NATCA National Legislative Committee

Photos 2007

Photos 2008

56 945 cc Calendar No. 126 106 th Congress Report SENATE 1st Session 106 55 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2000 May 27, 1999.--Ordered to be printed Mr. Shelby, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany S. 1143] The Committee on Appropriations reports the bill (S. 1143) making appropriations for the Department of Transportation and related agencies for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2000, and for other purposes, reports favorably thereon and recommends that the bill do pass. Amounts of new budget (obligational) authority for fiscal year 2000 Amount of bill as reported to Senate $14,224,022,000 Amount of budget estimates, 2000 14,745,147,000 Fiscal year 1999 enacted 14,353,303,000 C O N T E N T S Total obligational authority 4 Immediate Office of the Secretary 10 Office of the General Counsel 11 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy 11 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs 11 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs 12 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs 13 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration 13 Office of Public Affairs 13 Executive Secretariat 14 Contract Appeals Board 14 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization 14 Office of Intelligence and Security 14 Office of the Chief Information Officer 14 Office of Intermodalism 15 Office of Civil Rights 15 Transportation planning, research, and development 15 Transportation Administrative Service Center 16 Essential Air Service and Rural Airport Improvement Fund 17 Minority Business Resource Center Program 22 Minority business outreach 22 Operating expenses 29 Acquisition, construction, and improvements 33 Environmental compliance and restoration 37 Alteration of bridges 38 Retired pay 38 Reserve training 39 Research, development, test, and evaluation 39 Boat safety 41 Operations 44 Facilities and equipment 52 Research, engineering, and development 75 Grants-in-aid for airports 80 Limitation on administration expenses 86 Federal-aid highways 87 Magnetic levitation transportation 100 Appalachian development highway system 101 National motor carrier safety program 103 Operations and research 107 Highway traffic safety grants 111 Safety and operations 113 Office of the Administrator 115 Railroad safety 115 Railroad research and development 115 Railroad Rehabilitation Improvement Program 117 Next generation high-speed rail 117 Alaska railroad rehabilitation 119 Rhode Island rail development 119 Capital Grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) 120 Amtrak Reform Council 123 Administrative expenses 125 Formula grants 126 University transportation research 131 Transit planning and research 132 Trust fund share of expenses 135 Capital investment grants 135 Job access and reverse commute grants 150 Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority [WMATA] 150 Operations and maintenance 151 Research and special programs 153 Pipeline safety 156 Emergency preparedness grants 158 Salaries and expenses 160 Salaries and expenses 161 Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board: Salaries and expenses 163 National Transportation Safety Board: Salaries and expenses 163 General provisions 165 Compliance with paragraph 7, rule XVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate 167 Compliance with paragraph 7(c), rule XXVI, of the Standing Rules of the Senate 167 Compliance with paragraph 12, rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate 168 Budgetary impact statement 171 TOTAL OBLIGATIONAL AUTHORITY PROVIDED--GENERAL FUNDS AND TRUST FUNDS In addition to the appropriation of $13,985,072,000 in new budget authority for fiscal year 2000, large amounts of contract authority are provided by law, the obligation limits for which are contained in the annual appropriations bill. The principal items in this category are the trust funded programs for Federal-aid highways, for mass transit, and for airport development grants. For fiscal year 2000, estimated obligation limitations total $33,733,150,000. PROGRAM, PROJECT, AND ACTIVITY During fiscal year 2000, for the purposes of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (Public Law 99 177), as amended, with respect to appropriations contained in the accompanying bill, the terms ``program, project, and activity'' shall mean any item for which a dollar amount is contained in appropriations acts (including joint resolutions providing continuing appropriations) or accompanying reports of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, or accompanying conference reports and joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. This definition shall apply to all programs for which new budget (obligational) authority is provided, as well as to discretionary grants and discretionary grant allocations made through either bill or report language. In addition, the percentage reductions made pursuant to a sequestration order to funds appropriated for facilities and equipment, Federal Aviation Administration, and for acquisition, construction, and improvements, Coast Guard, shall be applied equally to each budget item that is listed under said accounts in the budget justifications submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as modified by subsequent appropriations acts and accompanying committee reports, conference reports, or joint explanatory statements of the committee of conference. TRANSPORTATION EQUITY ACT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act, the previous authorization for most Federal highway, transit, and highway safety programs, expired on September 30, 1997. On May 22, 1998, the Congress passed a new authorization bill, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], which the President signed into law on June 9, 1998. Under this law, most of the authorizations are contract authority; that is, they are available for obligation without appropriation. The role of the appropriations process with respect to contract authority programs generally is to set obligation limitations so that overall Federal spending stays within legislated targets and to appropriate liquidating cash to cover the outlays associated with obligations that have been made. THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE AND RESULTS ACT The Government Performance and Results Act [Results Act] requires Federal agencies to develop strategic plans and annual performance plans and reports. The Department's first multiyear strategic plan was submitted September 30, 1997. The Committee is fully committed to support the Department as it seeks to implement the requirements of the Results Act. The Committee commends the Department for its aggressive implementation of the Results Act. In the performance plan for fiscal year 2000 that was delivered to Congress on February 1, 1999, performance measures have been identified for all of the Department's major programs. A total of 61 performance goals have been established. These goals are stated in terms of effects on the American public, and many reflect ambitious target levels of performance. The Department provided the performance plan coincident with the budget justifications. This year's performance plan links the agencies' strategies and initiatives to individual goals and identifies interagency coordination of goals, as the Committee recommended last year. The performance plan also provides the context for each goal in a short paragraph titled ``Why we act,'' along with several years of historical data in most cases. The plan highlights special challenges that the agency faces in achieving each of its goals, and includes an appendix with substantially more information on the data and limitations for each measure. The Committee is pleased to see a continuation and expansion of the separate discussion of management challenges the Department faces. While not required by the act, this is a useful and appropriate addition to the plan that underscores the importance of management in achieving strategic goals. This section tracks with recent reports from the Inspector General and the General Accounting Office. The Department's activities under the Government Performance and Results Act are clearly a work in progress. The Department has made significant strides in assessing GPRA's potential for strategically aligning the varied and numerous programs under the Department's jurisdiction. However, although the plan identifies strategies to help achieve the Department's long-term goals, the plan does not adequately describe how those strategies will lead to realization of the long-term goals or the relative contributions of each strategy. Generally, this is a shortcoming reasonably expected to be addressed as the GPRA process evolves and becomes more integrated in the policy, budget, and regulatory formulation and identification processes. However, the Committee continues to encourage the Department to focus in particular on improvements to management to achieve outcomes as this has been a historically weak area for the Department. For example, the Committee encourages greater refinement of goals with specific and quantifiable measures to provide greater definition and focus for budgetary, regulatory, and administrative actions. For clarity, the performance plan should resist identifying activities of agencies or offices under strategic goals unless there is a discussion of such an organization's primary contributions toward those goals in the body of the plan. Elimination of the mention of these organizations as opposed to activities will provide greater focus on the priorities in the strategic goal (if mention of such organization is gratuitous), or will prompt reevaluation of the organizations' roles in the achievement of the strategic goal. The performance plan has expanded its discussion of the data supporting performance measures, and acknowledges limitations in the quality of that data. These will be critical to the credibility of the agency's performance reporting. The Committee remains concerned about the quality of supporting data and data systems, and urges the Department to more fully document shortcomings in its data as well as possible solutions. The performance plan still has the feel of a document designed to cover the current panoply of activities ongoing or anticipated for the Department. As the process and the plan mature, the Committee anticipates that the performance plan will become a management document rather than a reporting document. The Committee recognizes that implementation will be an iterative process, likely to involve several appropriations cycles, and will support the efforts of the Department to improve its performance plan. We will consider the Department's progress in addressing weaknesses in its annual performance plan in tandem with its funding requests. To this end, we urge the Department to examine the program activities currently supporting its budget requests in light of the Department's strategic goals and to determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate and informed presentation of budgetary information. The performance plan included only one change to the budget structure of the Department. The Committee again encourages the Department to examine the program activities currently supporting its budget requests in light of the Department's strategic goals and to determine whether any changes or realignments would facilitate a more accurate or helpful presentation of budgetary information. The Department is encouraged to consult with the Committee as it considers such revisions prior to finalizing any requests pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1104. The Committee will consider any requests with a view toward ensuring that fiscal year 2000 and subsequent budget submissions display amounts requested against program activity structures that bear clear relationships to performance goals. Year 2000 conversion .--For some time, the Committee has been concerned that the Department would have difficulty overcoming its late start in Y2K remediation of over 600 mission-critical systems. However, the Committee notes the significant progress that has been made over the last year. As of the first week in May, over 90 percent of the Department's mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant, including 100 percent of the systems operated by the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Railroad Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Maritime Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Office of the Inspector General, the Office of the Secretary, the Research and Special Programs Administration, the St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, the Surface Transportation Board, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In particular, the Committee has closely followed the progress of the Federal Aviation Administration's Y2K efforts. With over 400 mission-critical systems in the FAA inventory, the problem is monumental. As of the first week in May, over 92 percent of FAA's mission-critical systems were Y2K compliant. All of the FAA mission-critical systems being repaired had completed renovation and validation phase activities, and were either fully implemented or well into required implementation phase activities. While earlier completion would have been desirable, the complexity of this challenge must be underscored and completion of the task requires extensive and careful testing. To date, the FAA has been on target to complete Y2K remediation by its projected date of June 30, 1999. The Committee must also note, however, that remediation and testing is not the completion of the task. In addition, the FAA must undertake the additional step of contingency planning in the event that not everything works as expected on January 1, 2000. The Committee expects status reports on contingency planning to be included in the regular reports that the FAA provides to the Committee. The Committee is pleased that the Coast Guard's legacy Vessel Traffic System at Valdez, Alaska, was certified Y2K compliant in April 1999, rather than waiting until October 1999 as initially scheduled. The Vessel Traffic System is responsible for tracking vessel movements in Prince William Sound. As of the first week in May, the Coast Guard had completed work on 88 percent of its 74 mission-critical systems, and all but five systems are projected to be completed by June 1999. The five systems yet to be completed are: The Short Range Aids to Navigation-Aid Control Monitoring System (SRAN ACMS); the SRAN Master Unit; the SRAN Remote Transfer Unit; the Command and Control Personal Computer (C\2\PC); and the Communications System 2000 (COMSYS 2000). The Committee has been advised that because the remediation schedules must be coordinated around operational activities, the Coast Guard projects that the three SRAN units and the C\2\PC will be compliant by September 1999. Also, the Committee understands that the COMSYS 2000 remediation will be completed prior to the Year 2000, but there is no specific date because the remediation depends on AT&T's upgrade of their own telecommunications equipment. Despite the Department's Y2K progress, the Committee urges the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to continue to closely monitor agency progress until all mission-critical systems are compliant. In addition, as noted above for the FAA, the agency must prepare comprehensive continuity of operations plans in order to prepare for system failures that could potentially disrupt vital services. Year 2000 Compliance .--The Department of Transportation shall report in detail on the specific use of year 2000 conversion emergency funds provided by the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1999 and any other act. This report shall demonstrate how all of the funds obligated as of January 1, 2000 were directly applied to the year 2000 conversion of federal information technology systems. For any funds which were used for purposes other than the year 2000 conversion, the report shall explain the use of such funds and specify the provision which gave the Department the authority to spend the funds for other purposes. The report shall also estimate what portion of the emergency funds were used for technology which would have occurred in 1999 or 2000 even without year 2000 crisis. The report shall be delivered to the Senate Committee on Appropriations, the Senate Special Committee on the Year 2000 Technology Problem, the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, and the Senate Committee on the Budget by May 15, 2000. Budgetary Firewalls The Committee notes that there has been some talk this year about creating special budgetary treatment for the programs and activities of the FAA. Mention is made of taking the aviation trust fund off-budget or creating budgetary ``firewalls'' around some or all of the aviation accounts. The Committee believes that such budget treatment is unnecessary and unwise. While passenger enplanements have increased steadily in the past several years, the growth has not kept pace with the increase in the federal budget for aviation programs, and the growth in the federal investments in equipment modernization and airport improvements and air traffic operations have substantially outstripped the growth in aircraft operations. When the investment in the airport capital plant represented by Passenger Facility Charges is considered, the increase in total investment is even more compelling compared to workload growth. The Coopers and Lybrand financial study conducted only two years ago severely criticized the FAA as an organization, was appalled at their inability to account for costs, and labeled the organization the equivalent of a dysfunctional family. In addition, the Government Performance and Results Act evaluations consistently place the FAA at or near the bottom in terms of well run government agencies. The Committee believes that an organization with as many financial and management difficulties as the FAA should not even be considered by Congress for insulation from budget, appropriations, or any other oversight. Clearly this is an agency in need of reform, not special dispensation. Firewalling aviation spending would impede oversight and contribute to FAA's already poor record in controlling costs. Virtually every outside observer of the FAA believes that the FAA has a difficult time setting realistic budget requirements and has a terrible history of controlling costs. The budget problems at the Federal Aviation Administration are problems of management and cost control, not budget treatment. Last year, Congress firewalled the Highway and Transit accounts and in the 9 months since the President signed that legislation, the Administration has proposed four non-technical legislative changes or packages of changes to that law, the OMB and CBO have had to revise their budget and scoring conventions to make the firewalls reconcile (they still don't reconcile), and the House authorizing Committee is already discussing revisiting that authorization legislation in the coming fiscal year. The creation of firewalls is not a mechanism to be employed lightly--the application of firewalls to an intensely complex and operational organization like the FAA presupposes Congressional consideration that midcourse corrections will be unnecessary, budget execution issues are minor, and the organization is capable of making difficult decisions and holding itself accountable for such decisions and other shortcomings in financial management and procurement execution. The FAA cannot meet such a test. The argument is also made that a firewall is necessary to make sure that the Airport and Airways trust fund is spent. That contention is without basis. Since its creation, fewer dollars have been generated by the taxes and fees that capitalize the Airport and Airways trust fund than the Congress has appropriated for the aviation accounts--and that doesn't even account for non-transportation expenditures that benefit aviation constituencies. For example, the Department of Defense has spent almost $9,000,000,000 to date on the GPS constellation that is the backbone of satellite navigation for aviation in the future. The challenges facing the aviation industry and the FAA cannot be solved by changing budgetary treatment of the aviation accounts--that solution defies the facts, reason, and the treatment that the FAA has enjoyed in the current budget process. TITLE I--DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY Section 3 of the Department of Transportation Act of October 15, 1966 (Public Law 89 670) provides for establishment of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation [OST]. The Office of the Secretary is composed of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary immediate offices, the Office of the General Counsel, and five assistant secretarial offices for transportation policy, aviation and international affairs, budget and programs, governmental affairs, and administration. These secretarial offices have policy development and central supervisory and coordinating functions related to the overall planning and direction of the Department of Transportation, including staff assistance and general management supervision of the counterpart offices in the operating administrations of the Department. The Committee recommends a total of $59,362,000 for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation including $45,000 for reception and representation expenses. The Committee is concerned about the continued level of vacancies in the Office of the Secretary and notes that many of the positions have been open for over a year. Accordingly, the appropriation for salaries and expenses has been adjusted downward to reflect current staffing levels generally across the Office of the Secretary. This adjustment is made without prejudice and will be reassessed before final enactment of this bill. In addition, the Committee is increasingly concerned about the apparent reticence on the part of the Office of Congressional Affairs to brief all impacted Committees of the Congress in a timely fashion of administration proposals directly relating to issues and accounts under those committees' jurisdiction. This concern comes directly on the heels of a constant stream of concerns by Members of Congress that matters of constituent interest are not relayed to all members of a State delegation in an even-handed and timely fashion. Unless these deficiencies are remedied immediately, the Committee will reconsider the need for a departmentwide Office of Congressional Affairs, and may resolve to transfer some of the functions to other offices in the Office of the Secretary and devolve the congressional liaison functions to the individual modal administrations. IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY The Immediate Office of the Secretary has the primary responsibility for overall policy development, central supervisory and coordinating functions necessary for the overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee recommends $1,900,000, which is consistent with the fiscal year 1999 appropriation with controls placed on travel and PC&B growth. The Committee expects that the funding will be sufficient for the Immediate Office of the Secretary and expects that any shortfall can be accommodated by slight reductions in benefits and travel. The funding provided will allow for 17 positions. IMMEDIATE OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY SECRETARY The Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary has the primary responsibility of assisting the Secretary in the overall planning and direction of the Department. The Committee has recommended a total of $600,000 for the Immediate Office of the Deputy Secretary. The Committee's recommendation provides for a staffing level of seven positions. OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL The General Counsel is the chief legal officer of the Department of Transportation and the final authority within the Department on all legal questions. The General Counsel's Office provides legal services to the Office of the Secretary, coordinates and reviews the legal work of the Chief Counsels' Offices of the operating administrations, and generally performs the full range of legal services involved in administering an executive department with national and international responsibilities. The Committee recommends $9,000,000 for the Office of the General Counsel. At this funding level, the Committee expects that the Office will be able to fund 82 staff positions. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR POLICY The Assistant Secretary for Policy is the primary policy officer of the Department and is responsible to the Secretary for analysis, development, articulation, and review of policies and plans for domestic transportation. The Committee recommends $2,900,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy. This funding level is sufficient to fund the current onboard staff. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR AVIATION AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS The Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs is responsible for administering the economic regulatory functions regarding the airline industry and provides departmental leadership and coordination on international transportation policy issues relating to maritime, trade, technical assistance, and cooperation programs. As overseer of airline economic regulations, the Assistant Secretary is responsible for international aviation programs, the essential air service program, airline fitness and licensing, acquisitions, international route awards, and special investigations such as airline delays and computer reservations systems [CRS]. The Committee has provided $7,700,000, which will provide sufficient resources to fund 86 positions. Aviation competition guidelines. --When Congress passed the Airline Deregulation Act, it decided that the marketplace, and not regulators, should set airline prices and schedules. That landmark action has generated enormous benefits for the air traveling public. However, the Subcommittee on Transportation Appropriations has been very concerned about barriers to entry and the health of airline competition which may distort the competitive landscape. The subcommittee has held a number of hearings over the past 2 years and one of the clear messages which has emerged from these hearings is that it is critically important to have a truly free market so that everyone, big and small, can compete. Where there is strong competition in the airline industry, the consumers are the primary beneficiaries. What should also be clear is that there is no prospect of support from the Committee to reregulate the airline industry. As a possible way of providing greater certainty to the airlines as to what constitutes anticompetitive activity, the Committee encourages the Department to consider a process in which the Department, upon receiving a complaint, would consider within a specified time period whether such alleged activity should be referred to the Department of Justice or whether it was a permissible competitive activity. Such an approach would provide greater certainty for air carriers and could provide an efficient mechanism for focusing the Department of Justice's attention on the most suspect of activities. The Committee believes that such a process can be accommodated within current staffing resources given the staff resources available due to the completion of authorization last year of the surface transportation program. Accordingly, the Committee would reject a request for additional resources for the creation of an analytical or legal capability within the Department of Transportation that would also, by necessity, have to be constituted at the Department of Justice. The Committee urges the Department of Transportation to work with interested Committees of the Congress, the Department of Justice, and the airlines to implement existing laws and enforcement practices to protect the economy from anticompetitive conduct. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR BUDGET AND PROGRAMS The Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs is the principal staff advisor to the Secretary on the development, review, and presentation of the Department's budget resource requirements, and on the evaluation and oversight of the Department's programs. The primary responsibilities of this Office are to ensure the effective preparation and presentation of sound and adequate budget estimates for the Department, to ensure the consistency of the Department's budget execution with the action and advice of the Congress and the Office of Management and Budget, to evaluate the program proposals for consistency with the Secretary's stated objectives, and to advise the Secretary of program and legislative changes necessary to improve program effectiveness. The Committee encourages the Secretary and the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs to increase the budget and programs staff participation in department, industry, and budget execution oversight activities. The greater the integration of the budget formulation and execution processes with the activities of the department and the fulfillment of the agencies' missions, the better the quality of the department's financial, management, and resource allocation decisions. The Committee directs the Office of the Secretary to report monthly on the status of all outstanding reports and reporting requirements, including how delinquent Congressionally mandated reports are and an estimated date for delivery. The Committee expects that the Department will constitute this responsibility in the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. In addition, the Committee directs the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Budget and programs to work with the affected modal administrations and the Office of Inspector General to facilitate the timely transfer of funds between the relevant offices. The Committee recommends a total of $6,870,000 for the Office of Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs. At this level, the Committee has provided funding for 49 positions and included $45,000 for reception and representation expenses for the Secretary. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS The Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs advises the Secretary on all congressional and intergovernmental activities and on all Department legislative initiatives and other relationships with Members of the Congress; promotes effective communication with other Federal agencies and regional Department officials, and with State and local governments and national organizations for development of departmental programs; and ensures that consumer preferences, awareness, and needs are brought into the decisionmaking process. The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Governmental Affairs. This level holds travel below fiscal year 1998 levels and provides funding for 23 positions. OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION The Assistant Secretary for Administration is the principal adviser to the Secretary on departmental administrative management matters, and is responsible for personnel and training, management policy, employment ceiling control systems, automated systems policy, administrative operations, real and personal property management, acquisition management, grants management, internal departmental financial systems, and ADP facilities and services. The Committee recommends $18,600,000 for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration which includes the OST portion of rent. The Committee has provided a level that will support the current staffing levels with a slight reduction in travel and training activities. OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS The Director of Public Affairs is the principal adviser to the Secretary and other senior departmental officials and news media on public affairs questions. The Office issues news releases, articles, factsheets, briefing materials, publications, and audiovisual materials. It also provides information to the Secretary on opinions and reactions of the public and news media on transportation programs and issues. The Committee recommends $1,800,000 for the Office of Public Affairs, which will support current staffing levels. EXECUTIVE SECRETARIAT The Executive Secretariat provides and organizes staff service for the Secretary and Deputy Secretary to assist them in carrying out their management functions and facilitate their responsibilities for formulating, coordinating, and communicating major policy decisions. It controls and coordinates internal and external material directed to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary and ensures that their decisions and instructions are implemented. The Committee recommends a funding level of $1,110,000 for the Executive Secretariat. CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD The primary responsibility of the Board of Contract Appeals is to provide an independent forum for the trial and adjudication of all claims by, or against, a contractor relating to a contract of any element of the Department, as mandated by the Contract Disputes Act of 1978, 41 U.S.C. 601. The Committee has provided $560,000 for the Contract Appeals Board. This level is sufficient to maintain the current staffing level. OFFICE OF SMALL AND DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS UTILIZATION The Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization has primary responsibility for providing policy direction for small and disadvantaged business participation in the Department's procurement and grant programs, and effective execution of the functions and duties under sections 8 and 15 of the Small Business Act, as amended. The Committee recommends $1,222,000, which is sufficient funding to maintain current staffing levels. OFFICE OF INTELLIGENCE AND SECURITY The Office of Intelligence and Security within the Office of the Secretary coordinates security and intelligence policies and strategies among the modes of transportation and serves as liaison with other Government intelligence and law enforcement agencies. The Committee recommends the Office of Intelligence and Security be funded from funds made available to the Coast Guard and/or the Federal Aviation Administration. The office is headed by an official from the Coast Guard and the majority of the functions of the office relate to Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration missions. OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER The Committee recommends $5,100,000 for the Office of the Chief Information Officer. This level is sufficient to maintain the current staffing level of 15 positions. OFFICE OF INTERMODALISM The Committee recommends the Office of Intermodalism be funded from within the administrative expenses provided for the Federal Highway Administration. OFFICE OF CIVIL RIGHTS The Office of Civil Rights is responsible for advising the Secretary on civil rights and equal employment opportunity matters, formulating civil rights policies and procedures for the operating administrations, investigating claims that small businesses were denied certification or improperly certified as disadvantaged business enterprises, and overseeing the Department's conduct of its civil rights responsibilities and making final determinations on civil rights complaints. In addition, the Civil Rights Office is responsible for enforcing laws and regulations which prohibit discrimination in federally operated and federally assisted transportation programs. The Committee has provided a funding level of $7,200,000 for the Office of Civil Rights. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING, RESEARCH, AND DEVELOPMENT Appropriations, 1999\1\ $9,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 6,275,000 Committee recommendation 3,300,000 \1\Does not include reduction of $21,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. The Office of the Secretary performs those research activities and studies which can more effectively or appropriately be conducted at the departmental level. This research effort supports the planning, research and development activities, and systems development needed to assist the Secretary in the formulation of national transportation policies. The program is carried out primarily through contracts with other Federal agencies, educational institutions, nonprofit research organizations, and private firms. Missing children .--The Committee is aware of the effective work of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to combat crimes against children and to reunite abducted or runaway children with their families. There are many opportunities in the transportation sector to alert the public to the status of a missing child. For example, truckstops, airports, rail and bus stations, and other transportation facilities are utilized by millions of Americans every day. These are ideal places to raise public awareness of missing children. Moreover, employees in the transportation sector, including flight attendants, bus and truck drivers, and ticket agents, come into contact with hundreds of individuals every day and could be a key element in identifying abducted children. When nonlaw enforcement entities adopt procedures that hinder pedophiles and kidnappers, they are doing a much needed public service. Of note is WalMart's Code Adam Program. When a child disappears in a participating store, Code Adam is addressed over the public address system. Store personnel immediately stop work to look for the child and monitor all exits. If the missing child is not located in 10 minutes, or is seen with someone other than a parent or guardian, the police are called. This program is implemented in all 2,800 WalMart and Sam's Club stores. The Committee urges the transportation sector to consider similar programs. In addition, transportation facilities are generally public places and present the same dangers that any public place has for unaccompanied children. Parents should remember, and transportation providers can help them to be more aware, that they should be ever diligent and make certain that they take precautions to ensure their child's safety while traveling. The Committee directs the Secretary and each of the modal administrators to work with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and the transportation industry to identify and implement initiatives to maximize the transportation sector's involvement in the effort to relocate missing children. The Committee directs the Secretary to report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations no later than March 31, 2000, on the identified initiatives in this area and the actions taken to implement those efforts. TRANSPORTATION ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICE CENTER Limitation, 1999\1\ ($124,124,000) Budget estimate, 2000\2\ (229,953,000) Committee recommendation 159,953,00006 \1\Does not reflect reduction of $15,000,000 pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. \2\Proposed without limitations. Includes DOT and non-DOT entities. The Transportation Administrative Service Center [TASC] provides a business operation fund for DOT to provide a wide range of administrative services to the Department and other customers. TASC functions as an entrepreneurial and self-sufficient entity and provides competitive quality services responsive to customer needs. The TASC is governed by a Board of Directors composed of customer agencies operating in a competitive business-like environment. The TASC presents proposed operating and financial plans to the Board at the beginning of each fiscal year. Once the Board has approved those plans the TASC provides products and services to its full customer base. The Director of TASC provides quarterly performance and financial reports to the Board, makes recommendations for changes to the approved plans and is responsible for the day-to-day management of the TASC. DOT administrations must procure consolidated administrative services from the TASC unless a financial analysis of the services demonstrates that it is more cost beneficial to the Department as a whole--not to an individual operating entity alone--to change the nature of the service delivery (to consolidate a service or to decentralize a service). TASC services are being marketed to customers outside DOT to provide greater economies of scale, thus reducing costs to individual customers. TASC services include: --Functions formerly in DOT's working capital fund [WCF]; --Office of the Secretary [OST] personnel, procurement and information technology support operations; --Systems development staff; --Operations of the consolidated departmental dockets facilities; and --Certain departmental services and administrative operations, such as human resources management programs, transit fare subsidy payments, and employee wellness including substance awareness and testing. The budget proposes that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Office of Aeronautical Charting and Cartography be transferred to TASC in 2000. All of the services of the TASC will be financed through customer reimbursements, to the extent possible, on a fee-for-service basis. The bill includes language that includes a limitation on activities financed through the transportation administrative service center at $159,953,000. The limitation shall not apply to non-DOT entities and the Committee directs that activities shall be provided on a competitive basis. Further, the Committee directs that the Department shall submit with the Department's congressional budget submission an approved annual operating plan of the transportation administrative service center and quarterly reports to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. ESSENTIAL AIR SERVICE AND RURAL AIRPORT IMPROVEMENT FUND Appropriations, 1999\1\ ($50,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory authority)\2\ (50,000,000) Committee recommendation (mandatory authority) (50,000,000) \1\Transfer from FAA facilities and equipment. \2\From overflight fees. The Essential Air Service [EAS] and Rural Airport Improvement Program provides funds directly to commuter/regional airlines to provide air service to small communities that otherwise would not receive air service and for rural airport improvement as provided by the 1996 Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act. The Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996 authorizes user fees for flights that fly over, but do not land in, the United States. The first $50,000,000 of each year's fees go directly to carry out the Essential Air Service Program and, to the extent not used for essential air service, to improve rural airport safety. If $50,000,000 in fees is not available, funding must be transferred from FAA appropriations to the EAS programs. The administration proposes to change this program to permit financing of fee shortfalls through any appropriated