 8,714 59,441 267,475 +20,210 Wisconsin.............................. 442,536 49,535 ........... 492,071 +38,978 Wyoming................................ 167,114 11,239 ........... 178,353 +14,347 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Subtotal......................... 22,775,551 2,000,000 388,253 25,163,805 +1,987,198 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Special Limitation: High Priority Projects............. ........... ........... ........... 1,631,219 +73,782 Woodrow Wilson Bridge.............. ........... ........... ........... 193,643 +54,993 Allocation Reserves................ ........... ........... ........... 2,673,139 +25,801 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Total Limitation................. ........... ........... ........... 29,661,806 +2,141,774 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project, Boston, Massachusetts.--For more than five years, this Committee has been concerned about the management and ever increasing cost of Boston's Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel project. Originally estimated to cost $2,500,000,000 in 1985, the Project is now estimated to top over $13,100,000,000. As part of its continuing oversight of this Project, the Committee asked both the General Accounting Office and the Department of Transportation's office of inspector general to review and report on the status of the Project. In May 1999, the Inspector General (IG) questioned the Project's use of an $826,000,000 credit that it planned to obtain by overpaying for insurance and investing the excess until 2017. The Project was carrying the credit as an offset to current costs. In October 1999, the IG issued a draft report which identified $142,000,000 of cost overruns and suggested that the cost could increase by another $942,000,000. The IG also identified that the Project's finance plans did not adequately disclose costs on the Project. Both FHWA and Project management officials vehemently disagreed with the IG's warning that Project's costs could rise. In January 2000, Project officials submitted a revised finance plan to the FHWA. Ignoring the IG's earlier warnings that costs could rise and finance plans were incomplete, FHWA approved the revised finance plan on February 1, 2000. Later that same day, the Project surprised FHWA by announcing a $1,400,000,000 cost increase. Project officials have since acknowledged that they were well aware of cost escalation when they replied to the IG. Project management deliberately withheld that information from the federal government. The withholding of information by Project officials, however egregious, does not excuse FHWA. FHWA had not performed its oversight duties and was unaware of the cost increases until they were announced by the Project. The Secretary of Transportation later termed the actions ``unconscionable'' and promised to reform FHWA's major project oversight. The Committee accepts the conclusions and recommendations of the department's task force but remains skeptical that they will be implemented effectively. FHWA's long established approach to ``partnering'' on all large highway projects must include strong and effective verification mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of situations similar to those on the Central Artery. In order to ensure that changes are made, the Committee directs the following actions: (1) The Secretary of Transportation is to submit to the Committee a quarterly report showing the progress and status of all recommendations in the task force report. The IG is to validate the accuracy of all actions reported as complete. (2) The FHWA has initiated a ``major projects team'' to improve headquarters administration and oversight of large construction projects. The Secretary is to provide the Committee with information on the specific responsibilities of the team and to whom it reports. (3) The Committee also directs that an annual summary of the reports and assessments issued by the major projects team. This submission is to include a listing of all highway projects costing over $1,000,000,000. For each project listed, the current cost estimate, a summary of the finding sources available to complete the project, and a description of significant cost trends in the last year shall be submitted. (4) By December 31, the Secretary is to provide the Committee with a listing of all highway projects totaling over $10,000,000, for which the estimated cost has increased over the original estimate by 25 percent of more. For each project, please provide the original cost estimate and the current cost estimate. Also for each project, provide a short description of the reasons for the cost increases. At the time of consideration of this bill by the Committee, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts had yet to submit an acceptable finance plan detailing the costs to complete the Project and the manner in which the state proposed to pay for it. Specifically, the finance plan: (1) failed to identify new funding sources to cover cost increases on the project. The state legislature has not acted to make funding sources available to cover the cost of the project, including the cost increase and adequate contingencies, nor has the governor signed such actions into law; (2) failed to provide specific actions on establishing and demonstrating a statewide program funding commitment and identification of appropriate funding resources for a statewide road and bridge program; (3) failed to provide adequate information on the insurance program; and (4) failed to include funding resources to cover additional shortfalls totaling between $300,000,000 to $400,000,000 identified by FHWA in excess of the state's announced $1,400,000,000 increase. In the absence of an acceptable finance plan and continuing mismanagement of the Project, the Committee had no alternative other than to include in the bill a provision (sec. 338) that prohibits any federal official from authorizing any project approvals or advance construction authorities for the Central Artery project during fiscal year 2001. FEDERAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program In November 1999, the Congress passed the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (P.L. 106-159), which established the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) within the Department of Transportation. Prior to this legislation, motor carrier safety responsibilities were housed within the Federal Highway Administration. For the two years prior to the passage of this legislation, the office of motor carriers was severely criticized for not doing enough to prevent trucking accidents and fatalities, and being too close to the industry that it regulated. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) sought to address these criticisms by forming a new administration that placed truck and bus safety on par with other modes of transportation and by strengthening the commercial driver's license program. The primary mission of FMCSA is to improve safety of commercial vehicle operations on our nation's highways. To accomplish this mission, the FMCSA is focused on reducing the number and severity of large truck crashes. Agency resources and activities contribute to ensuring safety in commercial vehicle operations through enforcement, including the use of stronger enforcement measures against safety violators, expedited safety regulation, technology innovation, improvements in information systems, training, and improvements to the commercial driver's license testing, record keeping, and sanctions. To accomplish these activities, FMCSA works closely in partnership with federal, state, and local enforcement agencies, the motor carrier industry, highway safety organizations, and individual citizens. MCSIA and TEA21 provide funding authorizations for FMCSA, including administrative expenses, motor carrier research and technology, the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI). Motor Carrier Safety (Highway Trust Fund) The office of motor carrier safety provides for most of the salaries, expenses and research funding for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA) amended Section 104(a)(1) of title 23 to provide one-third of one percent to be made available to administer motor carrier safety programs and motor carrier research. Limitation on administrative expenses Appropriation, fiscal year 2000 \1\................... ($76,058,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... (92,194,000) Recommended in the bill............................... (92,194,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +16,136,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................ \1\ Provided under FHWA's limitation on administrative expenses in fiscal year 2000. This amount includes funding for administrative expenses and research and technology initiatives. The Committee has provided a total of $92,194,000 for operating expenses and research for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration. This is the same amount as requested and $16,136,000 above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Of this total, $83,525,000 is for operating expenses and $8,669,000 is for research. The following adjustments are recommended to the budget request: High-risk, intrastate carrier information............. -$500,000 Contract for vision exemption program................. -638,000 Personnel adjustments................................. +144,000 Crash collection data................................. +1,500,000 Operation Respond..................................... +375,000 Research and technology............................... -881,000 High-risk, intrastate carrier information.--The Committee has deleted funding for the high-risk intrastate carrier information program under the operating expense account and recommends funding for this activity under the MCSAP program because of its direct relevance to state motor carrier safety (-$500,000). Contract vision exemption program.--FMCSA requested $638,000 to administer a new contract for a vision exemption program. Typically it is more expensive to hire contractors than to have in-house employees administer the program. For example, RSPA recently converted three contract positions to in-house positions and realized cost savings of almost $150,000 without impacting the quality of the program. The Committee has denied funding for this new contract program. Instead, funding has been provided to hire three employees to perform this work in-house. Processing vision exemption applications should be conducted by federal officials trained in motor carrier safety regulations associated with the exemption program. The three new positions should be sufficient to monitor and review the 50 to 55 applications that FMCSA receives each month and assist the agency in developing improved regulations that set the minimum medical standards for commercial drivers. Personnel adjustments.