Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2002 - Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996

(House Rules)
(Sponsors: Livingston (R), Louisiana; Wolf (R), Virginia)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 2002, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1996, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee.

The Administration is committed to balancing the Federal budget by FY 2005. The President's budget proposes to reduce discretionary spending for FY 1996 by $5 billion in outlays below the FY 1995 enacted level. The Administration does not support the level of funding assumed by the Committee's 602(b) allocations. The Administration must evaluate each bill both in terms of funding levels provided and the share of total resources available for remaining priorities. This bill is nearly $1.2 billion in budgetary resources above the President's request. For this and for the reasons discussed below, the Administration has serious objections to the Committee-reported bill.

In general, the Committee has sacrificed transportation operating and research program funding in order to support infrastructure programs. The Administration recognizes the importance of infrastructure programs but believes that the safety of the traveling public is equally important. The Committee bill would make it difficult to continue today's high level of transportation safety.

The Administration's concerns over adequate funding for transportation safety could be addressed within the overall amounts proposed by the President. Funding offsets could be found by funding infrastructure programs in the aggregate at the President's requested level, including obligation limitations on highway demonstration projects; eliminating unrequested and low-priority programs, such as the Essential Air Service subsidy, and adopting the Administration's proposal regarding the Coast Guard Boat Safety program.

Coast Guard and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Operations

The Committee has reduced the requests for Coast Guard and FAA operations by $52 million and $110 million, respectively. The resulting funding levels would impair these agencies' safety programs. The request for the Coast Guard already assumes $100 million in FY 1996 savings. Accelerating potential out-year streamlining savings in FY 1996, as assumed by the Committee, is unrealistic. As a result, marine safety programs would be curtailed. The Committee's $110 million reduction to FAA operations would limit FAA's safety activities and would likely preclude the hiring of 253 additional safety inspectors, as requested in the President's budget. It would be imprudent to restrict these safety efforts when airline operations are again on the rise.

Amtrak

The Administration supports the Committee's full funding of the request for Amtrak's capital program. However, the Committee's recommended total reduction of $317 million includes severe cuts in Amtrak's operating subsidy, the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program, and the Pennsylvania Station Redevelopment Project. These decreases would force service reductions and jeopardize Amtrak's ongoing efforts to cut costs in order to attain financial stability. Amtrak is pursuing a five-year restructuring plan to reduce its operating costs and has made significant steps in FY 1995 toward that end. Specifically, Amtrak has reduced by 25 percent both employment and mileage served. The Administration has proposed legislative changes to support Amtrak in its efforts. The funding levels proposed by the Committee are insufficient to support Amtrak's needs for FY 1996.

Transit Capital and Operating Assistance

The Committee proposes to reduce transit operating assistance from the request of $500 million to $400'million. The President's request already reflects a 30-percent reduction in operating assistance from the FY 1995 level. The Committee's further reduction, along with the proposed reductions in transit capital programs, would negatively impact transit services. Service reductions would particularly hit small urban areas und the working poor. The Administration's requested level for operating assistance -— and a more balanced allocation of capital funds across all modes — is needed in order to avoid these unwanted impacts.

Research and Technology

The Administration opposes the Committee's across-the-board reductions in funding for research and technology. The Committee bill would provide $702 million for research and technology programs, a 37-percent reduction below the requested level.

These reductions, particularly for the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Highway Administration., would curtail efforts to increase the safety and efficiency of our Nation's transportation system. Of particular concern is the reduction of $170 million, or 48 percent, for the Intelligent Transportation System (ITS), which would prevent the "Trailblazer" initiative from moving forward. The Trailblazer initiative would demonstrate both the core metropolitan mobility ITS infrastructure and the core commercial vehicle ITS infrastructure at three sites.

Moreover, the report accompanying the bill earmarks $40 million of the significantly reduced funding for 12 unrequested ITS projects. These projects do not appear to serve critical research, development, or testing needs. Some of the projects identified in the report appear duplicative, while others appear directed at unrelated needs, such as aviation research and. parking garage management. Given the significantly reduced funding level proposed by the Committee, such earmarks should be eliminated and funding targeted to higher priority ITS research programs.

Earmarking

The Administration commends the Committee for its overall restraint with respect to earmarking, in particular for not including add-on funds for highway demonstration projects. However, the Administration does object to the Committee's earmarking of 18 transit new start projects that are not under Full Funding Grant Agreements (FFGAs). The out-year cost to complete these 18 projects would exceed $3 billion, this in addition to the $2.5 billion in future costs to complete projects that have already received FFGAs. The Committee's failure to focus funds on existing new start projects under FFGAs risks creating expectations that may be difficult to meet in the current budget environment.

Language Provisions

The Administration opposes the repeal of transit employee protections, commonly referred to as section 13(c) protections, and the abrogation of existing transit labor agreements. The Administration supports reform of section 13(c) implementation, and the Department of Labor has published proposed comprehensive revisions to the 13(c) Guidelines. The proposed Guidelines will make the certification process more predictable and timely by establishing deadlines for processing grant applications. They will also exempt routine replacement capital grants from certain procedural requirements of Section 13(c) to allow for a nearly automatic certification. These proposed reforms balance the needs of the transit industry and labor in a manner that is more equitable and far less disruptive than an outright repeal of employee protections. The Administration urges the House to restore section 13(c) and enable the Administration to continue ongoing efforts to reform this program.

The Administration strongly opposes the provision of the Committee bill that would prohibit any funds from being used for changes in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The provision of the Committee bill would effectively dictate that any CAFE rulemaking not deviate from existing standards. The Administration believes that CAFE standards should be addressed in an open rulemaking proceeding, currently underway, in which relevant issues are being considered and in which all interested persons/parties are able to participate in fashioning the appropriate outcome.

The Administration opposes section 340 of the Committee bill. This provision would require that Department of Transportation employees Who are eligible to retire and who now receive workers' compensation benefits would have their workers' compensation benefits eliminated and be forced to rely solely on retirement benefits, in some cases, this could be only five percent of the individual's current workers' compensation benefit. This provision represents a. major change in workers' compensation policy and should be considered government-wide rather than on an agency-by-agency basis.

The Administration objects to the restrictions on the use of funds for employee training specified in section 338 of the Subcommittee bill. While the language appears to be intended to prevent inappropriate training activities, the Administration believes that the provision could have the unintended consequence of preventing abroad range of useful training. Particularly during this period of downsizing and reinvention, agencies need flexibility in training their employees for changes in the way their jobs need to be performed or for new job responsibilities in a rapidly changing work environment.