funding of the Department. Many EAS points are located in remote rural areas: 55 of 74 communities served by the Essential Air Service Program are more than 100 highway miles from the nearest small, medium, or large hub airport. Twenty-seven more communities are located in Alaska, where, in all but two cases, year-round road access does not exist, and in many instances does not exist at all. Without air service, such communities would be further isolated from the Nation's economic centers. The funding provided is adequate to maintain existing levels of service in Alaska. Moreover, businesses are typically interested in locating in areas that have convenient access to scheduled air service. Loss of service would seriously hamper small communities' ability to attract new business or even to retain those they now have, resulting in further strain on local economies and loss of jobs. The Committee has retained the general provision which limits the number of communities that receive EAS funding by excluding points in the 48 contiguous United States that are located fewer than 70 highway miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport, or that require a subsidy in excess of $200 per passenger unless such a point is more than 210 miles from the nearest large or medium hub airport. The following table reflects the points currently receiving service and the annual rates as of the end of February 1999. The $50,000,000 funding level is sufficient to maintain current service levels and quality of service at the communities currently served by the EAS program. In the lower 48 States, the tables show distances that EAS communities are from other air service centers and subsidy-per-passenger calculations. The distance figures are shown to give a sense of the degree of isolation of the communities, and the subsidy-per-passenger figures are a rough measure of the cost of providing the service compared to the number of passengers benefiting from the service. Neither of those calculations are relevant to Alaska. First, only two of the 27 subsidized communities in Alaska have road access to other air service. Thus, the Alaskan communities are clearly among the most isolated in the Nation. In fact, many are islands and would be all but cut off from the rest of the world without air service. Second, any subsidy-per-passenger calculation would be highly misleading, at best. While subsidy-per-passenger may be used as a crude measure of cost benefit in the lower 48, in many of the subsidized EAS markets the principal traffic being carried on the EAS flights is food being delivered to the bush community. Thus, the whole community benefits--indeed is fully dependent on--the EAS flights, not just the few who may actually travel on the flights. EAS SUBSIDY RATES AS OF FEBRUARY 1, 1999 States/communities Estimated mileage to nearest hub (small, medium, or large)\1\ Average daily enplanements at EAS point (year ending September 30, 1998) Current annual subsidy rates (February 1, 1999) Subsidy per passenger ARIZONA: 101 6.8 $432,564 $101.97 ARKANSAS: 108 6.5 943,347 231.50 CALIFORNIA: 234 18.3 189,043 16.52 COLORADO: 162 14.1 950,262 107.63 HAWAII: Kamuela 39 2.4 335,454 225.89 ILLINOIS: 126 2.4 218,783 142.72 IOWA: Ottumwa 85 3.5 529,274 241.68 KANSAS: 149 17.1 611,661 57.10 MAINE: 71 12.4 596,806 77.01 MICHIGAN: 59 6.8 357,588 84.26 MINNESOTA: 121 3.8 793,272 331.22 MISSOURI: 138 31.4 278,560 14.18 MONTANA: 280 5.3 671,032 203.04 NEBRASKA: 256 5.7 797,133 223.35 NEVADA: Ely 237 2.0 634,137 504.08 NEW MEXICO: 91 12.7 777,127 97.76 NEW YORK: 118 9.7 266,371 43.90 NORTH DAKOTA: 396 10.4 793,272 122.34 OKLAHOMA: 84 8.3 767,398 147.46 PENNSYLVANIA: Oil City/Franklin 86 35.9 243,923 10.86 SOUTH DAKOTA: 57 8.3 793,272 152.17 TEXAS: Brownwood 138 5.3 807,717 243.00 UTAH: 178 23.4 577,538 39.44 VERMONT: Rutland 69 13.0 596,806 73.27 WASHINGTON: Ephrata/Moses Lake 108 32.3 219,483 10.84 WEST VIRGINIA: 173 6.3 627,512 159.79 WYOMING: 144 31.3 494,617 25.22 \1\Hub designations are recalculated annually and published by the FAA in the Airport Activity Statistics. The above distances are based on the 1998 Airport Activity Statistics, which is based on CY 1997 passenger data. \2\Hiatus in service. GSA RENTAL PAYMENTS [Dollars and square feet in thousands] Administration Fiscal year 1998 actual Fiscal year 1999 estimate Fiscal year 2000 President's budget Funding Square feet Funding Square feet Funding Square feet Federal Highway Administration $17,480 1,077 $17,922 1,076 $20,275 909 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration 4,234 217 4,042 206 4,657 222 Federal Railroad Administration 2,930 123 3,084 112 3,302 127 Federal Transit Administration 3,307 155 3,500 157 3,824 157 Federal Aviation Administration 68,549 4,098 74,830 4,221 87,415 4,467 U.S. Coast Guard 35,730 2,367 35,285 1,870 35,610 1,870 St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 198 7 192 7 Maritime Administration 4,351 286 4,333 258 4,200 258 Research and Special Programs Administration 2,075 106 1,965 98 2,389 110 Office of Inspector General 2,350 110 2,436 100 2,436 100 Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) 6,237 239 6,713 229 6,713 225 Transportation Administrative Service Center 6,715 294 5,000 250 10,278 415 Bureau of Transportation Statistics 660 24 750 25 855 27 Surface Transportation Board 1,468 57 1,569 57 1,613 58 --------- -------------- --------- ---------------- --------- ------------- Total, Department of Transportation 156,284 9,160 161,621 8,666 183,567 8,945 MINORITY BUSINESS RESOURCE CENTER PROGRAM Appropriations, 1999 $1,900,000 Budget estimate, 2000 1,900,000 Committee recommendation 1,900,000 Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization [OSDBU]/Minority Business Resource Center [MBRC]. --The OSDBU/MBRC provides assistance in obtaining short-term working capital and bonding for disadvantaged, minority, and women-owned businesses [DBE/MBE/WBE's]. In fiscal year 2000, the short-term loan program will continue to focus on the lending of working capital to DBE/MBE/WBE's for transportation-related projects in order to strengthen their competitive and productive capabilities. Since fiscal year 1993, the loan program has been a separate line item appropriation, which segregated such activities in response to changes made by the Federal Credit Reform Act of 1990. The limitation on direct loans under the Minority Business Resource Center is at the administration's requested level of $13,775,000. Of the funds appropriated, $1,500,000 covers the direct subsidy costs for loans not to exceed $13,775,000; and, $400,000 is for administrative expenses to carry out the Direct Loan Program. MINORITY BUSINESS OUTREACH Appropriations, 1999 $2,900,000 Budget estimate, 2000 2,900,000 Committee recommendation 2,900,000 This appropriation provides contractual support to assist minority business firms, entrepreneurs, and venture groups in securing contracts and subcontracts arising out of projects that involve Federal spending. It also provides support to historically black and Hispanic colleges. Separate funding is requested by the administration since this program provides grants and contract assistance that serves DOT-wide goals and not just OST purposes. General Provisions Political and Presidential appointees .--The Committee has included a provision in the bill (sec. 305), which is similar to general provisions that have been included in previous appropriations acts, which limits the number of political and Presidential appointees within the Department of Transportation. The Committee is recommending that the ceiling for fiscal year 2000 be 100 personnel. Advisory committees .--The Committee has retained a general provision (sec. 000) which would limit the amount of funds that could be used for the expenses of advisory committees utilized by the Department of Transportation. The limitation specified is $1,000,000. Rebates, refunds, and incentive payments .--The Department receives funds from various Government programs at different time intervals (that is, weekly, monthly, quarterly). For example, under the General Services Administration's Travel Management Center [TMC] Program, rebate checks received from the travel contractor are distributed monthly to each element of the Department in proportion to net domestic airline sales arranged by the contractor. Past expenditures have to be analyzed to determine the proper sources to refund which can be a time-consuming process. The staff time and cost associated with the precise accounting for each such refund is prohibitive. To alleviate the need to specifically identify the source for each repayment the Committee has included language (sec. 329) that allows a fair and sensible allocation of the rebates and miscellaneous and other funds. Departmental Aircraft .--The Committee is aware of the significant difficulty that the department has had in using aircraft for the movement of Department of Transportation officials and personnel under the Office of Management and Budget guidelines. If the department is unable to make use of dedicated aircraft in an efficient manner, the Committee believes that there are significant cost savings, flexibility, and efficiency to be garnered through utilizing the private sector for the limited business aircraft requirements of the FAA, the Office of the Secretary, and to a lesser extent, the Coast Guard. Accordingly, the Committee has included bill language that permits the fractional ownership of business aircraft by the department which will allow the department to sell underutilized business aircraft in the agency's inventory and utilizes those resources for more critical priorities. Fractional ownership provides access to an entire fleet of aircraft, availability of a mix of aircraft types and sizes, all on very short notice. Costs include aircraft share, a monthly management fee (to include maintenance, flight and cabin crew, crew training, and routine service), and an hourly rate for time aboard the aircraft. The Committee believes that fractional ownership of administrative aircraft in a number of situations could prove extremely beneficial in reducing the costs and inefficiencies of the aircraft in administrative roles which are currently owned and operated in the government inventory. Therefore, the Committee urges the department to establish a test program of fractional ownership for the Federal Aviation Administration, at a minimum, to replace existing mission support aircraft used for administrative requirements, with a mix of light to mid-size jets to determine the flexibility, efficiency, and cost benefits for the government. Other User fees .--The Committee has included bill language, as requested, which permits the Office of the Secretary to continue to credit to this account $1,250,000 in user fees. In addition, the administration's budget proposal includes provisions that would authorize the Secretary of Transportation to charge user fees for Coast Guard, Federal Aviation Administration, Federal Railroad Administration, Research and Special Programs Administration, Surface Transportation Board, and National Transportation Safety Board services, totaling $1,668,000,000. These provisions were drafted to produce the net effect of reducing the budgetary impact of the administration's request, but the agencies themselves are ``held harmless'' against potential loss of funds because the language is contingent upon authorization of the user fees. Each affected agency would have access to all budgetary resources provided in the appropriations bill, because the offsetting collections are not reduced from the general fund appropriation until the authorizing legislation is enacted. Despite this fact, the administration's budget takes full credit for these offsetting collections, artificially reducing the overall budget request. These proposals amount to budgetary ``smoke and mirrors''. Additionally, these proposed user fees represent new taxes on many different sectors of U.S. business and the traveling public. Congress has consistently rejected such user fee proposals, yet the administration continues to include them in its budget submissions. The Committee has included a general provision which directs that in the fiscal year 2000 budget submission, the Department must identify offsets for each proposed user fee. These identified offsets will be reduced from each agency's budget if the proposed fees are not authorized and enacted before the next fiscal year. This provision makes the administration fiscally accountable for its user fee proposals. Reductions and emergency supplementals in fiscal year 1999 appropriations .--In fiscal year 1999, reductions were made to a number of accounts due to the limitation or reduction imposed in the Transportation Administrative Service Center. In addition, the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Public Law 105 277 included emergency supplemental appropriations and funding for Y2K conversions. In the Senate Committee report, each account head shows the amount appropriated in Division A of Public Law 105 277 before the various reductions or supplementals were made. The table below depicts the amount of funds appropriated for each of the accounts, and the reduction and supplementals. CHANGES IN FISCAL YEAR 1999 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROPRIATIONS [In thousands of dollars] Account Public Law 105 277 Public Law 105 262 Appropriations transfer from DOD National Defense Sealift Fund Net appropriation Division A Division B Section 101(g) GP 320 TASC Secs. 111 116 Title I Readiness Title II Antiterrorism Title III Appropriations transfer from Ofc of Pres. Y2K Conversion Title IV Hurricane Title V Drug interdiction Office of the Secretary: 60,490 -1,367 7,754 66,877 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -1,501 7,754 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== U.S. Coast Guard: 2,700,000 -2,794 100,000 31,773 16,300 2,845,279 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -2,794 210,000 31,773 12,600 133,700 28,800 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Federal Aviation Administration: 5,562,558 -4,863 28,798 5,586,493 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -4,863 100,000 151,298 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Federal Highway Administration: (327,413) ( -2,646) (324,767) ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -2,854 332,000 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Operations and research and NDR (trust) 161,400 -974 752 161,178 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Federal Railroad Administration: 21,215 -369 20,846 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -369 28,000 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Federal Transit Administration: 54,000 -912 250 53,338 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- ------------------- ------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------- ---------------------------- -------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subtotal -912 -392,000 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== St. Lawrence Seaway Development Corp: Operations and Maintenance 11,496 -20 11,476 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Research and Special Programs Administration: 29,280 -314 282 29,248 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Subtotal -524 432 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Office of the Inspector General: Salaries and expenses 43,495 -179 43,316 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Bureau of Transportation Statistics\1\ (31,000) ( -208) (30,792) ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Surface Transportation Board: Salaries and expenses 13,400 -10 13,390 ================ ============= ================ =================== ======================== ==================================================================== ==================== ============================ ======== =============================================================================== Total changes, Department of Transportation -15,000 332,000 210,000 100,000 192,259 12,600 133,700 28,800 \1\BTS reductions in parenthesis included under Federal-aid highways. U.S. COAST GUARD SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The U.S. Coast Guard, as it is known today, was established on January 28, 1915, through the merger of the Revenue Cutter Service and the Lifesaving Service. In 1939, the U.S. Lighthouse Service was transferred to the Coast Guard, followed by the Bureau of Marine Inspection and Navigation in 1942. The Coast Guard has as its primary responsibilities the enforcement of all applicable Federal laws on the high seas and waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States; promotion of safety of life and property at sea; assistance to navigation; protection of the marine environment; and maintenance of a state of readiness to function as a specialized service in the Navy in time of war (14 U.S.C. 1, 2). The Committee recommends a total program level of $3,957,203,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2000. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendations 1999 enacted 2000 estimate Operating expenses\1\\2\ 2,700,000 2,941,039 2,772,000 Acquisition, construction, and improvements\3\\4\ 395,465 350,326 370,426 Environmental compliance and restoration 21,000 19,500 12,450 Alteration of bridges\5\ 14,000 14,000 Retired pay (mandatory) 684,000 730,327 730,327 Reserve training\6\ 69,000 72,000 72,000 Research, development, test, and evaluation\6\ 12,000 21,709 17,000 Boat safety (mandatory) (64,000) (64,000) (64,000) Denali Commission expenses 4,000 -------------- --------------- ----------- Total 3,899,465 4,134,901 3,988,203 \1\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. Excludes $116,300,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Fiscal year 1999 enacted amount includes $300,000,000 in defense discretionary funding; fiscal year 2000 estimate includes $334,000,000; fiscal year 2000 Committee recommended amount includes $534,000,000, each amount for national security activities of the Coast Guard and scored against budget function 050 (defense). \3\Includes $1,000,000 for fiscal year 1999 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \4\Fiscal year 2000 estimate includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance tax fees (proposed legislation). \5\Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD. \6\Excludes $5,000,000 in emergency supplemental appropriations. OPERATING EXPENSES General Trust Total Appropriations, 1999\1\ $2,675,000,000 $25,000,000 $2,700,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 2,916,039,000 25,000,000 2,941,039,000 Committee recommendation\3\ 2,747,000,000 25,000,000 2,772,000,000 Secretary's discretionary transfer authority 60,000,000 60,000,000 ---------------- ------------- ---------------- Total available funds 2,776,000,000 25,000,000 2,832,000,000 \1\Includes $300,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense). Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277; and excludes $116,300,000 supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Includes $334,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense). \3\Includes $534,000,000 for national security activities scored against budget function 050 (defense). The ``Operating expenses'' appropriation provides funds for the operation and maintenance of multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units strategically located along the coasts and inland waterways of the United States and in selected areas overseas. The program activities of this appropriation fall into the following categories: Search and rescue. --One of its earliest and most traditional missions, the Coast Guard maintains a nationwide system of boats, aircraft, cutters, and rescue coordination centers on 24-hour alert. Aids to navigation. --To help mariners determine their location and avoid accidents, the Coast Guard maintains a network of manned and unmanned aids to navigation along our coasts and on our inland waterways, and operates radio stations in the United States and abroad to serve the needs of the armed services and marine and air commerce. Marine safety. --The Coast Guard insures compliance with Federal statutes and regulations designed to improve safety in the merchant marine industry and operates a recreational boating safety program. Marine environmental protection. --The primary objectives of this program are to minimize the dangers of marine pollution and to assure the safety of U.S. ports and waterways. Enforcement of laws and treaties. --The Coast Guard is the principal maritime enforcement agency with regard to Federal laws on the navigable waters of the United States and the high seas, including fisheries, drug smuggling, illegal immigration, and hijacking of vessels. Ice operations. --In the Arctic and Antarctic, Coast Guard icebreakers escort supply ships, support research activities and Department of Defense operations, survey uncharted waters, and collect scientific data. The Coast Guard also assists commercial vessels through ice-covered waters. Defense readiness. --During peacetime the Coast Guard maintains an effective state of military preparedness to operate as a service in the Navy in time of war or national emergency at the direction of the President. As such the Coast Guard has primary responsibility for the security of ports, waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore. COMMITTEE FUNDING RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommendation for Coast Guard operating expenses is $2,772,000,000, including $25,000,000 from the oilspill liability trust fund and $534,000,000 from function 050 for the Coast Guard's defense-related activities. [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 1999 enacted\1\ Budget request Committee recommendation Personnel resources: 1,285,598 1,359,891 1,268,022 ----------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------- Total, personnel resources 1,757,945 1,879,381 1,764,109 ============================= ================ ========================== Operating funds and unit level maintenance: 109,646 109,616 104,146 District commands: 1st district 40,401 40,429 40,401 7th district 44,555 45,454 44,555 8th district 28,020 28,483 28,483 9th district 17,580 17,418 17,418 13th district 13,165 13,721 13,165 14th district 8,435 7,332 7,332 17th district 20,402 20,174 20,402 ----------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------- Total, operating funds and unit level maintenance 623,149 655,472 617,280 ============================= ================ ========================== Depot level maintenance: 150,337 156,862 150,337 ----------------------------- ---------------- -------------------------- Total, depot level maintenance 390,611 406,186 390,611 ============================= ================ ========================== Readiness and overseas operations supplemental 28,295 Counter-drug and interdiction supplemental 16,300 TASC reduction -2,794 ========================== ============================= ================ Total appropriation 2,813,506 2,941,039 2,772,000 \1\Includes reduction of $2,794,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 105 277. Includes supplemental appropriations of $116,300,000 for emergency expenses. Does not include supplemental funding for Y2K. Note.--Fiscal year 1999 enacted and fiscal year 2000 request include $300,000,000 and $334,000,000, respectively, for national security activities, budget function 050 (defense). PERSONNEL RESOURCES Military pay and benefits .--The bill includes $1,268,022,000 for military pay and allowances. This is $60,424,000 above the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. This amount fully funds the 4.8 percent pay raise that the Senate passed earlier this year; it also provides all funds requested for special pay, including retention incentives and DoD parity compensation, to slow the exodus of highly trained, qualified personnel from the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is to be commended for the progress that has been made over the past several years to streamline and increase the efficiency of the uniformed services. Staffing continues to lag behind recruiting and retention goals, as qualified individuals find other employment in a thriving economy and as personnel leave the Coast Guard due to the extraordinary pace of operations. However, the 5-year FTE utilization experience of the Coast Guard indicates that they continue to run behind requested levels and accordingly, the Committee recommends a reduction in the FTE levels and a commensurate reduction in the military pay and benefits request. Military health care .--The Committee has provided $133,395,000 for military health care, an increase of $10,000,000 over the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. With other additional resources, military health care funding for fiscal year 2000 is $151,395,000, an increase of $12,325,000 above the budget request. Of the amount made available for health care, $3,000,000 is to be used to continue dependent and Coast Guard retiree enrollment in the Uniformed Services Family Health Plan. Training and education .--Due to budget constraints, the Committee recommends limiting training and education funding. The Coast Guard has excessive infrastructure and should consider consolidating its training to optimize utilization for a smaller force. As part of its streamlining effort, the Coast Guard conducted a study in 1995 that recommended closing the west coast training center. The Committee recommends that the Coast Guard close this facility and relocate all basic, advanced, and specialty training conducted there to the other four training centers. This consolidation results in a fiscal year 2000 savings of $10,000,000 not including non-recurring closure costs. Sitka Rocky Gutierrez Airport .--The Committee has been informed that the Coast Guard has been cooperating with state and local officials to transfer Coast Guard property to Sitka Airport as part of the airport's expansion plan. The Committee encourages the Coast Guard to continue to negotiate with state and local officials and make every effort to find a solution that is acceptable to all parties. OPERATING FUNDS AND UNIT LEVEL MAINTENANCE National security .--The Committee's recommendation includes $534,000,000 from the defense function for Coast Guard support of national security activities. The Coast Guard plays a key role in support of military missions under the U.S. Atlantic and Southern Commands in support of drug interdiction missions, refugee and immigration support, and enforcement and joint military training. The Coast Guard is a cost-effective force which is multimissioned. Its ships, aircraft, shore units, and people have four primary roles: maritime safety, maritime law enforcement, marine environmental protection, and national defense. These roles are complementary and contribute to the Coast Guard's unique niche within the national security community. The value of the Coast Guard forces and their mission experience was clearly evident by their active participation in Operations Desert Shield/Storm in the Persian Gulf, and more recently, in Operation Desert Thunder in the Persian Gulf and Operations Restore/Uphold Democracy in Haiti. The Coast Guard has deployed forces to support the current NATO operations in Yugoslovia. The Coast Guard is one of the five Armed Forces, and is a full partner on the joint national security team. To be a credible partner, the Coast Guard must maintain a high state of operational readiness. Many parts of the Coast Guard's budget contain funding requests that, if cut, would severely impair the Coast Guard's operational readiness and, therefore, its ability to meet national security commitments. Headquarters Directorates .--The Committee recommends $184,674,000, the same level of funding that was provided in fiscal year 1999. The recommendation is below the budget request due to budget constraints and are made without prejudice. Mackinaw .--The bill includes funding for continued operation and maintenance of the icebreaking cutter Mackinaw during fiscal year 2000. Drug interdiction activities .--The Committee has provided the requested $521,000,000 for the war on drugs. It should be left to the Commandant's discretion how the drug interdiction activities funding is to be distributed. The Committee believes that this area is perfectly suited for application of performance measures and evaluation of program impacts. Marine Fire and Safety Association .--The Committee remains supportive of efforts by the Marine Fire and Safety Association [MFSA] to provide specialized firefighting training and maintain an oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia River. The Committee encourages the Secretary to provide funding for MFSA consistent with the authorization and directs the Secretary to provide $183,000 to continue efforts by the nonprofit organization comprised of numerous fire departments on both sides of the Columbia River. The funding will be utilized to provide specialized communications, firefighting training and equipment, and to implement the oilspill response contingency plan for the Columbia River. Ballast water management program .--The Committee recommended funding level includes $3,000,000 to implement the nationwide ballast water management program. Vessel Maintenance .--The Committee requests the Coast Guard to provide a list of the locations where Coast Guard performs non-depot level maintenance or alters and modifies its vessels. The report should list all locations by Coast Guard district and by region and is to be received by July 30, 1999. DEPOT LEVEL MAINTENANCE The Committee recommends $390,611,000 for depot level maintenance for vessels, aircraft, electronic equipment, and shore facilities. This is the same amount as the enacted level for fiscal year 1999 and is $15,757,000 below the budget estimate. The reduction is due to fiscal constraints. BILL LANGUAGE Secretary's discretionary transfer authority .--The bill includes language that permits the Secretary to transfer up to $60,000,000 from Federal Aviation Administration operations to Coast Guard operating expenses for the purposes of providing additional funds for drug interdiction activities or activities related to the Office of Intelligence and Security. User fees .--The bill includes language that prohibits the planning, finalization, or implementation of any regulation that would promulgate new maritime user fees not specifically authorized by law after the date of enactment of this act. Notwithstanding this provision in the fiscal year 1999 conference report (Public Law 106 277), the budget request proposed to collect $41,000,000 from a new user fee on navigational services provided by the Coast Guard. The Committee has rejected the administration's proposal to raise taxes on transportation users year after year. Nevertheless, the administration continues to employ this tired budget gimmick because it presents a budget in which funding for the Coast Guard is artificially high. The bill includes a general provision to make the administration fiscally accountable for proposing unauthorized user fees. The bill directs the Department to identify a specific spending offset for each dollar collected by a new user fee in the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Audit Reimbursement .--The bill includes a provision to transfer $5,000,000 to the Department of Transportation Inspector General. The transferred funding will reimburse the IG for audits and investigations of Coast Guard-related issues, programs, and systems. Other agencies are also required to transfer funds to the department IG. ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION, AND IMPROVEMENTS General Trust Total Appropriations, 1999\1\ $375,465,000 $20,000,000 $395,465,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 330,326,000 20,000,000 350,326,000 Committee recommendation 350,426,000 20,000,000 370,426,000 \1\Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees. This appropriation provides for the major acquisition, construction, and improvement of vessels, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation operated and maintained by the Coast Guard. Currently, the Coast Guard has in operation approximately 250 cutters, ranging in size from 65-foot tugs to 399-foot polar icebreakers, more than 2,000 boats, and an inventory of more than 200 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft. The Coast Guard also operates approximately 600 stations, support and supply centers, communications facilities, and other shore units. The Coast Guard provides over 48,000 navigational aids--buoys, fixed aids, lighthouses, and radio navigational stations. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The following table summarizes the Committee's programmatic recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 1999 enacted\1\ Fiscal year 2000 estimate\2\ Committee recommendation Vessels 219,923 165,760 123,560 Aircraft 35,700 22,110 33,210 Other equipment 36,569 53,726 52,726 Shore facilities and aids to navigation 54,823 55,800 63,800 Personnel and related support 48,450 52,930 52,930 Deepwater replacement project\3\ \3\(20,000) (44,200) 44,200 ----------------------------- ------------------------------ -------------------------- Total 395,465 350,326 370,426 \1\Includes $1,000,000 in asset sales. Excludes $217,400,000 in supplemental appropriations. Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Includes $41,000,000 in proposed navigation assistance fees. \3\The budget estimate proposes to fund the Deepwater project in vessels. VESSELS The Committee recommends $123,560,000 for vessel acquisition and improvements. The projected allocation of these funds is shown in the table below: VESSELS [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Acquire vessels and equipment: 77,000 77,000 Coastal patrol boat [CPB] 1,000 Stern loading buoy boat replacement 5,000 5,000 Mackinaw replacement 3,000 Surface search radar replacement project 4,000 4,000 Deepwater capability replacement 44,200 Repair, renovate, or improve existing vessels and small boats: 3,700 3,700 --------------------------- -------------------------- Total (new program level) 165,760 123,560 Mackinaw replacement .--The Committee recommends $3,000,000 to complete concept design on replacement vessel, including a multi-purpose alternative, for icebreaking operations on the Great Lakes. The Committee remains concerned about the projected long lead time for delivery of a replacement vessel and urges the Coast Guard to expeditiously complete the alternative of analysis and cost benefit analysis and proceed to next acquisition key decision point. AIRCRAFT For aircraft procurement, the Committee recommends $33,210,000. Funds for aircraft acquisitions are distributed as follows: AIRCRAFT [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation HC 130 engine modification 1,100 HH 65A helicopter kapton rewiring 3,360 3,360 HH 65A engine re-power program 10,000 Long range search aircraft capability preservation 5,900 5,900 HH 65A helicopter mission unit computer unit replacement 3,650 3,650 HU 25 aircraft avionics improvements 2,900 2,900 HH 60J navigation upgrade 3,800 3,800 HC 130 side looking airborne radar [SLAR] 2,500 2,500 --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 22,110 33,210 HH 65 Helicopter .--At the request of the Committee, the Coast Guard has documented the need to improve the engine performance of the HH 65 helicopter as its operational weight has increased and to increase horsepower by 23 percent. The bill includes $10,000,000 to initiate the engine re-power program. HC 130 engine modification .--In the interest of crew safety and reduced maintenance cost savings, other military services have applied oil debris detection systems with a residue burn off capability to their aircraft. This system provides on-board detection which alerts air crews of the debris which can cause catastrophic engine failure. The Committee has included $1,100,000 to install this system on the entire Coast Guard HC 130 fleet. The Committee expects that this will be a one-time cost and all HC 130 can be retrofit with the modification in fiscal year 2000. OTHER EQUIPMENT The Committee recommends $52,726,000. The following table displays the project allocations: OTHER EQUIPMENT [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Fleet logistics system [FLS] 6,000 6,000 Ports and waterways safety system [PAWSS] 4,500 4,500 Marine information for safety and law enforcement [MISLE] 10,500 10,500 Defense message system [DMS] impementation 3,477 3,477 Loran-C continuation 1,000 Human resources information system 1,100 1,100 Personnel management information system/joint uniform military pay system II 4,400 4,400 Aviation logistics management information system [ALMIS] 2,700 2,700 National distress system modernization 16,000 16,000 Commercial satellite communication upgrade 4,049 4,049 --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 53,726 52,726 Loran-C .--Loran-C is a reliable and cost-effective navigation system that virtually every mode of transportation uses, and the Committee supports assigning the Coast Guard the responsibility to continue to operate and maintain the Loran system. The Committee is pleased that the department views the need to upgrade aging Loran equipment and infrastructure as a department-wide, requiring funding from several agencies. Accordingly, the Committee has deleted funding in this account for the modernization of Loran-C and has funded system upgrades elsewhere in the bill. National Distress System .--The Committee has provided $16,000,000 for the National Distress and Response System (NDRS) modernization project. The Committee urges the Coast Guard to expeditiously develop an upgraded system and determine which components of the modernized national distress system should be leased or purchased. SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION The program level recommended is $63,800,000. SHORE FACILITIES AND AIDS TO NAVIGATION [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Shore--General: 6,000 6,000 Shore--Air stations: 8,300 8,300 Shore--Centers/groups/stations: 3,100 3,100 Aids to navigation facilities: Waterways aids-to-navigation projects 5,000 5,000 --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 55,800 63,800 DEEPWATER PROJECT In fiscal year 1998, the Coast Guard initiated the Integrated Deepwater Systems project, a major acquisition of surface ships, aircraft, sensors, and communications equipment to conduct operations beyond 50 miles offshore. The Deepwater project will be the most expensive acquisition program in the Coast Guard's history. It promises to be the most complex acquisition and perhaps the most controversial. While the Committee finds merit in an acquisition strategy that avoids a one-for-one asset replacement, the Committee is concerned that it may be too ambitious and unproven for an agency that has experienced difficulty in managing large and complex acquisition programs. The Committee remains concerned that this project is not affordable within the current budget constraints. The cost of the Deepwater project is projected to grow substantially and is projected to reach as much as $500,000,000 annually after the contract is awarded in fiscal year 2002. The Inspector General and General Accounting Office testified to the Committee that the current projected cost of the Deepwater project will outstrip the Office of Management and Budget target for Coast Guard capital spending. Furthermore, there would not be sufficient funds available for any other AC&I program under current projections. The Committee recommendation establishes a new account for the Deepwater Project and has included up to $60,000,000 to continue concept exploration in fiscal year 2000. The bill includes $44,200,000 as requested and permits the Coast Guard to use an additional $15,800,000 at the discretion of the Commandant. The bill directs proceeds from the sale of identified excess property into this account to provide a dedicated revenue stream to supplement funding for the acquisition of the deepwater system. The Committee is concerned that the only way to realize the potential of the deepwater concept is to identify a funding mechanism source to create necessary resources for this program. PERSONNEL AND RELATED SUPPORT The program level recommended is $52,930,000. Within the amount provided, $52,930,000 shall be for core acquisition costs. The Committee has provided the full amount requested for AC&I personnel and related support. [In thousands of dollars] Personnel and related support Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Direct personnel costs 51,180 51,180 Core acquisition costs 1,750 1,750 --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 52,930 52,930 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND RESTORATION Appropriations, 1999 $21,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 19,500,000 Committee recommendation 12,450,000 The Environmental Compliance and Restoration account provides funds to address environmental problems at former and current Coast Guard units as required by applicable Federal, State, and local environmental laws and regulations. Planned expenditures for these funds include major upgrades to petroleum and regulated-substance storage tanks, restoration of contaminated ground water and soils, remediation efforts at hazardous substance disposal sites, and initial site surveys and actions necessary to bring Coast Guard shore facilities and vessels into compliance with environmental laws and regulations. The Committee commends the Coast Guard for its progress in cleaning its contaminated facilities. The remaining backlog of restoration projects has decreased from $132,000,000 at the end of fiscal year 1993 to the current estimate of $60,000,000. The Committee is aware that for the past several fiscal years, the Coast Guard has used only approximately 59 percent of the funds in this account for environmental compliance and restoration. The Committee recommends that $12,450,000 be available only to continue the environmental restoration and compliance-related activities of the Coast Guard. ALTERATION OF BRIDGES (highway trust fund) Appropriations, 1999\1\ $14,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ ........................... Committee recommendation 14,000,000 \1\Excludes $28,800,000 by transfer from DOD, Public Law 105 262. \2\The budget estimate proposes $11,000,000 for altering bridges which will be reimbursed from Federal-aid highways. The ``Alteration of bridges'' appropriation provides funds for the Coast Guard's share of the cost of altering or removing bridges obstructive to navigation. Under the provisions of the Truman-Hobbs Act of June 21, 1940, as amended (33 U.S.C. 511 et seq.), the Coast Guard, as the Federal Government's agent, is required to share with owners the cost of altering railroad and publicly owned highway bridges which obstruct the free movement of navigation on navigable waters of the United States in accordance with the formula established in 33 U.S.C. 516. The Committee directs that, of the funds provided, $7,000,000 shall be allocated to the Sidney Lanier highway bridge in Brunswick, GA; $2,000,000 to the EJ&E railroad bridge in Morris, IL; $2,000,000 to the John F. Limehouse bridge in Charlestown, SC; and, $3,000,000 to the Florida Ave. bridge in New Orleans, LA. RETIRED PAY Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory) $684,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory) 730,327,000 Committee recommendation (mandatory) 730,327,000 The ``Retired pay'' appropriation provides for retired pay of military personnel of the Coast Guard and Coast Guard Reserve, members of the former Lighthouse Service, and for annuities payable to beneficiaries of retired military personnel under the retired serviceman's family protection plan (10 U.S.C. 1431 1446) and survivor benefit plan (10 U.S.C. 1447 1455), and for medical care of retired personnel and their dependents under the Dependents Medical Care Act. The average number of personnel on the retired rolls is estimated to be 33,462 in fiscal year 2000, as compared with an estimated 32,199 in fiscal year 1999 and 31,088 in fiscal year 1998. The budget estimate proposed indefinite budget authority instead of a fixed amount for this mandatory entitlement program. The Committee, however, believes that Coast Guard retired pay should remain subject to appropriations and does not recommend amending current law to provide indefinite budget authority. RESERVE TRAINING Appropriations, 1999\1\ $69,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 72,000,000 Committee recommendation 72,000,000 \1\Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. Under the provisions of 14 U.S.C. 145, the Secretary of Transportation is required to adequately support the development and training of a Reserve force to ensure that the Coast Guard will be sufficiently organized, manned, and equipped to fully perform its wartime missions. The purpose of the Reserve training program is to provide trained units and qualified persons for active duty in the Coast Guard in time of war or national emergency, or at such other times as the national security requires. Coast Guard reservists must also train for mobilization assignments that are unique to the Coast Guard in times of war, such as port security operations associated with the Coast Guard's Maritime Defense Zone [MDZ] mission and include deployable port security units. The Coast Guard is provided Reserve training funding as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Functional program element Fiscal year 1999 levels\1\ President's request (7,600 SELRES) Committee recommendation (8,000 SELRES) Initial training 2,466 2,581 2,581 Continuing training 45,565 43,844 43,844 Operation and maintenance support 15,374 15,672 15,672 Program management and administration 10,595 9,903 9,903 ---------------------------- ------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------- Total 74,000 72,000 72,000 \1\Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations. RESEARCH, DEVELOPMENT, TEST, AND EVALUATION General Trust Total Appropriations, 1999\1\ $8,500,000 $3,500,000 $12,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 18,209,000 3,500,000 21,709,000 Committee recommendation 13,500,000 3,500,000 17,000,000 \1\Excludes $5,000,000 emergency supplemental appropriations. The Coast Guard's Research and Development Program seeks to improve the tools and techniques with which Coast Guard carries out its varied operational missions and to increase the knowledge base upon which it depends to fulfill its regulatory responsibilities. The Committee recommendation includes $17,000,000 for research, development, test, and evaluation distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year 1999\1\ Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Program areas: 875 1,162 1,162 --------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 17,000 21,709 17,000 \1\Includes $5,000,000 supplemental appropriations. The Committee has provided $17,000,000 for fiscal year 2000 research, development, test and evaluation programs. Marine Environmental Protection .