--A total of 120 new full-time employees has been approved for fiscal year 2001, two more than requested. The Committee has added four FTEs: three vision exemption specialists and one additional information systems analyst. The additional information systems analyst is necessary because, over the past three years, the office of motor carriers has decreased the number of computer specialists from 11 to 4; however the administration has been given additional information systems responsibilities. This new position should be used to assist in the development of improved information systems and to provide technical assistance to field operations on new computer systems. The Committee has denied two of the new positions requested: one international specialist because of the delays in implementing the trucking provisions contained in NAFTA and one technology specialist. The Committee has approved the other three technology specialists contained in the budget request and notes that FMCSA has ample employees currently working to advance the CVO and PRISM programs. Crash collection data.--The Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999 provides $5,000,000 for crash data collection (section 225e); however, FMCSA has requested $2,750,000 for these efforts. The Committee has provided $1,500,000 above the request to ensure that FMCSA improves data collection on motor carrier crashes; strengthens data analysis; links driver citation information with other information databases; helps train state employees and motor carrier safety enforcement officials; and ensures an increased focus on problem drivers through the integration of driver and crash data. Operation Respond.--Consistent with actions in previous years, $375,000 shall be made available for Operation Respond. Motor carrier research.--A total of $8,669,000 has been provided for motor carrier research. This is an increase of 55 percent above the fiscal year 2000 enacted level. Within this total, the Committee denies funding for the highway watch program. This activity is not research-oriented and its need for federal support has been substantially reduced given the rise in cellular communications. School transportation study.--FMCSA shall continue funding the school transportation study required by section 4030 of TEA21 at the same level as provided in fiscal year 2000. National Motor Carrier Safety Program (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of contract (Limitation on authorization) obligations) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ($105,000,000) ($105,000,000) Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. (187,000,000) (187,000,000) Recommended in the bill........... (177,000,000) (177,000,000) Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year (+72,000,000) (+72,000,000) 2000............................. Budget request, fiscal year (-10,000,000) (-10,000,000) 2001............................. The FMCSA's national motor carrier safety program was authorized by TEA21 and amended by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999. This program consists of two major areas: the motor carrier safety assistance program (MCSAP) and the information systems and strategic safety initiatives (ISSSI). MCSAP provides grants and project funding to states to develop and implement national programs for the uniform enforcement of federal and state rules and regulations concerning motor safety. The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. Grants are made to qualified states for the development of programs to enforce the federal motor carrier safety and hazardous materials regulations and the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986. The basic program is targeted at roadside vehicle safety inspections of both interstate and intrastate commercial motor vehicle traffic. ISSSI provides funds to develop and enhance data-related motor carrier programs. The Committee recommends $177,000,000 in liquidating cash for this program. This is an increase of $72,000,000 above the level enacted in fiscal year 2000. Limitation on Obligations The Committee recommends a $177,000,000 limitation on obligations for motor carrier safety grants. This is the level authorized under the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999, which amended TEA21. None of this funding is derived from revenue aligned budget authority due to lack of authorization. The Committee recommends the allocation of funds as follows: Motor carrier safety assistance program: $160,000,000 Basic motor carrier safety grants................ (130,684,375) Performance based incentive grant program........ (6,878,125) Border assistance................................ (7,750,000) High priority activities......................... (7,750,000) State training and administration................ (1,937,500) Crash causation database (section 224f).......... (5,000,000) Information systems and strategic safety initiatives: 17,000,000 Information systems.............................. (3,700,000) Motor carrier analysis........................... (2,300,000) Implementation of PRISM.......................... (5,000,000) Driver programs.................................. (1,000,000) Data collection and analysis (section 225f)...... (5,000,000) Commercial driver's license program (CDL).--The Committee has denied diverting $10,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority to the commercial driver's license program. These funds were to be awarded to states to enhance their driver records information systems to speed the entry of convictions onto driving record and ensure that driver records are complete. The Committee does not believe this denial will have a negative impact on the CDL program because the new motor carrier legislation insured that if more highway gas tax is collected than anticipated by TEA21, the motor carrier safety grants program would receive a portion of this increase. According to FHWA, if Congress does not divert any RABA funds to other programs, the motor carrier safety program will receive $16,335,000. This funding will more than amply fund the agency's commercial driver's license program in fiscal year 2001. Within the funds provided for the CDL program, FMCSA should work with the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, the Commercial Vehicle Safety Alliance, lead MCSAP agencies and licensing agencies to establish a working group to improve all aspects of the CDL program. In addition, FMCSA should consider sponsoring one or two pilot projects involving law enforcement and driver licensing agencies to explore new and innovative ways to ensure that drivers who have been convicted of a disqualifying offense do not operate during the period of suspension or revocation. Finally, FMCSA should continue to support the judicial and prosecutorial outreach effort. FMCSA shall submit a letter to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by April 1, 2001 summarizing efforts to increase quality control in the CDL program and efforts taken to provide technical and training assistance to the states. High risk, intrastate carrier information.--Within the base program or the RABA allocation, $500,000 shall be provided for the high-risk, intrastate carrier information program. Funding for this program had been deleted from the operating budget because this activity is of direct relevance to state motor carrier safety. Automated brake testing equipment.--According to 1999 data, the most common out-of-service violations were brake related (37 percent). Virginia has been researching and exploring opportunities to use infrared brake inspection equipment and has found one new technology that could significantly help to identify brake deficiencies in a timely manner. Within the high priority allocation, sufficient funding should be provided for the commonwealth to install and test infrared brake inspection equipment (both fixed and hand held) at several weigh stations. Covert operations.--Within funding provided to the high priority activities, $500,000 shall be used to conduct covert operations and survey the extent to which commercial vehicle operators violate their out-of-service notices by getting back on the road without fixing their vehicle or before completing an eight-hour rest period. The Committee expects a report on the survey results by May 1, 2001, outlining the extent to which out-of-service notices are being violated. This survey should be conducted on a sufficiently large sample size so the Committee can fully appreciate the scope and nature of the challenge. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. It succeeded the National Highway Safety Bureau, which previously had administered traffic and highway safety functions as an organizational unit of the Federal Highway Administration. The administration's current programs are authorized in four major laws: (1) The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, (chapter 301 of title 49, U.S.C.); (2) the Highway Safety Act, (chapter 4 of title 23, U.S.C.); (3) the Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings (MVICS) Act, (Part C for subtitle VI of title 49, U.S.C.); and (4) the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). The first law provides for the establishment and enforcement of safety standards for vehicles and associated equipment and the conduct of supporting research, including the acquisition of required testing facilities and the operation of the national driver register (NDR). Discrete authorizations were subsequently established for the NDR under the National Driver Register Act of 1982. The second law provides for coordinated national highway safety programs (section 402) to be carried out by the states and for highway safety research, development, and demonstration programs (section 403). The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (Public Law 100-690) authorized a new drunk driving prevention program (section 410) to make grants to states to implement and enforce drunk driving prevention programs. The third law (MVICS) provides for the establishment of low-speed collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection demonstration projects, automobile content labeling, and odometer regulations. An amendment to this law established the Secretary's responsibility, which was delegated to NHTSA, for the administration of mandatory automotive fuel economy standards. A 1992 amendment to the MVICS established automobile content labeling requirements. The fourth law (TEA21) reauthorizes the full range of NHTSA programs and enacts a number of new initiatives. These include: safety incentives to prevent operation of motor vehicles by intoxicated persons (section 163 of title 23 U.S.C.); seat belt incentive grants (section 157 of title 23 U.S.C.); occupant protection incentive grants (section 405); and highway safety data improvement incentive