Back to Budgeting as Usual: New Spending Caps Leave Room for Plentyof Pork

Report Budget and Spending

Back to Budgeting as Usual: New Spending Caps Leave Room for Plentyof Pork

September 6, 1991 29 min read Download Report
Scott A.

(Archived document, may contain errors)

849 September 6,1991 BACK TO BUDGETINGAS USUAL NEW SPENDING CAPS LEAVE ROOM FOR PLENTY OF PORK INTRODUCTION Less than one year after concludin g the 1990 budget deal with the White House, Congress has nsumed budgeting as usual. Last years grand budget bar gain was supposed to bring new discipline to the budget mess, to fme lawmak ers to choose between man impcntant and less important programs, a nd to begin to eliminate unnecessary pork barrel spending.

Residents budget and crafts its own; members of Congress dole out money to fa vored special interests; congressional Committees micromanage the bureaucracy Congress continues giving money to ineffi cient and ineffective programs rather than shutting them down; federal spending continues to grow unabated; and the deficit shows no sign of shrinking.

Some Washington insiders praised last years budget deal saying that it put real new spending caps on di scretianary programs and would farce lawmakers to evd uate their priorities and to trade off wasteful or inefficient programs if they wantedhighcrspendingonmanimporurntpro~s.Thisyearlawmakersin deed have complained bitterly about their inability to addres s what they say are pressing M~~OIU~ issues because of the ostensibly stringent spending caps En intunatiod spending. But as far domestic discretionary spending, the new budget conmls failing completely.

As it is, this years budget contains enough money to keep nearly all spending addicts satisfied. The mson is that the spending caps on domestic disnetionary spending have been set at veq high levels, far in excess of the growth rates for mestic discretionary spending that were projected only a few months b e fan the But it is now budgeting as usual. This means: Congress dismisses the Failed Controls To be sure, spending caps have cut defense spending and ike budget summit concluded. The fiscal 1991 growth cap is at 9.5 percent, even though the projected futur e growth rate was only 5.2 percent. The fiscal 1992 growth cap is 6.1 percent, though the growth projection was only 4.5 percent.

And the 1993 fiscal growth cap is 5.3 percent, well above the 2.8 percent growth projection. The budget summits boost gave the big spenders a h-year binge of 27.3 billion extra for domestic discretionary spending Lining Up at the Trough. Fbdictably, Congress took advantage of this gift fattening existing programs and larding the fiscal 1991 budget with new pork bar rel spending. Some of the more notable projects that Congress saw fit to fund with the higher taxes and the higher budget deficit include the $3.6 million Urban Gardening Program, the $1 million National Bicycling and Walking Study, and the $50,000 Recreational Boating Census. Congressional appropriators apparently have been so spoiled by the 9.5 percent windfall for fiscal 1991 that the 6.1 per cent increase for fiscal 1992 seems terribly restrictive. And since federal pro grams, once created, rarely are folded, all of last years new projects, which never would have seen the light of day had it not been for last falls tax increase and subsequent spending spree, are now lining up at the fiscal 1992 trough.

The spending caps have not forced Congress to abandon its habit o f micromanaging executive branch agencies and in many cases forcing the bureau cracy to waste money. For instance, in the appropriations bills passed in the House this year, members have Prevented the sale of federal loans to the private loan market Preve n ted the Farmers Home Administration from using private collection agencies to collect on billions of dollars in defaulted loans Mandated employment floors for numerous federal programs; effectively prohibiting them from reducing costs through privatizatio n or eliminating duplicative staffing Placed a general provision in all appropriations bills prohibiting the elimi nation or disproportionate reduction of programs, projects or activities that is, prohibiting agencies from saving money unless Congress says so Earmarked billions of dollars for =search projects, highway projects, and construction projects, even though most agencies have firmly established rules governing competition for these monies; and Prohibited the Power Marketing Administration, which ru ns the federal dams in the Western states, from even studying the market rate pricing of subsidized electricity sold to cities such as Los Angeles and Las Vegas.

Although it is only midway through the fiscal 1992 budget process, Congress has already shown that it is back to business as usual, wasting taxpayers money and even preventing the executive branch from finding ways to lower the cost of government.

ILLUSORY SPENDING CONSTRAINTS Last years contentious budget negotiations led some Washington insiders to predict that Congress would live within the constraints of the budget deal.