--Within the amount provided for Marine environmental protection, the Committee has included not less than $1,500,000 to continue the development and testing of methods to verify the occurrence of ship ballast exchange to ensure that alien aquatic species are not introduced into American waterways. Comprehensive Law Enforcement .--The Committee has funded the requested amount and recommends that the Coast Guard focus its research efforts in this area on the development and exploitation of technologies that will improve current gaps in detecting, identifying, and classifying targets. Within the funds provided for Comprehensive Law Enforcement, the Committee has included $1,500,000 to apply previously developed submarine acoustic monitoring technology to counter-drug operations. Funds should be allocated to an academic research laboratory that can develop a fully automated monitoring system that utilizes acoustic sensors with satellite transmitters, shore-based receivers, and electronic target processors to improve the identification and interdiction of vessels trafficking illegal drugs and other contraband. Technology Investment .--Although supportive of the Coast Guard strategy to leverage technology whenever practicable, the Committee is concerned that many of the projects within this account already are being explored in major acquisition programs, including the Integrated Deepwater Systems procurement. The Committee, therefore, reduces the funding for technology investment to $2,302,000 and encourages the Coast Guard to better focus its work in this area. Personnel, Program Support, and Operations .--The Committee provides $3,349,000, the same as the fiscal year 1999 enacted level. The Committee is concerned about the growth in RDT&E management overhead and asserts that the amount provided is manageable if the Coast Guard initiates necessary management directives to reduce administrative and support expenses. BOAT SAFETY (aquatic resources trust fund) Appropriations, 1999 (mandatory) $64,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 (mandatory) 64,000,000 Committee recommendation (mandatory) 64,000,000 This account provides financial assistance for a coordinated National Recreational Boating Safety Program for the several States. Title 46, United States Code, section 13106, establishes a ``Boat safety'' account from which the Secretary may allocate and distribute matching funds to assist in the development, administration, and financing of qualifying State programs. The ``Boat safety'' account consists of amounts transferred from the highway trust fund which are derived from the motorboat fuel tax (18.4 cents per gallon). The Transportation Efficiency Act for the 21st Century provides for a guaranteed funding level of $64,000,000 annually for this program. No additional appropriations are necessary for fiscal year 2000. General Provisions Land conveyance, Coast Guard Station New Castle. --The bill includes a provision permitting the transfer of Coast Guard Station New Castle to the University of New Hampshire. FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The Federal Aviation Administration traces its origins to the Air Commerce Act of 1926, but more recently to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 which established the independent Federal Aviation Agency from functions which had resided in the Airways Modernization Board, the Civil Aeronautics Administration, and parts of the Civil Aeronautics Board. FAA became an administration of the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967, pursuant to the Department of Transportation Act (October 15, 1966). The total recommended program level for the FAA for fiscal year 2000 amounts to $11,235,652,000. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation 1999 enacted 2000 budget estimate Operations \1\5,562,558 \2\6,039,000 5,857,450 Facilities and equipment \3\1,900,000 2,319,000 2,045,652 Research, engineering, and development \4\150,000 173,000 150,000 Airport improvement program \5\1,660,000 1,600,000 2,000,000 -------------- ---------------------- ------------ Total 9,278,558 10,171,000 10,093,102 \1\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277; excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Includes $1,500,000,000 new user fees proposed in President's budget request. \3\Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental funding for explosive detection systems; excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \4\Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \5\Original obligation limitation for AIP in fiscal year 1999 was $1,995,000,000. The FAA is a complex and multilayered organization that consistently defies management models. The organization has the best and the worst organizational characteristics of a bureaucracy: intense stability and intense resistance to change. Accordingly, technological modernization of air traffic systems, streamlining of regulatory processes, personnel changes, accounting changes, and program reviews meet broad institutional resistance while the entire organization would ostensibly concur with the goal of each such initiative. There has been a great deal of discussion recently about the ``looming crisis'' at the FAA and with the pending ``gridlock'' in the skies due to insufficient FAA funding. This klaxon cry is not new--it has been a common refrain over the past 15 years which seems to increase in volume every time the Administration proposes a new capital plan or reauthorization bill, or every time Congress undertakes the reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration's programs. But the crisis always seems to recede the closer we look at it, or the closer we get to the projected ``gridlock'' deadline. Does that mean that the vast number of studies, conferences and think-tanks that have weighed in on this topic are off base--clearly not. Without question, air traffic has increased, and capacity management challenges have also increased, but the airlines', the airports', and the FAA's ability to grow capacity and more efficiently manage traffic loads has also increased. The system works and will continue to evolve as the nature of air traffic demands grow and change. Congress, once again, needs to make sure that we don't respond to projections of dynamic growth in the industry with static capacity growth models. For the past several years, the Committee has focused our aviation capital investment on airport infrastructure, on technology that will allow airports and the airlines to be more efficient, and on technology and process changes that will increase the efficiency of the air traffic control system and personnel. While the progress is not as rapid as the Committee would like, the FAA is making progress with the possible exception of controller productivity and the FAA Administrator has testified that the new controller agreement is expected to generate new productivity improvements on that front. While the claim is often made that the FAA's difficulties are because the agency lacks a reliable revenue stream, the facts simply don't bear that out--99.8 percent of the FAA's budget over the past five years has been appropriated and approved by Congress. Over the past three years, FAA's appropriation has grown by 17.6 percent. By comparison, over the same time frame, FDA's funding grew 12.1 percent, NASA's budget went down 1.6 percent, and the budget for Defense declined by 1.7 percent. Clearly, FAA has fared better than most in the budget process. It's also important to note that FAA's budget growth has come in an environment where their workload has only been growing between 1 and 3 percent per year. The FAA's recently released Aerospace Forecasts fiscal years 1999 2010 reported that domestic enplanements (not operations) increased by 2.1 percent in 1998. The FAA moves airplanes, not passengers and operations are only projected to grow at an average 2.1 percent over the next ten years. Traditionally, the FAA's estimates have been high by 50 100 percent on enplanements and by slightly less on operations. But, assuming the projections are correct (even though they are being made in a period of unprecedented economic growth), the FAA's appropriation is projected to continue to outpace the growth in the FAA's workload. Unfortunately, the missing piece of the equation is the corresponding productivity gains and cost saving measures on the part of the FAA. The FAA must do better. The President's budget request for the FAA proposed almost a 6 percent growth over last year's appropriation including new user fees. On top of the last three years' growth, FAA's budget will have grown by over 25 percent over four years. The budget request is not lean, particularly when viewed in the context of the current budgetary constraints and compared to other agencies in the Federal Government, or even within the Department of Transportation--or compared to the agency's workload growth or the virtual absence of any meaningful cost savings. In short, the budget request is generous and aggressive. The question shouldn't be whether we are spending enough on the FAA, the question should be whether it will be spent wisely and whether increased spending will translate into increased productivity and aviation safety. Clearly, some of the refocusing that the FAA Administrator has done with the Facilities and Equipment budget--emphasizing the Free Flight Phase I initiative, for example--provides the Committee with a sense that the agency's priorities are becoming more aligned with the Committee's focus. However, some of the continuing problems with the Agency's two largest procurements, STARS and WAAS, fuel concern that the agency hasn't turned the corner yet in the administration of major procurements. Clearly, there is a critical need for continued, and perhaps increased oversight, from within the FAA, and from organizations like the Department of Transportation Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and the Congress. In addition, the Committee is concerned that recent Congressional pressures to ``firewall'' parts of the Transportation budget in order to insulate certain portions of the budget from having to compete with other Federal spending are counterproductive. These efforts seem more designed to increase resources to one part of the Department of Transportation for the sake of increased investment without assessing whether such ``investment'' will actually increase efficiency, safety, or improve productivity. Clearly, the experience with the Advance Automation Suite, the STARS, WAAS, MLS, OASIS, and several other procurements demonstrate that money alone is not the answer to squeezing increased efficiency and productivity from the air traffic system. The case is unquestionably the same with the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The fiscal year 1999 obligation limitation level set by the Congress last year was the highest ever--before considering the additional investment in airport infrastructure made possible by the Passenger Facility Charge (PFCs) revenues. Interestingly, a cursory analysis of the last 20 years of AIP spending indicates that an increased percentage of the program is committed to landside rather than airside projects. The Committee questions whether a dramatic increase in funding would somehow change the trend in this program. In short, the FAA has thrived in the regular budget and appropriations process and the leadership of the FAA utilizing the increased procurement and personnel authority granted by Congress several years ago is beginning to improve the FAA's performance. Expenditures on FAA programs continue to exceed the taxes paid into the aviation trust fund demonstrating the import the Congress places on maintaining a robust investment in the air transportation system. The Committee's focus as we review the FAA's programs is on how to do things better, not how to insulate the FAA from oversight or from having to compete with other budget priorities. OPERATIONS Appropriations, 1999\1\ $5,562,558,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 4,539,000,000 Committee recommendation 5,857,450,000 \1\Excludes reduction of $4,863,000 for TASC pursuant to Public Law 105 277; excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Excludes $1,500,000,000 user fees to be appropriated. FAA's ``Operations'' appropriation provides funds for the operation, maintenance, communications, and logistic support of the air traffic control and navigation systems and activities. It also covers the administration and management of the regulatory, airports, commercial space, medical and engineering, and development programs. User fees. --The administration proposed to collect almost $1,500,000,000 in new user fee taxes from commercial aviation users of the air traffic control system. The fees would be available for appropriation only for aviation purposes. The administration also estimates collecting $40,000,000 in overflight fees in fiscal year 2000. These fees are to be available without Appropriations Committee action for the essential air service program (under the Office of the Secretary of Transportation) and rural airport safety. Operations.-- The activities of the operations accounts comprise seven main areas consistent with FAA's reorganization to bring together functions and activities that support the provision of a single, major service and to establish a single executive responsible for that service. Air traffic services. --Provides for the operations and maintenance of the national air traffic control and navigation system and the installation of air traffic and navigation equipment. Air traffic services consists of five subactivities: air traffic, NAS logistics, systems maintenance, leased telecommunications, and flight inspections. Aviation regulation and certification.-- Promotes aviation safety and ensures compliance with safety and certification standards for air carriers, commercial operators, air agencies, airmen, and civil aircraft, including aircraft registration; develops and administers safety standards for airworthiness of aircraft and components. Includes accident investigation, aviation medicine, aviation rulemaking, and the suspected unapproved parts office. Aviation security .--Provides for the overall planning, direction, management, evaluation, and enforcement of civil aviation security; supports efforts covering the investigation and interdiction of illegal drugs and the assessment of foreign airports. Research and acquisition.-- Responsible for all research, prototyping, system development, and acquisition activities. Includes the William J. Hughes Technical Center. Administration of airports. --Provides for the administration of airport grants and the safety inspection and certification of the Nation's airports. Commercial space transportation. --Facilitates and promotes commercial space launches by the U.S. private sector and licenses and regulates commercial launches, launch site operations, and certain payloads. Staff offices. --Funds the Office of the Administrator and the Deputy Administrator, and offices that report directly to the Administrator and provide executive direction; operations and communications control; civil rights; government and industry affairs; policy, planning, and international aviation; legal counsel; financial services; human resources; repair and center operations; and public affairs. Also includes the administrative functions that establish policy and direct and develop programs in the areas of FAA aircraft use and management, building space management, budget and accounting, business information and consultation, human resource management, and technical and management training; includes the regional administrators and the Aeronautical Center Director. The bill includes $5,857,450,000 for the operations activities of the Federal Aviation Administration from the airport and airway trust fund. As in past years, FAA is directed to report immediately to the Committees on Appropriations in the event resources are insufficient to operate a safe and effective air traffic control system. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendation in comparison to the budget estimate: [In thousands of dollars] Fiscal year-- Committee recommendations 1999 program level\1\\2\ 2000 budget estimate Air traffic services 4,343,042 \3\4,696,487 4,681,246 Aviation regulation and certification 629,509 667,631 629,509 Aviation security 123,301 144,642 133,301 Research and acquisition 73,994 183,740 156,533 Administration of airports 48,449 50,608 Commercial space transportation 6,146 6,838 6,146 Administration 259,283 Staff offices 73,971 289,054 250,715 Accountwide adjustments -------------------------- ----------------------- ----------- Total 5,562,558 6,039,000 5,857,450 ========================== ======================= =========== User fees 43,000 1,540,000 Appropriated funds 5,519,558 4,543,000 5,857,450 Secretary's discretionary transfer authority 60,000 -------------------------- ----------------------- ----------- Total available funds 5,562,558 6,133,000 5,917,450 \1\Includes $4,863,000 reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. \2\Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \3\Includes $1,500,000,000 in proposed user fee taxes. AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES The Committee recommends a total of $4,681,246,000 for the operation and maintenance of the national air traffic control and flight service system. The Committee is confident that this level, although constrained, is sufficient for air traffic services and offers the following analysis for illustration of the flexibility represented by the Committee's recommendation. The requirements for funding for this activity could be predicated on a series of adjustments to the fiscal year 1998 appropriated level. Initially, the appropriation could be adjusted downward for the estimated $50,000,000 in overflight fees that were not forthcoming in fiscal years 1998 or 1999 but are anticipated at a level of $40,000,000 for fiscal year 2000. The Administrator and the Secretary have both indicated that the FAA has been able to maintain a safe air traffic control environment notwithstanding the inability to access the revenues that would have come from these fees. In addition, substantial controller staff years in this appropriation are directly attributable solely to union activities and over $37,000,000 is attributable to direct overtime staffing. Given the high level of staff-years committed to union activities viewed in conjunction with the seemingly unalterable trend for substantial reliance on overtime staffing, the Committee encourages the Federal Aviation Administration to pursue greater flexibility in staffing arrangements to reduce the current reliance on overtime. While the Committee does not recommend reducing the appropriation by the approximately $20,000,000 growth in backfill overtime staffing and the seemingly suboptimal timing of the generous allotment of staff-years for union activities, or interim incentive pay which should no longer be necessary, or the increased cost of moving away from the current supervisor structure and ratio, removing the cost of administrative services aircraft or even adjusting the base to reflect the actual fiscal year 1999 baseline, the FAA should pursue efficiencies that would result from a greater coordination of activities in this area and reductions have been assumed for the minimum of $18,000,000 in NAS plan handoff costs that will not occur and for the oceanic and contract tower savings discussed elsewhere in the report. Further, the Committee notes that the FAA forecasting of aviation activity has tended to be overly optimistic as discussed in last year's report. The FAA has consistently overestimated future aviation activity which has a cascading impact on the Air Traffic Services budget as it takes 3 to 5 years to fully train a new controller. Overestimates in the need for new controllers 5 years from now will likely lead to significant future expenditures for unnecessary resources. Air traffic control operation costs continue to increase faster than demand for FAA air traffic control services. The high likelihood that future FAA workloads are overestimated should provide some guidance for the FAA as resource constraints are accommodated. In addition, the FAA must increase the efficiency of the air traffic control work force. Some of those possible efficiencies are mentioned in this and other reports. The average annual growth in operations at air traffic control towers, en route centers, and flight service stations from 1992 to 1997 has been 0.05 percent, 2.13 percent, and 0.55 percent, respectively. Current average operations per hour at en route centers are less than 3 per controller hour, and current average operations per hour at air traffic control towers are less than 6 per controller hour. Those averages would seem to indicate that there is some room for improvement in controller efficiency or staffing coordination. The Committee is confident that careful management of the funds provided in this act will ensure sufficient resources are available to cover the substantial salary increases contained in the controller's pay agreement. Maintenance concerns.-- The Committee is aware of increasing concerns and complaints about the FAA's decision to impose agency-wide spending restrictions on activities funded by the operations appropriation. The Committee has refrained from earmarking more money for specific items such as staffing and training in the operations account to provide the maximum level of flexibility for the Administrator as she manages the FAA workforce but reiterates the concern that adequate resources are committed to maintaining the FAA's capital plant. Remote certification and maintenance .--The Committee is concerned about the cost and manpower required to maintain and certify older, more remotely located radar systems. It is the Committee's understanding that technology allows for remote maintenance and certification of these radar systems by continuously measuring a radar's critical performance parameters and automatically transmits the test results over a standard phone line to a designated Maintenance Control Center. In essence, this technology gives older generation radars advanced RMM capability. Contract tower program .--The Committee recommendation includes $52,100,000 for the contract tower program as well as $5,000,000 for a contract tower cost-sharing program. These funds are in addition to those provided for the regular contract tower program. The Department of Transportation's Inspector General has found that the contract tower program has provided level I air traffic control services at a lower cost for 110 towers previously operated by the FAA and provided air traffic control services at 50 towers the FAA could not have afforded to staff. The cost sharing program allows those towers that fall below the FAA threshold to participate in the program by contributing a local match. The Committee believes that this new program will enable small airports to have their tower staffed with an FAA certified air traffic controller; thereby ensuring the safe and efficient movement of people and goods. The Committee notes that the FAA contract tower program continues to receive overwhelming support from aviation users and airports as a cost-effective way to enhance aviation safety. As a result, the Committee continues to fully support this program and innovative initiatives such as the contract tower cost-sharing program for certain airports. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the contract tower cost-sharing program and resources funding the original contract tower program at $52,100,000 to continue the base contract tower program and that allow the program to be extended to other visual flight rule (VFR) air traffic control towers operated by the FAA (former Level II and III air traffic control towers as previously classified by FAA). Within 60 days of enactment of this Act, the FAA Administrator is directed to provide to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee a plan proposing the extension of the contract tower program to those VFR towers. The plan should identify potential cost savings and other benefits, such as the positive impact on controller staffing at busier FAA air traffic facilities, and include a timeline for expanding the contract tower program to these facilities during the fiscal year. Average savings from the current contract tower program as compared to an FAA managed baseline average about $250,000 per facility annually. Accordingly, since the savings should be greater with the former level II and III VFR towers, the Committee believes that savings from expanding the program to these towers offer potential savings of as much as $15,000,000 in fiscal year 2000 with even greater savings in subsequent fiscal years. In addition, the FAA is directed to continue operation of the contract towers at Olympia, WA; Greenville Municipal Airport, MS; Huntsville, AL; and Lea County Airport, NM under this program. Further, the Committee directs the FAA to work with the local Mississippi officials to establish contract towers at Olive Branch Airport and the Tupelo Airport, to work with local and state officials to provide contract tower and operational assistance for the transferred air facility at Adak, with local and military officials to explore contract tower operations at Ft. Sill Army Radar Operation Control, to work with local officials for contract tower service for Felts Field, Washington, and with local Indiana officials for contract tower service for Muncie/Delaware County Airport. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the communities to explore alternatives, such as sharing tower operating costs, to maintain tower operations. Contract tower oversight .--In May 1998, the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General (OIG) provided an audit report on the contract tower program. While the report found the quality of service between contract and FAA-operated towers to be comparable, it did note that some contract towers had not been staffed at contract specified levels, and that some contractors had been compensated for services that had not been provided. The OIG recommended that the FAA take steps to recoup the overpayments, ensure that contract terms are adhered to, and institute a formal review process. The Committee directs the FAA to report on the progress of implementing the OIG recommendations and requests that the OIG report on the staffing levels at Outagamie County Regional Airport in Appleton, Wisconsin to include an assessment of whether staffing levels are adequate for aircraft operations at the airport. GPS approaches .--The Committee recommendation includes sufficient funds to continue the FAA's work on GPS approaches and to initiate preliminary consideration and analysis of GPS approaches for helipads to be integrated with helipad lighting design. In addition, the Committee recommendation includes funding for a GPS approach for Bert Mooney Airport in Butte, MT. National airspace redesign. --The Committee directs not less than $11,000,000 to support the administration's initiative to comprehensively review and design the domestic and oceanic airspace within the United States. The Committee directs the FAA to concentrate the administration's initial efforts on the eastern region, particularly on the redesign of the New York/New Jersey metropolitan airspace, consistent with the administration's plans. These initial efforts will support the planning and design challenges in the New York/New Jersey region's airspace, the most complex and densely traveled airspace in the world. The airspace in this region is some of the most congested in the nation and the current airspace design is quite sensitive to delays if weather or other delay contributing factors occur. The FAA is encouraged to take advantage of new technologies such as satellite navigation and aircraft capabilities, and new flight paths in the redesign effort and to explore best practices from other congested airspace to identify tools to better manage traffic and capacity in this critical air transportation metropolitan airspace. The national and regional redesign will take advantage of new technologies, such as satellite navigation and aircraft capabilities, and new flight paths. The Committee encourages the administration to ensure that the final result of the redesign will deliver the greatest safety, efficiency and environmental benefits to system operators, users and citizens near airports, particularly those who are affected by air noise. The Committee requires the FAA to submit quarterly reports on the status of the Newark Delay Reduction Initiatives continuing from last year's conference report. Oceanic Traffic Services .--The FAA has had difficulty in modernizing the Oceanic services function and the demands on the air traffic routes in the Pacific and the North Atlantic desperately require the capacity enhancement that technological and operational modernization promises for oceanic services. Consistent with the spirit of the Administration's request to move to a PBO for air traffic services, the Committee allows the contracting out of the oceanic function. This function is discreet and operationally discernible from other FAA air traffic services and facilities and could be an ideal candidate for incrementally moving toward a PBO, privatized, or more competitive air traffic services model for the FAA. A 1997 GRA study commissioned by the FAA Oceanic Integrated Product Team estimated the cost of the Oceanic operation at almost $200,000,000 (1995 data). The Committee requests quarterly reports providing updates on this initiative and the anticipated timeframe for increased efficiency due to modernization and operations under an oceanic services contract. Leased telecommunication services/RCL. --In prior-years' reports the Committee has expressed concern about underutilization of the radio communications link [RCL], which is owned by FAA and is one of the largest microwave networks in the country. The alternative to increased use of the RCL is reliance on leased telecommunications. The Committee directed FAA to transfer to the radio communications link as much of the existing workload as possible to better utilize that resource. The Committee understands that FAA plans to use RCL circuits rather than increasing reliance on leased circuits from a private vendor. Notwithstanding this intention on the part of the FAA, the Committee has concluded that FAA is likely to continue to underutilize its radio communications link [RCL] network in favor of leased telecommunications by virtue of the fact that the FAA has failed to follow through on this plan in the past. The Committee suggests that FAA accommodate constrained air traffic services appropriations by disposing of a part of its underutilized RCL network and taking staffing savings. The Committee requests semiannual reports commencing in July 1999 from the FAA on the status of plans to more fully utilize RCL or to decommission it. Training .--The Committee notes the difficulty that the FAA has had in balancing training management and administration between culture changing activities, proficiency training, and general human resource development training activities, among others. The Committee encourages the agency to redouble its efforts to address the training issues identified by the Office of Inspector General and to continue to report to the Committees on Appropriations on a semiannual basis. Due to resource constraints, the FAA will clearly have to make choices between various training priorities. The Committee continues to note the importance of air traffic controller proficiency and developmental training and concurs in the agency decision not to divert this funding for other activities. Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center .--The Committee recommendation includes $1,500,000 for the Rocky Mountain Emergency Services Training Center (RMESTC) in Helena, Montana. Precision runway monitor at Newark International Airport .--The Committee directs the Administrator to continue to work with the appropriate local authorities toward the installation of Precision Runway Monitor (PRM) at Newark International Airport. FAA data bases .--Over time, FAA has invested substantial resources in the development and maintenance of a large number of data bases. The growth and proliferation of data bases is a consequence of a number of factors including the wide scope of FAA's responsibilities, its organizational structure, and the widely differing dynamics of various components of the aviation industry. However, responsibility and/or control over the data bases is not currently centralized; instead it is spread among the various lines of business and other organizational elements who are the prime users of the data collected. There is little agencywide data integration. As such, FAA is becoming increasingly data rich and information poor. Accordingly, the Committee continues to encourage the FAA to develop a data management plan that leads to optimized data sharing among FAA organizational elements; better control over the costs of data base management; the capability to review and analyze data on a subject as well as a functional basis; and enhanced capability of senior management to resolve time critical questions and issues that may cut across agency organizational elements. In the fiscal year 1999 report, the FAA was directed to report to the Committees on Appropriations on progress toward a data management plan. The Committee is encouraged by the FAA response to that direction and looks forward to the anticipated report in October 1999 on the development of an integrated, agencywide data management plan. Such a plan is a major undertaking, but it is vital for strategic and policy planning. The FAA has taken an important first step in focusing on the importance of data management with the appointment of the Chief Information Officer (CIO) and with the creation of a framework and methodology for moving forward on the plan. Aviation regulation and certification The Committee recommends an appropriation of $629,509,000. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles .--The United States currently maintains approximately 60 percent of the worldwide manufacturing capacity of UAVs. However, there are no standardized regulatory criteria under which manufacturers can develop and build UAVs, or operational procedures that allow them to test and operate UAVs outside restricted airspace on military test ranges. It appears to be timely for the FAA to begin addressing the integration of UAVs into the National Airspace System. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the highly qualified team of experts at the Physical Sciences Laboratory at New Mexico State University to study the issue of wider use of UAVs and what work needs to be done to incorporate UAVs into the National Airspace System. Aviation Security The Committee recommends $133,301,000, an increase of $10,000,000 over fiscal year 1999. Research and Acquisition The Committee recommends $156,533,000. Administration of Airports The Committee recommends $48,449,000 provided elsewhere in the bill. Commercial Space Transportation The Committee recommends $6,146,000. Staff Offices The Committee recommends $250,715,000, consistent with the presentation in the President's budget request adjusted to reflect budgetary constraints. BILL LANGUAGE Reprogrammings .--The Committee continues to have concerns with the inspector general's findings of major variances in amounts proposed for reduction by budget line item to actual amounts reprogrammed. The FAA should not make changes to congressionally approved reprogramming notices, without congressional concurrence. To increase oversight in this area, the Administrator is directed to provide the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with line by line accounts of all future reprogramming actions taken subsequent to approval by Congress. Second career training program .--The Committee has included bill language which was included in the President's budget request which prohibits the use of appropriated funds for the second career training program. This prohibition has been carried in annual appropriations acts for many years. Sunday premium pay .--The bill retains a provision, first included in the fiscal year 1995 appropriations bill, which prohibits FAA from paying Sunday premium pay, except in those cases where the individual actually worked on a Sunday. This provision is identical to that which was in effect for fiscal years 1995 99. It was requested by the administration for fiscal year 2000. Manned auxiliary flight service stations .--The Committee has retained bill language which was requested by the administration to prohibit the use of funds for operating a manned auxiliary flight service station in the contiguous United States. There is no funding provided in the ``Operations'' account for such stations in fiscal year 2000. Contract tower program .--The Committee has included language for a contract tower cost-sharing program. Secretary's discretionary transfer funds .--The Committee has included language that provides authority for the Secretary to transfer up to $60,000,000 from Coast Guard operating expenses, for the purpose of air traffic control operations and maintenance to enhance aviation safety and security. Oceanic Services Function .--The Committee has included language permitting the FAA to contract out the Oceanic services function. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999\1\ $1,900,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 2,319,000,000 Committee recommendation 2,045,652,000 \1\Excludes $100,000,000 emergency supplemental for explosives detection systems. Also excludes supplemental funding of Y2K. Under the ``Facilities and equipment'' appropriation, safety, capacity and efficiency of the Federal airway system are improved by the procurement and installation of new equipment and the construction and modernization of facilities to keep pace with aeronautical activity and in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration's comprehensive capital investment plan [CIP], formerly called the national airspace system [NAS] plan. The Federal Aviation Administration's most recent estimate is that it will spend approximately $41,000,000,000 on the Air Traffic Control Modernization effort from 1981 through 2004. The estimate for the modernization of the system has continued to evolve and escalate and the FAA has deployed several new systems since 1981. However, the FAA has not delivered virtually any system (and certainly not any major ones) within cost, schedule, or performance goals due primarily to a complete failure to impose acquisition management discipline. Earlier this year, the General Accounting Office testified: ``From the inception of the air traffic control modernization program to today, FAA has not consistently followed a disciplined management approach for acquiring new systems. In the 1980's and early 1990's, FAA did not follow the phased approach of federal acquisition guidance designed to help mitigate the cost, schedule, and performance risk associated with the development of major systems. The agency believed that it could develop and install new systems more quickly by combining several of the five phases outlined in this guidance. However, as a result of not following this disciplined, phased approach, FAA often encountered major difficulties such as those associated with developing the Advanced Automation System. In 1995, the Congress exempted FAA from many federal procurement rules and regulations, in April, 1996, FAA implemented an acquisition management system, which emphasized, once again, the need for a disciplined approach to acquisition management. However, we (GAO) found continuing weaknesses in key areas such as how FAA monitors the status of projects throughout their life-cycle.'' ``FAA has taken a number of steps to overcome problems with past modernization efforts. Most notably, the agency has moved away from its prior practice of taking on large, complex projects all at once and is now acquiring new systems by using a more incremental approach. In addition, the agency is no longer making unilateral decisions about air traffic control modernization. Instead, it has been working actively with the aviation community to make decisions more collaboratively. Furthermore, FAA has begun to address some of the root causes of its modernization problems by implementing processes to help (1) improve its ability to estimate and account for project costs, (2) develop a complete architecture (blueprint) for modernizing the National Airspace System, (3) reduce the risks associated with software development, and (4) reform the organization's culture, including providing incentives to make managers more accountable. While FAA has delivered some of its major systems, it must be recognized that many of these projects encountered difficulties in meeting their original cost and schedule goals, and the baselines were subsequently revised.'' Clearly, management and modernization of the National Airspace System is a herculean and complicated task, and a challenge which will continue as long as air travel is the fastest, most cost-effective, and safest means of traveling significant distances. Modernization is an incremental and persistent responsibility. Although FAA has recently modified procurement processes and implemented an acquisition management system in 1996, the schedule delays, cost escalations, and performance problems continue to plague modernization efforts. While there are several core issues that continue to appear as reasons for the problems, most of those core issues are arguable rooted in the FAA's organizational culture. Many observers of the FAA acquisition dynamic have concluded that the FAA culture has led employees to act in ways that do not evidence a strong commitment to mission focus, accountability, coordination, and adaptability. The Administrator is currently undertaking a number of steps to change the FAA culture, and early signs are that those efforts are having marginal success. Clearly, changing the FAA culture is a long term proposition, but the Committee recommendations have been reviewed with a focus on reinforcing greater accountability, mission focus, and striving for better or alternative ways of improving the system. CIP MILESTONES FOR MAJOR SYSTEM ACQUISITIONS System name Year of first-site implementation Year of last-site implementation 1983 NAS plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1998 CIP 1999 CIP 1983 NAS plan 1991 CIP 1993 CIP 1998 CIP 1999 CIP Advanced Automation System (AAS) 1990 1991 1991 (\1\) (\1\) 1994 2001 2004 (\1\) (\1\) Tower Automation Program (TAP) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) (\3\) Air Route Surveillance Radar (ARSR 4) 1988 1993 1994 1996 1996 1991 1996 1996 1999 1999 Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE 3) 1987 1992 1993 1993 1993 1990 1994 1996 1999 1999 Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS)/Automated Surface Observing System (ASOS) 1986 1989 1989 1989 1989 1990 1997 1997 2002 2002 Central Weather Processor (CWP) 1990 1991 1991 1991 1991 1991 1998 \4\1992 \4\1993 \4\1993 Flight Service Automation System (FSAS) 1984 1991 1991 1991 1991 1989 1995 1994 1995 1995 Mode-S 1988 1993 1994 1994 1994 1993 1996 1996 \5\1999 \5\1999 Radio Microwave Link (RML) Replacement and Expansion 1985 1986 1986 1986 1986 1989 1994 1993 1993 1993 Terminal Doppler Weather Radar (TDWR) (\6\) 1993 1994 1994 1994 (\6\) 1996 1996 2001 2000 Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) 1989 1995 1995 1995 1995 1992 1997 1997 1997 1997 \1\The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En Route (DSR), Terminal (STARS), and Tower (TAP). \2\STARS schedule is under review. \3\The Tower Automation Program (TAP) has been terminated. \4\Dates denoted are for MWP I only. The CWP RWP segment has been eliminated as a continuation of the CWP Program, and has been merged with MWP II into the Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) Program. \5\Dates denoted are for Interim Beacon Interrogator (IBI) Last-Site Implementation. \6\The TDWR was not included in the 1983 NAS Plan. Source: FAA 1983 NAS Plan; 1991, and 1993 CIP; February 1998 GAO testimony ``Observations on FAA's Modernization Program'' and December 1998 GAO report ``Status of the FAA's Modernization Program.'' REASONS FOR DELAY AND COST INCREASES IN CIP PROJECTS System name Reasons for delay Advanced automation system [AAS] In general, AAS delays were due to an overly ambitious plan, inadequate FAA oversight of the contractor, and ineffective resolution of requirements issues. The AAS Program has been restructured into three areas: En route, terminal, and tower. Air route surveillance radar [ARSR 4] Problems with the radar's development and site preparation delayed first-site implementation. Testing took longer than originally expected. Delays have also occurred due to changes in system design, interface problems with other ATC systems, and slips in site construction. Recent delays are due to environmental issues at Ajo, Arizona and typhoon damage at Mount Santa Rosa, Guam which are the last sites. Airport surface detection equipment [ASDE 3] Original delays occurred because FAA and the contractor underestimated software complexity. FAA changed some requirements, and testing uncovered some performance problems. Software development, establishing remote towers, site selection/preparation, and the addition of seven systems have delayed the program. Automated weather observing system [AWOS]/automated surface observing system [ASOS] Site prep, installation, and maintenance problems, as well as delays in receiving Government-furnished equipment contributed to original delays. Last-site implementation delay occurred because of communications funding shortfalls and installation delays of the communications infrastructure to deliver weather information. Recent delays are associated with the addition of ASOS systems per fiscal years 1997 98 congressional direction. Central weather processor [CWP] Early software development problems and software discrepancies during testing delayed the system in early stages. The program was descoped to just the CWP-MWP I segment, which is now fully implemented. Flight service automation system [FSAS] Original delays occurred because of software development and testing problems with the Model I system. Program implementation is complete. Mode S Problems in developing hardware and software during initial phases delayed the system, and software problems caused a delay in first-site implementation. Implementation of the last-site has moved due to en route interface requirements and site preparation delays. Radar microwave link [RML] replacement and expansion In the early stages, site acquisition and prep problems delayed the system. Other delays occurred because of a change in the prime contractor and due to problems encountered during operational test and evaluation. Program implementation is complete. Terminal doppler weather radar [TDWR] Site availability and land acquisition problems have delayed last-site implementation. Recent delays are associated with land procurement and environmental issues at the last 2 sites (Chicago-Midway and New York). Voice switching and control system [VSCS] Early delays were due to the two prototype contractors having technical difficulties in meeting FAA's requirements for system reliability. Additional delays occurred because of software development and integration problems during the upgrade of the prototype to a production model. The implementation schedule has not changed since the 1991 CIP. The last-site implementation was achieved on schedule in February 1997. The bill includes an appropriation of $2,045,652,000 for the facilities and equipment of the Federal Aviation Administration. The Committee's recommended distributions of the funds for each of the major accounts are as follows: FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT [In thousands of dollars] Title Fiscal year 1999 enacted Fiscal year 2000 budget estimate Committee recommendation ENGINEERING DEVELOPMENT, TEST AND EVALUATION ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT & PROTOTYPING 52,566.0 33,166.1 33,166.1 ========================== ================================== ========================== AVIATION WEATHER SERVICES IMPROVEMENTS 26,300.0 23,862.0 21,062.0 EN ROUTE AUTOMATION 10,055.0 10,055.0 OCEANIC AUTOMATION SYSTEM 10,000.0 10,000.0 AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS 39,000.0 27,855.0 27,855.0 NEXT GENERATION VHF A/G COMMUNICATION SYSTEM 9,640.0 2,625.0 AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT (ATM) 51,200.0 CONFLICT PROBE 41,000.0 HOST REPLACEMENT 20,000.0 NAS INFORMATION SYSTEMS 500.0 FREE FLIGHT PHASE ONE 184,800.0 202,800.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS 177,500.0 266,712.0 274,397.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS) 99,200.0 58,900.0 58,900.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== AFSS VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT 3,000.0 1,000.0 LOCAL AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM FOR GPS (LAAS) 4,000.0 WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) 65,200.0 NEXT GENERATION NAVIGATION SYSTEMS 92,000.0 118,100.0 NEXT GENERATION LANDING SYSTEMS 34,175.0 18,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--LANDING/NAVAIDS 126,175.0 72,200.0 137,100.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== FAA TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITY--BUILDING LEASE 5,290.0 1,322.5 1,322.5 NAS IMPROVEMENT OF SYSTEM SUPPORT LABORATORY 2,000.0 2,000.0 TECHNICAL CENTER FACILITIES 7,000.0 7,000.0 11,477.5 INDEPENDENT OPERATIONAL TEST SUPPORT 3,500.0 3,500.0 UTILITY PLANT MODIFICATIONS 2,477.5 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL, RDT&E EQUIPMENT AND FACILITIES 17,790.0 16,300.0 12,800.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TOTAL ACTIVITY 1 473,231.0 447,278.1 516,363.1 ========================== ================================== ========================== AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT LONG RANGE RADAR (LRR) PROGRAM--REPLACE/ESTABLISH 5,700.0 EN ROUTE AUTOMATION 194,692.4 198,055.0 153,200.0 NEXT GENERATION WEATHER RADAR (NEXRAD) 4,900.0 6,900.0 4,900.0 AIR TRAFFIC OPERATIONS MANAGEMENT 1,000.0 1,000.0 WEATHER AND RADAR PROCESSOR (WARP) 20,000.0 12,872.0 5,800.0 AERONAUTICAL DATA LINK (ADL) APPLICATIONS 600.0 1,000.0 ARTCC BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS/PLANT IMPROVEMENTS 54,000.0 54,000.0 36,900.0 VOICE SWITCHING AND CONTROL SYSTEM (VSCS) 10,000.0 17,500.0 18,500.0 AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT 35,000.0 42,000.0 15,000.0 CRITICAL COMMUNICATIONS SUPPORT 1,850.0 2,000.0 850.0 DOD BASE CLOSURE--FACILITY TRANSFER 1,000.0 3,900.0 3,300.0 BACK-UP EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS (BUEC) 8,500.0 4,500.0 1,580.0 AIR/GROUND COMMUNICATION RFI ELIMINATION 1,600.0 1,700.0 1,700.0 VOLCANO MONITOR 2,000.0 2,000.0 ATC BEACON INTERROGATOR (ATCBI) REPLACEMENT 14,800.0 45,400.0 23,000.0 ATC EN ROUTE RADAR FACILITIES 4,100.0 3,700.0 2,700.0 EN ROUTE COMMS AND CONTROL FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT 2,000.0 3,230.4 1,430.0 RCF FACILITIES--EXPAND/RELOCATE 6,700.0 6,700.0 FAA TELECOMMUNICATIONS INFRASTRUCTURE 6,100.0 6,100.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--EN ROUTE PROGRAMS 361,742.4 410,557.4 283,660.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR (TDWR)--PROVIDE 4,300.0 9,300.0 8,300.0 TERMINAL AUTOMATION (STARS) 100,000.0 136,340.0 136,340.0 TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES--REPLACE 63,625.0 76,000.0 75,500.0 CONTROL TOWER/TRACON FACILITIES--IMPROVE 17,722.2 21,982.7 21,982.7 TERMINAL VOICE SWITCH REPLACEMENT (TVSR)/ETVS 10,300.0 9,900.0 10,900.0 EMPLOYEE SAFETY/OSHA AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE STDS 22,000.0 29,700.0 22,000.0 CHICAGO METROPLEX 1,500.0 700.0 NEW AUSTIN AIRPORT AT BERGSTROM 2,500.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 POTOMAC METROPLEX 17,100.0 5,800.0 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA METROPLEX 17,900.0 31,000.0 17,500.0 ATLANTA METROPLEX 15,000.0 13,000.0 7,700.0 NAS INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (NIMS) 20,000.0 8,900.0 5,500.0 AIRPORT SURVEILLANCE RADAR (ASR 9) 5,000.0 5,000.0 AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT (ASDE 3) 5,600.0 2,400.0 500.0 AIRPORT MOVEMENT AREA SAFETY SYSTEM (AMASS) 9,800.0 11,700.0 11,700.0 VOICE RECORDER REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 3,000.0 3,000.0 1,200.0 TERMINAL DIGITAL RADAR (ASR 11) 62,200.0 136,070.0 105,000.0 WEATHER SYSTEMS PROCESSOR 11,900.0 24,000.0 24,000.0 DOD/FAA ATC FACILITIES TRANSFER 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,600.0 PRECISION RUNWAY MONITORS 3,300.0 3,300.0 3,300.0 TERMINAL RADAR (ASR)--IMPROVE 2,773.4 3,838.8 3,838.8 TERMINAL COMMUNICATIONS IMPROVEMENTS 1,119.8 1,124.0 1,124.0 RCE EQUIPMENT 3,400.0 3,400.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--TERMINAL PROGRAMS 379,040.4 546,055.5 474,385.5 ========================== ================================== ========================== AUTOMATED SURFACE OBSERVING SYSTEM (ASOS) 9,900.0 8,080.0 9,900.0 OASIS 19,250.0 21,486.0 10,000.0 FLIGHT SERVICE FACILITIES IMPROVEMENT 1,364.4 1,577.3 1,364.4 FLIGHT SERVICE STATION MODERNIZATION 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--FLIGHT SERVICE PROGRAMS 32,514.4 33,143.3 23,264.4 ========================== ================================== ========================== VOR/DME/TACAN NETWORK PLAN 4,700.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 INSTRUMENT LANDING SYSTEM (ILS)--ESTABLISH/UPGRADE 8,200.0 ILS--REPLACE MARK 1A, 1B, AND 1C 2,100.0 1,000.0 LOW LEVEL WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM (LLWAS) 3,000.0 2,200.0 2,200.0 RUNWAY VISUAL RANGE (RVR) 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 GULF OF MEXICO OFFSHORE PROGRAM 2,400.0 WIDE AREA AUGMENTATION SYSTEM (WAAS) 42,900.0 NDB SUSTAIN 1,000.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 NAVIGATIONAL AND LANDING AIDS--IMPROVE 2,761.8 3,146.8 6,400.0 APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT (ALSIP) 5,000.0 2,700.0 5,700.0 PRECISION APPROACH PATH INDICATORS (PAPI) 2,500.0 1,000.0 DISTANCE MEASURING EQUIPMENT 1,200.0 1,200.0 1,200.0 VISUAL NAVAIDS 400.0 1,000.0 3,500.0 TACTICAL LANDING SYSTEMS 3,000.0 INSTRUMENT APPROACH PROCEDURES AUTOMATION (IAPA) 900.0 900.0 GPS AERONAUTICAL BAND 17,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--LANDING AND NAVIGATIONAL AIDS 30,061.8 86,246.8 24,900.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== ALASKAN NAS INTERFACILITY COMM SYSTEM (ANICS) 3,500.0 3,600.0 3,600.0 FUEL STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT AND MONITORING 10,600.0 10,500.0 10,500.0 FAA BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT--IMPROVE/MODERNIZE 4,000.0 4,000.0 4,000.0 ELECTRICAL POWER SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN/SUPPORT 17,500.0 17,500.0 17,500.0 AIR NAVAIDS AND ATC FACILITIES (LOCAL PROJECTS) 2,000.0 2,000.0 2,000.0 AIRCRAFT RELATED EQUIPMENT PROGRAM 2,000.0 5,000.0 1,840.0 COMPUTER AIDED ENG GRAPHICS (CAEG) REPLACEMENT 1,000.0 4,300.0 3,000.0 AIRPORT CABLE LOOP SYSTEMS--SUSTAIN 1,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--OTHER ATC FACILITIES 40,600.0 47,900.0 42,440.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TOTAL ACTIVITY 2 843,959.0 1,123,903.0 848,649.9 ========================== ================================== ========================== NON-ATC FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT NAS MANAGEMENT AUTOMATION PROGRAM (NASMAP) 800.0 1,100.0 800.0 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGEMENT 17,000.0 22,500.0 22,500.0 AVIATION SAFETY ANALYSIS SYSTEM (ASAS) 11,600.0 16,400.0 11,600.0 OPERATIONAL DATA MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (ODMS) 1,000.0 600.0 600.0 FAA EMPLOYEE HOUSING--PROVIDE 8,000.0 8,000.0 8,000.0 LOGISTICS SUPPORT SYSTEM AND FACILITIES 2,300.0 3,000.0 2,300.0 TEST EQUIPMENT--MAINTENANCE SUPPORT 500.0 1,000.0 1,000.0 INTEGRATED FLIGHT QUALITY ASSURANCE 3,000.0 5,000.0 4,000.0 SAFETY PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS SUBSYSTEM (SPAS) 3,500.0 5,200.0 3,500.0 NATIONAL AVIATION SAFETY DATA CENTER 1,800.0 1,500.0 1,500.0 PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENT SYSTEM 9,700.0 5,000.0 2,000.0 EXPLOSIVE DETECTION SYSTEMS 100,000.0 97,500.0 100,000.0 FACILITY SECURITY RISK MANAGEMENT 1,000.0 11,500.0 11,500.0 INFORMATION SECURITY 4,000.0 10,325.0 4,000.0 NAS RECOVERY COMMUNICATIONS (RCOM) 1,000.0 1,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 164,200.0 189,625.0 174,300.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== AERONAUTICAL CENTER TRAINING AND SUPPORT FACILITIES 12,000.0 3,200.0 NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM (NAS) TRAINING FACILITIES 400.0 1,500.0 DSR TRAINING SIMULATOR (MARC) 4,000.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- SUBTOTAL--TRAINING EQUIPMENT & FACILITIES 16,400.0 4,700.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TOTAL ACTIVITY 3 180,600.0 194,325.0 174,300.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== MISSION SUPPORT SYSTEM ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SUPPORT 28,960.0 27,300.0 22,200.0 PROGRAM SUPPORT LEASES 27,500.0 31,100.0 31,100.0 LOGISTICS SUPPORT SERVICES 5,600.0 5,600.0 5,600.0 MIKE MONRONEY AERONAUTICAL CENTER--LEASE 14,800.0 14,600.0 14,600.0 IN-PLANT NAS CONTRACT SUPPORT SERVICES 2,000.0 2,800.0 2,800.0 TRANSITION ENGINEERING SUPPORT 41,800.0 40,900.0 38,700.0 FREQUENCY AND SPECTRUM ENGINEERING--PROVIDE 1,500.0 3,000.0 3,000.0 PERMANENT CHANGE OF STATION MOVES 2,500.0 3,200.0 3,200.0 FAA SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE 1,000.0 2,500.0 2,330.0 TECHNICAL SERVICES SUPPORT CONTRACT (TSSC) 47,550.0 48,800.0 47,143.0 RESOURCE TRACKING PROGRAM 500.0 1,500.0 1,000.0 CENTER FOR ADVANCED AVIATION SYSTEM DEV. (MITRE) 57,000.0 63,400.0 60,100.0 Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES 25,000.0 Y2K COMPUTER ISSUES (EMERGENCY) 122,133.0 -------------------------- ---------------------------------- -------------------------- TOTAL ACTIVITY 4 376,343.0 244,700.0 231,773.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES PERSONNEL AND RELATED EXPENSES 248,000.0 308,793.9 274,566.0 ========================== ================================== ========================== TOTAL 2,122,133.0 2,319,000.0 2,045,652.0 engineering, development, test, and evaluation The Committee recommends $516,361,100 for various engineering, development, test, and evaluation activities. Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping The Advanced Technology Development and Prototyping covers a range of timely and critical initiatives within the Engineering, Development, Test and Evaluation activity. In particular, the Committee encourages the FAA to focus on the problem posed by runway incursions funded at $3,978,200 within this subactivity. The development of a low cost surface detection system could greatly contribute to confidence on the part of industry and controllers that runway incursions can be identified immediately and managed accordingly. Such confidence would facilitate overall system efficiency in a cascading fashion by maximizing throughput at congested and critical facilities during times of inclement weather. En route programs Aviation Weather Services Improvements .--The Committee recommends $21,062,000. This funding is to continue the full scale software development and testing activities, begin algorithm testing, and other developmental and testing activities. Weather is the major contributor to delays and is a major contributor to accidents. The ITWS program supported by this funding holds the promise for improving weather information integration both to controllers and airline industry users for planning activities. However, the program is running behind schedule due to software development delays and does not require $3,800,000 of the budget request for Nims Interface and Telecommunication funds in fiscal year 2000. En Route Automation .--The Committee expectation provides the full budget request for Activity 1, but encourages the FAA to proceed slowly with development of additional functional builds to this system. Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications .--The Committee recommends $27,855,000 for Aeronautical Data Link applications. This activity is a critical component of the ``Free Flight Phase I'' initiative which is anticipated to provide significant efficiencies and benefits to the user community. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a cost benefit analysis of FAA deployment of the national HID/NAS LAN as compared to contracting out for that capability from the private sector. Next Generation VHF Air/Ground Communication System. --The Committee recommendation provides $2,625,000 for this digital communications upgrade initiative and directs the FAA to provide the Committee with an analysis of TDMA as opposed to CDMA technology for this functional capability for the agency. NAS Information Systems .--The Committee recommends no funding for this activity. The justification describes activities better performed in the Operations budget. Free Flight Phase One Integration .--The Committee provides $2,000,000 more than the full request for the Free Flight Phase One initiative and commends the Administrator for her leadership and involvement of the industry in this initiative. The Free Flight Phase One concept is incremental in nature and should provide the industry and controllers with critically needed efficiency tools. The Committee recommendation includes resources for the expansion of the Departure Spacing Program (DSP) through the installation of equipment at Teterboro, White Plains, Islip Tower, and the Air Traffic Control System Command Center. In addition, the Committee recommendation provides $16,000,000 in Free Flight Phase One for the Safe Flight 2000 program of which $6,000,000 is for the Capstone Initiative and $11,000,000 is for the Ohio River Valley ADS-B Initiative. Terminal programs Terminal Automation Program. --The Committee recommendation includes the full request for the Terminal Automation Program (STARS) for both activity 1 and activity 2. It appears that the Committee concerns expressed in last year's report were prescient: ``. . . the Committee is increasingly concerned about program slippages, cost growth, and the severity of the computer-human interface problems. The Committee reiterates its concern that procurements like STARS, WAAS, and the deepwater capability replacement program are beyond the capability of the Department to manage given the complexity of the systems and the critical nature of the external factors that influence program development.'' The STARS program is a candidate for a case study in how not to manage a major procurement. The initial contract was awarded in September 1996 as a commercial-off-the-shelf/non-developmental item [COTS/NDI]-based automated radar terminal system for use in terminal radar approach control facilities. The concept behind the STARS procurement was to maximize the use of a commercially available system, and augment that commercial system with a minimum of software development. This strategy was pursued because the FAA experience with software intensive development acquisitions have resulted in large cost increases, multiple rebaselinings and major schedule slippages. The initial contractor proposal estimated that 916,000 lines of software code could be used from its existing system and that 119,000 lines of new software code would be developed. The Department of Transportation Inspector General reported in February 1999, that 370,000 lines of new software code would need to be developed and that FAA now considers STARS to be a software development system. Clearly, either the initial STARS procurement strategy was flawed, the program execution was flawed, the FAA failed to establish adequate safeguards to requirements creep, the contract mechanism was inappropriate to the complexity of the acquisition, and/or the FAA still has not discovered how to manage software dependent programs. The magnitude of the schedule slippages, cost escalations, and (most recently) procurement strategy shifts are entirely the consequence of the FAA's seeming inability to set requirements and manage the contractor to acquisition completion. The experience with computer-human interface ``CHI'' required modifications should lead the FAA to the realization that procurements to replace entire systems should be abandoned and that the most ambitious FAA acquisition for terminal or tracon automation should focus on replacing components of a system rather than the entire system. Conversely, the Committee believes that the poor performance in the procurement arena should compel the FAA to evaluate the relative merits of contracting out any aspect of the air traffic management function possible including both technology refreshment and operation as a way to mitigate procurement risk. The recent FAA decision to install ``stop-gap'' ARTS Color Displays (ACD's) at five major centers without a clear and full identification of the associated costs a few months after committing to an Early Display Configuration (EDC) of the STARS display does not instill confidence on the Committee's part that the FAA is managing this program to set requirements, modified requirements, or has any sensitivity to managing the ultimate costs of this modernization program. Further, the Committee is concerned that proceeding with this new ``stop-gap'' strategy without a clear and full identification of the associated costs is imprudent. In addition, the Committee is concerned that the ACD's do not contain many, if not most, of the CHI modifications deemed essential by the controllers and the FAA for the STARS EDC displays as safety critical. Either the CHI changes are safety critical or they are not--but clearly the CHI standards for ACD's at the five priority facilities should be no less than that required for STARS EDC. The Committee directs the FAA to report to Congress not later than September 1, 1999 on the total cost of the five ACD installations compared to what the cost would be for the equivalent installation of STARS color displays. The report should also identify those CHI changes required for STARS which do not exist as features in the ACD, and the cost of bringing the ACD to the same level of compliance. The FAA has announced that the Syracuse, NY and El Paso, TX Terminal Radar Approach Control Centers (TRACONS) will receive the Early Display Configuration (EDC) of STARS in late 1999 and early 2000, respectively, while parallel development continues on the full STARS. As an interim measure, the FAA plans to install stop-gap ARTS Color Displays (ACD) for the New York and Reagan Washington National TRACONS in the summer and fall of 2000. The FAA also intends to purchase on an unspecified timeline ACD's for the Dallas-Fort Worth and the new Northern California and North Georgia TRACONS. The Committee understands that the final STARS schedules and program costs will be known by the FAA in late-summer 1999, and shares the FAA's strong commitment to expeditious full STARS implementation, including at those TRACONS where ACD installation is planned on an interim basis. While the STARS EDC will be on-line in Syracuse and El Paso by early 2000, the stop-gap ACD's for two TRACONS will not be operational until later in 2000. The Committee expects the FAA to continue development of EDC displays for all configurations including the ARTS IIIE, and to give consideration to installing them in TRACONS scheduled to receive ACD's should the FAA learn that the announced schedule at the New York and Reagan Washington National TRACONS will slip beyond summer and fall of 2000. Landing and navigational aids programs AFSS Voice Switch Replacement .--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for this activity to initiate the award of a contract and related program support activity. Next Generation Navigation Systems. --The Committee recommends $118,100,000 for next generation navigation systems, to be distributed as follows: Wide Area Augmentation System $108,100,000 Loran-C navigation system 10,000,000 Although the Committee continues to be concerned by the risk associated with the Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS) as expressed in previous Committee reports, the Committee is somewhat heartened by the FAA decision to retain Loran-C for a minimum of at least eight more years. The Committee continues to be concerned about the confusion that surrounds the WAAS program. Rather than providing a clear path for the WAAS program, the Johns Hopkins study described a system architecture that envisioned 30 satellites, increased signal strength, the addition of the second civil frequency, the removal of selective availability, and the possibility of additional ground stations. While the navigation system of the future is clearly primarily satellite based, it may be equally clear that it is not exclusively satellite based--or that that should be the goal. Fortunately, the slavish preoccupation that the FAA and some in the industry had with ``sole means'' appears to have been replaced with the recognition that a more probable option includes some form of ground-based navigation aids, notably Loran-C or inertial navigation systems. Further, what is increasingly clear is that the navigational system of the future in developing required navigation performance should address the concerns expressed about jamming, intentional or unintentional interference with satellite based signals, radio propagation, satellite or ground-based system failure, the to-date undefined risks associated with the ionosphere, and the cost effectiveness of the system. A recent paper presented to the Air Navigation Commission of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) concluded that: ``more stringent required navigation performance criteria are required for sole-service and these should be developed before any reduction in the provision of the ground-based infrastructure for navigation creates a de facto GNSS sole-service.'' For the third consecutive year, the Committee recommendation reiterates the Committee's commitment to pursuing satellite based navigation capability by providing the full amount of the Administration request for WAAS. The Committee continues to support steps to ensure that loran will be available to meet ongoing user navigation safety and efficiency requirements. Loran provides important multimodal navigation capabilities, well-proved, cost-effective, and significant safety and efficiency benefits. The Committee continues to be convinced that support of the loran infrastructure is prudent to meet continuing requirements for the technology, particularly in light of the difficultly the FAA is experiencing with WAAS. Clearly, a GPS/loran alternative to WAAS is to use Loran-C to provide a level of redundant radionavigation capability. Various levels of dependence on Loran could be established such as exclusive reliance on Loran-C or relying on the basic backup network of VOR/DME's for IRU/FMC-equipped aircraft and Loran-C for all other aircraft. Such an alternative may have significant cost and operational advantages in both the short and longer term and failure to maintain the investment in loran infrastructure at this time would be irresponsible. Next Generation Landing Systems .--The Committee recommends $18,000,000 for next generation navigation systems, to be distributed as follows: Tactical Landing Systems (TLS) $2,000,000 Local Area Augmentation System (LAAS) 2,000,000 Instrument Landing Systems 14,000,000 TLS .--Demonstrations of the tactical landing system indicate that the technology may have applications in specific situations. Using existing aircraft avionics, the TLS is designed to provide both guidance commands and safety alerts to pilots. The Committee recommendation for next generation landing systems includes $2,000,000 to continue evaluation and demonstration of this technology as directed in prior appropriations bills. ILS .--The Committee, consistent with continued concern about the WAAS program cost effectiveness and schedule, recommends an increase in the ILS procurement and installation program. Priority consideration should be given to Harry Brown Airport, Saginaw, MI; Newark Airport (for LDA with glideslope), NJ; Baton Rouge Regional Airport, LA; Evanston, WY; Cedar Rapids, IA; St. George, AK; North Las Vegas Airport, NV; St. Louis Lambert International Airport, MO; McComb Airport, MS; and Atlantic City, NJ. LAAS/Cedar Rapids .--The Committee recommends that, if certified, the FAA accept the LAAS at Cedar Rapids, IA and operate it at that location. En route programs Technical Center Facilities .--The Committee recommendation includes funding for both laboratory improvements and for ongoing capital reinvestment in the technical center facilities. Independent Operational Test Support .--The Committee recommendation includes the relevant funding for testing and test support within the lines of the programs to be tested. Funding is more appropriately included within the program to properly reflect total system costs. AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT En Route Automation .--The Committee recommendation includes all components of the request for En Route Automation in full except the Oceanic modernization request. The Committee recommendation is for the FAA to contract out the modernization and operation of the Oceanic facilities. The FAA has already canceled phase two of the Oceanic modernization project and FAA actions to reprogram fiscal year 1998 funds and to reduce the fiscal year 1999 budget raise questions as to the viability of this initiative as currently configured. Moreover, many FAA officials involved with the project have argued for a revision of the project's scope already. The Committee is encouraged by the quality of the current program management and is confident in the FAA's ability to manage the contracting out of all or part of this function. The justification for Oceanic for fiscal year 1999 indicates that a long term acquisition strategy is timely for this program and the Committee believes that the difficulties in this program in the past, and the discreet nature of the oceanic missions make the entire program (or a subset of the facilities) an ideal candidate for contracting out. The Committee believes that industry is supportive of this approach, is aware of at least three potential competitors for such a service, and believes that this concept can be implemented to Oceanic facilities incrementally or in their entirety. The Committee is further interested in the contracting out of the modernization and operation of this function as a potential new model for specialized air traffic services. Next Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) .--The Committee recommends $4,900,000 for Next Generation Weather Radar upgrades, $2,000,000 below the budget request. The FAA has the Committee's approval to seek contributions from the National Weather Service and the U.S. Air Force who share the FAA's interest in seeking a system modification that addresses the anomalous propagation problem existent in the present system. Air Traffic Operations Management .--The Committee recommendation does not include the budget request for air traffic operations management as the fiscal year 1999 justification indicated that the fiscal year 1999 appropriation completed the initiative. Weather and Radar Processor (WARP) .--The Committee recommends $5,800,000 to complete Stage 1/2 deployments under the WARP contract. Consideration of the balance of the request is deferred pending development of a timetable for integration of the proposed enhanced WARP capabilities with new NAS systems and Free Flight Phase 1. Aeronautical Data Link (ADL) Applications .--The Committee recommends the entire request for activity 1 funding for ADL but the Committee does not recommend any activity 2 funding for ADL as the fiscal year 1999 appropriation for activity 2 was for the same purpose. ARTCC Building Improvements/Plant Improvements .--The Committee recommends $36,900,000, the budget request level less the $17,100,000 appropriated in fiscal year 1999 for the Honolulu CERAP. The Committee recommendation for fiscal year 2000 includes $9,600,000 for the Honolulu CERAP consistent with the request. Voice Switching and Control System (VSCS) .--The Committee recommends $19,500,000 for the VSCS software and switch upgrades, $1,000,000 above the request. Air Traffic Management .--The Committee recommends $15,000,000 for this initiative as most of the activities funding under this heading in fiscal year 1999 have been reconstituted into other headings in the Facilities and Equipment account. The budget justification for air traffic management does not justify the same level of funding given that development. Critical Communications Support .--The Committee recommends $850,000 for critical communications support, the same level as fiscal year 1999. If additional requirements emerge during fiscal year 2000, the Committee is open to a reprogramming from other communication modernization accounts. DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer .--The Committee recommends $3,300,000 for DOD Base Closure--Facility Transfer, $2,300,000 more than fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs the FAA to include a future requirement estimate in subsequent budget justifications. Although future estimates might increase or decrease with outyear closures or decisions obviating the need for FAA assumption of certain facilities, it would be helpful to the Committee to have the FAA's best assessment of future requirements in this area. Back-up Emergency Communications (BUEC) .--The Committee recommends $1,580,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Air/ground Communication RFI Elimination .--The Committee recommends $1,700,000 for this activity, the same level as the budget request. The Committee is concerned, however, with the substantial increase in the projected outyear costs in this area and encourages the FAA to assess whether other technologies provide more cost effective solutions to this requirement. Volcano Monitor .--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the monitoring of volcanoes in international flight routes. The Committee is concerned by the lack of a budget request for this activity and has found suitable budget savings to make room for this critical safety investment. ATC Beacon Interrogator (ATCBI) Replacement .--The Committee recommendation is for $23,000,000, an increase of $8,200,00 over fiscal year 1999 levels. This level is sufficient to procure ATCBI 6 replacement interrogators for 25 facilities. Due to the slippages in the STARS program, this number of interrogators should allow the FAA to replace ATCBI at the most critical facilities and also move forward on those facilities where STARS equipment will be deployed first. The Committee is aware that an additional 100 facilities will require ATCBI 6 equipment to complete the replacement program. ATC En Route Radar Facilities .--The Committee recommendation of $2,700,000 is a $1,000,000 increase over fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels if adjusted for proposed reprogramming action. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a future requirement estimate for this program with the fiscal year 2001 budget justification. En Route Comms and Control Facilities Improvement .--The Committee recommends $1,430,000 for this activity and notes that sustaining activities are more properly budgeted in the Operations account. Terminal programs Terminal Doppler Weather Radar .--The Committee has provided $8,300,000, $1,000,000 less than the budget request. This reduction is possible because land acquisition problems continue to plague the program making deployment of a system impossible during fiscal year 2000. Terminal Air Traffic Control Facilities--Replace .--The Committee has provided $75,500,000 for this activity, $11,875,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Of the funds available for this activity, $700,000 is for Phase I; $1,800,000 is for Phase II; $35,200,000 is available for Phase III; and $35,100,000 is available for Phase III. The Committee directs $1,000,000 for the Martin State Airport control tower; $500,000 for the Pangborn Memorial air traffic control tower; $1,000,000 for the construction of an air traffic control tower at Paine Field; $1,250,000 for Birmingham International Airport; $2,354,000 for North Las Vegas air traffic control tower; and $1,000,000 for a replacement tower at Billings Logan International Airport. Further, the Committee directs $1,000,000 for initial construction of a replacement tower at Corpus Christi and directs the FAA to explore with the city of Corpus Christi the financing and construction of a replacement FAA designed tower and terminal radar approach control facility including an arrangement to acquire the facility from the city by 2002. Airport traffic control tower [ATCT]/TRACON facilities .--The Committee recommends $21,982,726 to upgrade and improve various terminal facilities and equipment on a continuing basis to provide an acceptable level of safe service and to meet current and future operational requirements. The Committee recommendation includes $200,000 for control tower communications equipment upgrades at Manchester Airport, NH. Terminal Voice Switch Replacement (TVSR/ETVS) .--The Committee recommends an increase of $1,000,000 above the budget request to expedite the purchase and installation of Rapid Deployment Voice Switches (RDVS). Employee Safety/OSHA and Environmental Compliance Standards. --The Committee recommendation includes $22,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee directs the FAA to provide greater detail in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification for this program as well as an explanation of why the outyear costs estimates are escalating so rapidly. Further, if the agency believes additional funding is necessary or warranted in fiscal year 2000 and can be justified, the agency should submit a reprogramming request. Chicago Metroplex .