grant program (section 411). TEA21 also reauthorized highway safety research, development and demonstration programs (section 403) to include research measures that may deter drugged driving, educate the motoring public on how to share the road safely with commercial motor vehicles, and provide vehicle pursuit training for police. Finally, TEA21 adopts a number of new motor vehicle safety and information provisions, including rulemaking directions for improving air bag crash protection systems, lobbying restrictions, exemptions from the odometer requirements for classes or categories of vehicles the Secretary deems appropriate, and adjustments to the automobile domestic content labeling requirements. Traffic Safety Trends In 1992, the nation experienced the lowest number of highway fatalities since 1962--39,250--despite an increasing amount of travel on the roadways. This trend reversed itself since then. However, the annual number of fatalities have been decreasing slightly over the past three years. The latest NHTSA data indicate fatalities in 1999 were 41,345, which is similar to the 41,471 fatalities in 1998. However, not all highway fatalities are decreasing. Motorcycle fatalities increased 8 percent between 1997 and 1998, and this trend is continuing in 1999, with an additional 11 percent increase. In comparing 1999 to 1998, the number of police-reported crashes and the number of injured persons related to those crashes have remained fairly constant at an estimated 6,289,000 and 3,200,000 respectively, for 1999. The fatality rate has decreased to 1.5 deaths per 100 million vehicles miles traveled (VMT). This compares to a rate of 1.6 in 1998. During this time period, the VMT increased about 2 percent. The following graphs show these safety trends:
The number of fatalities in traffic crashes involving alcohol decreased slightly in 1999 to an estimated 15,794 people. In comparison, 15,936 people were killed in alcohol- related crashes in 1998. Operations and Research Appropriation (Highway Trust (General Fund) Fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $87,400,000 $74,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... ............... 286,475,000 Recommended in the bill............... 107,876,000 74,000,000 Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +20,476,000 ............... Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. +107,876,000 -212,475,000 TEA21, as amended, authorized a total appropriation level of $181,876,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities in fiscal year 2001. This total consists of three separate authorizations. First, the bill includes $72,000,000 of contract authority from the Highway Trust Fund to finance NHTSA's operations and research activities from title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway spending and is not subject to an appropriation. Second, TEA21, as amended, includes an authorization, subject to appropriation, of $107,876,000 for operations and research activities under chapter 301 of title 49 U.S.C. and part C of subtitle VI of title 49 U.S.C. Third, the bill includes an authorization from the Highway Trust Fund of $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register. This funding is subject to appropriations. For fiscal year 2001, the Administration requested a total of $286,475,000 for NHTSA's operations and research activities. Funding was to be allocated as follows: $72,000,000 in guaranteed funds for activities eligible under title 23 U.S.C. 403; $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register; $142,475,000 from the highway trust fund; and $70,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority (RABA). The Committee is extremely disappointed with this budget request. First, it is 58 percent higher than the amended authorized funding, which was approved less than one year ago. At that time, Congress approved a $20,476,000 increase in NHTSA's authorized level to assure that motor vehicle and highway safety issues were adequately funded. Since enactment of this legislation, there has been no major program or rulemaking that would justify an additional 58 percent increase in funding. In fact, some of NHTSA's key programs, such as air bag rulemakings, are winding down. Second, under this budget request, 24 percent of NHTSA's funding would be derived from excess gasoline taxes (RABA). Doing so places critical safety programs in jeopardy because RABA increases cannot be assured in future years. The Committee recommends new budget authority and obligation limitations for a total program level of $181,876,000, a 13 percent increase above fiscal year 2000. None of this funding is from revenue aligned budget authority. The Committee has worked with NHTSA to revise its 2001 budget request to comply with the levels authorized and recommends that the full amount be distributed as follows: Salaries and benefits................................. $55,880,000 Travel................................................ 1,176,000 Operating expenses.................................... 20,810,000 Contract programs: Safety performance................................ 7,347,000 Safety assurance.................................. 11,482,000 Highway safety programs........................... 40,236,000 Research and analysis............................. 54,950,000 General administration............................ 645,000 Grant administration reimbursements................... -10,650,000 ----------------- Total........................................... $181,876,000 Within the increased funding, priority should be given to the following NHTSA programs: safety standards, new car assessment programs, vehicle safety compliance, biomechanics, the crash injury research and engineering network, statistical programs (i.e. FARS, NASS, data, state data), and simulator research on driver distractions and blood alcohol levels. Within thirty days, NHTSA shall provide its recommendations to the House Committee on Appropriations as to how reductions from the budget request shall be distributed. New staff positions.--The Committee has denied half-year funding for 29 new positions requested in the budget. Because the Committee has held NHTSA to the authorized level and has not approved the transfer of RABA funding, funding for these new positions and the new programs they would support is not available. Operating expenses.--Due to budget constraints, operating expenses have been held at $20,810,000, or $3,454,000 less than requested. Within this amount, computer support is funded at the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee believes this level of funding is adequate and urges NHTSA to adopt a more cost effective approach to managing computer support expenses. The Committee also requests that NHTSA provide a detailed report of fiscal year 2000 computer support expenditures by the end of December 2000. National driver register.--Within the $2,000,000 provided for the national driver register, up to $250,000 may be used for the technology assessment authorized under section 2006 of TEA21. New car assessment program.--The Committee has fully funded the 2001 budget request for the new car assessment program, including some funding for consumer information. Consistent with prior years, the Committee has deleted funding for a separate consumer information program. Hotline.--Funding for the hotline has been held at last year's level because of concerns with the management of this program. Safe/livable communities.--Consistent with actions taken for the past two years, the Committee has not provided funding for the safe/livable communities program. Emergency medical services.--Within the funding for highway safety, a total of $2,250,000 has been provided for emergency medical services. Within this funding, $750,000 should be provided for the Brain Trauma Foundation (BTF) to continue phase three of the guidelines for pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury. BTF should continue to use Inova Fairfax Hospital as a center of excellence for data collection. Crash injury research and engineering network (CIREN).-- Funding for the CIREN program should not be reduced below the fiscal year 2000 level. The Committee is very supportive of the work done by these centers and is encouraged that private sector interests have agreed to fund two additional centers. Because of this commitment, no federal funding should be provided to expand the number of federally funded centers in fiscal year 2001. Special crash investigations.--The Committee is pleased to learn that the private sector has agreed to fund 300 special crash investigations per year, to collect and analyze real world crash data as proposed by the NTSB. This will double the number of investigations conducted in 2000. However, it is critical that, because of contributions from the private sector for this work, the results be treated as public data and no conditions be attached to their release. Aggressive driving research.--The Committee continues to be concerned about the frequent occurrence of aggressive driving, especially in the Washington capital region. To address this issue the Committee again has included $1,000,000 for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration (MD MVA) to continue their regional aggressive driving program on behalf of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. So that other communities may benefit from this innovative program, it is important that the various components of the program (public education, enforcement, and driver modification) be carefully evaluated to determine their relative effects on crash reduction. Thus, the Committee directs that these funds be used for program evaluation efforts. In addition, the Committee directs NHTSA to work with the MD MVA to ensure that methods are developed to measure and track the incidence of aggressive driving and to determine the impact of the regional program on its occurrence. Bill language.--The Committee continues to carry two provisions in the bill, consistent with prior year actions. First is a provision prohibiting any agency funded in this Act from planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking which would require passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance. Second is a general provision (sec. 318) that prohibits funds to be used to prepare, prescribe, or promulgate corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for automobiles that differ from those previously enacted. The limitation does not preclude the Secretary of Transportation, in order to meet lead time requirements of the law, from preparing, proposing, and issuing a CAFE standard for model year 2003 automobiles that is identical to the CAFE standard established for such automobiles for model year 2002. The Committee has deleted language requested by the administration that sets aside $1,000,000 for Native American programs due to budgetary constraints. Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) (Liquidation of (Limitation on contract obligations) authorization) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $206,800,000 $206,800,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... 213,000,000 213,000,000 Recommended in the bill............... 213,000,000 213,000,000 Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +6,200,000 +6,200,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ............... TEA21 authorized four state grant programs: the highway safety program, the alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grant program, the occupant protection incentive grant program, and the state highway safety data improvement grant program. The Committee recommends $213,000,000 for the liquidation of contract authorization, which is a 3 percent increase above the 2000 enacted level. This funding is mandatory and has no scoring implications. Limitation on Obligations As in past years and recommended in the budget request, the bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. These obligations are included within the highway guarantee. The bill includes separate obligation limitations with the following funding allocations: Highway safety programs............................... $155,000,000 Occupant protection incentive grants.................. 13,000,000 Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures.............. 36,000,000 State highway safety data grants...................... 9,000,000 Highway safety grants.--These grants are awarded to states for the purpose of reducing traffic crashes, fatalities and injuries. The states may use the grants to implement programs to reduce deaths and injuries caused by exceeding posted speed limits; encourage proper use of occupant protection devices; reduce alcohol- and drug-impaired driving; reduce crashes between motorcycles and other vehicles; reduce school bus crashes; improve police traffic services; improve emergency medical services and trauma care systems; increase pedestrian and bicyclist safety; increase safety among older and younger drivers; and improve roadway safety. The grants also provide additional support for state data collection and reporting of traffic deaths and injuries. An obligation limitation of $155,000,000 is included in the bill, which is the same amount as requested. The national occupant protection survey shall be funded within this total. Also, language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $7,750,000 for NHTSA. The bill continues to carry language that prohibits the use of funds for construction, rehabilitation, and remodeling costs or for office furnishings or fixtures for state, local, or private buildings of structures. Occupant protection incentive grants.--The Committee has fully funded the occupant protection incentive grant program at $13,000,000. States may qualify for this new grant program by implementing 4 of the following 6 laws and programs: (1) a law requiring safety belt use by all front seat passengers, and beginning in fiscal year 2001, in any seat in the vehicle; (2) a safety belt use law providing for primary enforcement; (3) minimum fines or penalty points for seat belt and child seat use law violations; (4) special traffic enforcement programs for occupant protection; (5) a child passenger protection education program; and (6) a child passenger protection law which requires minors to be properly secured. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $650,000. In addition to the occupant protection incentive grant program, TEA21 established a safety incentive grant program (section 157) to encourage states to increase seat belt usage. The grant program totals $500,000,000 over six years. Allocations of federal grants require determinations of (1) seat belt use rates and improvements and (2) federal medical cost savings attributable to increased seat belt use. States that meet the section 157 requirements can use funds for any purpose under title 23, including highway construction, highway safety, and intelligent transportation systems. NHTSA and FHWA are jointly administering this program. NHTSA will collect the state data and determine the allocation of funds. Alcohol-impaired driving incentive grants.--These grants will offer two-tiered basic and supplemental grants to reward states that pass new laws and start more effective programs to attack drunk and impaired driving. States may qualify for basic grants in two ways. First, they can implement 5 of the following 7 laws and programs: (1) administrative license revocation; (2) programs to prevent drivers under age 21 from obtaining alcoholic beverages; (3) intensive impaired driving law enforcement; (4) graduated licensing law with nighttime driving restrictions and zero tolerance; (5) drivers with high blood alcohol-content (BAC); (6) young adult programs to reduce impaired driving by individuals ages 21-34; (7) an effective system for increasing the rate of testing for BAC of drivers in fatal crashes. Second, they can demonstrate a reduction in alcohol-involved fatality rates in each of the last three years for which FARS data is available and demonstrate rates lower than the national average for each of the last three years. Supplemental grants are provided to states that adopt additional measures, including videotaping of drunk drivers by police; self-sustaining impaired driving programs; laws to reduce driving with suspended licenses; use of passive alcohol sensors by police; a system for tracking information on drunk drivers; and other innovative programs. The Committee has provided $36,000,000 for these grants in fiscal year 2001. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $1,800,000. In addition to the alcohol-impaired driving incentive grant program, TEA21 authorized $500,000,000 in grants over six years for states that have enacted and are enforcing a 0.08 BAC law (section 163). For each fiscal year a state meets this criterion, it will receive a grant in the same ratio in which they receive section 402 funds. The states may use these funds for any project eligible for assistance under title 23 (e.g. highway construction, bridge repair, highway safety, etc.). This grant program encourages states to adopt and enforce significant anti-drunk driving legislation. State highway safety data improvements.--The Committee has provided $9,000,000 for the state highway safety data improvement grants program. To receive first year grants, a state has three options: (1) establish a multi-disciplinary highway safety data and traffic records coordinating committee; complete a highway safety data and traffic records assessment or audit within the last five years; and initiate development of a multi-year highway safety data and traffic records strategic plan; (2) certify that it has met the first two criteria in option 1, submit a data and traffic records multi- year plan, and certify that the coordinating committee continues to operate and support the plan; (3) the Secretary may award grants of up to $25,000 for one year to any state that does not meet the criteria for option 1. States that receive first year grants then would be eligible for subsequent grants by: submitting or updating a data and traffic multi-year plan; certifying that the coordinating committee continues to support the multi-year plan; and reporting annually on the progress made to implement the plan. Language is included in the bill that limits funding available for federal grants administration from this program to $450,000. Child passenger protection education grants.--TEA21 authorized $7,500,000 for fiscal year 2000 and 2001 to implement a new child passenger protection program under section 2003(b). This program is designed to prevent deaths and injuries to children, educate the public concerning the proper installation of child restraints, and train safety personnel on child restraint use. Last year, this program was funded by the Federal Highway Administration, and administered by NHTSA. Consistent with last year's action, the Committee has provided $7,500,000 for these grants within funds available to the Federal Highway Administration. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION Summary of Fiscal Year 2001 Program The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry, as well as managing the high speed ground transportation program. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical plant are also administered by the FRA. The total recommended program level for the FRA for fiscal year 2001 is $689,263,000, which is $366,424,000 less than requested. In large part, this reduction results from the Committee not approving the use of revenue aligned budget authority for a new intercity passenger rail program. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year 2001 program requests and the Committee's recommendations: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Program 2000 enacted Fiscal year Recommended in level \1\ 2001 request the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Safety and operations........................................ $94,288,000 $103,211,000 $102,487,000 Safety and operations user fees.............................. ............... -77,300,000 ............... Railroad research and development............................ 22,464,000 26,800,000 26,300,000 Railroad research and development user fees.................. ............... -25,500,000 ............... Rhode Island rail development................................ 10,000,000 17,000,000 17,000,000 Next generation high speed rail.............................. 27,200,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 Alaska railroad.............................................. 10,000,000 ............... ............... Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation............ 571,000,000 521,476,000 521,476,000 Expanded intercity rail passenger service fund (limitation on ............... (468,000,000) ............... obligations)................................................ -------------------------------------------------- Total $734,952,000 $1,055,687,000 $689,263,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Excludes $179,000 in across-the-board rescissions and $436,000 in TASC reductions. Safety and Operations Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $94,288,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................. 