Much has been made of budget caps that supposedly would curtail the ability of Congress to spend irresponsibly insiders journal ran a story titled No Joy Among the Cardhals as painful Choices Begin. It said As the appropiations process began, Congressional Qucurerly, the Washington What was easy for budget drafters has turned out to be a nightmare for appropriators. Living within the spending limits imposed by last years budge t agreement has farced agonizing choices and provoked suggestions that the deal, not yet a year old, be modifiedorjunked.

Both supporters and detractors of the spending caps have a stake in giving the impression that spending is now under control. On the o ne hand, supporters, in cludingwhite House oficials, want to refute those who apposed the budget agree ment on the grounds that it increased spending. Budget agreement supporters need to demonstrate that the tough spending nmaints are worth the price of G e orge Bush breaking his no-new-taxes pledge. On the other hand, the big spend ers in Congress, who oppose any spending caps, hope that their protests will be taken as proof that caps reaUy constrain spending and that the public will not look closely at wha t really is kine appropriated 8250 8200 8150 8100 850 80 Chart 1 Average Annual Domestic Discretionary Spending Billion8 of Conatant lS8S Dollar8 1 8188 8182.5 knnrdyl Johnron NImn NI.on/ Carter Rrr0.n Rrrgrn Burh Johnron Ford Firrt 8rcond Term Term Hmrlta g r DrtrChrrt By Prrridrntlrl Adrnlnlrtrrtlon 1 George Hager. NO JOY hang the cardinals BS Paidid Choices Begin, Congressionul Quarterly, May 25 1991, p. 1360 3 Massive Boost. In reality, domestic discretionary spending in fiscal 1993, the last year for whi ch the caps will be in place, will be 22 percent, or $40 billion higher than Bushs first budget in fucall990, and 33 percent, or $54 billion larger than Ronald Reagans last budget in fiscal 19

89. After adjusting for infla tion, this massive boost will sen d domestic discretionary spending to itshighest annual constant dollar level since Jimmy Carters last budget. Over the past three decades, in fact, only the Carter Administration consistently spent as much in real terms on domestic discretionary programs as is now being spent by Bush. Chart 1 compares the average four-year inflation-adjusted spending levels of the past five presidents.

Following the massive build up in domestic discretionary spending under Car ter, domestic discretionary spending in the budgets for Reagans first four fiscal years grew on average by 1.4 percent annually. This rate accelerated during Reagans second term t o an average annual rate of 3.9 percent. Chart 2 shows what levels of domestic discretionary spending would have been had this rate con tinued through 1993 in comparison with the actual spending levels resulting from the budget deal. The cumulative Bush fo ur-year increase in spending above the Reagan rate is $73 billion of Management and Budget projected just four months before the summit agree ment for fiscal 1991,1992, and 19

93. Those projections, using 1990 as the base year, include the inflation-adjust ed costs of maintaining programs at their current levels and of routine growth to meet anticipated new needs. Each of these levels is well below the actual levels agreed to by the budget summiteers. This increase alone gave congressional big spenders a $2 7 billion bonus of domestic discretion ary spending during the three-year period Chart 2 also shows the levels of domestic discretionary spending that the Office Chart 2 Domestic Discretionary Spending Before and After Budget Summit Billion8 of Currant 5 5 250 October 1990 Summit Agreement 5225 5200 5176 5160 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Herllaom DmlmChmrl Budget Summit Source: Buagel 01 rne U.S. GOvKVflIWflt FY 1992.

I 4 FIGHTING PORK BARREL SPENDING In all too typical fashion, Congress is Using this $27 billio n windfall to reward its favorite constituencies. The fiscal 1991 budget bill became a Christmas tree of gifts to hundreds of special interests, repsentirig everything from catfish farms to zebra mussel research Alarmed by the proliferation of such spendi n g, Senator Bob Smith, the New Hampshire Re publican, Representative Harris Fawell, the Illinois Republican and Representative Timothy Penny, the Minnesota Democrat organized a group of Congress men who call themselves PorkBusters This group has de veloped a standardized definition of pork barrel spending, and is now attempting to rescind those items in the fiscal 1991 spending bills that fit the definition.

