Annual cost of higher service levels under expanded EAS requirements 1—Continued New basic requirements Increased hold-in compensation/emphasis on code-sharing arrange ments.......... Subtotal. Total (Expanded program)...... Estimated annual compensation 2 2,500,000 12,000,000 46,530,000 1 Estimated annual compensation reflects rates negotiated as of July 26, 1989. 2 Since the estimate of higher service level costs represent a full year of such service, and since the expanded service levels authorized by Public Law 100-223 could not be implemented in full by the beginning of fiscal year 1990, the estimate of annual compensation noted above would also be sufficient to fund enhanced service and service to new points. Under the original House position, the "Payments to air carriers" appropriation would have cut service to 62 of the 110 communities in the continental United States that received service in fiscal year 1989. The original proposal restricted payments to only those communities that were more than 100 miles away from an alternative service airport; or whose subsidy per passenger was $25 or less. Communities in the State of Alaska or the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas were exempt from the program restrictions proposed by the House. The Committee has provided the resources necessary to fund the program at a current services level as estimated by the Department, including a small amount of funds for new points that are willing to provide a local match. The Committee has not included the funding estimated necessary for higher service levels. The Committee views as highest priority, the provision of sufficient funding to continue the basic EAS program so that supplemental funding is not required as it was in fiscal year 1989. Since the reauthorization of EAS in 1987, no service upgrades, enhanced service, or service to new points has been provided. In view of overall budget constraints, it is difficult to justify expansion or enhancements at this time. Depending on how the Department, through a rulemaking, would implement a program under the House's reduced funding level, a number of cities could possibly lose service. Under the House's original proposal the following points would have lost service. Alabama.. State Arizona. Arkansas California. Colorado Georgia Illinois... Indiana Iowa.... Kansas Maine...... Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota. Great Bend, Hays, Hutchinson, Parsons/Independence, Coffey ville. Lewiston/Auburn. New Bedford. Benton Harbor, Ironwood/Ashland, Manistee/Ludington, Menominee/Marinette, Jackson. Fairmont, Mankato, Worthington. Mississippi................... Laurel/Hattiesburg. Missouri. Kirksville. Alliance, Columbus, Grand Island, Hastings, Kearney, McCook, Funding in the amount of $1,200,000 is required to meet expenses of the President's Commission on Aviation Security and Terrorism established by Executive Order 12686, August 4, 1989. The Commission will review and evaluate policy options in connection with aviation security, with particular emphasis on the destruction, on December 21, 1988, of Pan Am flight 103. The Commission will consist of seven members appointed by the President. Two members shall be Senators; two shall be Members of the House of Representatives; and three members shall be private citizens. The Commission will conduct a comprehensive study and appraisal of practices and policy options with respect to preventing terrorist acts involving aviation, and evaluate the adequacy of existing procedures for aviation security, including compliance and enforcement. In addition, the Commission will investigate practices, policies, and laws with respect to the treatment of families of victims of terrorist acts. Under the Executive order the Commission will submit within 6 months a report to the President that contains findings and recommendations. The Commission will terminate 30 days after the report is submitted. The Commission will adhere to the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. 2). The Executive order states that the Department of Transportation, subject to the availability of appropriation, will provide the necessary support for the Commission. The funding supports logistics and operating costs of the Commission (for example, rental of office space, communications, office equipment and supplies), salaries and related expenses of support staff and three Commission members from the private sector, domestic and international travel related to the duties of the Commission, and necessary contractual services. COAST GUARD SUMMARY OF FISCAL YEAR 1990 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 level of $3,256,930,000 for the activities of the Coast Guard in fiscal year 1990. The following table summarizes the Committee's recommendations: 1 Excludes $200,000,000 in the Fiscal Year 1989 Department of Defense Appropriation Act and $4,500,000 by transfer; excludes $6,000,000 transferred from Navy for LEDETS. 2 Excludes $50,300,000 for Coast Guard shore facilities in the Fiscal Year 1989 Military Construction Appropriation Act. Excludes $4,500,000 transferred to the "Operating expenses" account and $5,000,000 transferred to the "Alteration of bridges" account. 