--The Committee recommends $700,000 for completion of resectorization and for equipment upgrades. The Committee is aware of the FAA's efforts to improve radar system redundancies for the Chicago TRACON and Chicago O'Hare International Airport Traffic Control Tower during a time of serious budget constraints. The Committee recognizes the need for a reliable back up system that will help ensure controller efficiency and effectiveness. The Committee recommends that the FAA continue to work to provide a reliable back up radar system, acceptable for terminal separation standards, for use by Chicago O'Hare International Airport facilities. Potomac Metroplex .--The Committee recommends $5,800,000 in fiscal year 2000 funding for this project for Engineering, EIS/Airspace study, program management expenses, and other costs. Northern California Metroplex .--The Committee recommends $17,500,000 for all items except budget justification activity task 6. Given the status of the STARS procurement, activity task 6 can be deferred for at least one fiscal year, and the Committee is skeptical whether it is necessary at all. In addition, the Committee is concerned by the escalation in the completion cost of this project which has increased by almost 100 percent since the submission of the fiscal year 1999 budget. The Committee is extremely concerned that the agency does not have a better handle on the cost to complete this close to the end of the project. Atlanta Metroplex .--The Committee recommends $7,700,000 for all items except budget justification activity task 3 for reasons similar to those mentioned for the Northern California Metroplex. NAS Infrastructure Management System (NIMS). --The Committee recommends $5,500,000 for the NAS Infrastructure Management System rebaselining and restructuring effort for fiscal year 2000. This program was proposed as a substantial source for reprogramming in fiscal year 1999 and is currently under an investment analysis and rebaselining review. The Committee recommendation should be sufficient to complete those initiatives and the Committee will consider the rebaselined program for fiscal year 2001. Airport surveillance radar [ASR 9] .--The Committee provides $5,000,000 and urges the FAA to evaluate the benefits of siting ASR 9 systems to serve the Eagle County Regional Airport, CO; the Mid-Delta Regional Airport, Greenville, MS; and Bethel, AK. Airport Surface Detection Equipment (ASDE 3). --The Committee recommends $500,000 for completion of this program as justified in the fiscal year 1999 budget justification. The Committee is open to a reprogramming if additional funding is required to bring the program to final completion. Airport Movement Area Safety System (AMASS) .--The Committee recommendation provides the entire budget request for this program although there are significant inconsistencies between the fiscal year 1999 and fiscal year 2000 justifications. The Committee believes that addressing the potential safety and efficiency consequences of not remedying runway incursions justifies a preliminary recommendation of $11,700,000. However, the FAA is directed to provide a report by July 1, 1999 reconciling the cost estimates in the two justifications and explaining how this program complements the runway incursion initiatives elsewhere in this account. Voice Recorder Replacement Program .--The Committee recommends $1,200,000 for the voice recorder replacement program, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999 after adjustment for proposed reprogramming by the FAA. Terminal Digital Radar (ASR 11) .--The Committee recommends $105,000,000 for the ASR 11 terminal radar program which is approximately the fiscal year 2000 budget request adjusted for the proposed reprogramming amount for the ASR 11 program in fiscal year 1999 and a reduction for site surveys that are unnecessary in fiscal year 2000 due to related program slippages. Clearly, the difficulties that the FAA has had with the STARS procurement translate into program flexibility for the ASR 11 procurement, but the Committee is concerned that the program not become a source for slippages in other accounts. The need to modernize terminal radars is too important to compress the required funding stream any more than the current program architecture envisions. The Committee acknowledges the report from the FAA regarding surveys and cost effectiveness of several proposed radar sites and encourages the FAA to redeploy replaced radars at some of the facilities that cannot justify an ASR 11 deployment on a cost effectiveness basis. In addition, the Committee requests that the FAA provide a recommendation for the most cost effective permanent radar solution for central Oregon (Deschutes and Jefferson Counties); the mountainous region between Butte, Helena, and Bozeman, MT; and Provo and Salt Lake City International Airport in Salt Lake City, UT. In addition, the Committee directs the FAA to explore the acquisition of an ATCBI 5 radar at Keahole-Kona International Airport pending the ASR 11 survey and design work for that airport. Further, the FAA report on the cost effectiveness of a site noted in last year's report assessed the cost effectiveness of siting an ASR 11 at Provo. The Committee directs the analysis to be reevaluated with the awareness that such a siting of an ASR 11 would be of primary benefit to air traffic to Salt Lake City International Airport with complementary secondary benefits to Provo. DOD/FAA ATC Facilities Transfer .--The Committee recommends $1,600,000 for this activity, a $600,000 increase over fiscal year 1999. This funding is sufficient to assure the continuation of operations for Ft. Sill Army Radar operations and for the assumption of air traffic services currently being provided by the military at Minot AFB, ND and to complete the transfer of approach control services from Patrick AFB, FL. Flight service programs Automated surface observing system [ASOS] .--The administration requested $8,080,000 for ASOS. The Committee has provided $9,900,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee encourages the FAA to continue commissioning systems procured through fiscal year 1998 and for related program management costs. The Committee continues to be concerned that the FAA has not adequately funded the program for several years. Adequate funding was not provided for connectivity lines, controller equipment, or operation and maintenance funds. That oversight has left the FAA short of assets to fund ASOS systems for nontowered airports. The FAA, the National Transportation Safety Board [NTSB], and user aviation associations have identified over 200 sites which should be equipped with ASOS. In particular, the Committee urges consideration of expediting the installation and commissioning of the ASOS system for Caledonia County State Airport, VT and Henderson Executive Airport, NV. Oasis .--The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for the Oasis program which the Committee understands may again be facing delays. The Committee is aware of the difficulty the FAA has had with the prototype systems and directs the agency not to obligate any additional appropriated funds until such time as the Department of Transportation and the program office have conducted a review of the procurement and program requirements to assess the viability of the current program structure. Further, the Committee expects the FAA to use appropriated funds to conduct necessary stopgap work on the existing systems and expects adequate staffing levels to be maintained until such time as Oasis is a viable replacement program. Flight Service Facilities Improvement. --The Committee recommends $1,364,400, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Landing and navigational aids programs Wide area augmentation system [WAAS] .--The Committee recommends a reduction in this account consistent with the treatment of this program elsewhere in this account. Navigational and landing aids .--The Committee recommends $6,400,000 for this activity. The additional increase in the funding level over the fiscal year 1999 level is for continued development work on a low cost next generation precision gyroscope utilizing silicon manufacturing technologies. In this development effort, the Committee directs the FAA to continue to work with the involved institutions to facilitate the expedited development of a lower cost gyroscope for application in navigation systems. The reduction from the budget request can be accommodated in task 13. The Committee directs the FAA to give priority consideration to the St. Louis-Lambert International Airport for navigational aids related to the expansion project for which the FAA has issued an LOI. This may be handled by the signing of a reimbursable agreement between the FAA and St. Louis Lambert International Airport. Approach Lighting System Improvement (ALSIP) .--The Committee recommends $5,700,000 for this navigational and landings aids, $3,000,000 over the budget request and $700,000 over the fiscal year 1999 level. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the installation of ALSF 2 systems at Salt Lake City International Airport and LaCrosse Municipal Airport, to make lighting improvements at McCarran International Airport, and to initiate a survey of lighting improvements necessary at Harrisburg International Airport, and for an assessment of airfield lighting requirements in rural Alaska. Distance Measuring Equipment .--The Committee recommends $1,200,000 for the procurement and installation of DME systems. The recommendation includes funding for the relocation and upgrade of the DME at Las Vegas. Visual Navaids .--The Committee recommends $3,500,000 and has aggregated the Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI) line and the visual navaid line. The Committee recommendation includes funding for the procurement and installation of Precision Approach Path Indicators (PAPI's) as well as Runway End Identification Lights (REIL's), and specifically for the installation of PAPI on runways 4L and 4R at Newark Airport. GPS Aeronautical Band .--The Committee recommendation provides no funding for this line consistent with the treatment of WAAS and Next Generation Navigational Systems elsewhere in this account. Until the WAAS program has been restructured and rebaselined, it is premature for an effort of this magnitude. Other ATC facilities programs Air Navaids and ATC Facilities (Local Projects) .--The Committee recommendation provides the full budget request level for this program, but directs the FAA to budget for this as an operations and maintenance item in the future. Aircraft Related Equipment Program .--The Committee recommendation includes $1,840,000 for activity tasks 1, 4, and 6. Computer Aided Engineering Graphics (CAEG) Replacement .--The Committee recommendation provides $3,000,000, an increase of $2,000,000 over fiscal year 1999 for the replacement and modernization of the computer aided engineering and graphics modules. Airport Cable Loop Systems--Sustain .--The Committee recommendation does not provide the requested $1,000,000 without prejudice. The Committee would favorably consider a reprogramming request for this project from an appropriate facilities or communications program. Nonair traffic control facilities and equipment NAS Management Automation Program (NASMAP) .--The Committee recommends $800,000, the same level as appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Hazardous Materials Management .--The Committee recommendation includes the full budget request for the cleanup and management of FAA facilities with hazardous materials issues. The Committee directs the FAA to present a listing of anticipated projects for both fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2001 with the fiscal year 2001 budget justification. Aviation Safety Analysis System (ASAS) .--The Committee recommendation provides $11,600,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. The Committee recommendation includes funding for Phase 1 of the Airport/Air Carrier Information Reporting System (AAIRS) and the Operations Specifications Subsystem (OPSS) at a minimum. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a greater breakout of individual initiative cost and benefits with the fiscal year 2001 budget justification and to provide a report by November 1, 1999 of the positions that can be eliminated due to the efficiencies generated by ASAS modernization of data tracking. Logistics Support System and Facilities. --The Committee provides $2,300,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Integrated Flight Quality Assurance .--The Committee provides $4,000,000 for completion of a virtual data pool development and initiate the development of data sharing protocols, $1,000,000 more than appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Safety Performance Analysis Subsystem (SPAS) .--The Committee recommendation provides $3,500,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. National Aviation Safety Data Center .--The Committee recommendation provides the entire $1,500,000 requested for the new data management equipment, but requests a report from the FAA describing the system to be procured before obligation of the funding. Performance Enhancement System .--The Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000 for this program that is to integrate data into the OASIS system. The Committee is open to an appeal on this item if the FAA can justify the resources given the current status of the OASIS program. Explosive Detection Systems .--The Committee recommendation includes $100,000,000 for this program, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Facility Security Risk Management .--The Committee recommendation provides the entire budget request for this program. The Committee directs the FAA to provide more detail on activity tasks 8, 9, and 10 to the Subcommittee by July 1, 1999. Information Security .--The Committee recommendation provides $4,000,000 for this program, the same level as fiscal year 1999. NAS Recovery Communications (RCOM) .--The Committee recommendation includes the entire budget request and directs the FAA to evaluate the potential for ultra wide bandwidth technology as part of the replacement of outdated radio equipment. The FAA is directed to report to the Committee on the relative merits of the technologies under consideration by August 1, 1999. Training, equipment, and facilities The Committee recommendation includes no funding for the budget request items in this area without prejudice. The projects requested in this area can be deferred without compromising efficiency, safety, or operational proficiency. Mission support System Engineering and Development Support .--The Committee recommendation provides a 6 percent cost escalation in system engineering technical assistance prime contractor services cost over fiscal year 1999 rates, which translates to a program level of $22,200,000 for fiscal year 2000 based on the utilization rates in the justification. In-plant NAS Contract Support Service .--The Committee recommendation provides the full budget request for NAS Contract Support Services. The Committee directs the FAA to provide a program by program breakout of the contract costs associated with the application of this program. Transition Engineering Support .--The Committee recommendation provides $38,700,000 for this contract service program, a slightly greater than 6 percent escalation in staff year costs over fiscal year 1999 levels. FAA Corporate System Architecture .--The Committee recommendation provides the full budget request with the exception of activity task 5. Technical Services Support Contract (TSSC) .--The Committee recommendation provides $47,143,000. Resource Tracking Program .--The Committee recommendation provides $1,000,000, a doubling of the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. Center for Advanced Aviation System Dev. (MITRE) .--The Committee recommendation provides $60,100,000, half the requested increase in MITRE services and roughly a 6 percent growth over fiscal year 1999 levels. MAJOR EQUIPMENT ACTIVITY TERMINAL DOPPLER WEATHER RADAR City Acceptance Commissioning dates Memphis July 1993 December 1994. Houston Intercontinental March 1993 July 1994. Atlanta April 1993 December 1995. Washington National February 1994 January 1996. Denver December 1993 August 1995. Chicago O'Hare March 1994 July 1996. St. Louis May 1994 February 1995. Orlando June 1994 April 1996. New Orleans July 1994 March 1996. Tampa December 1994 April 1996. Miami November 1995 June 1996. Pittsburgh December 1994 July 1997. Andrews AFB December 1994 August 1996. Newark December 1994 October 1997. Boston April 1995 January 1996. Kansas City December 1994 July 1995. Detroit March 1996 September 1996. Houston Hobby August 1995 July 1996. Dallas/Love May 1995 January 1996. Dallas/Fort Worth June 1995 June 1996. Dayton May 1995 April 1998. Wichita June 1995 September 1995. Indianapolis July 1995 October 1996. Cincinnati July 1996 June 1997. Philadelphia July 1996 October 1997. Phoenix March 1997 March 1997. Milwaukee March 1997 November 1997. Chicago Midway January 2000 July 2000. Cleveland July 1996 October 1996. Columbus December 1996 May 1997. San Juan May 1998 June 1999. West Palm Beach February 1996 May 1997. Nashville April 1997 February 1998. Louisville June 1997 March 1999. Washington Dulles November 1996 March 1998. Charlotte September 1995 December 1995. Salt Lake City March 1997 March 1999. Fort Lauderdale February 1998 May 1999. Baltimore November 1996 May 1997. Raleigh-Durham April 1997 January 1998. Minneapolis March 1997 May 1997. Oklahoma City March 1997 April 1997. Tulsa May 1997 April 1998. New York City (JFK and LGA) February 2000 September 2000. Las Vegas November 1998 May 1999. AIRPORT SURFACE DETECTION EQUIPMENT [ASDE 3] Site location Delivery date Commissioning date FAA Academy\1\ WJH Technical Center\2\ Pittsburgh, PA December 1989 June 1996. San Francisco November 1991 October 1995. Dallas/Fort Worth February 1992 March 1995. Philadelphia February 1992 March 1996. Los Angeles\3\ August 1992 April 1995. Detroit August 1992 December 1994. Cleveland August 1992 December 1994. Boston August 1992 March 1995. Portland August 1992 December 1994. Atlanta September 1992 January 1995. Seattle September 1992 December 1993. Los Angeles\3\ February 1993 February 1995. Denver (DIA)\3\ March 1993 May 1995. St. Louis December 1993 February 1995. Denver (DIA)\3\ December 1993 October 1995. New York-Kennedy January 1994 February 1995. Minneapolis July 1994 March 1995. Anchorage August 1994 October 1995. New Orleans October 1994 September 1995. Baltimore November 1994 June 1995. Kansas City December 1994 May 1995. Miami February 1995 November 1996. Houston\3\ February 1995 August 1995. Memphis June 1995 December 1997. Chicago June 1995 April 1996. Houston\3\ August 1996 July 1997. Charlotte September 1999 December 1999. Louisville August 1998 May 1999. Reagan Washington National February 1996 November 1999. Cincinnati October 1995 September 1996. Dulles May 1997 February 1998. San Diego November 1995 November 1996. Dallas-Fort Worth\3\\4\ November 1996 February 1998. Andrews AFB January 1998 February 1999. Salt Lake City March 1998 May 1999. Las Vegas\4\ March 1999 December 1999. New York-LaGuardia June 1999 December 1999. Newark June 1998 May 1999. \1\FAA training/field support/depot support facility. \2\To be relocated to Aeronautical Center, Oklahoma City. \3\Dual sensor facilities. \4\Assets redirected from Tampa, Raleigh-Durham, Orlando, Orange County. TERMINAL AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL FACILITIES Funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in previous years: St. Louis (TRACON), MO Portland, OR Houston (Hobby), TX Chicago (O'Hare), IL Chicago (Midway), IL Pontiac, MI Albany, NY Birmingham, AL Little Rock, AR North Las Vegas, NV St. Louis (ATCT), MO Louisville (Standiford Field), KY Worchester, MA Covington, KY Newark, NJ Grand Canyon, AZ Seattle (ATCT), WA LaGuardia, NY Phase III for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal year 1998 and before: Boston, MA Roanoke, VA Port Columbus, OH Phase II funding for terminal air traffic control facilities started in fiscal year 1999 and before: Atlanta, GA Phase I funding for terminal air traffic control facilities to be replaced in fiscal year 2000: Swanton, OH Personnel and related expenses Personnel and Related Expenses .--The Committee recommendation provides $274,566,000, disallowing the requested increases in the base for travel, other objects, and selected portions of the requested PC&B increase. Other reductions were taken based on inconsistencies between the President's request and Committee recommended levels resulting in a recommended level 9 percent above fiscal year 1999 appropriated levels. ADVANCE APPROPRIATIONS The Committee has not included the advance appropriations for fiscal years 2001 through 2007 requested by the administration. RESEARCH, ENGINEERING, AND DEVELOPMENT (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999\1\ $150,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 173,000,000 Committee recommendation 150,000,000 \1\Excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. This appropriation finances research, engineering, and development programs to improve the national air traffic control system by increasing its safety, security, productivity, and capacity. The programs are designed to meet the expected air traffic demands of the future and to promote flight safety. The major objectives are to keep the current system operating safely and efficiently; to protect the environment; and to modernize the system through improvements in facilities, equipment, techniques, and procedures in order to insure that the system will safely and efficiently handle the volume of aircraft traffic expected to materialize in the future. The Committee encourages the FAA to provide slightly greater detail in the budget justification presentation of the Research, Engineering, and Development account similar to the detail provided in the Facilities and Equipment account. In particular, the justification should provide cost breakouts for the individual initiatives within each budget item. The bill includes $150,000,000 for research, engineering, and development. The Committee suggests the following allocation: Program Name Fiscal Year 1999 Enacted Fiscal Year 2000 Estimate Committee Recommendation System Development and Infrastructure: $1,164,000 $1,294,000 $1,164,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 15,784,000 17,269,000 17,139,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== Capacity and Air Traffic Management Technology: 16,000,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 16,000,000 4,000,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== Weather: 15,084,000 12,665,000 13,665,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 18,684,000 15,765,000 16,765,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== Aircraft Safety Technology: 4,750,000 5,528,000 4,750,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 34,886,000 39,639,000 40,957,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== System Security Technology: 41,700,000 40,676,000 37,500,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 51,690,000 53,218,000 47,041,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== Human Factors & Aviation Medicine: 11,000,000 10,142,000 9,142,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Subtotal 25,065,000 26,207,000 20,207,000 ========================== =========================== ========================== Environment and Energy 2,891,000 3,481,000 2,891,000 Innovative/Cooperative Research 1,000,000 1,421,000 1,000,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Total appropriation 150,000,000 173,000,000 150,000,000 The objectives of and Committee recommendations for the 8 major activities in FAA's Research, Engineering, and Development Program are discussed below. SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE Objectives: To provide (1) a systems engineering approach and benefit/cost analyses to the development of a comprehensive research, engineering, and development program and (2) visibility, accountability, coordination, and control of the research, engineering, and development activities. System planning and resource management .--The Committee recommends $1,164,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. FAA technical laboratory facility .--The administration's request was $11,075,000 for work at the FAA Technical Center. The Committee provides the full budget request. Center for Advanced Aviation System Development .--The Committee provides the appropriation for the Center for Advance Aviation System Development within the Facilities and Equipment appropriation. CAPACITY AND AIR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT TECHNOLOGY Objectives: To ensure that air traffic management operations safety is maintained and then improved, to increase system capacity and utilization of existing airspace and airport resources, and to accommodate greater user flexibility and efficiency. Safe Flight 21 .--The Committee recommendation includes the appropriation for this activity within the appropriation for Free Flight Phase 1. Winglet efficiency/wake vortex .--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for research, prototyping, and flight testing into this technology that reduces fuel consumption and reduces the severity of wake vortex creation potentially allowing more efficient spacing of aircraft. WEATHER Objectives: To improve the timeliness and accuracy of weather forecasting in order to enhance flight safety, increase system capacity, improve flight efficiency, reduce air traffic control [ATC] and pilot workload, improve flight planning, and increase productivity. Hazardous weather program/Socrates .--The Committee recommendation includes $1,300,000 for continued research and testing into possible applications of the Socrates technology. The funding will permit progress to be made toward testing and evaluating a Socrates eight-beam system. In addition, the recommended level includes $500,000 toward the initial proof of concept, and design and development work of an Ice Monitoring and Detection (IMADS) system based on passive polarization technology. AIRCRAFT SAFETY TECHNOLOGY Objectives: To develop technologies, standards, and maintenance regulations that maintain or improve aircraft safety in an evolving, changing, and demanding aviation environment. This research supports airborne data monitoring systems, advanced materials and crashworthiness research, the Center for Aviation Systems Reliability (CASR), and the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Inspection Validation Center (AANC), which conduct research in the area of aircraft safety technology. The research initiatives in this area are a unique and comprehensive effort to improve the safety of aging aircraft by applying new technical capabilities in inspection, and drawing upon expertise in government, university and industry. To support the continuation of that partnership, the Committee recommendation includes more than $3,000,000 for support of AANC, $2,800,000 for CASR, $4,200,000 for the Engine Titanium Consortium, and substantial other funds to support the efforts of the Air Assurance Center of Excellence. Aircraft systems fire safety .--The Committee recommends $4,750,000 for this budget item, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Aging aircraft .--The Committee recommendation provides $18,094,000, for aging aircraft research. The Committee recommendation includes direct support of more than $3,000,000 for the Aging Aircraft Nondestructive Validation Center which is substantially below the activity level in fiscal year 1998 and slightly less than $3,000,000 for activities at the Center for Aviation System Reliability. Aviation Safety Risk Analysis .--The Committee recommendation provides $6,824,000, the same level as requested by the administration. SYSTEM SECURITY TECHNOLOGY Objectives: To enhance the security of passengers and crews in all aspects of aircraft, airports, and related ATC facilities by developing systems that prevent or deter terrorist activities. Explosives and weapons detection .--The Committee recommendation provides $37,500,000. This level recognizes the need to continue to pursue emerging technologies as well as the availability of a second certified explosive detection system. The Committee recommendation includes an additional $1,000,000 for the Safe Skies initiative to accelerate research and development of explosives and biological agents being conducted by the Institute of Biological Detection Systems and $5,000,000 into Pulsed Fast Neutron Analysis technologies. Aircraft hardening .--The Committee recommendation provides $2,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Airport Security Human Factors .--The Committee provides the full request for airport security human factors and underscores the importance of this work to the integrity of the entire security effort. Screeners, who operate the equipment in airports, are absolutely critical in providing effective airport security. Technology, while critical, is only optimally effective if operated properly. Work on the selection and training of screeners as well as systemic data analysis of performance is critical to fielding systems that can address the threat. HUMAN FACTORS AND AVIATION MEDICINE Objectives: To establish ways to improve the effectiveness of human performance in the operation of the aviation system and to seek better methods for preventing human error, accidents, and incidents. Human Factors & Aviation Medicine .--During hearings for fiscal year 2000 FAA appropriations, the Committee submitted a question related to whether there was any scientific or medical reason why the United States should not ``cautiously increase the retirement age to age 63'' like other countries have for commercial aviation. The text of the question follows: The Age 60 Rule was instituted in 1959 without the benefit of medical or scientific studies and without public comment. The EEOC has essentially eliminated age discrimination rules in all facets of commercial aviation with the exception of FAR Part 121 and Part 135 carriers. Other countries--Great Britain, Germany, France, Austrailia, etc.--have modified their age 60 restrictions. Japan began a study on the age sixty issue and discontinued it after finding no safety or operational reasons to maintain age 60 as a mandatory retirement age. The most recent pilot aging study was the Hilton Systems Technical Report 8025 (known generally as the Hilton Study) undertaken by Lehigh University and Hilton Systems, Inc to ``conduct statistical analysis on historical data to investigate the relationship between pilot age and accident rates.'' The report concluded: ``we saw no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday.'' In spite of this study, the Age 60 Rule not only remains in effect, it was expanded in 1995 to include Part 135 pilots in spite of no record of any age-related accidents or incidents in the affected pilot group. Clearly, the United States seems to be moving against the international aviation community and contrary to our own national trends on age discrimination rules. Can you provide any medical or scientific reason why the United States should not follow the findings of the Hilton Study and ``cautiously increase the retirement age to age 63?'' The answer from the FAA indicated that, ``While science does not dictate the age of 60, that age is within the age range during which sharp increases in disease mortality and morbidity occur.'' and ``* * * In late 1990, FAA initiated its most recent study of the issue, aimed at consolidating available accident data and correlating it with the amount of flying by pilots as a function of age. This resulted in the March 1993 Hilton study report, `Age 60 Project, Consolidated Database Experiments, Final Report', which found `no hint of an increase in accident rate for pilots of scheduled air carriers as they neared their 60th birthday'' but noted that there were no data available on scheduled air carrier pilots beyond age 60.'' The Committee directs the FAA to conduct a survey of all available non-scheduled commercial (and non-commercial, if available) data concerning the relative accident data correlated with the amount of flying by pilots as a function of their age for pilots of age 60 63 and comparing it with all four year groupings of scheduled commercial pilots (and non-commercial pilots, if available) declining from age 60, i.e., 56 59, 55 58, 54 57, * * * to 21 24. etc. In addition, compare the discernable groups in their entirety and track accident frequency as a function of age. The Committee directs the FAA to deliver this report no later than January 1, 2000. No more than half the funds appropriated in the Human Factors and Aviation Medicine program may be obligated for other than this initiative until delivery of the report. Air traffic control/airway facilities human factors .--The Committee recommends $8,000,000. Aeromedical research .--The Committee recommends $3,065,000. Environment and Energy .--The Committee recommends $2,891,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. Innovative/Cooperative Research .--The Committee recommends $1,000,000 for innovative and cooperative research, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. ENVIRONMENT AND ENERGY Objectives: To protect the environment, conserve energy, and keep the U.S. air transportation industry strong and competitive. The Committee recommends $2,891,000. STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIPS Objectives: To maximize the total effectiveness of research, engineering, and development by incorporating the efforts of other Government agencies, the industry, and universities. The Committee recommends $1,000,000, the same level appropriated in fiscal year 1999. GRANTS-IN-AID FOR AIRPORTS (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Airport and Airway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999 $1,600,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 1,750,000,000 Committee recommendation 1,750,000,000 The Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes a program of grants to fund airport planning and development and noise compatibility planning and projects for public use airports in all States and territories. The Committee recommends $1,750,000,000 in liquidating cash for grants-in-aid for airports. This is consistent with the Committee's obligation limitation on airport programs for fiscal year 2000 for the reported Senate reauthorization proposal, and for the payment of previous years' obligations. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION Obligation limitation, 1999 ($1,950,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (1,600,000,000) Committee recommendation (2,000,000,000) The total program level recommended for fiscal year 2000 for grants-in-aid to airports is $2,000,000,000 and is intended to be sufficient to continue the important tasks of enhancing airport safety, ensuring that airport standards can be met, maintaining existing airport capacity, and developing additional capacity. The Airport Improvement program for fiscal year 2000 is not yet authorized. For fiscal year 1999, Congress appropriated an obligation limitation of $1,950,000,000. This represents the highest appropriated level in history, and when combined with Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) receipts at applicable airport in excess of $1,600,000,000, total resources available for airport improvement and investment should have topped $2,550,000,000. Unfortunately, the Airport Improvement Program has been the subject of three legislative extensions and will terminate on August 6, 1999 unless the program is reauthorized or extended a fourth time for the remaining 55 days of the year. Clearly, small airports have had a difficult time bidding airport improvement projects in fiscal year 1999 due to the uncertain status of the federal program. The Committee recommendation establishes a new program level for fiscal year 2000 of $2,000,000,000 and rescinds the inapplicable obligation limitation for the unauthorized program. The Committee is committed to restructuring the program consistent with a reauthorization program, if reauthorization is completed prior to enactment of the fiscal year 2000 Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill. The Committee notes that a sizable alternative source of funding is available to airports in the form of passenger facility charges [PFC's]. The first PFC charge began for airlines tickets issued on June 1, 1992. DOT data shows that as of March 1, 1999, 302 airports have been approved for collection of PFC's in the amount of $23,100,000,000. During calendar year 1998 it is estimated that airports collected $1,444,000,000 in PFC charges and $1,469,000,000 is estimated to be collected in calendar year 1999. Of the airports collecting PFC's, approximately one-fourth collected about 90 percent of the total, and all of these are either large or medium hub airports. DOT estimates that these airports will collect more than $1,400,000,000 in calendar year 2000, depending on the number of applications received and approved and assuming current statutory authority. The administration has proposed to raise the statutory cap on the maximum PFC that may be charged. It is interesting to note the trends in where airport investment dollars are flowing. Of the PFC revenue streams approved from 1992 98, 26 percent of the total resources have been committed to specifically airside projects, while 40 percent have been committed specifically to landside projects. When AIP program funds are included, the mix moves to 36 percent for landside projects and 41 percent for airside projects. Accordingly, the limited experience with PFC projects when balanced with AIP program funds tend to strike a rough balance between the two broad categories of projects. As our airport infrastructure matures, the Committee expects that both airside and landside capacity enhancements will become increasingly expensive and the marginal cost benefit of purchasing increased capacity will in all likelihood decline. Clearly, we must be more and more focused on which airport infrastructure investments to make to maximize system capacity and to ensure air connectivity for the entire project. In the absence of a reauthorized airport program, the Committee has attempted to address those two priorities in the recommendation and would anticipate airport investment overall to continue to grow with PFC airports gradually increasing their investment in airside projects. AIRPORT PROGRAMS The Committee has carefully considered a broad array of discretionary grant requests that can be expected in fiscal year 2000. Specifically, the Committee expects the FAA to give priority consideration to applications for the projects listed below in the catergories of the AIP for which they are eligible. If funds in the remaining discretionary category are used for any projects in fiscal year 2000 that are not listed below, the Committee expects that they will be for projects for which FAA has issued letters of intent (including letters of intent the Committee recommends below that the FAA subsequently issues), or for projects that will produce significant aviation safety improvements or significant improvements in systemwide capacity or otherwise have a very high benefit/cost ratio. Within the program levels recommended, the Committee directs that priority be given to applications involving the further development of the following airports: Brookhaven-Lincoln County Airport, MS Aberdeen Regional Airport, SD Abilene Regional Airport, TX Anaconda Airport, MT Anchorage International Airport, AK Bangor International Airport, ME Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport/Ryan Field, LA Birmingham International Airport, AL Bishop Airport, MI Boeing Field/King County International Airport, WA Brewton Airport, AL Burlington International Airport, VT Butler County Airport, PA Caledonia Airport, VT Cherry Capital Airport, MI Chignik Lagoon Airport, AK Chippewa County International Airport, MI City of Colorado Springs Municipal Airport, CO Clarks Point Airport, AK Dane County Regional Airport, WI DeKalb-Peachtree Airport, GA Delta County Airport, MI Dickinson Municpal Airport, ND Dothan Airport, AL Erie International Airport, PA Eufuala Airport, AL Fairbanks, International Airport, AK Felts Field Airport, WA Ford Airport, MI Forks Airport, WA Glacier Park International Airport, MT Golden Triangle Regional Airport, MS Governor's Regional Airport, GA Great Falls International Airport, MT Grosse Ile Municipal Airport, MI Gulfport-Biloxi International Airport, MS Gwinnett County Airport, GA Halifax Regional Airport, NC Hamilton/Marion County Airport, AL Harnett County Airport, NC Hattiesburg-Laurel Regional Airport, MS Hawkins Field Airport, MS Helena Regional Airport, MT Herber City Municiple Airport, UT Holy Cross Airport, AK Houghton County Memorial Airport, MI Huntsville International Airport/Jones Field, AL Indiana County/Jimmy Stewart Airport, PA Jackson International Airport, MS James M Cox Dayton International Airport, OH Johnston International Airport, NC Juneau International Airport, AK Kotzebue Airport, AK Kent County International Airport, MI Key Field Airport, MS Lancaster Airport, PA Las Cruces Municipal Airport, NM Lea County Airport, NM Lehigh Valley International Airport, PA Lenawee County Airport, MI Logan-Cache Airport, UT Louisiana Regional Airport, LA Madison County Airport, AL Mammoth Lakes Airport, CA Manistee County Blacker Airport, MI March AFB Airport, CA McGrath Airport, AK Miami International Airport, FL Mingo County Airport, WV Mobile Regional Airport, AL Monroe Municipal Airport, LA Montgomery Regional Airport/Dannelly Field, AL Moorehead City Airport, MN New Orleans International Airport, LA Nome Airport, AK Northwest Alabama Regional Airport, AL Oakland-Pontiac Airport, MI Ogden-Hinckley Airport, UT Olive Branch Airport, MS Philadelphia Municipal Airport, MS Atka Airport, AK Pittsburgh International Airport, PA Provo Municipal Airport, UT Pryor Field Airport, AL Reading Municipal, General Carl A Spaatz Field, PA Reno/Tahoe International Airport, NV Richard B. Russell Field, GA Rickenbacker International Airport, OH Russellville Municipal Airport, AL Russian Mission Airport, AK Salt Lake City International Airport, UT Sawyer Airport, MI Shelby County Airport, AL Sheldon Point Airport, AK Spokane International Airport, WA Springfield/Branson Regional Airport, MO Statesboro County Airport, GA Stennis International Airport, MS Tishomingo County Airport, MS Tooele Valley Airport, UT Tulip City Airport, MI Tunica Municipal Airport, MS Waynesboro Municipal Airport, MS Wendover Airport, UT Westmoreland County Airport, PA Whitefield Airport, NH Wilkes County Airport, NC Wilkes-Barre/Scranton International Airport, PA Williamsport-Lycoming County Airport, PA LETTERS OF INTENT Congress authorized FAA to use letters of intent [LOI's] to fund multiyear airport improvement projects that will significantly enhance systemwide airport capacity. FAA is also to consider a project's benefits and costs in determining whether to approve it for AIP funding. FAA adopted a policy of committing to LOI's no more than about 50 percent of forecasted discretionary funds allocated for capacity, safety, security, and noise projects. The Committee viewed this policy as reasonable because it gave FAA the flexibility to fund other worthy projects that do not fall under a LOI. Both FAA and airport authorities have found letters of intent helpful in planning and funding airport development. The Committee appreciates the complexity of assessing a project's impact on systemwide capacity but believes that FAA should do its best in this regard before committing future AIP funds under a LOI. The Committee in the past was concerned that FAA had not exercised sufficient control over the use of LOI's. Accordingly, to maintain program integrity and ensure LOI commitments are met, the Committee repeats its recommendation, as Congress reauthorizes this program, that FAA be granted the authority to award new LOI's only after scheduled and recommended LOI payments fall to less than 50 percent of AIP discretionary funds. Current letters of intent assume the following fiscal year 2000 grant allocations: Alaska: Anchorage Internationl $4,950,000 Arkansas: Fayetteville (northwest Arkansas) 7,000,000 California: Sacramento Metro 1,600,000 Florida: 2,000,000 6,343,000 Georgia: Hartsfield Atlanta International 8,363,000 Illinois: 14,000,000 8,000,000 Kentucky: 5,000,000 3,525,000 Michigan: Detroit Metropolitan 16,640,000 Mississippi: Golden Triangle 34,000 Missouri: St. Louis Lambert International 13,813,000 Nevada: 7,600,000 2,540,000 Rhode Island: Theodore F. Green State 6,528,000 South Carolina: Hilton Head 383,000 Tennessee: Memphis International 6,800,000 Texas: 6,430,000 1,327,000 Utah: Salt Lake City International 9,000,000 Virginia: Reagan Washington National 12,643,000 Washington: Seattle-Tacoma International 11,600,000 156,119,000 In addition, applications are pending for capacity enhancement projects which would, if constructed, significantly reduce congestion and delay. These projects require multiyear funding commitments. The Committee recommends that the FAA enter into letters of intent for multiyear funding of such capacity enhancement projects. Orlando International Airport, FL .