Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 2942 - Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1992

(House Rules)
(Sponsors: Whitten (D), Mississippi; Lehman (D), Florida)

The purpose of this Statement of Administration Policy is to express the Administration's views on the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 1992, as reported by the Committee.

The Administration has concerns with several provisions of the House Committee bill. In its consideration of this bill, the House is respectfully requested to address these concerns, noted below, and to develop a bill that reflects more substantially the President's priorities.

The Committee has increased total budgetary resources for programs covered by this bill (including limitations on obligations) by over $2 billion above those requested by the President in the FY 1992 Budget. This would increase outlays significantly.in FY 1993 and thereafter and would undermine future discretion for both the Congress and the President in the distribution of budgetary resources.

The Committee has also added special funding, outside the regular Federal-aid highways program, for highway demonstration projects. In this bill alone, the funding for these projects is over $300 million. In the Administration's view, such earmarking would further erode the ability of State planners to make sound transportation decisions, distort the apportionment formulas, and reduce equity among the States.

On the basis of OMB's initial scorings the Administration finds that the Committee bill is within the 602(b) allocations for domestic discretionary budget authority and outlays.

Additional Administration concerns with the bill as reported by the Committee are discussed in the attachment.

Attachment

(House Rules)

ADDITIONAL CONCERNS
H.R. 2942 — DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS BILL, FY 1992

MAJOR PROVISIONS OPPOSED BY THE ADMINISTRATION

A. Funding Levels

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Facilities and Equipment. The Committee has reduced requested funding for FAA Facilities and Equipment by $230 million while providing $202 million for unrequested increases. In some cases, the projects added by the Committee, such as air traffic control facilities, have a low benefit-cost ratio (below one) and thus fail to meet established funding criteria. In other cases, unnecessary increases have been provided by the Committee, including $10 million for contract incentive fees for the terminal doppler weather radar program, which cannot be awarded until FY 1993.

Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA)

Washington Metro. The Committee has provided $124 million for the construction of the Washington Metro. This is $44 million, or 55 percent, above the President's request and $24 million higher than the amount the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) has requested before the Committee. The Administration believes that the Committee's funding level is excessive, especially when WMATA has publicly acknowledged that these funds are not needed.

Discretionary Grants. The Committee has increased the obligation limitation for discretionary grants by $500 million above the FY 1991 appropriation. This includes a $120 million increase in funding for new starts, from $440 to $560 million. Although the Administration appreciates the Committee's removal of the prohibition on the implementation of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Major Capital Investment Projects, the intended effect of this action would be countered by the Committee's decision to earmark funds for new start projects. The Administration opposes this earmarking of funds for projects that do not meet established criteria.

Formula Grants. The Committee has rejected the Administration's proposal to limit operating subsidies to cities with populations of under one million. These urban areas are not dependent on Federal subsidies, which constitute between five and six percent of their total operating budgets. The Administration believes that the key Federal role in transit is in the area of capital funding to replace and maintain equipment and facilities, and commends the Committee for its emphasis on capital funding. However, this emphasis on capital funding must be balanced by a de-emphasis on operating funds used to subsidize locally controlled cost.

Federal Railroad Administration

Amtrak. The Committee has provided $649 million for Amtrak, $169 million above the President's request. The Committee recommendation includes $329 million for operating subsidies, $149 million more than the President's request, which assumes the implementation of certain cost-saving reforms. Specifically, the Administration seeks to relieve Amtrak of costly and outdated labor compensation requirements and to discontinue Amtrak subsidization of State and local rail commuter services. These reforms in Amtrak's operations could reduce the operating subsidy to $180 million, and the Administration urges the House to support these changes.

Railroad Research and Development. The Committee has reduced the President's $16 million request for maglev/high speed rail research by $11.6 million. Research and development of maglev and high speed rail is not complete, and the funds are needed to continue study of this new technology.

Local Rail Service Assistance, the Northeast Corridor Improvement Program. Conrail Commuter Transit Assistance, and Amtrak Corridor Improvement Loans. The Committee bill includes unrequested funding totaling $76.7 million for the following four railroad programs: Local Rail Service Assistance — $10 million; Northeast Corridor Improvement Program — $36 million; Conrail Commuter Transit Assistance — $27.2 million; Amtrak Corridor Improvement Loans — $3.5 million. These programs have served their purpose in the past, but there no longer exists a national need for the projects they support.

B. Language Provisions

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Production Approval. The Committee bill includes language that would force the FAA to sign a production contract for the E-scan precision runway monitor by March 31, 1992, or face reductions in Facilities and Equipment personnel funding. This undue Congressional interference in Executive Branch management could force the premature signing of a production contract.

General Provisions: Sections 320 and 321. Section 320 would require that all airport grant letters of intent involving grants of more than $10 million be submitted for approval to specific Committees of the Congress. Section 321 would require that all appropriation transfers within the Office of the Secretary be approved by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These provisions would purport to condition the authority to use funds otherwise appropriated or take other actions authorized by law on the approval of various committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate.

These provisions constitute a legislative veto of the kind declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha. 462 U.S. 919 (1983). If these provisions are not deleted from the bill, the Administration will interpret them as notice requirements.

The attached data table can be downloaded in PDF format by clicking this link