Using this test, the ParkBusters find wasted taxpayer money on hundreds of projects. Among them from the fiscal 1991 budget I $37,000 to study the han dling of animal manure and the development of resolu tion techniques to address conflicts between produc ers and the general public 150,000 to the town of Matewan, West Virginia, to study the century-old H at field-McCoy feud 320,000 to purchase Presi dent William McKinleys in-laws home and donate it to the state of Ohio 942,000 to produce re fined fish oil, which is then donated to the National Institutes of Health for research 25,000 to study the location for a new House of Representatives staff gym nasium 5 These and scores of similar expenditures the fiscal 1991 budget suggest that policy makers are not constrained in the slightest by the putative spending caps placed on them by the 1990 budget agreement . Idenafjing programs that meet three of these seven criteria, the PorkBusters have found over $1 billion of pork that their bill, the Porkbusting Act of 1991 (S. 1288 and H.R. 2643 would re scindwhile many members would argue that $1 billion of pork barre l spending in a $1.4 trillion budget does not amount to very much, the PorkBusters use a very strict definition of pork. A broader interpretation of pork, using only one cri terion, particularly No. 7 which targets projects of purely local interest without na tional or regional importance, possibly would capture tens of billions more in un necessary or wasteful spending items KNOW-NOTHING CONGRESS Almost as serious as its uncontrolled spending is how Congress micromanages federal agencies in a way that make s it Micult or impossible for federal manag ers to save money. These congressional directives, among other things, prevent privatization of federal commercial enterprises, force bloated payrolls by estab lishing minimum staff employment levels, and even pr event duplicate programs from being merged or reorganized.

Typical of congressional htives to the federal agencies is Section 606(a) of the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, Fiscal Year 19 92.This section p rovides for the Committees usual policy concerning the reprogramming of funds. Section 606(a prohibits the reprogramming of funds which 1 creates new programs 2) eliminates a program project, or activity 3) increases funds or personnel b y any means for any project or activity for which funds have been denied or restricted 4) relocates an office or employees 5) reorganizes offices, programs, or activities; or (6) contracts out or privatizes any functions or activities presently performed b y federal employees unless the Appropriations Committees of both Houses of Congress are notified 15 days in advance. In plain English, this section forbids the Departments of Commerce, Justice and State, and the judiciary from uying to save money by elimin a ting or reorgan izing any programs or activities. In the section, versions of which are found in other bills, Congress says: Do nothing unless we know about it, especially if it reduces our control of the purse strings tion of federal commercial enterpris e s or services. This action explicitly has pm tected some 70 percent of federal commercial enterprises from private sector de livery. This year, as in years past, Congress has included provisions blocking even the study of privatization options. These meas u res cost the taxpayer tens of bil lions of dollars Over the past several years, Congress has passed 37 laws blocking the privatiza 6 Example: The Farmers Home Administration (FmHA) is prohibited from hir ing private debt collection fms to collect delinque nt loan payments. According to the mice of Management and Budget, FmHA had to write off $7 billion in loan losses in th last two years and expects to write off another $1.5 billion by the end of 19

92. Turning these loans over to private collection agencie s could yield millions of dollars for the federal treasury s Example: The five regional Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs which control 127 federal dams, are prohibited from the use of funds to conduct any studies relating or leading to market rate pr i cing. It has been estimated that the PMAs underprice by $1.5 billion per year the electricity they sell to users, some of which ax^ multi-billion dollar utility companies Example: Loans made by the agricultural credit insurance fund may not be sold to the commercial loan market despite $4.5 billion in direct loan losses over the past two years? Seliing these loans to the private sector would not only bring in revenues to the government, but would also diffuse the governments loan ex posure.