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 the mariner determine his location and avoid accident, 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 and security 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. Drug law enforcement now consumes the largest amount of operating expenses resources. 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. The continued operation of the USCGC Mackinaw is a critical aspect of the Coast Guard's icebreaking mission on the Great Lakes. Keeping the shipping channels clear during the severe extended navigation season is important because of its impact on domestic and international commerce. All other assets dedicated to this task are smaller, much less capable, and must work in teams of two, with frequent delays for crew rest, to accomplish the same results. The Mackinaw is the single most effective icebreaking vessel on the Great Lakes and the only one capable during the punishing winter storms of assisting the large freighters that dominate the lakes trade. The Committee understands that recent surveys of the Mackinaw's hull and engineering components have shown that with a 5year, $20,000,000, phased renovation plan, her service life may be extended an additional 15 to 20 years. Therefore, the Committee feels it may be economic to begin improvements on the Mackinaw in the near future. The Committee has been advised that the planned retrofit would simultaneously provide greater operational efficiency and a reduction in crew size, thus freeing up personnel for use in other mission areas. This might provide a cost-effective approach to continued operation of a proven vessel and assures an extended navigation season on the Great Lakes. The Committee understands that there are sufficient funds within the "Operating expenses" account to continue full operation of the Mackinaw and to perform the survey in preparation for the service life extension work. 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 responsibil ity for ports, waterways, and navigable waters up to 200 miles offshore. SQQ-T1 ONBOARD TRAINER SYSTEM The Committee directs that the Navy and Coast Guard evaluate the procurement of modified AN/SQQ-T1 onboard ASW trainers, to assist training on all ASW systems on the Coast Guard 378-foot high endurance cutters, and to modify the AN/SQQ-T1 to train ASW system operators, utilizing passive acoustic surveillance techniques, to interdict vessels that may be involved in the transfer of narcotics and other illicit goods. In addition, the Committee requests a report on the current state of readiness of designated Coast Guard units to perform their antisubmarine warfare mission. This report shall discuss current ASW training standards, techniques, and requirements, the current state of readiness of Coast Guard personnel, and estimates of the necessary capital and operation costs associated with filling any deficiencies. This report will be made available to the Committee no later than April 1, 1990. Headquarters administration.-The headquarters administration activity provides executive direction and servicewide administrative support at the headquarters location of the Coast Guard. COAST GUARD SUPPORT TO THE COMMITTEE The Committee recognizes that this year has been an extraordinary one for the Coast Guard, primarily due to the workload associated with the cleanup of the Alaskan oilspill, including the congressional oversight accompanying such activities. The Committee extends its congratulations to the men and women of the Coast Guard for their exemplary service in response to the numerous oilspills in this past year, including those in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as those in the New Jersey, New York, Delaware, and Philadelphia areas. However, the Committee is concerned by the lack of timeliness and, in a few instances, the lack of responsiveness to the Committee evidenced by the Coast Guard this year. For example, the Coast Guard was late in responding to Committee hearing questions (for 9 weeks, in spite of Committee guidelines and commitments made by various Coast Guard personnel), during which time the Committee was unable to pursue its review of the Coast Guard budget proposed for fiscal 1990; delayed followup on financial aspects of the Exxon Valdez oilspill; was slow in providing followup on additional 1990 budget questions; and was late in providing a requested report on the nationwide need for upgraded vessel traffic service systems. Perhaps the major cause of the Coast Guard's timeliness problems has been the extraordinary workload associated with oilspills this past year. However, it may also be that the Coast Guard headquarters organization could be reconfigured or staffing increased to provide the Committee improved responsiveness. For example, the budget staff in the Coast Guard headquarters is apparently also responsible for preparation of testimony, handling of transcripts, and preparing responses to questions raised at various authorization and oversight hearings. Perhaps the Commandant could consider providing additional staff to handle peak workload demands. |