103,211,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 102,487,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +8,199,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. -724,000 \1\ Of this total, $77,300,000 was to be offset from new railroad safety user fees. The safety and operations account provides support for FRA's rail safety, passenger and freight program activities. Funding also supports all salaries and expenses and other operating costs related to FRA staff and programs. A total of $102,487,000 has been allocated to safety and operations, which is almost 9 percent above the 2000 enacted level. The following adjustments have been made to the budget request: Approve 7 new positions instead of 10................. -$170,000 Decrease new employee development funding............. -360,000 Slight reduction in information technology initiative. -294,000 Reduce funding for travel............................. -250,000 Deny new outreach initiative.......................... -500,000 Operation Lifesaver................................... +350,000 Valley trains and tours............................... +500,000 New positions.--The Committee has funded seven of the ten new positions requested (-$170,000). Over the past three years, Congress has approved 24 new positions; however, FRA currently has 34 vacancies. It is premature to continue increasing staff at the level the Committee has done in the past because of the large number of unfilled positions. Employee development.--FRA has requested $660,000 for employee development. Because of budget constraints, this new budget item has been reduced to $300,000. Information technology initiative.--The Committee has denied funding for two components under FRA's information technology initiative--the data mart and the legal web site. The web site should be developed as part of FRA's broader internet site enhancements, not separately. Funding for the data mart should be postponed until 2002 because this activity is in its infancy. FRA should do more planning in fiscal year 2001 and identify what data sets it plans to put into the data mart. This additional work should prevent catastrophies that other agencies, such as the Internal Revenue Service, had in procuring new, cutting edge information technologies. Travel.--Due to budget constraints, only half of the requested travel increase has been approved. New outreach program.--Funding for the new outreach program has been denied. This funding was to be used to develop new grade crossing safety messages. This duplicates federal funding for Operation Lifesaver, which is in the process of developing a number of new grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention announcements. Operation Lifesaver.--An additional $350,000 has been provided for Operation Lifesaver to continue developing and disseminating new grade crossing safety and trespasser prevention programs. This work has been highly successful in the past. With this supplement, a total of $950,000 has been provided to Operation Lifesaver for fiscal year 2001. Valley trains and tours.--A total of $500,000 has been provided to support scenic passenger rail service in Shenandoah County, Virginia. This funding is contingent upon an agreement with Norfolk Southern Railway on track usage and support by the Commonwealth of Virginia. User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's request to collect $77,300,000 in user fees for railroad safety activities. This request has not been authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will continue to fund railroad safety activities in the traditional manner. Bill language.--The Committee has rescinded a total of $60,000,000 in advanced appropriations for the Pennsylvania Station redevelopment project, of which $20,000,000 was to be available in fiscal year 2001. These advance appropriations were provided in the Consolidated Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2000. The Inspector General recently released a report on this project and found that: (1) the project design is only 15 percent complete, although it has been in the planning stages since 1992; (2) costs continue to escalate from $315,000,000 in 1992 to $788,400,000 currently; and (3) the project's current completion date of 2005 could be delayed substantially because Amtrak and the United States Postal Service have not yet approved project design or agreed on the sequence of work to be performed. The Inspector General has questioned the corporation's ability to contain the redevelopment costs, particularly without detailed design work completed yet. The report also identified $295,000,000 in unsecured funding necessary to complete the project that will not be available until after lease agreements have been finalized and signed with the principal tenants. Without a more complete project design and signed lease agreements, the Committee believes that it is premature to expend $20,000,000 in fiscal year 2001 on this project. For future consideration of this project, the Committee directs the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Corporation (PSRC) to submit annually to FRA a comprehensive finance plan for this project, which establishes cost- containment strategies and realistic project milestones, identifies how PSRC will secure sufficient funding to meet expected costs, and provide contingency plans to resolve any funding shortfalls. In addition, FRA should closely monitor PSRC's progress in implementing its cost containment strategies and achieving its project completion date. Other programs.--A total of $3,500,000 is provided within the maglev program for FRA to administer the magnetic levitation program, Operation Lifesaver, Alaska Railroad liabilities, and track inspection activities, as requested. Railroad Research and Development Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $22,464,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 \1\.................. 26,800,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 26,300,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... +3,836,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... -500,000 \1\ Of this total, $25,500,000 was to be offset from new railroad research and development user fees. The railroad research and development appropriation finances contract research activities as well as salaries and expenses necessary for supervisory, management, and administrative functions. The objectives of this program are to reduce the frequency and severity of railroad accidents and to provide technical support for rail safety rulemaking and enforcement activities. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $26,300,000, which is $500,000 less than requested. Funding to evaluate methods for developing performance-based regulations has been denied. Higher capacity rail cars on light density tracks.--Within the funds provided, FRA should continue to conduct a study on track and bridge requirements for the handling of 286,000-pound rail cars. As these higher capacity rail cars are phased into the industry to increase productivity and improve equipment utilization, there is a need for additional information on the effects that heavier axle loads are currently having on main line tracks, the current condition of the short line railroads, and the economic impact of handling heavier axle loads on light density tracks. Recognizing that the investments needed to upgrade a line to handle heavier axle loads are very site specific, the study should develop unit costs that would enable such calculations to be made. FRA should work with the American Short Line and Regional Railroad Association on this analysis because it will provide substantial benefit to the short line industry. User fees.--The Committee has denied the administration's request to collect $25,500,000 in user fees for railroad research and development activities. These fees are not authorized. Until such authorization occurs, the Committee will fund railroad research and development activities in the traditional manner. Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program TEA21 establishes a railroad rehabilitation and improvement financing loan and loan guarantee program. The aggregate unpaid principal amounts of the obligations may not exceed $3.5 billion at any one time. Not less than $1 billion is reserved for projects primarily benefiting freight railroads other than Class I carriers. The funding may be used: (1) to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, components of track bridges, yards, buildings, or shops; (2) to refinance existing debt; or (3) to develop and establish new intermodal or railroad facilities. No federal appropriation is required since a non- federal infrastructure partner may contribute the subsidy amount required by the Credit Reform Act of 1990 in the form of a credit risk premium. Once received, statutorily established investigation charges are immediately available for appraisals and necessary determinations and findings. The Committee has included bill language specifying that no new direct loans or loan guarantee commitments may be made using federal funds for the payment of any credit premium amount during fiscal year 2001, as requested. Rhode Island Rail Development Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $10,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 17,000,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 17,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... +7,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................ The Rhode Island rail development project will construct a third track along portions of the Northeast Corridor between Davisville and Central Falls, Rhode Island. This third track will prevent mixing freight and high-speed passenger rail service and will provide sufficient clearance to accommodate double-stack freight cars. The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for the Rhode Island rail development project, as requested. This funding is matched on a dollar-for-dollar basis by the state. Since fiscal year 1995, a total of $38,000,000 has been appropriated in federal funds to construct a third track. With this appropriation, the federal commitment to this project will be completed. Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $27,200,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 22,000,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 22,000,000 Bill compared with: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -5,200,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................ The next generation high-speed rail program funds the development, demonstration, and implementation of high-speed rail technologies. It is managed in conjunction with the program authorized in TEA21. The Committee recommends $22,000,000 for the next generation high-speed rail program, the amount requested. Total program funding is allocated as follows: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fiscal year Fiscal year Committee 2000 enacted 2001 request recommendation ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Train control systems........................................ $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 Illinois project......................................... (6,500,000) (7,000,000) (7,000,000) Alaska railroad.......................................... (5,000,000) (--) (--) Michigan project......................................