--The Committee encourages the FAA to give full and immediate consideration to the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority's application for a letter of intent for construction of a north crossfield taxiway connecting the two west runways (18L/36R and 18R/36L) with the existing east runway. The Committee is informed that substantial safety and capacity benefits will accrue from the completion of this project. Unauthorized use of airport lands .--The Committee is concerned about the recent findings of the General Accounting Office that lands acquired for airport purposes through Federal grants or the Federal Surplus Property Act have been used for other purposes in violation of grant and transfer because of FAA's nominal on-site monitoring efforts and over reliance on self certifications of compliance by airports. Some of the latter were found to be fallacious and there was inconsistent application of FAA's own enforcement guidelines across FAA field offices, according to the GAO. As a result, the actual scope of the problem remains unknown. Accordingly, within 6 months from the passage of this Act, the Committee directs the FAA to conduct an on-site survey of all airports with lands acquired through grants or surplus property transfers and report to the House and Senate Appropriations Committee on the survey results including, the scope of unauthorized land use changes, the proposed enforcement and corrective actions, and changes made to FAA's guidelines for use by FAA field offices to assure more consistent and complete monitoring and enforcement. After the initial report, the FAA shall include with its annual budget submissions a status report on both enforcement and corrective actions taken, and the number and types of airports to be surveyed in the ensuing fiscal year, including the number of on site surveys, for each field or regional office responsible. Max Westheimer Airport .--The Committee is aware of the Norman, Oklahoma community's interest in putting the property located at the Max Westheimer Airport into productive aviation-related, academic and other uses. The Committee urges the FAA to work with the local community to achieve a solution that is mutually beneficial to all involved interests. FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The principal missions of the Federal Highway Administration are: administration, in cooperation with the States, of the Federal-aid highway program; regulation and enforcement of Federal requirements relating to the safety of operation and equipment of commercial motor carriers engaged in interstate or foreign commerce; and governance of the safety in movement over the Nation's highways of dangerous cargoes such as explosives, flammables, and other hazardous materials. Under the Committee recommendations, a total program level of $28,883,455,000 would be provided for the activities of the Federal Highway Administration in fiscal year 2000. The following table summarizes the fiscal year 1999 program levels, the fiscal year 2000 program request and the Committee's recommendations: [In thousands of dollars] Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation 1999 program level 2000 budget estimate Appalachian development highway system\1\ 132,000 Federal-aid highways limitation\2\ 25,511,000 27,312,230 27,701,350 Office of Motor Carrier Administrative expenses\4\ (53,375) (55,418) (55,418) Exempt Federal-aid obligations 1,424,047 1,132,000 1,132,000 Emergency relief supplemental obligations 115,965 Miscellaneous appropriations\5\ 200,000 Motor carrier safety 100,000 105,000 105,000 -------------------- ---------------------- ------------ Total 27,483,012 28,549,230 28,883,455 \1\In fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides $450,000,000 contract authority for ADHS within Federal-aid highways. \2\Includes Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program. \3\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. \4\Included within limitation on administrative expenses. Does not reflect administrations May 1999 budget amendment proposing $50,000,000 increase for Office of Motor Carriers. \5\Includes $100,000,000 each for Massachusetts and Arkansas. LIMITATION ON ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES Appropriations, 1999\1\ ($327,413,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (344,616,000) Committee recommendation\2\ (370,000,000) \1\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. The limitation on administrative expenses controls spending for virtually all the salaries and expenses of the Federal Highway Administration. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century changed the funding source for the highway research accounts from the administrative takedown of the Federal-Aid Highway Program to individual contract authority provisions. The following table reflects the fiscal year 1999 level, the level requested by the administration, and the Committee's recommendation: [In thousands of dollars] Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation 1999 level 2000 budget estimate Administrative expenses (except OMC): 192,091 200,979 224,363 ------------ ---------------------- --------- Subtotal 271,392 289,198 312,582 ============ ====================== ========= Motor carrier safety administrative expenses: 41,610 43,052 45,052 ------------ ---------------------- --------- Subtotal 53,375 55,418 57,418 ============ ====================== ========= Total 324,767 344,616 370,000 Administrative expenses. --The Committee recommends $370,000,000 for this appropriation. The Committee has also included language to require the FHWA to provide $29,000,000 for critical highway safety initiatives and audits and investigation of highway programs. Accordingly, because of this provision, the Committee provides the FHWA the flexibility to allocate the committee recommendation among such expenses as ADP, permanent change of station, travel, transportation, and nonmandatory bonuses and incentives. This spending is manageable within the LAE due to the recommended increase in the account and the elimination of $10,000,000 in one time costs in fiscal year 1999 that do not carry to fiscal year 2000. In addition, the Administration budget request presents administrative expenses in excess of $26,000,000 below the Committee recommended level. The Committee expects the FHWA to focus on program delivery, initiate development effort on the new community/federal information partnership program in the last quarter of fiscal year 2000 from funding within the base, restrain travel, printing, training, and resist an increase in rent for the NASSIF facility unless substantial improvements are made to the facility by the landlord. Such actions will allow the FHWA more than adequate resources to fund all ingrade increases, all mandatory and requested non-mandatory pay increases, establishment of an office of intermodalism within Federal Highways, and remaining non-salary administrative costs if those initiatives remain priorities. Motor carrier operations .--The Committee recommends $57,418,000 for motor carrier operations. This recommendation includes a $2,000,0000 transfer from LAE for investigations and audits and does not include any funding for a truck and bus safety summit outside the Washington, DC area. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999 $24,000,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 26,000,000,000 26,300,000,000 This activity comprises the majority of all federally aided programs through which the States are financially and technically aided to continue a national highway system that meets the transportation needs of the Nation in terms of capacity and safety. All programs included within the Federal-aid account are financed from the highway trust fund. Authorizations in the form of contract authority are enacted in substantive legislation. These authorizations are apportioned and/or allocated to the States and generally remain available for obligation over a 4-year period. Liquidating cash appropriations are subsequently requested to fund outlays resulting from obligations incurred under contract authority. The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $26,300,000,000 for the Federal-aid highways program. FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAYS (Limitation on Obligations) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999\1\ ($25,511,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (27,312,230,000) Committee recommendation (27,701,350,000) \1\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. The Committee has provided an obligation limitation of $27,701,350,000 for the Federal-aid highway program for fiscal year 2000. The following table shows the estimated amount each State will receive in total Federal-aid highway funds for fiscal year 2000: Federal-aid highway funds [In thousands of dollars] STATES AMOUNT Alabama 514,148 Alaska 308,181 Arizona 415,724 Arkansas 337,191 California 2,318,987 Colorado 294,973 Connecticut 386,713 Delaware 111,905 Dist. of Columbia 98,768 Florida 1,187,961 Georgia 916,932 Hawaii 130,803 Idaho 196,204 Illinois 849,160 Indiana 639,812 Iowa 301,714 Kansas 293,256 Kentucky 438,683 Louisiana 428,329 Maine 134,457 Maryland 399,519 Massachusetts 472,512 Michigan 816,991 Minnesota 376,788 Mississippi 306,799 Missouri 619,870 Montana 253,611 Nebraska 195,078 Nevada 184,033 New Hampshire 131,019 New Jersey 649,202 New Mexico 250,273 New York 1,301,042 North Carolina 717,748 North Dakota 165,608 Ohio 939,002 Oklahoma 390,514 Oregon 311,359 Pennsylvania 1,269,827 Rhode Island 152,168 South Carolina 407,639 South Dakota 184,310 Tennessee 581,687 Texas 1,918,601 Utah 197,066 Vermont 115,318 Virginia 648,737 Washington 457,851 West Virginia 283,603 Wisconsin 505,118 Wyoming 176,411 25,683,211 Territories 5,748 Allocation Reserve 2,651,391 28,340,350 Transportation Research and Development (Limitation on Obligations) Within the $27,312,230,000 obligation limitation that the Administration proposed that not more than $641,450,000 be made available for transportation research programs, including the surface transportation program, technology deployment program, training and education, intelligent transportation systems, university transportation research, and MAGLEV; $31,000,000 for the Bureau of Transportation Statistics; and $20,000,000 for the advanced vehicles technologies program. The Committee recommends a total limitation of $391,450,000 on research and development activities. These funds shall be distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Budget estimate, 2000 Committee recommendation Surface transportation research 185,000 97,000 Technology deployment program 100,000 40,000 Training and education 28,000 16,000 University transportation research 27,250 27,250 Intelligent transportation systems 271,200 211,200 National advance driver simulator \1\10,000 ----------------------- -------------------------- Total 641,450 391,450 \1\Funded from revenue aligned budget authority. INTELLIGENT TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS (LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS) The Committee recommends a total limitation of $211,200,000 to be distributed as follows: [In thousands of dollars] Budget estimate, 2000 Committee recommendation Intelligent transportation systems: 94,150 35,550 ----------------------- -------------------------- Total, ITS 271,200 211,200 Research and Development .--Within the funds provided for R&D, the Committee's allowance includes $7,300,000 for commercial vehicle operations research, which is $800,000 more than requested. Those additional funds will advance critical safety data systems, such as SAFER/CVIEW and ASPEN, and further test the Safer Data mailbox project that allows for the electronic retrieval of information on prior inspections of commercial motor vehicles and drivers. The mailbox technology provides a valuable tool used by enforcement officers to reduce highway crashes and fatalities involving trucks and buses. Using the information provided, state safety personnel concentrate inspections on previously identified high-risk carriers and drivers, especially those who do not correct out-of-service defects identified in previous inspections. The Safer Data mailbox project allows state enforcement officials working at the roadside to gain access to near real-time inspection information. One of the greatest needs for that information is to assist officers working in the border states who are ensuring that safety requirements are met as specified in NAFTA. Historical safety information is lacking on carriers from adjoining countries, making quick retrieval of safety information most critical. Past inspection records in the mailbox system may be the only information available for making critical safety and inspection decisions at the border. The Committee expects FHWA to continue to advance this project and ensure that it is made available to all states, especially border states. FHWA shall work with a border state to serve as a lead technology distribution agent. The lead state would provide technical assistance to all states interested in advancing and deploying the Safer Data mailbox system. The Committee recognizes the unique positioning of Drexel University because it is ideally located within 15 miles of interstate highways, major bridges, parkways, intercity and light commuter rail, rapid transit systems, bus systems, an international port, and an international airport. The Committee urges the Administrator to work with Drexel University to focus on the link between intelligent transportation systems and transportation infrastructure. Intelligent vehicle initiative [IVI] .--The Committee urges the Director of the Joint Program Office to ensure that the primary Federal role in the IVI is focused on expediting the innovation of integrated crash avoidance technologies for passenger vehicles. In view of the substantial human factors research, performance specification work, crash avoidance and information systems integration, and cost/benefit assessment work that remains to be completed, an IVI program focused on those critical safety issues is of foremost importance. Such activities as automation of transit vehicles, snow removal systems, and other highway maintenance vehicles and research on nonsafety components of the IVI shall receive a much lower priority than critical safety objectives. Evaluation .--The Committee recommends $7,000,000 for program evaluation studies and recognizes the importance of continuing to evaluate the benefits and costs of various ITS projects and tracking progress on those projects. Of the funds provided, up to $1,000,000 is available for the testing and development of a smart Commercial Drivers License utilizing smart card and biometric elements to enhance safety and efficiency. Architecture and standards .--The Committee recommends $14,000,000, for architecture and standards work. The Committee understands that the Department has proposed a national standard under a mandate in the TEA21 legislation based on the use of an active radio frequency identification (RFID) technology for Commercial Vehicle Operations utilizing Dedicated Short Range Communications (DSRC). This is of concern because it minimizes, if not ignores, the significant presence of passive RFID technology equipment in transportation operations nationwide. As many states utilize an alternative passive system for transportation-related DSRC functions, particularly electronic toll collection, concerns have been shared with the Committee over not creating an architecture that precludes the application of passive RFID technologies in the search for a standard under the TEA21 mandate. The Committee directs the department to establish a program to test passive technology and incorporate the results into the department's development and implementation of a national architecture and standards regime. The Committee believes that the congressional mandate to establish a national standard was not meant to preclude different types of technology, but rather to create an architecture that would permit different technologies to mature and to create an architecture that permits regional, interregional, and national interoperability. The Committee urges the department to pursue a set of national standards in that spirit and requests a report on the results of efforts in this area with the fiscal year 2001 budget submission. Mainstreaming .--The Committee believes that the Department was spending too much of scarce ITS resources trying to convince planners, the engineering community, and others of the benefits of ITS. There is substantial literature documenting the benefits of using ITS; numerous training courses and programs are well underway; and the ITS concept is beginning to be mainstreamed in the transportation community. Consequently, the Committee's allowance provides $6,000,000, the same level provided in fiscal year 1999. Remaining mainstreaming funds shall be used to provide technical assistance on the planning, procurement, and implementation of integrated ITS technologies, offer guidance on the use of the national architecture, and supplement critical training not available from the private sector or universities. The Committee is pleased that the Department has changed the scope and nature of the ``mainstreaming'' activity and supports initiatives to provide direct technical and procurement assistance to states and other governmental entities planning, evaluating, or deploying ITS. National ITS Program Plan .--The Committee looks forward to receiving as soon as possible an update of the National ITS Program Plan, which will be prepared in a manner consistent with the requirements of Section 5205 of the TEA21. ITS deployment projects .--The Committee action provides a limitation of $113,000,000 for ITS deployment projects. The funds provided are for deployment projects in the areas listed below. The amounts associated with each area represent the minimum amount such area shall receive. Committee ITS deployment projects recommendation Southeast Michigan $4,000,000 Salt Lake City, UT 6,500,000 Branson, MO 1,500,000 St.Louis, MO 2,000,000 Shreveport, LA 2,000,000 State of Montana 3,500,000 State of Colorado 4,000,000 Arapahoe County, CO 2,000,000 Grand Forks, ND 500,000 State of Idaho 2,000,000 Columbus, OH 2,000,000 Inglewood, CA 2,000,000 Fargo, ND 2,000,000 Albuquerque/State of New Mexico interstate projects 2,000,000 Dothan/Port Saint Joe 2,000,000 Santa Teresa, NM 1,500,000 State of Illinois 4,800,000 Charlotte, NC 2,500,000 Nashville, TN 2,000,000 Tacoma Puyallup, WA 500,000 Spokane, WA 1,000,000 Puget Sound, WA 2,200,000 State of Washington 4,000,000 State of Texas 6,000,000 Corpus Christi, TX 2,000,000 State of Nebraska 1,500,000 State of Wisconsin rural systems 1,000,000 State of Wisconsin 2,400,000 State of Alaska 3,700,000 Cargo Mate, Northern NJ 2,000,000 Statewide Transcom/Transmit upgrades, NJ 6,000,000 State of Vermont rural systems 2,000,000 State of Maryland 4,500,000 Washoe County, NV 2,000,000 State of Delaware 2,000,000 Reno/Tahoe, CA/NV 1,000,000 Towamencin, PA 1,100,000 State of Alabama 1,300,000 Huntsville, AL 3,000,000 Silicon Valley, CA 2,000,000 Greater Yellowstone, MT 2,000,000 Pennslyvania Turnpike, PA 7,000,000 Portland, OR 1,500,000 Delaware River, PA 1,500,000 Kansas City, MO 1,000,000 113,000,000 Highway Research and Development The Committee recommends the following allocation of highway research and development contract program funds: [In thousands of dollars] 2000 estimate 2000 recommendation Safety 12,000 13,000 Pavements 12,500 13,700 Structures 16,100 15,500 Environment 6,000 6,000 Policy 5,200 4,000 Planning and real estate 4,000 4,000 Motor carrier 6,400 6,000 Highway operations 700 700 Freight 500 500 --------------- --------------------- Total 63,400 63,400 Within the appropriate research areas, FHWA is directed to fund each of the research activities or programs specified in various sections of TEA21. Safety .--The Committee recommends $13,000,000 for safety research and development activities. The Committee supports research and demonstration activities to advance technology and best practices understanding of lighting and signing to improve the driving performance of older drivers as well as research into the use of UV lights and flourescent materials to improve night time visibility, to help identify lane markings and pedestrians at night. The Committee expects that the additional funds recommended will be used to expedite work on projects delayed to pay for construction of the NADS. Within the recommendation, the Committee has included $100,000 for FHWA, working with industry suppliers and the FRA, to conduct the necessary research and to incorporate guidance in the National Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices for highway/rail grade crossing pre-signal operations, and to advance a new traffic signal warrant for preemption requirements. The research and guidance materials will assist engineers by ensuring appropriate design, timing and interface between highway and railroad signal equipment. Of the funds provided, up to $750,000 shall be available to evaluate and deploy a nationwide Highway Watch Program to improve roadway safety. Pavements .--The Committee recommends $13,700,000 for pavements research. The Committee is encouraged by the potential benefits for highway construction--including lower construction and maintenance costs, higher riding quality, and a longer life-cycle of new and reconstructed highways--resulting from the use of geosynthetic materials. Therefore, the Committee has included $400,000 for geosynthetic material research at the Western Transportation Institute at Montana State University. The Committee also directs FHWA to conduct further research into polymer additives for pavements. The Committee is aware that recent performance measurements have shown in various limited applications to increase the expected life of asphalt pavement. Therefore, the Committee has included $1,500,000 to conduct extensive research into this area. Of this amount, $1,250,000 shall be for the pavement research related to developing low cost pavement with flexibility to tolerate frost heaves in extreme climates. Further, the Committee encourages the FHWA to work with an academic and industry-led national consortium and fund with available balances, an additional polymer additive project to demonstrate the use of polymer additives in pavement for civil infrastructure purposes. The Committee is aware of the Federal Highway Administration's pavement design analysis work that utilizes the fundamental properties of the various pavement materials, analytical packing algorithms and granular mechanics, coupled with state-of-the-art imaging techniques and computational modeling and builds on the work performed at the University of Mississippi. The Committee directs the FHWA to continue to cooperate and work with the researchers there to develop concepts and technologies that will lead to better constructed and longer lasting high quality pavements. The Committee recognizes the potential for the use of silica fume to decrease the national waste material stream and increase the durability and quality of concrete structures and pavement. Within the funds provided, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be used to evaluate and promote the benefits of using silica fume high performance concrete, and that the Administrator of the FHWA report on its findings to the Committee no later than September 30, 2001. The Committee directs the Administrator to work with a representative national organization of the silica fume industry to carry out this project. For the purpose of constructing a segment of highway for research purposes, utilizing a binder composed of polymer additives currently being tested by the FHWA, the State of South Carolina may utilize funds allocated to it under the congestion mitigation and air quality program, consistent with current law. The Committee is aware and applauds such a cooperative arrangement between FHWA and the State of South Carolina--effectively leveraging the use of Federal research dollars by creating practical ``laboratories'' for selected research initiatives on our nation's roadways. The Committee is aware that research into this binder has not been completed, but that recent performance measurements conducted by FHWA have shown significant increases in the expected life of pavement utilizing this binder. The Committee also makes available $1,250,000 for research costs associated with this project and directs the FHWA to work with the South Carolina State University and Clemson University, where there exists significant transportation engineering capabilities, to further the goals of this research. Structures .--The Committee recommends $15,500,000 for structures research. The Committee believes that a unique opportunity to conduct research exists during the Interstate 15 reconstruction project and other transportation projects in the Salt Lake Valley, UT. The research performed during the reconstruction of I 15 and other projects will provide the country with a detailed analysis of the load capacities of deteriorated bridge structures, seismic retrofitting, new nondestructive evaluation techniques, and many other valuable areas of research. The Committee has included $1,500,000 for this research and because of the urgency of this research, directs the FHWA to make these funds available to the Utah Department of Transportation and the Utah Transportation Center in a timely manner to ensure the execution of this research. The Committee is interested in research to develop advanced engineering and wood composites for bridge construction and has provided $1,200,000 for that purpose within this program. In addition, the FHWA is encouraged to work with Cal State University at San Diego on advanced composite material for bridges and up to $1,000,000 is available for that purpose. As the Department pursues research in the testing of structures and composites, the Committee recommends the seismic expertise of the Structural Engineering Technology Laboratories and the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program and urge the department to consider the applicability and benefits of establishing a earthquake simulation facility at the Nevada Test Site for full-scale earthquake testing applications. The Committee is aware of the composite, structures, and highway engineering work ongoing at the West Virginia University and has provided $2,000,000 for structures and pavement funds for the establishment of a Center of Excellence at the WVU Constructed Facility Center. The Committee recommendation also includes $1,000,000 for the deployment of technology to prevent and mitigate alkali silica reactivity utilizing lithium salts as previously authorized through 23 USC Sections 5001(a)(2) relating to technology deployment and 5001(c)(2) relating to bridge research and construction. The Committee recognizes the specialized expertise of the Lehigh University's Center for Advanced Technology for Large Structural Systems (ATLASS) in the field of large scale structure, such as bridges and encourages the Administrator to continue to working with Lehigh University on this research. Environment Research .--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for research on environmental issues affecting highway operations and construction, the requested amount. The unique goal of the National Environmental Respiratory Center to research the health effects of combined pollutants or contaminants is relevant to the Department's focus on environmental and health consequences of pollutants generated by transportation emissions. To understand the aggregate health effects of real-world, highly complex mixtures of air contaminants, NERC will develop identical health data across several complex, man-made mixtures, including those from transportation sources. The Committee urges the Department of Transportation to collaborate with the National Environmental Research Center on its research strategy so that national transportation system design and policy has the benefit of this important data. The Committee recommendation includes $300,000 for the UNI Native Vegetation Center. The Native Vegetation Center operates as a clearinghouse and information center for the use of native vegetation in the upper Midwest, it produces seed stocks for commercial sellers and in some cases provides seed to state and local highway authorities. Using native prairie seed not only provides scenic advantages, it lowers maintenance because it does not require mowing, weed spraying or other erosion prevention measures. Policy .--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for policy research. Of the funds provided, the FHWA shall develop a comprehensive program of intermodal logistics training and operational testing to enhance the safe and efficient movement of freight through the state intermodal corridors and facilities. Cross State Line Planning .--The Committee is aware of the difficulty of conducting and coordinating preliminary planning for highway improvements and regional connectors for facilities that cross state lines. Accordingly, the Committee directs the FHWA to study this issue and propose tools or processes that will facilitate the preliminary planning process in the absence of a Memorandum of Understanding between the affected states. Planning and real estate .--The Committee's allowance includes $4,000,000 for planning and real estate research. The Committee understands that $2,500,000 is programed in the research account to begin work on an initiative to model data in a large scale simulation that moves individual carriers and freight loads over the nation's multimodal transportation system. The Committee is very interested in this work and requests that the department keep the Committee abreast of progress in this area. The Los Alamos National Laboratory is currently developing the National Transportation Network Analysis Capability (NTNAC), under the sponsorship of the Departments of Transportation, Energy, and Defense. The objective of this research is to study and understand the national transportation system as a single, integrated, multimodal system. Efforts under the NTNAC have resulted in the completion of the proof-of-principle phase, demonstrating the potential of creating on a national scale a network analysis capability for rail and highway transportation. This phase has confirmed the ability for the NTNAC to provide guidance for policy and investment decisions, reduce delays and congestion, and analyze the nation's demand for petroleum-based fuels. With the successful conclusion of the proof-of-principle phase, the Committee requests that the Department of Transportation serve as the lead agency in the next phase of the NTNAC--the development of a full scale simulation capability. The Committee requests that DOT provide support for this important next step of the NTNAC, including the introduction of maritime and aviation interests into the NTNAC. DOT's active role and support will provide the NTNAC with the resources and capability to complete these efforts, resulting in the first analytical system that represents the U.S. transportation system as a single, integrated, intermodal system. Economic Development Highways .--The Committee is interested in some recent studies that demonstrate the degree of new and sustainable economic development generated by new or substantially improved highway facilities through economically disadvantaged regions. The Committee directs the Department to identify the multistate regions that have persistent unemployment levels lower than the national average and the highway facilities that currently serve the population base in such a region. Motor Carrier .--The Committee recommends $6,000,000 for the motor carrier research program. The Executive Director of FHWA shall ensure that the budget justification for this research area is improved substantially. Future budget requests will delineate the specific projects that will be funded and the exact amounts that are requested for each project. In addition, terminating projects and their associated baseline amounts and all continuing projects and associated funding amounts will be specified. Of the funds provided in this account, $500,000 are for the truck driving center safety initiative at Crowder College, MO. Total expenses from any DOT funding source for the international conference on motor carrier research shall be limited to less than $60,000. Up to $1,000,000 available to study the effects of shift changes on truck driver alertness. Because of a variety of concerns, the Committee last year directed FHWA to request the Transportation Research Board (TRB) to review the motor carrier research program. A committee of experts assembled by TRB found that the program is neither needs based nor objectively prioritized. TRB concluded that OMCHS was placing insufficient attention on research pertaining to crash prevention and countermeasures. The Committee directs that the fiscal year 2000 budget program be redesigned to implement each of the recommendations offered by the TRB. Before obligating any of the fiscal year 2000 funds, the Committee directs that a revised motor carrier safety research plan be submitted to both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations that demonstrates that crash causation analysis will become a priority; that OMCHS will expedite its efforts to develop a motor carrier crash causation database that will provide the information required to better plan future research projects; and that OMCHS has realigned its R&D program to achieve cost-effective safety benefits, paying particular attention to opportunities to reduce the largest number of commercial motor vehicle-involved crashes through R&D. The Committee expects that the fiscal year 2001 budget submittal to continue implementing this revised strategy. Interstate rest areas .--There is increasing concern that due to increasing rehabilitation, liability, and maintenance costs, many states are experiencing difficulty operating Interstate rest areas and many are considering closing them. Some states are pursuing commercialization as a solution and others are considering privatization. This is an area where the Federal government could contribute through informing states about best practices in solving these types of issues and in providing leadership in developing standards or guidelines. The Committee directs the FHWA to study the issue and provide recommendations as to methods for states to ensure competitive alternatives for interstate travelers and to provide uniformity, rest area signage standards, oasis identification conformity. In addition, the Committee directs the FHWA to study and report to the Committee the effects of shift changes on truck driver alertness. Electronic Control Module Technology .--The Committee is aware of the potential benefits of electronic control module technology in trucks. Electronic control modules store data, such as vehicle speed and brake pedal and throttle position, that could prove useful to law enforcement investigations of crashes on our nation's highways and roads and prevent future loss of life in much the same way that flight data recorders contribute to airplane crash investigations. The Committee requests that the FHWA work with interested parties to explore a standard of protocol for access to and the relevant data to be recorded in this area and report back to the Committee by June 2000. It is the Committee's expectation that in the development of any such safety enhancement tool, any standards or protocols would follow high standards of privacy and would only apply to instances in which law enforcement had secured a warrant with the intention of investigating a serious crash. Freight .--The Committee recommends $500,000 for freight research. Within the recommended amount, the Committee urges the agency to continue research to improve multimodal connections for freight and high value shipments in a manner consistent with passenger services. TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM Center for Advanced System Technology .--The Committee recommends $2,000,000 for the Center for Advanced Simulation Technology, Long Island, NY, of which not less than $1,000,000 shall be made available to Auburn University for a transportation management program. These funds will be used to develop outreach initiatives involving technology transfer, technical assistance and training related to transportation management, traffic control, and simulation and human factors. CONSTRUCTION OF FERRY BOATS AND FERRY TERMINAL FACILITIES (limitation on obligations) The Committee has provided a limitation on obligations of $38,000,000 for the new construction of ferry boat and ferry terminal facility program. The Committee notes that the authorization of this program reserves $20,000,000 of the total amount for projects within the marine highway system. Within the $18,000,000 not reserved for this purpose, the Committee urges priority consideration for Penn's Landing ferry, PA $2,000,000 is provided for a ferry upgrade at McCelland and wood landing sites which is part of the Lewis and Clark Trail. In addition, $3,000,000 shall be provided to the State of Hawaii to initiate an intra-island ferry service from Barbers Point to Honolulu Harbor. In addition, $1,000,000 is provided for the New Bedford, MA, ferry terminal. Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Beginning in fiscal year 2000, TEA21 provides that guaranteed funding levels for the federal-aid highways and highway safety programs are adjusted to reflect revised receipt estimates for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In conjunction with this adjustment, section 110 of Title 23, entitled the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), authorizes contract authority in an amount equal to the additional obligation limitation. This follows through on the TEA21 philosophy that highway program funding levels are linked to receipts to the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund. In fiscal year 2000, the RABA adjustment is $1,456,350,000. The budget request proposes to reallocate a portion of the RABA to Administration priorities in environmental programs, transit, highway safety, research and rail. Of the $1,456,350,000 adjustment, $452,120,000 would be transferred to other modes, and $1,004,230,000 would remain within the federal-aid for highways program. The Committee recommendation rejects that approach in favor of an approach that passes the automatically increased funding generated by the greater than anticipated gas tax receipts and estimates of gas tax receipts directly to the states consistent with each state's individual guaranteed share under Section 1105 of TEA21. Such an approach maximizes the resources flowing to each state and avoids the diversion of funds that would otherwise occur as the following table illustrates. [In thousands of dollars] State Admin. Distr. TEA21 Distr. Full RABA committee recommendation Alabama 8,853 26,776 28,994 Alaska 7,435 15,619 17,485 Arizona 12,811 21,404 24,341 Arkansas 6,429 17,563 18,808 California 101,652 121,069 131,672 Colorado 8,956 15,346 17,174 Connecticut 14,339 19,941 21,872 Delaware 3,214 5,786 6,664 Dist. of Columbia 2,838 5,192 5,721 Florida 26,467 61,049 68,189 Georgia 20,049 47,344 52,155 Hawaii 3,548 6,804 7,382 Idaho 4,604 10,222 10,632 Illinois 28,471 44,480 47,824 Indiana 12,747 33,088 36,312 Iowa 5,771 15,790 17,230 Kansas 5,610 15,396 16,748 Kentucky 8,799 22,807 24,945 Louisiana 7,682 22,291 24,069 Maine 3,542 7,001 7,656 Maryland 15,650 20,821 22,866 Massachusetts 19,259 24,746 26,446 Michigan 19,479 42,421 46,131 Minnesota 9,608 19,730 21,061 Mississippi 5,901 16,012 17,423 Missouri 13,308 32,348 34,931 Montana 5,460 12,984 14,956 Nebraska 4,238 10,167 11,587 Nevada 5,085 9,500 10,656 New Hampshire 3,538 6,844 7,238 New Jersey 27,746 33,960 36,439 New Mexico 5,235 12,976 14,273 New York 48,541 67,928 72,713 North Carolina 13,671 37,146 40,912 North Dakota 3,947 8,576 9,794 Ohio 25,601 48,838 53,317 Oklahoma 7,057 20,342 22,438 Oregon 6,663 16,378 17,199 Pennsylvania 31,880 66,704 68,972 Rhode Island 4,232 7,849 8,853 South Carolina 7,482 21,044 23,404 South Dakota 4,260 9,615 10,306 Tennessee 11,199 30,282 32,984 Texas 48,403 99,070 110,258 Utah 4,937 10,296 11,129 Vermont 3,224 5,990 6,764 Virginia 14,912 33,682 37,111 Washington 11,394 23,984 25,806 West Virginia 5,548 14,936 15,406 Wisconsin 11,684 26,148 28,733 Wyoming 4,096 9,146 10,367 --------------- -------------- -------------------------------------- Total 697,054 1,335,430 1,456,350 MAGNETIC LEVITATION TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY DEPLOYMENT PROGRAM (Limitation on obligations) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999 ($15,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 ........................... Committee recommendation (20,000,000) Section 1218 of TEA21 provides $20,000,000 in highway trust funds contract authority for Maglev preconstruction activities in fiscal year 2000. The administration budget proposes to reallocate these funds to Advanced Vehicles Techology Research, and to provide $20,000,000 of revenue aligned budget authority for Maglev within the transportation research and development program. The Committee recommendation provides $20,000,000 for the magnetic levitation technology deployment program, of which not more than $500,000 shall be available to the Federal Railroad Administration for administrative expenses and technical assistance. Within the funds made available under this heading, the Committee provides $6,000,000 for the high-speed intercity magnetic levitation project between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, $1,000,000 for the Segmented Rail Phased Induction Electric Magnetic Motor (SERAPHIM) project, $2,000,000 for the Las Vegas-Southern California maglev system, and $1,000,000 for the Southern California Association of Governments Los Angeles International Airport to March Air Force Base magnetic levitation program. NATIONWIDE DIFFERENTIAL GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM Appropriations, 1999\1\ $7,500,00006 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 10,400,00006 Committee recommendation (5,000,000) \1\Fiscal year 1999 funds were provided within the Coast Guard's acquisition, construction, and improvement account, for both the completion of the coastal DGPS system and for the ground-based NDGPS. \2\Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. In 2000, the administration has requested $10,400,000 in transferred revenue aligned budget authority funds to enable installation of nationwide differential global positioning system [NDGPS] transmitters by enhancing the existing Coast Guard network throughout the United States. In fiscal year 1999, NDGPS funding was included in the Coast Guard's ``Acquisition, construction, and improvements'' account, for continued installation of DGPS transmitters throughout the United States, toward the enhancement of the existing Coast Guard DGPS network, which is now operating only in areas along the coasts and navigable inland waterways. In general, the Committee is concerned that investment in the near-term would accrue to many other Federal agencies and commercial interests. The Committee maintains that DGPS-related expenses should not be derived solely from the Federal highway trust fund or other DOT accounts. Recognizing the importance of DGPS to a wide array of strategic national purposes, the Secretary will need to obtain funding from other Federal agencies and sources as well as other modal administrations. The Committee notes that the Department of Transportation was directed to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations as part of the fiscal year 2000 budget justification identifying the long-term costs, benefits, and cost sharing that might be reasonably expected for DGPS. To date, this report has not been received by the Committees on Appropriations. No fiscal year 2000 funds provided in this Act shall be obligated by the Department of Transportation on the nationwide differential global positioning system program until this report has been submitted to the Committees on Appropriations. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommendation includes $5,000,000 for the NDGPS program, for both capital and operating expenses. These funds will provide for the installation of 4 new GWEN site installations in fiscal year 2000, for a total of 22 sites to be operating at the end of the fiscal year. Other capital costs include equipment, weather forecasting systems, and an upgrade to the control station. The operations component of the funds will provide for property management of all 63 national GWEN sites, and operations and maintenance of the initial 22 online stations. The bill includes language which transfers the funds provided to the Federal Railroad Administration, the DOT lead agency for this program. APPALACHIAN DEVELOPMENT HIGHWAY SYSTEM The Committee recommendation includes $450,000,000 for construction of unfinished segments of the Appalachian development highway system [ADHS]. The ADHS connects largely rural, underdeveloped areas in 13 States. Its completion is critical to the economic development of these often-ignored areas. In many cases, the unfinished segments of the ADHS are high-accident locations in the Appalachian States, so the Committee believes continued construction will have a high payoff in highway safety benefits. Given the current funding schedule and without inflationary increases, it would take at least another 13 years to complete the system, putting the completion date at 46 years from its inception in 1965. Given the hazardous conditions of many of the roads on and around the unfinished segments of the ADHS, and the commitment of the Congress to the people of Appalachia, this delay is unacceptable. Additional funds should be found to expedite the completion of overdue system in a reasonable and accellerated timeframe. FEDERAL LANDS highways program The Committee is very concerned with the degree to which funding awards have been made in the past on a partisan basis in the Public Lands Program. The General Accounting Office has noted that the administration has awarded more projects and total funding to projects in Democratic districts, even though States requested more funds for projects in Republican districts. The Committee directs FHWA to move toward a merit-based approach in funding public lands projects, and to refine criteria for the funding of projects under this program. The Secretary shall report to both the House and Senate Appropriations Committees semiannually concerning the execution of the program. The Committee directs the Secretary to make available the following amounts for the following projects: Bear River Migratory bird refuge access road and Soldier Hollow Road improvements in Wasatch County, UT $3,000,000 Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area, NJ 4,000,000 Glacier National Park North Fork Road from Columbia Falls to Camas Creek, MT 2,400,000 Kenai Peninsula road improvements 500,000 New River Gorge National River, pave and realign Cunard Road, WV 960,000 Donlin Creek access road, AK 500,000 New Mexico Route 4 Jemez Pueblo Bypass, NM 500,000 Lemhi Pass Road upgrade from Highway 324 to Sacajewea Campground, MT 2,000,000 Kenai National Wildlife Refuge Skilak Loop Road 4,000,000 Chugach National Forest, Bird Creek road widening and public safety project 1,000,000 Harpers Ferry National Historical Park Shoreline Drive improvements, WV 2,400,000 John Day Highway safety improvements at Blue Mountain Summit, OR 2,700,000 Highway 323 upgrade between Alzada and Ekalaka, MT 2,200,000 SR 248 reconstruction from US 40 to Park City, UT 3,700,000 Historic Columbia River Highway, rebuild Starvation Creek to Viento State Parks 500,000 Sitka Road Harbor mountain bypass 1,000,000 Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site 2,200,000 Kealia Pond National Wildlife Refuge, 1,700,000 Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge 400,000 BUREAU OF TRANSPORTATION STATISTICS (limitation on obligations) Appropriations, 1999\1\ ($31,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (31,000,000) Committee recommendation (31,000,000) \1\Excludes reduction of $208,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. The Bureau of Transportation Statistics [BTS] was established in section 6006 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act [ISTEA], to compile, analyze, and make accessible information on the Nation's transportation systems, collect information on intermodal transportation, and enhance the quality and effectiveness of the statistical programs of the Department of Transportation. For fiscal year 2000, the Committee recommends a funding level of $31,000,000. BTS offices include the Director, Statistical Programs and Services, Transportation Studies, and the Office of Aviation Information [OAI]. In addition, effective January 1, 1996, the responsibility to collect motor carrier financial data was transferred to the BTS after the sunset of the Interstate Commerce Commission. The Office of Aviation Information collects and compiles financial and traffic (passenger and cargo) data. This information provides the Government with uniform and comprehensive economic and market data on individual airline operations. This program includes a small field office located in Anchorage, AK, which provides consumers and the Government with airline data related to essential air service and the intra-Alaskan mail rate program. The statistical aviation data compiled by OAI includes: airline passenger traffic statistics, ontime performance data by carrier, financial performance and certification data, fuel purchase and consumption, and other business and consumer directed statistics. These statistics are vitally important to the Federal Government and the aviation industry. In some cases, it is statutorily required that these statistics be used by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Office of the Secretary of Transportation in allocation of trust funds, aviation bilateral negotiations, and other Federal transportation policy decisionmaking. Railroad rationalization and diversion analysis .--The Committee directs that of the funds provided, not more than 90 percent may be obligated prior to the delivery of the report requested under this section in the fiscal year 1999 Senate report. NATIONAL MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY PROGRAM (liquidation of contract authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999 $100,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 105,000,000 Committee recommendation 105,000,000 This program was first authorized by the Surface Transportation Assistance Act of 1982. It provides grants to States for improved enforcement of Federal and State motor carrier safety rules. It has been shown that added enforcement of truck safety rules reduces truck-related accidents and fatalities. The major objective of this program is to reduce the number and severity of accidents involving commercial motor vehicles. The Committee recommends a liquidating cash appropriation of $105,000,000. (limitation on obligations) Appropriations, 1999 ($100,000,000) Budget estimate, 2000 (105,000,000) Committee recommendation (105,000,000) The Committee recommends a limitation on obligations of $105,000,000 for the national motor carrier program and a program level of $155,000,000 consistent with the President's revised budget request. The Committee recommends the following allocation of motor carrier safety funds: Basic motor carrier safety grants $95,881,250 Performance-based incentive grant program 8,431,250 Border and high priority initiatives 9,500,000 State training and administration 2,187,500 Information systems and strategic planning 39,000,000 155,000,000 Covered Bridges .--The Committee recommendation includes $10,000,000 for the Covered Bridge program authorized under TEA21. 2002 Winter Olympic Games .--The Committee recognizes the critical nature of the following transportation projects for the success of the 2002 Winter Olympic Games. The Committee recommends that the Secretary give priority consideration to these projects: I 80: Kimball Junction--Modification/Reconstruction; I 80: Silver Creek Junction--Modification/Reconstruction; SR 248 Reconstruction: US 40 to Park City; Soldier Hollow Improvements: Wasatch County; I 15 Reconstruction: 10800 South to 600 North; and I 215: 3500 South--Interchange Reconfiguration. Commercial Drivers License Program .--The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 established the federal Commercial Driver's License (CDL) program. Despite self-congratulatory statements from the FHWA regarding the success of the CDL program, it is clear from several recent fatal accidents, as well as from testimony before the Committee, that great efforts need to be made by the OMCHS to satisfy the intent of the 1986 Act. An ``effectiveness study'' performed for the OMCHS indicates several stark vulnerabilities that undermine the goals of the CDL program. They include the fact that a majority of states do not use the Commercial Driver License Information System (CDLIS) to screen the personal information of applicants for non-CDL licenses to determine if the applicant has been issued a CDL by another state. ``In such states,'' according to the effectiveness study, ``it is possible a CDL holder could obtain a non-CDL, in addition to his or her CDL. Also, some states do not use the CDLIS to screen reinstated CDLs.'' The study also pointed up the fact that a frighteningly high percentage of drivers who have had their CDLs withdrawn due to safety violations appear willing to risk further sanctions and continue to operate commercial vehicles without a license. All of these vulnerabilities constitute clear violations of the core principles underlying the CDL program. The uneven performance by the states in implementing these principles was highlighted by recent testimony by the DOT Inspector General (IG). According to the IG: ``New York State does not pull a person's past licensing history when he or she applies for a commercial driver's license. If a driver is convicted of DUI while operating a commercial motor vehicle, that driver's license is revoked. If the driver is DUI in a personal vehicle, he or she loses personal driving privileges and maintains commercial driving privileges. In contrast, in Pennsylvania if convicted of DWI while driving a personal vehicle, the entire driver's license is suspended. If convicted of DWI while driving a commercial vehicle, the commercial license is revoked for one year. For more than one DWI offense, the license is permanently revoked.'' Recent fatal accidents involving motor coach operators in New Jersey and Louisiana, as well as the recent Amtrak collision with a truck at Bourbonnais, Illinois, further point up severe deficiencies in the CDL program. A total of thirty bus passengers were killed between the December, 1998 bus crash in Sayreville, New Jersey and the May, 1999 bus crash in New Orleans, Louisiana. That compares to a total of 21 fatalities for the four-year period that preceded the New Jersey crash. While the NTSB has yet to report on the final cause of each of these crashes, it is noteworthy that, in the case of the New Jersey crash, the bus operator had his license suspended multiple times, both for speeding and for the unsafe operation of his bus. He was allowed to have his license reinstated only after attending driving school. In the case of the New Orleans crash, it has been reported that the driver had a record of persistent drug abuse for several years. He had failed five random drug tests and had been fired from three separate jobs, including jobs with two transit companies. According to these reports, the night before the fatal crash the driver had arrived by ambulance at a local hospital barely conscious and suffering from severe dehydration and low blood pressure. In the case of the Bourbonnais truck accident, the IG testified before the Committee that ``the truck driver was using a permit issued to him when his commercial license was suspended because he received three speeding tickets within an unacceptable time period. Under these circumstances, the suspension had not had meaningful effect.'' Importantly, the current deficiencies of the CDL program have been identified by the motor carrier industry itself. In recent testimony before Congress, the President of the American Trucking Associations stated that: ``OMCHS must ensure that all states are accurately reporting out-of-state driver convictions to the driver's state of licensure, and doing so in a timely fashion. OMCHS must also ensure that driver convictions are not hidden from an employer's view in the system, as is the case in at least 15 states. It is essential that a CDL record reflect a driver's complete history while driving a commercial vehicle. There is no better predictor of future driving behavior than past driving behavior. OMCHS must use all of the tools at its disposal, including the withholding of a state's highway funds, to ensure states' compliance with the established elements of the CDL program.'' The Committee believes that the OMCHS must take immediate and aggressive steps to strengthen the CDL program and address the deficiencies identified by its own internal studies, by the IG, and by other groups including the motor carrier industry. Rather than serving as apologists for the states, the OMCHS should be using all tools at its disposal, including the ones cited by the industry, to demand improved performance by the states. Toward that end, the Committee directs the Federal Highway Administrator to submit a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations on an annual basis that specifically outlines each vulnerability he identifies within the CDL program, the remedies he intends to promulgate to address each vulnerability, specific deadlines for implementation of each remedy, the specific manner in which he will measure the effectiveness of each remedy, and the specific steps he will take if the remedy is found to be ineffective. The first such report shall be due at the end of the second quarter of fiscal year 2000. NATIONAL HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration [NHTSA] was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970, to reduce the escalating number of deaths, injuries, and economic costs resulting from traffic crashes on the Nation's highways. The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act provides for the establishment and enforcement of Federal safety standards for motor vehicles and associated equipment and research, including the operation of required testing facilities and the National Driver Register. The Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Savings Act initially provided for the establishment of low-speed, collision bumper standards, consumer information activities, diagnostic inspection, and odometer regulations and was later amended to incorporate responsibility for the administration of Federal automotive fuel economy standards. The Highway Safety Act provides for a coordinated highway safety grant program to be carried out by the States, together with supporting research, development, and demonstration programs. Under section 403 of title 23, United States Code, technical assistance is provided to the States in the conduct of their highway safety programs, and research and demonstration projects are conducted to develop and show the effectiveness of new techniques and countermeasures to address highway safety problems. Grants are provided to the States under title 23, United States Code, section 402 to assist in the establishment and improvement of highway safety programs designed to reduce traffic crashes, deaths, and injuries. Alcohol incentive grants are allocated to the States for alcohol-impaired driver safety programs. The occupant protection incentive grants program is separated into two parts: Section 405 rewards States that implement strong laws and programs to increase safety belt and child safety seat use; section 405(b), child passenger protection education grant program, encourages the States to implement child passenger protection and education programs such as proper installation of child restraints, restraint design, placement, and training in all aspects of child restraint use. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: Program Fiscal year 1999 enacted\1\ Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Operations and research $161,400,000 \2\$199,450,000 \3\$161,400,000 National driver register (HTF) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) (2,000,000) Highway traffic safety grants (firewall) 200,000,000 206,800,000 214,300,000 ----------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 361,400,000 406,250,000 375,700,000 \1\Excludes reductions of $974,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. Also excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\Includes $124,450,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. \3\From firewall and discretionary highway trust fund sources. Operations and Research (Highway Trust Fund) The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century provides $72,000,000 of contract authority from the highway trust fund to finance NHTSA's fiscal year 2000 operations and research activities under title 23 U.S.C. 403. This funding is included within the firewall guarantee for highway spending, and is not subject to appropriations. The bill includes an authorization subject to appropriations of $89,400,000 for operations and research activities under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49 U.S.C. and chapter 303 of title 49 U.S.C. for fiscal year 2000. Thus, the total authorized level for fiscal year 2000 for NHTSA operations and research activities is $161,400,000. The administration, however, has requested to transfer $125,450,000 of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) from the Highway Trust Fund firewall to support NHTSA's operations and research account. This proposal disregards the spirit and letter of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century to increase federal investment in our nation's highway and transit systems. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century is the product of a delicate compromise, and the Committee is dismayed that the administration would propose to disregard its core provisions only a year after the President signed it into law. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the Committee is opposed to the diversion of RABA funds away from its intended purposes. To comply with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, the Committee has consulted extensively with NHTSA to revise its budget request. The Committee recommends fully funding the authorized level and provides an appropriation of $161,400,000 to be distributed as follows: Committee Program recommendation Safety performance $14,249,000 Safety assurance 20,972,000 Highway safety 57,617,000 Research and analysis 61,625,000 National driver register 2,000,000 Office of the Administrator 4,493,000 General administration 10,417,000 Grant administration reimbursement -9,973,000 161,400,000 Agencywide adjustments .--Due to budgetary constraints and the Committee's view that additional funds should be allocated to safety programs, the Committee does not include the $890,000 requested for new permanent staff positions and denies the request to increase the number of FTE's from 621 to 635. The Committee also has reduced $1,376,000 for operating expenses. The Committee is confident that NHTSA can reduce cost growth in its headquarter operating expenses by limiting travel to the fiscal year 1999 level and implementing a variety of management initiatives, such as restraining rent, computer support, and administrative support. SAFETY PERFORMANCE STANDARDS New Car Assessment Program .--The bill includes $2,830,000 to evaluate vehicle performance in crash tests and provide vehicle safety and crash test information to the public. The Committee recommends providing the same level of funding as the fiscal year 1999 level and is $362,000 more than the administration's revised budget request. The Committee expects NHTSA to conduct enough crash tests to provide consumer information on the majority of vehicles. The Committee denies the request to expand NCAP beyond the fiscal year 1999 test procedures. Uniform tire quality grading standards .--The Committee has included a prohibition that has been included in previous appropriations acts, on any rulemaking which would require that passenger car tires be labeled to indicate their low rolling resistance, or fuel economy characteristics. The Committee has included this provision because the need for such labels has not been adequately justified and the additional costs associated with this proposal would likely be prohibitive. HIGHWAY SAFETY PROGRAMS Impaired Driving .--The Committee commends NHTSA for focusing research on the costs, benefits, and impacts of 0.08 Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) laws and its efforts to reduce impaired driving by young adults between 21 and 34 years old. Sufficient funds are included in the fiscal year 2000 Committee recommendation to continue research on the effectiveness of 0.08 BAC laws. There is a similar need for research that would assist state legislators as they decide whether to adopt repeat offender and open container statutes. Under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, states that have not enacted such laws by October 1, 2000 lose federal construction funds. NHTSA should be prepared to report next year on the progress made in each area. Safe Communities .--The Committee has deleted funding for the safe communities program. The program has not been funded since completion of the three-year pilot program, and the Committee asserts that the program duplicates other, more worthy agency programs and safety grants. Emergency Medical Services .--In 1998, NHTSA began a collaborative effort to develop a national standards curriculum for emergency medical services personnel on the pre-hospital treatment of severe head injury. There are approximately 1.6 million severe head injuries annually, the majority of which are caused by motor vehicle accidents. Within the emergency medical services program, the Committee has included $1,000,000 to initiate the third phase of the head injury pre-hospital protocols. Pre-hospital management of traumatic brain injury through a comprehensive education and training program for the first 14 states will be serviced by training centers in Northern Virginia (Virginia, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Kentucky and the District of Columbia) and Birmingham, Alabama (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Tennessee). This educational effort will be directed toward the EMS trainers at the local level, the EMS Medical Directors of each ambulance company, the State EMS Directors, State EMS Advisory Committee, and each state's Commissioner of Health. The Committee encourages NHTSA to continue to work with the Aitken Neuroscience Center during this phase of the program. Highway Safety Research .--The Committee is concerned with the increased occurrence of aggressive driving by motorist, especially in the Washington capital region. To address this persistent problem, the Committee has included $2,000,000 for the Maryland Motor Vehicle Administration, on behalf of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia, to development and implement a regional education and driver modification program. The Committee also is concerned about the overall lack of attention given to rural motor vehicle accidents and the unique aspects of assessing and treating trauma patients in rural areas. Some factors that are unique to rural crash victims are greater travel distances, delayed notification of emergency medical services, inadequate physician training, and proximity to appropriate trauma centers. The Committee has included $1,750,000 to initiate a project at the University of South Alabama that utilizes a multi-disciplinary team to manage rural vehicular trauma victims. As part of the project, other factors relevant to care of rural vehicular trauma patients should be considered, including the role of aeromedical evacuation, facilitation of consultation with trauma surgeons through telemedicine, facilitation of interstate transport, and outreach to local community hospitals. Driver's License Identification .--The Committee has included bill language similar to the fiscal year 1999 conference report which delays implementation of a provision requiring states to display social security numbers on driver's licenses and conform with federal uniform features for driver's licenses. The Committee has deleted $264,000 that was associated with this program out of concern for individual privacy and the preemption of state authority. Emerging Issues .--The Committee continues to be concerned about children who gain access to the trunk of a vehicle and are not able to escape, even if they entered through the back seat inside the passenger compartment. Many of these children die from suffocation, heat stroke, or hypothermia. Within the funds provided for emerging issues, the Committee directs NHTSA to thoroughly study this issue. The report should provide data on the number of trunk entrapments that resulted in death, analyze historical trends, and if possible, to compile, and recommend strategies, including truck latch release buttons, to reduce such incidents. The report is requested by March 31, 2000. RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS Biomechanics .--The Committee has included full funding for the Crash Injury Reduction and Engineering Network (CIREN). The Committee continues to support the effort to link eight trauma centers to vehicle engineers in order to study the cause, effects and results of crashes. The network consists of centers located at: R. Adams Cowley Shock Trauma Center, Baltimore, Maryland; the University of Medicine & Dentistry, Newark, New Jersey; the Children's National Medical Center, Washington, DC; the Lehman Injury Research Center at the University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida; the University of Michigan Medical Center, Ann Arbor, Michigan; the Harborview Injury Prevention Center, Seattle, Washington; the San Diego County Trauma System, San Diego, California; and the Mercedes-Benz CIREN Center. The Committee also has provided $2,200,000 to fund the development of a comprehensive, integrated research program in injury sciences at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB). The injury sciences program will develop new and improving methods of preventing, treating, and mitigating the effects of injuries associated with motor vehicle accidents. The program will focus on three aspects of crash impact research: modify driver behavior to reduce the likelihood of a vehicle accident, minimize the risk of crash injuries in the event of a crash, and reduce the risk or mortality and morbidity, including diffuse axonal injury. State Data Program .--The Committee has included $1,000,000 for the Yellowstone County Traffic Safety Commission which is developing with the assistance of Montana State University a network linking emergency medical service (EMS) data with the Crash Outcome Data Evaluation System (CODES) to evaluate traffic safety protocols and highway management. Data in the system will be used to further assess the effect of occupant protection systems, impact of speed limits on highway safety, and the validity of various EMS protocols in crash survival. NATIONAL DRIVER REGISTER The National Driver Register [NDR] is a central repository of information on individuals whose licenses to operate a motor vehicle have been revoked, suspended, canceled, or denied. The NDR also contains information on persons who have been convicted of serious traffic-related violations such as driving while impaired by alcohol or other drugs. State driver licensing officials query the NDR when individuals apply for a license, for the purpose of determining whether driving privileges have been withdrawn by other States. Other organizations such as the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Railroad Administration also use NDR license data in hiring and certification decisions in overall U.S. transportation operations. The bill includes $2,000,000 for the NDR. HIGHWAY TRAFFIC SAFETY GRANTS (Liquidation of Contract Authorization) (Highway Trust Fund) Appropriations, 1999 $200,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 206,800,000 Committee recommendation 214,300,000 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century authorized the following State grant programs: Highway Safety Program, the Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program, the Occupant Protection Incentive Grant Program, and the State Highway Safety Data Grant Program. Under the Highway Safety Program, grant allocations are determined on the basis of a statutory formula established under 20 U.S.C. 402. Individual States use this funding in national priority areas established by Congress which have the greatest potential for achieving safety improvements and reducing traffic crashes, fatalities, and injuries. The Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grant Program encourages States to enact stiffer laws and implement stronger programs to detect and remove impaired drivers from the roads. The occupant protection program encourages States to promote and strengthen occupant protection initiatives. The State Highway Safety Data Grants Program encourages States to improve their collection and dissemination of important highway safety data. The Committee recommends an appropriation for liquidation of contract authorization of $206,800,000 for the payment of obligations incurred in carrying out provisions of these grant programs. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century also established the child passenger protection education grant program which is subject to appropriations. All of the evidence indicates that between 70 and 90 percent of child safety seats are incorrectly installed or otherwise misused. The Committee supports providing grants that train safety professionals on all aspects of proper child restraint use and educate the public on the installation, selection, and placement of child safety seats. Therefore, the Committee recommendation includes $7,500,000 to fully implement the section 405(b) grant program. The Committee has included a provision prohibiting the use of section 402 funds for construction, rehabilitation or remodeling costs, or for office furnishings and fixtures for State, local, or private buildings or structures. LIMITATION ON OBLIGATIONS The bill includes language limiting the obligations to be incurred under the various highway traffic safety grants programs. Separate obligation limitations are included in the bill with the following funding allocations: Fiscal year 1999 enacted Fiscal year 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Highway safety programs $150,000,000 $152,800,000 $152,800,000 Alcohol-impaired driving countermeasures grants 35,000,000 36,000,000 36,000,000 Occupant protection incentive grants 10,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Child passenger protection education grants\1\ (7,500,000) (7,500,000) State highway safety data grants 5,000,000 8,000,000 8,000,000 -------------------------- --------------------------- -------------------------- Total 200,000,000 206,800,000 206,800,000 \1\The budget request proposes to fund child passenger occupant protection education grants with funds from revenue aligned budget authority transferred to NHTSA operations and research. FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The Federal Railroad Administration [FRA] became an operating administration within the Department of Transportation on April 1, 1967. It incorporated the Bureau of Railroad Safety from the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Office of High Speed Ground Transportation from the Department of Commerce, and the Alaska Railroad from the Department of the Interior. The Federal Railroad Administration is responsible for planning, developing, and administering programs to achieve safe operating and mechanical practices in the railroad industry. Grants to the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) and other financial assistance programs to rehabilitate and improve the railroad industry's physical infrastructure are also administered by the Federal Railroad Administration. The Committee recommends new appropriations and obligation limitations totaling $729,653,000 for the activities of the Federal Railroad Administration for fiscal year 2000. This is $17,049,000 less than the budget request. In addition to these appropriated Federal funds, $1,091,810,000 will be paid to Amtrak in fiscal year 1999 by the Secretary of the Treasury pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. The following table summarizes the Committee recommendations: Program Fiscal year-- Committee recommendation 1999 enacted\1\ 2000 budget estimate Safety and operations\2\ $95,462,000 $91,789,000 Office of the Administrator $21,215,000 Railroad safety 61,488,000 Railroad research and development\3\ 22,364,000 21,800,000 22,364,000 Next generation high-speed rail 20,494,000 12,000,000 20,500,000 Alaska railroad rehabilitation 38,000,000 14,000,000 Rhode Island rail development 5,000,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 Capital grants to National Railroad Passenger Corporation 609,230,000 570,976,000 571,000,000 ----------------- ---------------------- ------------- Total budgetary resources 777,791,000 745,638,000 729,653,000 \1\Excludes reduction for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277; also excludes funds paid to Amtrak pursuant to section 977 of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. \2\Fiscal year 2000 includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees. \3\Fiscal year 2000 includes $21,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees. \4\The Amtrak Reform Council is an independent oversight commission. Funding is provided through a general provision, and is not part of the FRA budget. \5\Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. User fees .--Consistent with the Committee's position outlined in the Office of the Secretary chapter of the report, the administration's legislative proposal to impose user fees on rail safety and research services has not been included. SAFETY AND OPERATIONS Appropriations, 1999\1\ ($85,574,000) Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 95,462,00006 Committee recommendation 91,789,00006 \1\Reflects comparable funding appropriated in the following 4 accounts: Office of the Administrator; Railroad Safety; a portion of the Research and Development account; and a portion of the Next Generation High Speed Rail account. \2\Includes $66,461,000 proposed rail safety user fees. The Administration is proposing restructuring the Federal Railroad Administration salary and expense accounts by consolidating all of FRA's corporate resources from four separate appropriations into a single appropriation titled Safety and Operations. The Safety and Operations account provides support for FRA rail safety activities and all other administrative and operating activities related to staff and programs. The presentation of all FRA staffing and operations in a single account is consistent with account structures in other DOT agencies, and would allow FRA to track its program and support costs separately. The Committee supports this restructuring, but maintains its authority to set and control staffing levels associated with the four primary personnel functions at FRA. The following table reflects the comparable fiscal year 1999 funding and the fiscal year 2000 Committee recommendation: Fiscal year 1999 enacted Fiscal year 2000 projected request Fiscal year 2000 Committee recommendation Office of the Administrator (includes contract support, ARR liabilities, TASC reduction) $20,846,000 $28,379,000 $26,405,000 Railroad safety $61,488,000 $63,860,000 $62,254,000 Administration of research and development $2,646,000 $2,601,000 $2,550,000 Administration of high speed rail $594,000 $622,000 $580,000 -------------------------- ------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------- Total Safety and Operations $85,574,000 $95,462,000 $91,789,000 (FTE) (733.5) (753.5) (736) Within the total program level of $91,789,000, the FRA Administrator is provided the flexibility to shift administrative and personnel funds within the four offices (Office of the Administrator, railroad safety, administration of research and development, and administration of high-speed rail), within a ten percent limitation of the amounts specified above. Shifts of administrative funds in excess of that limitation shall require the approval of both the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. The bill includes a provision which transfers $1,000,000 in safety and operations funds to the Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General, for audits and investigations of rail-related issues and systems. Budget presentation .--To ensure that the Committee is given adequate information to exercise appropriate oversight of FRA's resources and staff allocations, the Committee directs that FRA include in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification staffing and dollar breakouts of the safety and operations offices, as displayed above. In addition, the supporting documentation in the fiscal year 2001 budget justification shall be of the same level of detail as that specified in the fiscal year 1999 budget. Staffing increases .--The FRA has requested 15 new positions in fiscal year 2000, for a total of $2,788,000 in associated personnel costs. The Committee recommendation provides funding for 4 of these requested positions: 3 new positions in the area of railroad safety ( +$288,000). One of the new railroad safety positions shall be for a highway engineer to increase the capabilities of the agency in grade crossing safety. Information technology initiative .--FRA requested $1,542,000 for hardware, software and personnel (2 new positions) for new information technology systems. The Committee has provided funding for 1 new position and half of the requested funding for associated hardware, software, and contractor consulting costs for the upgraded telecommunications infrastructure ( +$771,000). The Committee directs the FRA to submit a detailed spending plan indicating the total costs and improvements necessary to upgrade the agency's information technology systems. This plan shall include a timetable and project benchmarks, with all fiscal year 2001 and out year costs specified by activity. This plan shall be submitted as a supplemental justification in the FRA fiscal year 2001 budget justification. Travel .--A total increase of $770,000 above the enacted level is requested for staff travel. Some of this increase is associated with new safety inspection and enforcement staff brought on board in fiscal year 1999 and some is associated with the requested new staffing positions, as well as an overall increase in travel. The Committee supports flexibility for FRA safety-related staff travel throughout and among the regions but has decreased this request by $415,000, based on fewer new staff than were requested by the administration. Operation Lifesaver .