Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

These decisions have already been made, and I would hope that State and local officials would not make any significant changes in these decisions because of the proposed funding change.

SENATOR WEICKER: Given the proposed elimination of funds, what incentive does a state have to withdraw planned interstate highway segments and develop a transit system instead?

ANSWER: The withdrawal process has been completed, except for segments under judicial injunction, and concept plans have been submitted. Segments under judicial injunction have until September 30. 1985, to be withdrawn. Essentially, the substitute projects have been identified by local officials. The law initially (Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1973) provided only for the substitution of trarisit projects, but later (Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1976) was expanded to include highway substitute projects.

SENATOR WEICKER: Mr. Stanley, does the administration have any plans to reduce funding for, or alter in any way, the mass transit elderly and handicapped program?

ANSWER: No, we do not have any plans to reduce funding for UMTA's elderly and handicapped program. In fact, we are proposing that the FY 1986 budget for the Section 16(0)(2) program of capital asistance for transportation of elderly and handicapped persons be increased from $25 million to $35 million. This is close to the program's current authorization level.

We do not intend to alter this program in any way. Funds are allocated annually to each State based on its percentage of the Nation's elderly and handicapped population. Private non-profit agencies which provide transportation for the elderly and handicapped apply directly to the State transportation agency for funds.

QUESTION SUBMITTED BY SENATOR BENTSEN

SENATOR BENTSEN: What is the status of the Cold Weather Transit Demonstration Program, and what efforts does the agency have underway to implement further research into this issue?

ANSWER: All research efforts on the cold weather transit technology (CWTT) program based on an existing $11,000,000 grant to the University of Notre Dame are expected to be completed by the end of this year. Notre Dame is currently preparing final project reports. Results of the present CITT program have seen little usage to date and are likely to have limited future application in the transit community because the impacts of ice and snow on transit operations in the United States are infrequent.

UMTA recently received a new Section 6 grant application from Notre Dame for $7,500,000 to continue research on countermeasures against ice and snow. Our priorities, however are to provide assistance in areas where transit operators have more frequent and significant problems.

SUBCOMMITTEE RECESS

Senator LAUTENBERG. With that, we will conclude this meeting. Thank you very much, Mr. Stanley.

Mr. STANLEY. Thank you very much.

(Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., Thursday, April 18, the subcommittee was recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Wednesday, April 24.)

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RE

LATED AGENCIES APPROPRIATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1986

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 24, 1985

U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS,

Washington, DC. The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., in room SD-138, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Andrews (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Andrews, D'Amato, and Chiles.

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

U.S. COAST GUARD

STATEMENT OF ADM. JAMES S. GRACEY, COMMANDANT
ACCOMPANIED BY:

VICE ADM. BENEDICT L. STABILE, VICE COMMANDANT
REAR ADM. DONALD C. THOMPSON, CHIEF OF STAFF
CAPT. ROBERT T. NELSON, CHIEF, PROGRAMS DIVISION
CAPT. KENT H. WILLIAMS, CHIEF, BUDGET DIVISION

OPENING REMARKS

Senator ANDREWS. The subcommittee will come to order.

This morning our subcommittee will hear the U.S. Coast Guard. Here to testify is Admiral Gracey, the Commandant of the Coast Guard, accompanied by a number of his support personnel. Before we proceed with Admiral Gracey's statement, I have an opening statement from Senator Chiles which will be inserted in the record.

[The statement follows:

STATEMENT OF SENATOR LAWTON CHILES I would also like to welcome Admiral Gracey and the other Coast Guard leaders to our hearing this morning.

During a period when all other armed forces are enjoying growth, the Coast Guard is losing 833 positions, 620 of those are military positions. The capital program is cut $43 million and the overall budget shows a growth of only $14 million or 7 times less than would be required to keep pace with a 4-percent inflation rate.

In February we talked with Secretary Dole about the procurement for aerostat radar balloons. It is disappointing to learn that the procurement is still lodged in the Office of the Secretary and the debate on the best way to proceed is still underway. In view of the fact that there is only one supplier and there is general agreement to the national emergency at hand, the delay seems baffling and somewhat irresponsible.

STATEMENT OF ADMIRAL GRACEY Senator ANDREWS. It is good to have you here, Admiral. Let me assure you that your statement will appear in the record as though given in its entirety. Summarize it in any way you wish.

Admiral Gracey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do not know how we are for time. I have a brief summary statement I am prepared to give if you would like me to do that.

Senator ANDREWS. That is fine.

Admiral Gracey. I am, as always, pleased to have the opportunity to meet with you and the other members of the subcommittee to review and discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year 1986 budget request.

INTRODUCTION OF ASSOCIATES

You mentioned some of my staff people. Let me introduce them by name, if I may, sir. On my far right is Vice Adm. Ben Stabile. He is Vice Commandant. And on my far left is Rear Adm. Donald Thompson, who is my Chief of Staff.

On my immediate right is Chief of the Programs Division, Capt. Bob Nelson, and on my left is Chief of the Budget Division, Capt. Kent Williams.

BUDGET REQUEST Our overall request this year, Mr. Chairman, totals about $2.54 billion in budget authority, and it represents a balance between the need to limit Federal budget growth and the requirement to support priority programs which are vital to the national interest, particularly the Coast Guard's three basic missions of maritime safety, defense readiness, and law enforcement.

The request provides for continuing essential Coast Guard functions and operating newly acquired facilities and equipment while at the same time proposing a net reduction in personnel.

To effect many of those personnel reductions, we will focus on realigning support activities and administration through staff consolidations. The A-76 process will also remain a major tool in seeking personnel economies and productivity improvements through reviewing support activities that are not inherently governmental in nature, with a view to having them performed by private sector firms under contract. Where operating program changes are proposed, as

proposedas in the Commercial Vessel Safety Program or Great Lakes search and rescue consolidations, they will be achieved by the consolidation of activities or through other program efficiencies.

We are once again seeking user fees for certain Coast Guard services. Our legislative proposal anticipates that in fiscal year 1986, the fees being proposed will generate half-year receipts of about $236 million, which would increase to a level of about $476 million annually.

We have also included a number of management improvement initiatives in this budget to help keep us within the President's freeze guidelines. We are looking for improved productivity as we always have.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »