Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2750 - Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1994

(Senate Floor)
(Sponsors: Byrd (D), West Virginia; Lautenberg (D), New Jersey)

This Statement of Administration Policy provides the Administration's views on H.R. 2750, the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1994, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The Administration supports Senate passage of H.R. 2750 as reported by the Committee and will work with Congress to address the concerns described below.

President's Investment Program

The Administration supports the Committee's action that funds a significant portion of the Federal-aid highways, highspeed ground transportation, and mass transit investment proposals. The Administration objects, however, to the lack of funding for the capital program of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The Senate is urged to provide funding for this investment proposal through a reallocation of funding from lower-priority, earmarked, or unrequested programs included in the Committee bill.

Earmarkings

The Administration is pleased that the Committee has minimized earmarkings and unrequested add-ons in its funding allocations. The Administration notes in particular the lack of earmarkings for unauthorized highway demonstration projects and bus grants. Instead, these funds will be allocated according to current formulas and criteria, allowing State and local officials to determine local priorities. The Senate is encouraged to apply this principle to authorized highway demonstration projects as well.

Federal Aviation Administration

The Administration objects to the reduction of $361 million to the Facilities and Equipment account, which could delay modernization projects, such as the Advanced Automation System and the Voice switching and Control System. Also, the controller pay demonstration project should be discontinued, as proposed, and the funds reallocated to the President's higher-priority investment programs.

Coast Guard

Overall, the Administration is pleased with the Committee proposals for the Coast Guard compared to the House version of the bill. However, the Administration does object to the statutory prohibition related to supplemental pay. Eliminating such pay provisions would undermine Coast Guard military pay comparability with the other Armed Forces.

Office of the Inspector General

The Administration objects to the Committee's inclusion of a proviso that would limit the amount of funds that may be spent to implement the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFOs Act); The Administration believes that this proviso could not only restrict the auditing of financial statements completed by the Department, but is written so broadly that it could restrict all other activities of the Office of the Inspector General authorized by the CFOs Act. The proviso should be deleted.

Collection of Passenger Facility Charges on Frequent Flyer Tickets

Section 334 of the Committee bill would prohibit the awarding of airport improvement program funds to any public airport that allows the collection of passenger facility charges (PFCs) on frequent flyer tickets. This provision would extend the current prohibition to PFCs that were grandfathered under a similar provision in last year's bill. The Administration objects to this extension. Retroactively restricting PFC collections may prevent an airport from fulfilling a bond covenant and could limit an airport's ability to use PFCs to back bonds in the future.

Other Issues

The Administration supports the Senate Committee mark for Amtrak.

The Administration commends the Senate Committee for reducing Essential Air Services subsidies. This action is in line with the recommendations of the Vice President's National Performance Review.

Section 316 would require Committee approval before the Secretary transferred funds between certain appropriations accounts. The Administration will interpret this proviso to require notification only, since any other interpretation would contradict the Supreme Court ruling in INS vs. Chadha.

Section 339 would prohibit the FAA from using funds to relocate the Roswell, New Mexico, radar to another site without prior Congressional approval. To the extent that this provision conflicts with the Supreme Court's decision in INS vs. Chadha. the Administration will treat it as an advisory.