By mandating mi nimum staff employment levels on federal agencies, Congress prevents not only privatization, but any efforts to streamline the bmaucracy and eliminate duplication as well. Duplicative programs abound throughout govern ment as a result of lawmakers attempt s to take credit far solving a problem re gardless of what programs may already exist to solve similar or identical prob lems Example: Congress mandated that the Economic Development Administra tion (IDA) maintain 49 permanent Economic Development Represen t atives and that at least one full-time representative be placed in every state. The EDA has been targeted for abolition by the Reagan Administration, the Bush Adminisua tion, and the Congressional Budget Office because it duplicates at least a dozen other economic development programs and has become a convenient program by which members can fund pork bml projects Example: The non-profit American Fisheries Society has identified 37 federal agencies with responsibilities for fisheries policies. These include : The National Marine Fisheries Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Ser vice, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil Conservation Senrice, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Man y of these fisheries programs not only duplicate each other, but also act at cross purposes with other programs. This situation causes considerable confusion in the commercial and recreational fishing industries 2 Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1 992, Part Two, p. 231 3 Ibid p. 241 7 Example: The Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987, in tended to help the homeless, created seventeen different programs administered through seven federal agencies. Yet there were already over sixty sep a rate federal programs providing assistance to the homeless Federal Civilian Employees Source: Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 1992 Note: Excludes seasonal and part-time employees 8 BLOATED FEDERAL PAYROLLS Due in part to this duplication, the exe c utive branch has added some 60,000 new full-time, civilian employees during the past three years, an increase of 5.6 percent. During this period, too, the costs of compensating all of the 1.17 million federal civilian agency bureaucrats has risen from $83 . 3 billion annually to 102.8 billion, a 23 percent inmase the past year has demased because of the recession brought on in part by last years record tax increase. Corporations across the country are downsizing and laying off workers. Other enterpxises have shut down completely. Entrepreneurs who might start businesses, creating new jobs, find it impossible to do so.The re cession has alr%ady thrown 1.35 million Americans out of work. The unemploy ment rate has risen from 5.3 percent in June 1990 to 7.0 perc e nt today While the number of federal employees has risen, private sector employment in CONCLUSION In theory, placing caps on the growth of spending is a good way to get control of runaway spending. But the domestic discretionary spending caps established b y last years budget agreement make a mockery of the tern cap. Because these new caps were set well above any levels previously projected, Congresss spend ers effectively were handed an extra $27 billion. As the list of spending items con tained in the App endix shows, Congress is wasting no time in finding creative new ways to spend this money.

But beyond their compulsive spending habits, lawmakers also have set up road blocks to reasonable and effective cost-cutting measures such as privatization merging d uplicative programs, and closing down inefficient agencies. At a time when millions of Americans have been farced to tighten their belts, Congress con tinues to binge at taxpayer expense.

Good Faith Effort. If lawmakers claims are sincere about reducing t he deficit they must do something to eliminate pork bml spending. Rescinding the spend ing items identified by the PorkBusters group would be a good faith effort to prove that Congress wants to lower the deficit. Using a broader definition of pork lawmake rs should then begin to eliminate all programs that enrich narrow special interests or parts of the country. A federal elected body such as Congress should not involve itself in issues better left to town councils, county boards, and state legislatures.

Sc ott A. Hodge Grover M. Hennann Fellow in Federal Budgetary Affairs Heritage Foundation research interns Julieann G. Kelly, Kevin Fletcher, and Tracy Ambler contributed to the preparation of this study 9 INTRODUCTION If asked to identify five federal progr a ms, most taxpayers would probably name Defense, Social Security, Medicare, and perhaps a handful of others such as NASA the National Aeronautics and Space Administration farm programs in general and Food Stamps. It is not likely that many Americans could list Cargo Preference Differential Subsidies, Kenafresearch, the Scrapie Negotiated Rule Making Com mittee, the Steel Industry HeritageTask Force or a thousand other programs just as insignificant.

This is just the limited knowledge of federal spending mos t policy makers prefer taxpayers to have. Members of Congress want taxpayers to believe that the only way to cut spending is to weaken the nations defense or to take away their parents retirement benefits. The less taxpayers know about where their tax dol lars are going, reason the lawmakers, the mm they will accept future tax hikes to pay for special interest spending.

The programs contained in the following lists below were gleaned from seven of the thirteen appropriations bills passed recently in the Hou se. These seven bills fund the majority of domestic discretionary programs. The Senate is now in the pro cess of passing its own versions of all thirteen appropriations bills. Once competed the separate versions of each bill will be taken up in a joint co n ference committee comprised of representatives of both the House and Senate. These two versions then will be combined into a single version. This last version, if successfully passed by both houses of Congress, is then submitted to the President, who will ei ther sign it into law or veto it. All thirteen signed appropriations bills comprise the federal budget for the following fiscal year, which begins on October 1.