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) Transportation safety research alliance.................. (500,000) (--) (--) Non-electric locomotives..................................... 7,000,000 6,800,000 6,800,000 ALPS..................................................... (4,000,000) (3,800,000) (3,800,000) Prototype locomotive..................................... (3,000,000) (3,000,000) (3,000,000) Grade crossings & Innovative technologies: 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 N.C. sealed corridor..................................... (400,000) (400,000) (400,000) Mitigating hazards....................................... (2,500,000) (2,500,000) (2,500,000) Low-cost technologies.................................... (1,100,000) (1,100,000) (1,100,000) Track and structures......................................... 1,200,000 1,200,000 1,200,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. 27,200,000 22,000,000 22,000,000 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rail-highway crossings hazard eliminations.--Under section 1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year is made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for these funds. Of these set-aside funds, $1,000,000 shall be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards between Washington D.C. and Richmond, Virginia; $1,000,000 shall be used between Mobile, Alabama and New Orleans, Louisiana; $1,000,000 shall be used in Salem, Oregon; $1,000,000 shall be used in Portage, Indiana; $750,000 shall be available for the Minneapolis/St. Paul to Chicago corridor; $250,000 shall be used between Atlanta and Macon, Georgia; and $250,000 shall be used along the eastern San Fernando Valley in California. Grade crossing program.--A general provision (sec. 333) is included in the bill that would remove the requirement for state or local governments to provide matching funds on rail- highway hazard elimination projects funded from the surface transportation program. Many states have difficulty expending these funds, and as a result, some states have several years of unobligated balances. For example, the State of Georgia has an unobligated balance of $9,630,879, which is approximately two years of apportionments. Similarly, the State of North Carolina has an unobligated balance of $7,451,146, or two years of apportionments. Tragic accidents like the one that occurred recently on the Tennessee-Georgia border do not have to occur if states are more willing--and able--to spend their grade crossing funds. The Committee anticipates that by deleting the non-federal match, states should be able to reduce these unobligated balances and eliminate a greater number of grade crossing hazards than previously planned. The table below indicates the current unobligated balances by state and the anticipated fiscal year 2001 apportionments. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Rail-highway crossing --------------------------------- Estimated State fiscal year Unobligated as 2001 of 9/30/99 apportionment ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Alabama............................... $3,220,384 $4,093,347 Alaska................................ 2,439,186 4,483,688 Arizona............................... 1,576,081 4,610,050 Arkansas.............................. 2,457,429 2,882,097 California............................ 10,182,716 576,532 Colorado.............................. 2,202,728 2,921,334 Connecticut........................... 1,047,610 648,685 Delaware.............................. 504,776 578,887 District of Columbia.................. 210,728 842,912 Florida............................... 4,686,707 5,549,668 Georgia............................... 4,696,264 9,630,879 Hawaii................................ 391,793 783,586 Idaho................................. 1,429,320 996,436 Illinois.............................. 7,926,261 5,980,632 Indiana............................... 4,962,375 4,170,266 Iowa.................................. 3,795,673 3,227,419 Kansas................................ 4,870,650 557,685 Kentucky.............................. 2,535,034 5,201,538 Louisiana............................. 3,176,113 512,253 Maine................................. 938,057 2,686,174 Maryland.............................. 1,427,286 3,826,624 Massachusetts......................... 2,011,267 4,795,022 Michigan.............................. 5,352,187 5,048,102 Minnesota............................. 4,041,936 3,233,347 Mississippi........................... 2,240,007 1,401,195 Missouri.............................. 3,998,022 153,512 Montana............................... 1,613,567 3,384,540 Nebraska.............................. 2,661,323 1,879,034 Nevada................................ 783,990 850,394 New Hampshire......................... 612,960 435,493 New Jersey............................ 2,691,259 3,233,825 New Mexico............................ 1,205,846 1,437,350 New York.............................. 6,020,444 651,458 North Carolina........................ 3,981,325 7,451,146 North Dakota.......................... 2,769,040 2,123,231 Ohio.................................. 6,301,744 424,607 Oklahoma.............................. 3,300,832 481,040 Oregon................................ 2,194,099 5,237,851 Pennsylvania.......................... 5,804,391 731,201 Rhode Island.......................... 445,013 963,418 South Carolina........................ 2,584,926 388,042 South Dakota.......................... 1,654,832 2,981,778 Tennessee............................. 3,267,384 2,429,896 Texas................................. 10,906,280 5,059,100 Utah.................................. 1,152,999 403,252 Vermont............................... 618,631 3,137,370 Virginia.............................. 2,731,204 6,131,344 Washington............................ 2,717,360 6,883,435 West Virginia......................... 1,708,309 1,326,238 Wisconsin............................. 3,929,021 3,607,523 Wyoming............................... 912,318 477,472 --------------------------------- Total........................... 154,889,487 141,501,908 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Capital Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....................... $571,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...................... 521,476,000 Recommended in the bill............................... 521,476,000 Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000................... -49,524,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.................. ................ The National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) is a private/public corporation created by the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 and incorporated under the laws of the District of Columbia to operate a national rail passenger system. Amtrak started operation on May 1, 1971. Status of Amtrak In 1997, Congress passed the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act, which among other things, required Amtrak to reach operating self-sufficiency by the end of 2002. Three years into this mandate, Amtrak has achieved some savings; however, a significant amount of work needs to be done in the next two years to reach this goal. On the positive side, Amtrak has topped $1 billion in revenue, has achieved record ridership, is continuing to grow its mail and express opportunities, and has completed its market-based network analysis that identified a number of new revenue opportunities. On the negative side, the railroad has delayed its highly touted high-speed rail service between New York and Boston by at least 7 months, has continued to experience growing cash losses, will not be able to implement a number of its growth strategies until at least fiscal year 2001, and only then if the freight railroads agree, and are involved in another round of labor negotiations that could be quite costly. In March, the Committee heard testimony from Amtrak, the Department of Transportation Inspector General, and the General Accounting Office (GAO) about Amtrak's ability to meet this mandate. Amtrak was quite positive that it would meet or exceed this goal. However, the Inspector General and the GAO were more cautious. The Inspector General testified that, while it is possible to achieve operating self-sufficiency by 2003, Amtrak still needs to make major improvements to achieve this mandate. GAO testified, ``Amtrak has made only modest progress in its quest towards reducing its need for federal operating subsidies. During the past five years, Amtrak reduced its need for operating subsidies by $78,000,000. During the next two and a half years, Amtrak must make further reductions totaling over $290,000,000. This is nearly four times as much as it has achieved in the past four years.'' However, even if Amtrak meets the self-sufficiency mandate, it will have difficulty maintaining this status without a significant infusion of federal funding each year, for Amtrak has substantial capital needs. For example, Amtrak recently estimated that approximately $12,500,000,000 will be needed over the next 25 years to modernize the infrastructure on the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C. and New York City. In addition, Amtrak requires about $300,000,000 per year to replace its capital assets, such as its facilities and equipment. At the Committee hearing, the Inspector General and the GAO testified that even if Amtrak reaches operational self- sufficiency Congress will need to appropriate between $500,000,000 and $1,000,000,000 per year to keep Amtrak operating. However, the GAO testified that funding would need to be above $1,000,000,000 per year if Amtrak wanted to expand and make significant improvements to its current infrastructure. This is well above any funding level Congress has provided Amtrak since 1982. Committee Recommendation As a result of the 1997 mandate, appropriations for Amtrak have been decreasing. In fiscal year 2000, Amtrak received $571,000,000 in capital grants. For fiscal year 2001, the administration requested $521,476,000 for capital needs and an additional $468,000,000 for intercity passenger rail services. The intercity passenger rail services funding would be used to improve rail service throughout the United States by shortening rail travel times. Since Amtrak is the only intercity rail provider in the United States at this time, these additional funds should be viewed as an additional federal subsidy to Amtrak. In comparison, Amtrak requested $989,000,000 for capital needs. The Committee recommendation fully funds the administration's capital request of $521,476,000. This is the fourth installment of a five year, $5 billion plan to re- energize and recapitalize Amtrak. However, the Committee has disapproved funding for the intercity passenger rail service fund financing, which was to be derived from higher than anticipated receipts in the highway trust fund. Instead, the Committee has included a general provision (sec. 334) that allows the states the opportunity to flex any additional RABA revenue allocated to the state's congestion mitigation and air quality program and surface transportation program for intercity rail services. This proposal would allow states to spend additional funds on rail, such as upgrading track or installing grade crossing devices, that could directly affect Amtrak. Bill language.