|
NATCA In Washington
Hill Visit Report
Members
Forms
Photos
2007
Photos 2008
Issues
Facility Data Report
Videos
| | <![CDATA[ 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
altern]]> |