The following programs may not always fit the description of pork, either as technically defined by the PorkBusters group or in the generally-accepted sense of wasteful constituent-driven programs. In many cases, the programs appear because they benefit a special or localized interest, rather than the interest of the nation. In other cases, these are programs that should not be the responsibilty of a federal gov ernment; they should be provided by state and local governments, private compa nies, private ch a rities and neighborhood organizations, or even individuals them selves. Lastly, some of these programs are listed simply because taxpayers should know of their existance and members of Congress would prefer that they did not 10 DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE A d visory Committees Total 1,918,000 Including National Committee on Cotton Marketing Scrapie Negotiated Rule Making Committee Agribusiness Promotion Council Presidents Council on Rural Development National Agricultural Statistics Service Including Survey of the nursery industry Collect the data necessary to produce the Report of Cotton Ginned 27,719 $42,5 10 22,278 80,754 Total 83,401,000 60,000 415,000 Agricultural Research Service Total 660,924,000 Global Climate Change Solid Waste: North Carolina State Un i versity Chemical Residues Animal Waste Research Alternative Energy Resources Urban Pest Research: Insects Affecting Man Laboratory Soybean Based Ink Aflatoxin Research Peanut Research Locoweed Research: New Mexico State University Sweet Potato White-Fly C o tton Ginning U.S. Food Fermentation Laboratory Eastern Filbert Blight Soybean Research Turkey Osteomyelitis Complex Sugarcane Research Wed out through a conuact Hawaii Fruit Fly CornEarworm Kenaf: Charleston, Mississippi, (Administered by the Gainesville F lorida Raleigh, North Carolina with the Hawaiian Sugar PlantersAssoc Tennessee Valley Authority and Mississippi University 7,964,000 2,000,000 6,339,000 500,000 2,563,000 647,000 $500,000 7,584,000 6,92 1 ,000 200,000 995,000 2,668,000 603,000 $229,000 52 5 ,000 200,000 965,000 2,667,000 150,000 1,263,000 11 National Sedimentation Laboratory Computational Hydroscience Plant Science Dwarf Bunt Research Wheat Quality Research A cooperative effort with the Eastern Soft Wheat Quality Laboratory in connection wit h milling, flour, dough and baking tests at Michigan State University Bee Research Acoustics Research Apple Research Potato Research Agricultural Research Service-Buildings Including and Facilities Arkansas: Rice Research Center, Stuttgart California: Sali n ity Lab, Riverside Illinois: Northern Regional Research Center Iowa: National Pork Research Facility Louisiana: Southern Regional Research Center Maryland: Beltsville Agriculural Research Center Michigan: Regional Poultry Research Center Minnesota: Soil a n d Water Lab, Morris Mississippi: National Center for Natural Products 5 255 ,000 986,000 950,000 $130,000 9,000 4,652,000 500,000 5,500,000 10,154,OOo Total: $49,473,000 223,000 5,050,000 3,650,000 $l,OoO,000 1,300,000 16,000,000 500,000 1,350,000 5,175,0 0 0 Mississ$pi: National Center for Warm Water Agriculture $1,200,000 New York: Plum Island Animal Disease Center $3,000,000 Ohio: Demonstration Greenhouse $375,000 Oregon/Washington/.Idaho: Northwest Small Fruit Center $1,900,000 Texas: ARS B& Lab, Weslaco Texas: Plant Stress Lab, Lubbock Washington: Fruit and Vegetable Lab, Yakima Cooperative State Research Service Including Payments under the Hatch Act Forestry Research Grant to Mississippi Valley State University Competitive Research Grants Including Pla n t Systems Animal Systems Nutrition, Food Quality and Health 1,700,000 $2,000,000 5,050,000 Total: $412,886,000 168,785,000 18,533,000 26,000 Total: $99,000,000 40,000,000 25,000,000 4,000,000 12 Global Warming Natural Resources and the Environment Process e s and New Products Markets Trade and Policy Special Research Grants Including Illinois: Aquaculture Research Minnesota: Wild Rice Research New Mexico Oil from Jojoba Ohio: Genetic Engineering of Plants Pennsylvania: Controlled Environmental Pennsylvania: I mproved Dairy Management Practices Pennsylvania: Mechanical Tomato Harvester Washington: Competitiveness of Agricultural Products Washington: Competitiveness of Forest Products Beef Carcass Evaluation and Identification Wood Utitilization Research OR, MS, MI Production Systems White Mold Research Other Provisions Including: Guayule Research: Funded under the Critical Agricultural Materials Act Aquaculture Research Centers Rangeland Research Low-Input Sustainable Agriculture 5,000,000 18,000,000 3,000,000 4 , 000,000 58,299,000 250,000 100,000 200,000 $300,000 300,000 350,000 240,000 500,000 250,000 267,000 70,000 2,852,000 668,000 4,000,000 475,000 6,725,000 Cooperative State Research Service Buildings and Facilities Total 65,259,000 California: Grape Importa t ion Facility $2,321 ,000 Florida: Biotechnology Institute $500,000 Georgia: Biocontainment Research Center $500,000 Illinois: Biotechnology Center $1,200,000 Illinois: National Soybean Laboratory $1,987 ,000 Indiana: Molecular and Cellular Biotechnology F a cility $4,~,OOo Kansas: Throckmorton Plant Science Center $500,000 Maryland Institute for Natural Resources and Environmental Science $l,OOO,OOO Massachusetts: Hunger, Poverty, Nutrition and Policy Center $500,000 Michigan: Food Toxicology Center $15,712, 0 00 Including 13 Mississippi: Biological Technology Center for Water and Wetlands Resources Montana: Bioscience Research Laboratory New Jersey: Plant Bioscience Facility New York Cornell Research Greenhouse New York Botanical Garden Nevada: Biochemistry an d Biology North Carolina: Biotechnology Facility North Carolina: Bowman-Gray Center Ohio: Plant Science Research Facility Oregon: Seafood Center Pennsylvania: Center for Food Marketing South Dakota Northern Plains Biostress Laboratory Texas: Inst/Bioscienc e s and Technology Virginia: Agriculture Biotechnology Facility Washington: Animal Disease Biotechnology Facility Wisconsin: Agriculture Biotechnology and Wyoming: Environmental Simulation Facility Genetics Facility Extention Service Including 200,000 500,0 0 0 2,544,000 750,000 1,300,000 500,000 1,450,000 3,650,000 550,000 218,000 2,420,000 500,000 4,700,000 1,125,000 $3,030,000 $9,858,000 500,000 Food and Nutrition Education Program Pest Management Grants Water Quality Grants Farm Safety Grants Urban Gardeni ng Grants Pesticide Impact Assessment Grants Grants to Rural Development Centers Food Safety Grants Youth-at-Risk Program: Including funds necessary to complete editing of "the film that was funded in the 1991 bill."