--Consistent with actions taken last year, the Committee has included bill language that prohibits Amtrak from obligating more than $208,590,000 prior to September 30, 2001. Fire and life safety needs.--The Committee is greatly concerned about the pressing fire and life safety improvements needed in six tunnels beneath the Hudson and East Rivers and the areas beneath the existing Pennsylvania Station and Farley buildings. Amtrak, the Long Island Railroad, and the New Jersey Transit Corporation have identified $804,000,000 in fire and life safety needs, of which $654,000,000 is unfunded. Amtrak has testified that, due to the age of the infrastructure (circa 1910) and the number of riders traveling through these tunnels (more than half a million per year), the potential for a catastrophic accident exists at Pennsylvania Station unless critical life safety improvements are made. These improvements include new ventilation shafts to improve airflow within the tunnels, new emergency access and egress, and improved communications and lighting in the tunnels. The Committee understands that Amtrak is having difficulty placing its new ventilation shafts and that the tunnels and station areas are heavily used, which reduces the times available to conduct needed improvements. However, fire and life safety repairs must be expedited. A fire in the tunnels, as currently configured, would be devastating and would likely result in a tragic loss of life. Fencing along the Northeast Corridor.--The Committee recognizes that Amtrak continues to make progress in enhancing safety along the tracks where high-speed rail will be operating. However, it is possible that installation of perimeter fencing in some areas that have been identified by municipal governments as potentially dangerous may not be complete before the high speed trains are fully operational. Amtrak should continue to work closely with affected Northeast Corridor communities, including the towns of Mansfield and Foxboro, Massachusetts, where the need for additional perimeter fencing has been identified, to ensure that the fencing is installed as rapidly as possible. The Committee notes that on March 15, 2000, the President of Amtrak made a commitment to complete the installation of the fencing that has been requested by Mansfield and Foxboro before high-speed rail is operational. It is our understanding that once the fencing is in place, the Massachusetts Bay Transit Authority will maintain it. Rail service in western Virginia.--Amtrak shall provide the Commonwealth of Virginia with equipment necessary to provide regularly scheduled service between Washington, D.C., Bristol, and Richmond, Virginia. Such equipment will be made available for this service once an agreement is signed between Amtrak, the Commonwealth of Virginia, and the appropriate freight railroads. Trenton train station.--Amtrak should work closely with New Jersey Transit to assure that improvements made to the Trenton train station satisfy the needs of Amtrak's one million riders who use this station each year. Initial funding for this rehabilitation has been allocated from funds provided under section 5309 in the Federal Transit Administration. Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund (Liquidation of (Limitation on contract obligations) authorization) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... ............... ............... Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... $468,000,000 $468,000,000 Recommended in the bill............... ............... ............... Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... ............... ............... Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. -468,000,000 -468,000,000 The budget proposes a new grant program to improve intercity rail service nationwide. Under the proposed program, the Secretary of Transportation would award fifty percent matching grants to Amtrak and/or a partner state or state consortium to implement capital projects to enhance intercity passenger rail service. Eligible projects must generate a positive financial contribution for Amtrak and public benefits in excess of public costs. Amtrak must recover from the project all variable and attributable fixed/overhead costs associated with the new service. Funding for this program is to be derived from higher than anticipated receipts to the highway trust fund. Funding for the intercity rail passenger service fund has been denied. The Committee opposes altering the distribution of revenue-aligned budget authority to any program outside of those authorized under TEA21. The rail fund is one of many diversions proposed by the administration. Bill language.--The Committee has included bill language that would make revenue aligned budget authority available from the congestion mitigation and air quality program (CMAQ) and the surface transportation program (STP) available for rail service. This provision allows states the option to flex their CMAQ and STP funds, if they chose to do so, for intercity passenger rail service. In fiscal year 2001, approximately $186,000,000 would be available in CMAQ funding and $785,000,000 in STP funding. The Committee has included this language for two purposes: (1) to provide states with more flexibility to fund newly proposed high-speed rail programs outside of the Northeast Corridor; and (2) to provide states with additional funding for grade crossing activities outside of the designated high-speed rail corridors. The Committee has received $210,000,000 in requests for funding grade crossing closures, realignments, and other activities. The increased flexibility is intended to provide additional revenues to the states to mitigate safety hazards in rail corridors. Given these needs, the states should utilize this flexibility provision and provide sufficient funding to immediately address these serious hazards. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2001 PROGRAM The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) was established as a component of the Department of Transportation on July 1, 1968, when most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) were transferred from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Known as the Urban Mass Transportation Administration until enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991, the Federal Transit Administration administers federal financial assistance programs for planning, developing and improving comprehensive mass transportation systems in both urban and non-urban areas. Much of the funding for the Federal Transit Administration is provided by annual limitations on obligations provided in appropriations Acts. However, direct appropriations are required for portions of other accounts. The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). TEA21 also amended the Budget Enforcement Act to provide two additional discretionary spending categories, the highway category and the mass transit category. The mass transit category is comprised of transit formula grants, transit capital funding, Federal Transit Administration administrative expenses, transit planning and research and university transportation center funding. The mass transit category obligations are capped at $6,271,000,000 and outlays are capped at $4,994,000,000 in fiscal year 2001. Any additional appropriated funding above the levels specified as guaranteed for each transit program in TEA21 (that which could be appropriated from general funds authorized under section 5338(h)) is scored against the non-defense discretionary category. The total funding provided for FTA for fiscal year 2001 is $6,271,000,000, including $1,254,400,000 direct appropriations and $5,016,600,000 limitations on contract authority. The total recommended is $485,647,000 over the 2000 enacted level, $50,000,000 below the fiscal year 2000 budget request, and the same level as guaranteed in TEA21. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 2000 program levels, the fiscal year 2001 budget request, and the fiscal year 2001 program levels: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Recommended in Program 2000 enacted 2001 request the bill ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Administrative expenses...................................... $60,000,000 $64,000,000 $64,000,000 Formula grants............................................... 3,098,000,000 3,345,000,000 3,345,000,000 University transportation research........................... 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Transit planning and research................................ 107,000,000 110,000,000 110,000,000 Capital investment grants.................................... 2,457,000,000 2,646,000,000 2,646,000,000 Job access and reverse commute grants \1\.................... 75,000,000 150,000,000 100,000,000 -------------------------------------------------- Total.................................................. \2\ 5,803,000,0 6,321,000,000 6,271,000,000 00 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ The budget request included a proposal to transfer $50,000,000 in obligation authority resulting from revenue aligned budget authority. \2\ Excludes reduction of $483,000 for TASC and $17,647,000 in across-the-board rescissions pursuant to section 301 of P.L. 106-113. Administrative Expenses Limitation on Appropriation obligations (General fund) (Trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000....... $12,000,000 $48,000,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001...... 12,800,000 51,200,000 Recommended in the bill............... 12,800,000 51,200,000 Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000... +800,000 +3,200,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.. ............... ............... The bill provides a total appropriation of $64,000,000 for FTA's salaries and expenses. The recommendation is $4,000,000 above the 2000 enacted level and the same level as the budget request. This appropriation is guaranteed under the transit funding category. The recommended appropriation of $64,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $12,800,000 from the general fund and $51,200,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Full-time equivalent (FTE) staff years.--The Committee has not provided an increase in 10 FTE in fiscal year 2001, noting that similar FTE increases approved and anticipated for fiscal year 2000 have not occurred. Therefore, the Committee's recommendation provides for an FTE level of 495 in fiscal year 2001. New hires expected to meet the current FTE authorized level of 495 shall include general engineers and financial auditors who are capable of reviewing and analyzing in-house financial data of proposed projects and financial management oversight reports submitted to the FTA. Information technology and other administrative activities.--The Committee recommendation deletes funds requested for several information technology programs pending the office of the Secretary's chief information officer review and full identification of out-year costs (-$650,000) and provides half of the requested increases for workforce planning and training (+$250,000) and equipment and office renovation activities (+$90,000). National Transit Database.--The Committee's recommendation includes funding for the continued operation of the National Transit Database within this account, rather the transit planning and research account. The activities associated with the operation of the National Transit Database are administrative in nature and should be budgeted here rather than in the agency's research and development account. Moreover, the Committee has not approved the use of project management oversight funds for redesign of the National Transit Database. Funds for such activity may be derived from funds made available for the transit cooperative research program. Project management oversight activities.--The Committee directs that funding made available for the project management oversight function, section 23, shall include at least $21,900,000 for project management oversight reviews and $4,500,000 for financial management oversight reviews. The Committee believes it is imperative that the FTA understand more fully the financing proposals of major transit projects authorized in TEA21 before entering into full funding grant agreements and to identify critical funding deficiencies or inadequate financing plans before such funding shortfalls materialize. The experience to date with several projects in FTA's current portfolio suggests that a more aggressive approach is warranted by the FTA. The Committee further directs that the FTA submit to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office the quarterly financial management oversight and project management oversight reports for each project with a full funding grant agreement. The Committee has included bill language requiring the FTA to transfer $1,000,000 from funds made available for project management oversight to the Inspector General for reimbursement of audits and reviews of major transit projects. Over the past several years, the IG has provided critical oversight of several major transit projects, which the Committee has found invaluable. The Committee anticipates that such oversight activities will be continued by the Inspector General in fiscal year 2001. Full funding grant agreements (FFGAs).--The FTA is directed to notify in writing the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations not later than 60 days before issuing a new full funding grant agreement or executing a scope change in existing full funding grant agreements. Correspondence regarding new full funding grant agreements shall include: (1) a copy of the proposed FFGA; (2) the total and annual federal appropriations required for that particular project; (3) yearly and total federal appropriations that can be reasonably planned or anticipated for future FFGAs for each fiscal year through 2003; and (4) a detailed analysis of annual commitments for current and anticipated FFGAs against the program authorization. The Committee further directs that such correspondence include a financial analysis of the project's cost and sponsor's ability to finance, which shall be conducted by an independent examiner. This independent evaluation shall contain pertinent information, including an assessment of the capital cost estimate and the finance plan; the source and security of all public- and private-sector financial instruments; the project's operating plan which enumerates the project's future revenue and ridership forecasts; and planned contingencies and risks associated with the project. Correspondence relating to scope changes shall include any budget revisions or program changes that materially alter the project as originally stipulated in the full funding grant agreement, and shall include any proposed change in rail car procurements. Formula Grants Limitation on Appropriation obligations (General fund) (Trust fund) Appropriation, fiscal year 2000..... $619,600,000 $2,478,400,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001.... 669,000,000 2,676,000,000 Recommended in the bill............. 669,000,000 2,676,000,000 Bill compared to: Appropriation, fiscal year 2000. +49,400,000 +197,600,000 Budget request, fiscal year 2001 ................ ................ The accompanying bill provides a total of $3,345,000,000 for transit formula grants. This level is $247,000,000 above the 2000 enacted level of $3,098,000,000 and is guaranteed under the transit category. The recommended program level of $3,345,000,000 is comprised of an appropriation of $669,000,000 from the general fund and $2,676,000,000 from limitations on obligations from the mass transit account of the highway trust fund. Formula grants to states and local agencies funded under this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds are directed to a grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility costs and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations. Within the total funding level of $3,345,000,000, the Committee's recommendation includes the following distribution: Urbanized areas (U.S.C. 5307)......................... $2,946,019,961 Oversight............................................. 15,837,796 Clean fuels (sec. 5308)............................... 50,000,000 Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310)...................... 77,890,801 Non-urbanized areas (sec. 5311)....................... 205,701,492 Rural transportation accessibility incentive program.. 4,700,000 Alaska railroad....................................... 4,849,950 Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program............. 40,000,000 Section 3007 of the TEA21 amends U.S.C. 5307, urbanized formula grants by striking the authorization to utilize these funds for operating costs, but includes a specific provision allowing the Secretary to make operating grants to urbanized areas with a population of less than 200,000. Generally, these grants may be used to fund capital projects, and to finance planning and improvement costs of equipment, facilities, and associated capital maintenance used in mass transportation. All urbanized areas greater than 200,000 in population are statutorily required to use one percent of their annual formula grants on enhancements, which include landscaping, public art, bicycle storage, and connections to parks. Major project preliminary engineering and design (PE&D).-- The accompanying bill provides appreciable increases in formula funds allocated to transit authorities. These funds can be used, among other activities, for preliminary engineering and design of new rail extensions or busways. The Committee asserts that local project sponsors of new rail extensions or busways should use these funds for PE&D activities rather than seek section 5309 discretionary set-asides. Moreover, the Committee expects the FTA, when evaluating the local financial commitment of a given project, to consider the extent to which the project's sponsors have used the appreciable increases in the formula grants apportionments for preliminary engineering and design activities of proposed new systems. Clean fuels program.--TEA21 requires that $50,000,000 be set aside from funds made available under the formula grants program to fund a new clean fuels program. The clean fuels program is supplemented by an additional set-aside from the major capital investment's bus program and provides grants for the purchase or lease of clean fuel buses for eligible recipients in areas that are not in compliance with air quality attainment standards. The Committee has identified designated recipients of these funds within the projects listed under the bus program of the capital investment grants account. Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program.--The Committee recommends that $40,000,000 be set-aside from the formula grants program to fund the Salt Lake City loaned Olympic bus program. Funds shall be available for grants for the costs of planning, delivery and temporary use of transit vehicles for special transportation needs and construction of temporary transportation facilities for the XIX Winter Olympiad and the VIII Paralympiad for the Disabled, to be held in Salt Lake City, Utah. In allocating the funds, the Secretary shall make grants only to the Utah Department of Transportation, and such grants shall not be subject to any local share requirement or limitation on operating assistance under this Act or the Federal Transit Act, as amended. This appropriation is similar to one provided in support of the Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta in the fiscal year 1995 Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act. Over-the-road bus accessibility program.--The Committee has included bill language that increases the federal share of the incremental capital and training costs for the over-the-road bus accessibility program from the current level of 50 percent to 90 percent. A similar change in the federal share was enacted last year. Section 3038(g) of TEA21 provides a total of $4,700,000 for the incremental capital and training costs in fiscal year 2001. Operating expenses.--The bill contains a provision (sec. 339) that increases to $1,444,000 the limitation on operating assistance relating to service for elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities which was established in accordance with provisions of section 360 of the Omnibus Appropriations Act for fiscal year 1999. FTA has interpreted section 3027(c)(3) of TEA21 to be limited to certain transit services that received section 5307 operating funds in the past. It was the intent of Congress in creating section 3027(c)(3), however, also to include NorthEast Transportation Services (NETS), a transit service that has been serving elderly and handicapped in Tarrant County, Texas, although that service had not received FTA operating funds in the past. The additional provided in section 3027(c)(3) are to provide $260,000 in operating funds and to cover operating expenses of other current eligible participants. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.--In the wake of a recent fire and evacuation of the Foggy Bottom Metro station in Washington, D.C., the Committee is deeply troubled by reports --ALL--