--The Committee recommends $950,000 for Operation Lifesaver, which is $650,000 above the administration's requested level. The Federal Highway Administration provides $500,000 annually from the Surface Transportation Program safety set-aside to cover Operation Lifesaver salaries, benefits and overhead costs. Of the appropriated funds provided herein, $600,000 is provided to support Operation Lifesaver's 49 active State programs and national safety initiatives. The Committee has also included $350,000 to support initial work on a new, national, multi-year public service campaign to increase awareness of highway-rail grade crossing safety and trespass prevention. The Committee stresses the importance of implementing a unified campaign that has the financial and technical support of the railroad industry, FRA, and the law enforcement community. Grade crossing safety .--In addition to the grant to Operation Lifesaver, FRA plans to utilize approximately $2,500,000 from the safety and operations account for grade crossing safety activities, supporting such activities as a police officer detail, outreach to law enforcement and judicial organizations, and supporting the national highway-rail crossing inventory. The Committee fully endorses these activities. In addition, within available safety and operations funds other than those already identified to support grade crossing safety, the Committee directs that $350,000 be made available to initiate an evaluation assessing the costs, benefits, and impacts of state grade crossing safety laws. These evaluations should be coordinated with and help establish the basis for FRA's initiative to develop model state laws to promote grade crossing safety. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has extensive experience in evaluating state traffic laws, and should manage this effort, with assistance provided by FRA and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). In this evaluation, ``best practices'' and innovative strategies used by states or local communities to improve grade crossing safety should be identified, and successful enforcement, education, and engineering activities should be highlighted. The Committee also requests that in the course of this analysis, FRA, FHWA and NHTSA encourage states to use a portion of their Section 402 highway safety grant funds to improve grade crossing safety. OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR Appropriations, 1999\1\ $21,215,000 Budget estimate, 2000 (\2\) Committee recommendation (\2\) \1\Excludes reduction of $369,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277 \2\Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account. RAILROAD SAFETY Appropriations, 1999 $61,488,000 Budget estimate, 2000 (\1\) Committee recommendation (\1\) \1\Funding is presented in the proposed safety and operations account. RAILROAD RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT Appropriations, 1999 $22,364,000 Budget estimate, 2000\1\\2\ 21,800,000 Committee recommendation 22,364,000 \1\Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety and operations account. \2\Includes $21,300,000 proposed rail safety user fees. The Federal Railroad Administration's Railroad Research and Development Program provides for research in the development of safety and performance standards for high-speed rail and the evaluation of their role in the Nation's transportation infrastructure. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $22,364,000 for railroad research and development, $564,000 more than the administration's requested level. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the Railroad research and development programs: Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials $10,114,000 Track and vehicle track interaction 6,950,000 Safety of high speed ground transportation 4,800,000 R&D facilities 500,000 Equipment, operation, and hazardous materials .--The Committee recommends a program funding level of $10,114,000, which is $1,064,000 more than the administration's request. Within this amount, $1,500,000 shall be for a full-scale crash test of rail passenger equipment at the Transportation Test Center [TTC] near Pueblo, CO. This testing will include dynamic and static tests using donated passenger car equipment. The overall objectives of these tests are to demonstrate the effectiveness and crashworthiness of cab car and coach car structural designs and the effectiveness of occupant protection strategies. This is an ongoing test program that is jointly administered by the FRA and the Association of American Railroads (AAR). Additionally, within this amount, three safety research programs will be funded: $500,000 for the Center for Advanced Vehicle Technologies at the University of Alabama, to develop vehicle proximity alert systems and other sensor and electromagnetic devices that address crossing safety train/vehicle combination issues; and $500,000 for research to be performed jointly by Marshall University and the University of Nebraska. This research shall focus on real time monitoring of track subsurface stability; detection of track ``weak spots'' and the development of metallurgical manufacturing techniques to minimize such ``weak spots''. Additionally, within this amount, $500,000 shall be provided for a Montana State University at Bozeman pilot program to provide real-time diagnostic monitoring of rail rolling stock using differential global positioning system technology. Track and vehicle-track interaction .--The Committee recommends a program funding level of $6,950,000, $500,000 less than the administration's request. Within this amount, $500,000 shall be used to work with the University of Missouri-Rolla on advanced composite materials use in repairing and rehabilitating rail bridges. Aging rail bridges are increasingly being required to handle heavier axial loads and higher train speeds. The University of Missouri-Rolla has played a leading role in exploring new technologies in advanced composite materials that will help prolong the functional lifespan of bridges and reduce maintenance costs in the long term. The FRA requested $500,000 in new/expanded program funding for testing of an on-board locomotive communications bus to foster interoperability of positive train control (PTC) systems. This project was initiated in fiscal year 1997 under a cooperative agreement with Conrail on behalf of themselves, Norfolk Southern and CSX railroads, and is now in the third phase, which involves intensive testing of on-board wiring harness and communications software protocols which interface with four different automatic train control systems on Norfolk Southern rail line between Harrisburg, PA and Manassas, VA. The Committee strongly supports this ongoing project, but has moved the program funding from the ``Railroad research and development'' account to the ``Next generation high-speed rail'' account, in order to consolidate all the PTC program elements within the same office. Safety of high-speed ground transportation .--The Committee recommends a program funding level of $4,800,000, the same level as the administration's request. Research and development facilities .--The Committee recommends a funding level of $500,000 for R&D facilities, the same level as the administration's request. The Committee has not yet received a response from FRA to the directive in Senate Report 105 249 that FRA include in the fiscal year 2000 budget justification a description of FRA's track research vehicle needs, and an analysis of whether the FRA could utilize the AAR track research vehicle that is current onsite at TTC. The Committee directs that FRA not obligate any of the fiscal year 2000 research and development facilities funds provided herein for T 6 track research vehicle-related expenses until this analysis has been submitted to the Committee in letter form. RAILROAD REHABILITATION AND IMPROVEMENT FINANCING PROGRAM Section 502 of Public Law 94 210, as amended authorizes obligation guarantees for meeting the long-term capital needs of private railroads. Railroads utilize this funding mechanism to finance major new facilities and rehabilitation or consolidation of current facilities. No appropriations or new loan guarantee commitments are proposed in fiscal year 2000. The Rail Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing Program, as established in section 7203 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century [TEA21], will enable the Secretary of Transportation to provide loans and loan guarantees to State and local governments, Government-sponsored authorities and corporations, railroads and joint ventures to acquire, improve, or rehabilitate intermodal or rail equipment or facilities, including track, bridges, yards, and shops. NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED RAIL Appropriations, 1999 $20,494,000 Budget estimate, 2000\1\ 12,000,000 Committee recommendation 20,500,000 \1\Excludes administrative expenses to be funded in the proposed safety and operations account. The Committee has provided $20,500,000 in general fund appropriations for the High-Speed Ground Transportation [HSGT] Program. The amount provided is $8,500,000 more than the administration's request. The Committee first provided funding for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail [NGHSR] Program in fiscal year 1995. The program funds high-speed rail research, development, and technology programs that are aimed at demonstrations to foster high-speed passenger service on corridors throughout the country. High-speed rail crossing improvement program.-- In section 1103 of TEA21, an automatic set-aside of $5,250,000 a year from surface transportation program safety funds is made available for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards. A limited number of rail corridors are eligible for these funds. Of these set-aside funds, the Committee directs that $1,000,000 be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the gulf coast corridor between Mobile, AL and New Orleans, LA, $1,000,000 be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Stampede Pass rail corridor near Yakima, Washington, and $1,000,000 be used to mitigate grade crossing hazards on the Midwest Regional Corridor within the State of Wisconsin. In addition to the automatic set-aside funding, $15,000,000 in general funds is authorized to be appropriated for these purposes. The administration has proposed that $15,000,000 from transferred revenue aligned budget authority funds be used for high-speed rail grade crossing mitigation. Section 7201 of TEA21 provides a more general authorization of the high-speed rail program at a total level of $35,000,000 in general funds each year through fiscal year 2001. The Committee recommends the following funding levels for the Next generation high-speed rail programs: Train control systems $7,300,000 High-speed non-electric locomotives 8,000,000 Grade crossing hazard mitigation 4,000,000 Track/structures technology 1,200,000 Train control systems .--The administration has proposed that $10,000,000 from transferred revenue aligned budget authority funds be used for two positive train control demonstration projects: a flexible block high-speed train control system on the Chicago-St. Louis corridor ($7,000,000); and an incremental train control system on a segment of the Detroit-Chicago corridor ($3,000,000). The Committee has provided a total of $7,300,000 for positive train control demonstration projects. Of these funds, no less than $5,000,000 shall be for the Alaska Railroad positive train control project (discussed below) and no less than $1,000,000 shall be for the Transportation Safety Research Alliance (TSRA) advanced integrated technology system, which will provide continuous direction, movement, and highway crossing controls for the rail freight industry. Alaska Railroad positive train control research and implementation .--The Committee recommends $5,000,000 for the third and final phase of the Alaska Railroad's ongoing efforts to implement a collision avoidance positive train control system over the entire Alaska Railroad system. These funds will help fund a satellite-based communications and tracking system that will provide positive train separation for all locomotives and track vehicles, and precision train control with movement-pass planning capabilities. This project, once completed, will be more than a demonstration project--it will be a fully operational PTC system, providing the FRA and rail industry with an invaluable baseline reference for other positive train control system development projects. High-speed nonelectric locomotives .--The Committee has provided a total of $8,000,000 for the high-speed, nonelectric locomotive program. This is $1,200,000 more than the level requested by the administration. The funds for these programs focus on the demonstration of a high-speed, lightweight fossil fuel locomotive that will be able to facilitate the testing of an advanced locomotive propulsion system [ALPS]. The Committee recommends $3,000,000 for the prototype locomotive demonstration and $5,000,000 for the ALPS program. Grade crossing hazard mitigation .--The Committee recommends $4,000,000 for grade crossing hazard mitigation initiatives, the level requested by the administration. Track/structures technology .--The Committee has provided $1,200,000 for the track/structures technology program, the same level as the administration's request. ALASKA RAILROAD REHABILITATION Appropriations, 1999 $38,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 ........................... Committee recommendation 14,000,000 The Committee has included a total of $14,000,000 for rail safety and infrastructure improvements benefiting passenger operations of the Alaska railroad. This railroad extends 470 miles from Seward through Anchorage, the largest city in Alaska, to the interior town of Fairbanks. It carries both passengers and freight, and provides a critical transportation link for passengers and cargo traveling through difficult terrain and harsh climatic conditions. Of the $14,000,000 provided in the bill, $10,000,000 will be used to continue the railroad's multiyear effort to reduce the backlog of deferred track maintenance and related capital rehabilitation. The remaining $4,000,000 will be applied to projects in and around Anchorage to double track the railroad's system in the metropolitan area. Double tracking is an important step towards rail-based transit in Anchorage. In addition, the rail system has become congested in the Anchorage area, particularly with shipments of high-value freight such as low-sulphur coal and jet fuel. The railroad has always provided a substantial non-Federal match for past Federal appropriations, and will continue to do so. RHODE ISLAND RAIL DEVELOPMENT Appropriations, 1999 $5,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000 10,000,000 Committee recommendation 10,000,000 The Committee recommends $10,000,000 for construction of a third track paralleling the Northeast corridor for the 22-mile stretch between Quonset Point/Davisville and Central Falls, RI. This project is an initiative supported by the administration and Amtrak, to avoid mixing freight traffic and high-speed passenger rail service and to provide sufficient clearance to accommodate double-stack freight cars. To date, this project has received $28,000,000 in Federal funds. Construction on the rehabilitation of track between Boston Switch and Atwells should be completed by the summer of 2000. Construction to add a third track along selected stretches of 13 miles of the NEC mainline between Cranston and Davisville is scheduled to begin in the spring of 2000. CAPITAL GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION (AMTRAK) Appropriations, 1999 $609,230,000 Budget estimate, 2000 570,976,000 Committee recommendation 571,000,000 For fiscal year 2000, the administration has requested an appropriation of $570,976,000 for capital funding with the same flexibility in spending its capital grant as provided to transit grantees. These funds would be in addition to the $1,091,810,000 in fiscal year 2000 TRA funds, adding to a total of $1,622,810,000 in federal funds for fiscal year 2000. Amtrak appropriations history--1971 99 [In millions of dollars] Fiscal year Annual total 1971 72 40.0 1973 170.0 1974 149.1 1975 276.5 1976 471.2 Transition quarter (fiscal year change) 180.0 1977 800.7 1978 1,116.0 1979 1,234.0 1980 1,223.4 1981 1,246.3 1982 905.0 1983 815.0 1984 816.4 1985 707.6 1986 602.7 1987 618.5 1988 608.3 1989 603.6 1990 629.1 1991 798.9 1992 861.2 1993 846.1 1993 supplemental appropriations 45.0 1994 922.2 1995 972.0 1996 750.0 1997 760.0 Omnibus consolidated appropriations 1997 82.5 1998 (Taxpayer Relief Act) 1,091.8 1998 (appropriations, Amtrak operations and Northeast corridor improvement program) 594.0 1999 Taxpayer Relief Act 1,091.8 1999 Appropriations 609.2 Total 22,638.1 Source .--Amtrak Strategic Business Plan, fiscal year 1998 2000 (September 23, 1997). COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION The Committee recommends $571,000,000 for Amtrak capital grants in fiscal year 2000. This is the same funding level requested by Amtrak, and is $24,000 more than the funding level requested by the administration. The reason for this discrepancy between requests has not been explained by either FRA or Amtrak. The amount provided is $38,230,000 less than the fiscal year 1999 appropriated level. Amtrak's financial situation remains precarious. According to the Corporation's financial management office, the railroad will end fiscal year 1999 with a cash loss requiring short-term borrowing of $512,000,000. The Committee acknowledges that the Corporation is taking some of the necessary steps to improve its financial condition, including the formation of cost-sharing partnerships with states, the expansion of high-value mail and express services, and the contracting out food services operations. Even so, Amtrak's financial condition will continue to suffer due to the low ridership and high operating costs associated with its long distance trains. A significant portion of Amtrak's operating expenses are associated with labor costs--costs that have continued to rise over and above the levels assumed in Amtrak's business plans from prior years. Amtrak has continued to sign labor agreements with its unions based on the ``pattern'' embodied in the agreement reached with the Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employees (BMWE). These ``pattern'' agreements have kept the increase in labor costs below the levels experienced in the freight rail industry. While these increased labor costs are now accounted for in Amtrak's latest strategic business plan, they will continue to rise. These costs, along with other cost areas where savings have yet to materialize, such as electric power, will exacerbate Amtrak's challenge in improving their bottom line over the long term. Market Based Network Analysis. --Amtrak is performing a Market Based Network Analysis (MBNA) of existing passenger rail ridership, revenue, operating characteristics, cost and financial performance of the existing routes on Amtrak's system. This analysis will include market research of the intercity travel market, the physical constraints to changes in train frequency or speeds, and mail/express service potential. Using this information, Amtrak will analyze different service alternatives, including route restructuring and modification, frequency changes, route expansions, and route eliminations. The MBNA will be competed in late summer 1999, so that Amtrak can incorporate the resulting network redesign, capital investment requirements, implementation process and time frame, and financial impact into the fiscal year 2000 Strategic Business Plan, which is scheduled for publication in October 1999. The Committee believes that this analysis can be an important tool for Amtrak's Board, the Amtrak Reform Council, and Congress in making decisions that will affect the railroad's future. The Committee directs that Amtrak make the MBNA available to House and Senate Appropriations Committees, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Commerce Committee before publication of the fiscal year 2000 Strategic Business Plan. Northeast Corridor high-speed service .--In late calendar year 1999, Amtrak plans to phase in its ``Acela Express'' high-speed electrified service between Boston, New York and Washington, DC. Amtrak has stated that travel time between New York and Washington will decrease from the current three hours to as little as 2 hours 30 minutes; travel time between New York and Boston will drop from the current 4 hours 45 minutes to as little as three hours. When fully operational (December 2000), Amtrak has projected that this new Northeast corridor service will generate $180,000,000 annually in net revenues, which the railroad expects to turn back to the Corporation to offset losses on other non-profitable lines. In preparation for this new service, especially north of New Haven, where train service has heretofore been non-electric, Amtrak has initiated a comprehensive program to brief all fire, police, and rescue personnel in communities along the railroad and to give presentations in area schools regarding the danger of playing near the tracks. Amtrak plans to contact every school and all fire, police and rescue personnel prior to start-up of new electrified service. The Committee recognizes these efforts, and asks that Amtrak work with the affected Northeast corridor communities, as well as state transit officials and owners of the track, to identify danger spots and install perimeter fencing along the corridor where needed. In particular, Amtrak should continue to focus on increased community coordination in urbanized areas where there have been problems or where community concerns have been expressed, such as Attleboro, Foxboro, Mansfield, and Sharon, Massachusetts. Where possible, Amtrak should seek to install the necessary fencing for these areas prior to the initiation of high-speed electrified service. On the south end of the Northeast corridor, between Washington, D.C. and New York, the track, signals, electric catenary and overhead wire are much older, and are in need of replacement or upgrade. The Committee directs that Amtrak provide a letter report to the Committees on Appropriations before August 27, 1999, describing in detail the planned infrastructure improvements along the south end of the corridor in the States of Maryland, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey. The report should provide descriptions of work needed, cost estimates, and a timetable with benchmarks. The report should include any current or expected cost-sharing arrangements with the states, other railroads, or any other sources. Los Angeles to Las Vegas service .--There is currently no passenger rail service between Los Angeles and Las Vegas. A preliminary agreement has been reached with the Union Pacific Railroad over the magnitude and scope of the infrastructure improvements along the UP's line that will allow implementation of passenger service. A second track would be installed on the UP mainline between Cima and Kelso, a distance of just over 20 miles, at an estimated cost of $28,000,000. Amtrak's fiscal years 1998 and 1999 capital budgets included $14,000,000 to initiate this service; UP will be responsible for the remainder of the costs associated with making the necessary track and infrastructure upgrades. A unique partnership arrangement with local businesses, who will buy a large number of seats per year, guarantees a passenger-related revenue stream. This service may be initiated as early as mid 2000, and will have a travel time of five hours thirty minutes to cover the 270 mile distance between the two cities. Southern Pines, NC railroad station .--The Committee notes with satisfaction the commitment that the railroad has made to full participation in the restoration of the historic Southern Pines railroad station. Amtrak is negotiating with CSX Railroad for ownership of the property, and if all goes as planned, will begin performing work on the station this summer. Amtrak service in Vermont .--The Committee understands that there are communities interested in future Amtrak service between Hoosick Falls, New York and Burlington, Vermont. The Committee directs that Amtrak provide a report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by September 30, 1999, on the capital costs necessary to upgrade the line to passenger rail standards for Amtrak service. RAIL INITIATIVES--TRUST FUND Appropriations, 1999 ........................... Budget estimate, 2000 $35,400,000 Committee recommendation ........................... \1\Proposed to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The Administration is proposing a rail initiatives account to be funded from revenue aligned budget authority. The budget proposal includes $15,000,000 for high speed rail grade crossing; $10,000,000 for positive train control (2 demonstration projects); and $10,400,000 for the Nationwide Differential Global Position System (NDGPS). The Committee has not endorsed the administration's requested treatment of revenue aligned budget authority funds. However, the Committee has provided $7,300,000 in appropriated general funds for position train control activities within the ``Next generation high-speed rail'' account. The only funding available for high-speed rail grade crossings is that drawn down from the highway safety set-aside, an amount of $5,250,000 a year. The Committee has also provided funding for the NDGPS within the Federal-aid Highway program, which is fully discussed in the Federal Highway Administration section of the report. AMTRAK REFORM COUNCIL Appropriations, 1999 $450,000 Budget estimate, 2000\1\ 750,000 Committee recommendation 950,000 \1\The Council is an independent entity. Its funding is presented within the FRA for display purposes only. The Committee recommends an appropriation of $950,000 for necessary expenses of the Amtrak Reform Council [ARC]. Initial funding for the ARC was provided in the fiscal year 1998 supplemental appropriations bill, Public Law 105 174; in the fiscal year 1999 transportation appropriations act, $450,000 was appropriated for the Council. For fiscal year 2000, the administration has requested an appropriation of $750,000, but the Council has sent up an independent budget request for $1,300,000. Because the Council is an independent commission, the Committee's appropriation of $950,000 is not provided within the FRA's budget, but is provided in a general provision (section 331) of the bill. The ARC was established by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 [ARAA]. The Council consists of 11 members, including four Senate appointees, four House appointees, two Presidential appointees, and the Secretary of Transportation. Under the ARAA, the responsibilities of the ARC include evaluating Amtrak's performance and making recommendations to Congress and Amtrak for achieving further cost containment, productivity improvements, and financial reforms. In addition, fiscal year 1999 appropriations bill language expanded the Council's statutory responsibilities to include its views on any routes or services that Amtrak's route analysis data indicate should be closed or realigned. As a practical matter, the ARC is a temporary commission. After October 2000, the Commission must make a determination on whether or not Amtrak can meet the financial goals outlined in the ARAA. If the ARC determines these goals cannot be met, they must then submit a restructuring plan, and Amtrak must submit a liquidation plan. The Committee's recommended funding level, $950,000, will allow the ARC to decisively move forward in performing its tasks and responsibilities. These funds are available for 2 years, through September 30, 2001. During fiscal year 1999, the Council has hired a small permanent and part-time staff consisting of an executive director and assistant to the executive director, a senior attorney, administrative specialist, and administrative assistant. The Council also plans to bring on a senior-level transportation economist/financial analyst and a transportation industry analyst. Both the administration and the Council have requested that Congress lift its current restriction on the hiring of outside consultants. This provision was put in place to prevent potential conflicts of interest and keep ARC costs to a minimum. The Committee directs that not more than $200,000 of the funds herein appropriated be used for outside consultant services. These contractual services shall not exceed the annual cost of an SES level IV direct compensation on a per FTE basis. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 2000 PROGRAM The Federal Transit Administration was established as a component of the Department of Transportation by Reorganization Plan No. 2 of 1968, effective July 1, 1968, which transferred most of the functions and programs under the Federal Transit Act of 1964, as amended (78 Stat. 302; 49 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.), from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The missions of the Federal Transit Administration are: to assist in the development of improved mass transportation facilities, equipment, techniques, and methods; to encourage the planning and establishment of urban and rural transportation services needed for economical and desirable development; to provide mobility for transit dependents in both metropolitan and rural areas; to maximize productivity of transportation systems; and to provide assistance to State and local governments and their instrumentalities in financing such services and systems. The current authorization for the programs funded by the Federal Transit Administration is contained in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. In addition to the ``guaranteed'' level of funds under the mass transit discretionary budget category, the administration proposes funding of $291,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. Under the Committee recommendation, a total program level of $5,797,000,000 would be provided for the programs of the Federal Transit Administration for fiscal year 2000, which is the same obligation limitation authorized under the mass transit category in TEA 21. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations compared to fiscal year 2000 and the administration's request: [In thousands of dollars] Program 1999 enacted\1\ 2000 estimate Committee recommendation Administrative expenses 54,000 60,000 60,000 Formula grants\2\ 2,850,000 3,310,270 3,098,000 University transportation research 6,000 6,000 6,000 Transit planning and research\3\ 98,000 111,000 107,000 Capital investment grants 2,257,000 2,451,000 2,451,000 Job access and reverse commute grants\4\ 75,000 150,000 75,000 Washington Metro 50,000 ----------------- --------------- -------------------------- Total 5,390,000 6,088,270 5,797,000 \1\Excludes reductions for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277; excludes rescission of discretionary grant contract authority; also excludes supplemental funding for Y2K. \2\The Fiscal Year 1999 enacted level excludes transfers of $50,800,000 to the capital investment grants program and the Office of Inspector General; the budget proposal includes $212,270,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. \3\The budget proposal includes $4,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. \4\The budget proposal includes $75,000,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES General fund Trust fund Total Appropriations, 1999\1\ $10,800,000 $43,200,000 $54,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 12,000,000 48,000,000 60,000,000 Committee recommendation 12,000,000 48,000,000 60,000,000 \1\Excludes reduction of $912,000 for TASC pursuant to section 320 of Public Law 105 277. Excludes supplemental funding of $250,000 for Y2K. \2\Excludes proposed transfer of $1,700,000 to Inspector General for audit reimbursements. The Committee recommends a total of $60,000,000 in budget resources funds for administrative expenses. Last year the Committee directed the OIG to track the progress of all fixed guideway projects of national significance and perform audits of those experiencing cost, schedule, or financing problems. To continue this work in fiscal year 2000, the administration proposes reimbursing the OIG $1,700,000 from FTA's administrative expenses account. The Committee endorses this proposed transfer, and has provided a total of $9,000,000 in transferred FTA administrative funds, for audits and investigations of all transit-related issues and systems. This level reflects the percentage of total Office of Inspector General work performed in the transit area. FORMULA GRANTS General fund Trust fund Total Appropriations, 1999\1\ $570,000,000 $2,280,000,000 $2,850,000,000 Budget estimate, 2000\2\ 619,600,000 2,690,000,000 3,310,270,000 Committee recommendation 619,600,000 2,478,400,000 3,098,000,000 \1\Excludes $800,000 in oversight funds transferred to OIG. Also excludes $50,000,000 transferred to capital investment grants. \2\Includes $212,300,000 from revenue aligned budget authority. Formula grants to States and local agencies funded under this heading fall into four categories: urbanized area formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5307); clean fuels formula grants (U.S.C. sec. 5308); formula grants and loans for special needs of elderly individuals and individuals with disabilities (U.S.C. sec. 5310); and formula grants for other than urbanized areas (U.S.C. sec. 5311). In addition, set asides of formula funds are directed to: a new grant program for intercity bus operators to finance Americans With Disabilities Act [ADA] accessibility costs; and the Alaska Railroad for improvements to its passenger operations. The administration has proposed that $212,270,000 in revenue aligned budget authority funds be transferred to the transit formula grants account. Of these funds, FTA proposes that $25,000,000 be used to meet the transportation needs of the 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, $20,000,000 be used for the Long Island Railroad East Side Access new starts project, and that an additional $1,300,000 be made available for intercity bus ADA compliance costs. The remainder of the transferred RABA funds would go to the three formula programs. The Committee has not approved any transfer of RABA funds, and thereby does not approve this request. However, the Committee recognizes the Administration's interest in supporting the transportation needs associated with the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City, Utah. Accordingly, the Committee has provided for these transportation functions within the framework of the bus and bus facilities and new systems categories. Transit Equity Provision .--The bill includes a general provision (section 321) which prevents any state from receiving more than 12.5 percent of the aggregate formula and capital investment grants programs' funds. The following illustrative table shows the enacted fiscal year 1999 funding levels for the transit formula and capital investment grants programs, and the percentage share each state received. The bill's transit equity provision would decrease the state's formula grants allocations by the amount needed to bring the aggregate total down to 12.5 percent of the national total. These recovered funds would be redistributed to the remaining states in equal measure, to the states' section 5307 formula grants programs, for use on any eligible capital transit project. FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION FISCAL YEAR 1999 APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE) State Section State total selected FTA programs State percentage of total 5307 Urbanized area 5311 Non-urbanized area 5310 Elderly & persons with disability 5309 New starts 5309 Fixed guideway modernization 5309 Bus allocation Alabama $11,402,391 $4,250,030 $1,160,647 $1,000,000 $23,840,000 $41,653,068 0.82 Alaska \1\7,005,198 633,771 185,871 5,200,000 7,500,000 20,524,840 .40 American Samoa 90,332 52,397 142,729 Arizona 28,888,298 1,860,551 1,023,763 5,000,000 $1,286,274 7,000,000 45,058,886 .88 Arkansas 4,440,818 3,397,723 812,084 1,000,000 3,060,000 12,710,625 .25 California 407,141,247 8,292,733 6,271,268 146,980,000 86,945,465 40,555,004 696,185,717 13.64 Colorado 31,721,677 1,770,167 794,916 41,000,000 1,080,875 8,675,001 85,042,636 1.67 Connecticut 40,094,714 1,605,709 910,339 3,500,000 34,799,686 7,550,000 88,460,448 1.73 Delaware 5,374,860 400,586 278,659 666,931 1,000,000 7,721,036 .15 District of Columbia 22,289,751 276,620 32,038,246 7,350,000 61,954,617 1.21 Florida 125,722,610 5,330,935 4,233,062 28,500,000 11,094,890 19,500,000 194,381,497 3.81 Georgia 47,626,007 6,213,996 1,503,895 53,610,000 14,967,672 15,500,000 139,421,570 2.73 Guam 257,155 132,972 390,127 .01 Hawaii 20,138,902 697,426 353,457 8,200,000 532,305 3,250,000 33,172,090 .65 Idaho 2,624,831 1,407,037 361,628 4,393,496 .09 Illinois 177,939,272 5,700,995 2,737,694 44,000,000 106,700,651 9,300,000 346,378,612 6.79 Indiana 28,246,378 5,507,032 1,438,171 3,000,000 7,161,958 7,700,000 53,053,539 1.04 Iowa 8,358,254 3,542,177 872,739 250,000 6,685,001 19,708,171 .39 Kansas 6,741,540 2,817,690 732,264 1,000,000 2,000,000 13,291,494 .26 Kentucky 14,624,420 4,651,390 1,112,476 5,300,000 25,688,286 .50 Louisiana 23,302,797 3,847,036 1,116,063 24,000,000 2,323,293 11,000,000 65,589,189 1.28 Maine 1,882,950 1,856,345 451,211 4,190,506 .08 Maryland 64,030,500 2,317,558 1,121,323 20,541,000 19,950,711 10,000,000 117,961,092 2.31 Massachusetts 97,891,042 2,483,718 1,613,444 56,233,000 60,214,839 13,728,000 232,164,043 4.55 Michigan 52,081,684 6,726,332 2,342,839 200,000 321,028 10,600,000 72,271,883 1.42 Minnesota 25,669,254 3,870,615 1,137,080 17,000,000 2,452,324 17,500,000 67,629,273 1.32 Mississippi 3,996,738 3,777,218 789,061 5,500,000 14,063,017 .28 Missouri 28,734,839 4,508,270 1,458,410 1,000,000 1,527,879 11,750,000 48,979,398 .96 Montana 1,986,212 1,139,811 332,096 1,500,000 4,958,119 .10 Nebraska 7,027,667 1,719,830 517,396 1,000,000 10,264,893 .20 Nevada 15,156,521 561,498 385,885 4,000,000 6,115,001 26,218,905 .51 New Hampshire 2,782,848 1,486,701 364,757 2,770,000 7,404,306 .15 New Jersey 149,068,196 2,125,667 1,936,285 77,000,000 82,332,792 11,750,000 324,212,940 6.35 New Mexico 5,913,740 1,671,096 455,491 5,000,000 5,750,000 18,790,327 .37 New York 445,307,544 7,482,603 4,481,782 24,000,000 303,962,647 27,950,000 813,184,576 15.93 North Carolina 22,314,616 7,948,734 1,709,831 13,000,000 10,161,001 55,134,182 1.08 North Dakota 1,936,178 842,941 283,256 2,000,000 5,062,375 .10 Northern Marianas 83,712 52,189 135,901 Ohio 72,640,731 8,092,364 2,856,940 8,500,000 14,917,615 13,450,000 120,457,650 2.36 Oklahoma 9,356,223 3,459,402 960,541 5,000,000 18,776,166 .37 Oregon 22,341,456 2,746,796 893,273 25,718,000 2,284,605 8,550,000 62,534,130 1.22 Pennsylvania 123,375,552 9,027,117 3,424,587 10,000,000 94,236,678 32,966,003 273,029,937 5.35 Puerto Rico 39,747,536 2,697,587 847,585 20,000,000 1,336,512 950,000 65,579,220 1.28 Rhode Island 7,828,479 345,565 402,028 1,813,989 5,450,000 15,840,061 .31 South Carolina 9,623,540 3,978,381 928,595 2,200,000 4,570,000 21,300,516 .42 South Dakota 1,396,700 1,027,479 305,582 5,300,000 8,029,761 .16 Tennessee 18,715,967 5,135,635 1,369,761 4,700,000 59,037 2,000,000 31,980,400 .63 Texas 136,324,426 10,842,756 3,536,745 90,670,000 4,488,746 17,000,000 262,862,673 5.15 Utah 17,314,841 778,886 424,725 75,000,000 10,300,000 103,818,452 2.03 Vermont 701,941 918,655 253,268 2,000,000 4,000,000 7,873,864 .15 Virgin Islands 196,622 135,122 331,744 .01 Virginia 48,405,321 4,553,238 1,424,809 27,000,000 467,604 13,950,000 95,800,972 1.88 Washington 71,241,720 3,190,397 1,278,234 47,250,000 12,320,187 22,700,000 157,980,538 3.09 West Virginia 3,384,125 2,712,757 679,558 4,000,000 14,500,000 25,276,440 .50 Wisconsin 30,207,820 4,687,326 1,304,931 500,000 514,561 16,875,001 54,089,639 1.06 Wyoming 969,869 655,575 215,996 1,841,440 .04 Unallocated 48,000 48,000 --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -------- Total 2,553,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,105,000,000 100.00 ===================== ========================= ======================================== ================= ==================================== ====================== ==================================== ======== Over-the-Road Bus Accessibility 2,000,000 2,000,000 --------------------- ------------------------- ---------------------------------------- ----------------- ------------------------------------ ---------------------- ------------------------------------ -------- Grand Total 2,555,040,741 177,923,658 67,035,601 902,800,000 902,800,000 501,400,000 5,107,000,000 \1\Includes $4,849,950 appropriated for the Alaska Railroad. Within the total funding level of $3,098,000,000, the statutory distribution of these formula grants is allocated among these categories as follows: Urbanized areas (sec. 5307) $2,772,890,281 Clean fuels (sec. 5308) 50,000,000 Elderly and disabled (sec. 5310) 72,946,801 Nonurbanized areas (sec. 5311) 193,612,968 Over-the-Road Bus Program 3,700,000 Alaska railroad 4,849,950 The following table displays the State-by-State distribution of the formula program funds within each of the program categories: FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, FISCAL YEAR 2000 GUARANTEED LEVEL APPORTIONMENT FOR FORMULA PROGRAMS (BY STATE) State Section 5307 urbanized area Section 5311 nonurbanized area Section 5310 elderly and persons with disabilities Total formula programs Alabama $12,345,815 $4,601,674 $1,262,364 $18,209,853 Alaska\1\ 7,159,272 686,209 191,850 8,037,331 American Samoa 97,806 52,632 150,438 Arizona 31,278,488 2,014,492 1,112,036 34,405,016 Arkansas 4,808,246 3,678,847 879,566 9,366,659 Califomia 440,827,753 8,978,871 6,874,937 456,681,561 Colorado 34,346,300 1,916,629 860,712 37,123,641 Connecticut 43,412,116 1,738,563 987,472 46,138,151 Delaware 5,819,571 433,730 293,751 6,547,052 District of Columbia 24,133,985 291,511 24,425,496 Florida 136,124,791 5,772,011 4,636,540 146,533,342 Georgia 51,566,541 6,728,137 1,639,325 59,934,003 Guam 278,431 133,754 412,185 Hawaii 21,805,177 755,131 375,895 22,936,203 Idaho 2,842,008 1,523,454 384,869 4,750,331 Illinois 192,661,811 6,172,689 2,994,303 201,828,803 Indiana 30,583,459 5,962,678 1,567,146 38,113,283 Iowa 9,049,807 3,835,253 946,179 13,831,239 Kansas 7,299,329 3,050,822 791,908 11,142,059 Kentucky 15,834,432 5,036,242 1,209,462 22,080,136 Louisiana 25,230,847 4,165,337 1,213,401 30,609,585 Maine 2,038,744 2,009,937 483,251 4,531,932 Maryland 69,328,328 2,509,310 1,219,178 73,056,816 Massachusetts 105,990,461 2,689,218 1,759,633 110,439,312 Michigan 56,390,876 7,282,862 2,560,666 66,234,404 Minnesota 27,793,106 4,190,867 1,236,483 33,220,456 Mississippi 4,327,424 4,089,742 854,282 9,271,448 Missouri 31,112,334 4,881,280 1,589,372 37,582,986 Montana 2,150,550 1,234,118 352,436