Extention Programs in the District of C olumbia Total 417,057,000 Federal Administration Including Agricultural Development in the American Pacific Crambe and Rapeseed Production and Marketing Rural Community Revitalization in Minnesota Rural Rehabilitation Project in Georgia Crop Stimulation T e chnology Income Enhancement Demonstration Project Satellite Downlink Project Project to IncreaseTourism in New Mexico 60,525,000 8,950,000 12,375,000 1,970,000 $3,580,000 950,000 1,750,000 3,557,000 lO,OoO,000 1,03 1 ,000 Total 9,079,000 647,000 67,000 25 0 ,000 $256,000 498,000 $250,000 150,000 $230,000 14 Feasibility Study on an Agricultural Research Facility in Southern Kentucky $50,000 Total: $426,903,000 Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service user fees cover only about one-fi of these costs Includin g Africanized Bee Foot-and-Mouth Disease Meditenanean Fruit Fly Exclusion Mexican Fruit Fly Exclusion screwworm Fruit Fly Detection Boll Weevil Brucellosis Eradication CattleTicks Animal Damage Control: Including $250,000 to assist in a wolf control progra m in Minnesota Biocontrol: Including leafy spurge and Russian wheat aphid control Grasshopper Imported Fire Ant Pseudorabies Scrapie Agricultural Cooperative Service l,OoO,o00 339 1 ,o00 10,052,000 1,162,000 34,011,000 3,94 1 ,OOO 13.1 35,000 67,135 ,000 6 , 172,000 93 17,000 7,549,000 3,850,000 $3,732,000 $7,554,000 $1,846,000 $5,640,000 This program is intended to help fanners help themselves by providing the assistance necessary to support and improve existing cooperatives and to help farmers organize new cooperatives.

Packers and Stockyards Administration $12,rn,000 Conservation Programs Soil Conservation Service Including Alabama: Multipurpose land information system cooperative project with Northport, Al.

Arkansas: 26-County Eastern Arkansas Water Conse rvation Study Michigan: Subirrigation study River Basin Surveys and Investigations Watershed Planning Watershed and Flood Prevention Operations Resource Conservation and Development Great Plains Conservation Program Forestry Incentives Program Water Bank P rogram Co1orado River Basin Salinity Control Program Total 564,l29,000 200,000 452,000 900,OOO 13,25 1 ,000 9,545 ,OOo 205,23 8 ,OO 29,900,000 $25,271,000 12,466,000 $13,620,000 14,783,000 15 Conservation Reserve Program $1,642,760,ooO This program pays f a rmers to take eligible farm land out of production for ten year or fifteen year periods and put it into permanent vegetative cover FARMERS HOME AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS Rural Development Grants Total 20,750,000 Including 1 ,o0O,o0O in Cotton Plant, A rkansas $500,000 on the Texas-Mexico border $400,000 350,000 350,000 Recycling Facility in Susquehanna, Pennsylvania hessing Facility for Commercially Produced Fish Rehabilitate Livestock Holding Pens Regional Fanners Market in Eastern Arkansas Regional F armers Market in Carroll County, VA 16 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Institute of Standards and Technology Including Construction of Research Facilities National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin.

National Marine Fisheries Service Bering Sea Pollock Research Alaskan Groundfish Surveys Aquaculture Stuggart, Arkansas, Fish Farm West Coast Groundfish Marine Mammal Research Chesapeake Bay Studies Right Whale Research Gear Entanglement Studies Fisheries Management, Regional Councils State Anadromous Grants State S triped Bass Grants Fisheries, Product Quality and Safety Fisheries Mahi Mahi/U.S. Asia Shellfish Water Standards Research Including Oceans and Atmospheric Research Interannual Seasonal Climate Research National Acid Precipitation Assessment Regional Clima t e Centers Weather Research Windbfler Solar-Terrestrial Services and Research Zebra Mussel Research Sea Grant College Program Sea Grant, zebra mussel research Sea Grant, brown algae research Key Largo, Florida, Research Facility Including Total 237,665,000 10,340 Total 1,424,085,000 Total 202,604,000 980,000 687,000 2,649,000 542,000 $826,000 2,960,000 1,960,000 230,000 690,000 8.33 1 ,000 2,307,000 462,000 8,740,000 461,000 1,47 1 ,000 Total 198,668,000 8,124,000 1,458,000 2,010,000 28,011,000 1,393,000 $4 , 726,000 980,000 39,889,000 2,960,000 50,000 394,000 17 National Weather Service: Total 423,712,000 Including Agricultural Fruit Frost hgrm $2,376,000 Susquehanna River Basin Flood System $687,000 Flood Warning Systedcolorado River $295,000 National Enviro n mental and Satellite Data, and Information Service Total 344,476,000 Polar Spacecraft and Launching $146,289,000 Including Program Support Total 146,727,000 Aircraft Services $8,782,000 San Francisco Fisheries Environmental Center $250,000 Fishing Vessel a nd Gear Damage $1,281,000 Fishermens Contingency Fund $l,O00,000 Fishing Vessel Obligations Guarantees 14,000,000 Including International Trade Administration $194,875,000 Including: Unspecified grant mounts for a new materials center and the Tailored Clo thing Technology Corporation.

Export Administration U.S. Travel and Tourism Administration Technology Administration National Telecommunications and Infomation Administration Public Telecommunications Facilities Economic Development Administration RELATED AGENCIES Maritime Administration Including Operating-differential subsidies Ready Reserve Force Including Fleet Additions Maintenance Operations 38,777,000 $15,249,000 4,3 18,000 38,289,000 22,428,000 246,304,000 Total 295,920,000 272,210,000 225 ,OOO,000 104,000,000 1 17,000,000 Christopher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Commission $220,000 Commission on Agricultural Workers $1,426,000 Commission on the Bicentennial of the U.S. Constitution $1,882,000 Marine Mammal Commission $1,153,000 18 Martin Luther K i ng, Jr. Federal Holiday Commission $300,000 Legal Services Corporation $335,169,000 Small Business Administration Including National Small Business Development Center Advisory Board Administrative Costs Clean Air Demonstration Project Center for Entrepren e urial Opportunity Grant to implement a SBA data base Effm to help firms in Johnstown, Pennsylvania Business Loan Program Account Disaster Loans Program Account Surety Bond Guarantees Revolving Fund Pollution Control Equipment Fund Total 821,219,000 500,00 0 402,319,000 500,000 l,OOO,000 Unspecified Unspecified 374,759,000 $191,743,000 14,381,000 8,400,000 19 CORPS OF ENGINEERS CIVIL General Investigations Total 200,566,000 The Corps of Engineers will conduct planning projects and general investiga tions in 4 6 states plus Puerto Rico. Some of these projects include Arizona 330,000 for planning on the Nogales Wash and $125,000 for an inves California 350,000 to investigate shore protection at Mission Bay in San Diego tigation of the Tucson Drainage Area County , a $132,000 investigation of Monterey Harbor 4OO,OOO to investi gate the water supply in San Diego, and an additional $400,000 to investi gate the water supply in San Francisco Flarida: A $350,000 planning project in Nassau County and an $lSO,OOO investi g ation of Tampa Bay coastal ma Hawaii 219,000 to investigate urban flood control in Honolulu Illinois: A $325,000 planning project for the Chicago shoreline Indiana 200,000 for the initiation of a comprehensive waterfhnt plan along the White River in downt o wn Indianapolis, Indiana. The Carps is directed to work with non-Federal interests on this multipurpose project Wyoming 212,000 toward a Jackson Hole Restoration project Miscellaneous Investigation Projects Including Construction Productivity Advancement R esearch $4,500,000 Development of a Federal Infrastructure Strategy $2,500,000 Economic Impacts of Global Warming $400,000 International Water Studies $700,000 Magnetic Levitation Transportation Pilot Program $8,000,000 Zebra Mussel Research $500,000 20 G e neral Construction: Total: $1,264,991,000 The Corps of Engineers will conduct general construction projects in 40 states plus Puerto Rico. Some of these projects include California: Santa Ana River Mainstem 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost 78,200,000 973,000, 0 00 Georgia/South Carolina: R. B. Russell Dam & Lake 1992 Cost $10,000,000 Total Federal Cost $552,000,000 Hawaii: Maalaea Harbor, Maui 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost Illinois/Missouri: Melvin Price Lock Dam 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost 1,620,000 8,000,000 2 6 ,300,000 728,000,000 Iowa: Des Moines Recreational River and Greenbelt 1992 Cost $750,000 Louisiana: Red River Waterway, Mississippi River to Shreveport 1992 Cost $73,681,000 Total Federal Cost $1,739,000,000 Missouri. Harry S. Truman Dam and Reservoir 19 9 2 Cost $4,600,000 Total Federal Cost $549,400,000 West Virgina: East Lynn Lake 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost 48,400,000 $86,286,000 Miscellaneous projects Including Aquatic Plant Control $9,000,000 Inland Waterways Users Board-Board Expenses $30,000 Inland Waterways Users Board--Corps Expenses $70,000 21 Flood Control, Mississippi River and Tributaries Arkansas Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Tennessee Total 353,437,000 Including Arkansas: Eastern Arkansas Region Study 1992 Cost Tot a l Federal Cost Louisiana: Atchafalaya Basin 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost Mississippi: Upper Yazoo Projects 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost 420,000 228,000,000 25,800,000 1,530,000,000 2,3 5 0, 000 435,332,000 Operation and Maintenance, General Total 1,547,85 5 ,000 The Corps of Engineers will conduct operation and maintenance activi ties in 48 states plus the District of Columbia and herto Rico. Some of these projects include Arkansas 4,945,000 for operation and maintenance of Greers Feny.Lake including $500,00 0 to fund additional renovation and maintenance of rec reation facilities and other infrastructure at Greers Ferry Lake recreation areas.

Alabama/Mississippi 18,000,000 for the Tennessee-Tombigbee Waterway.

California 841 ,O00 for the Los Angeles Long Bea ch Harbor Model 2,000,000 for recreation facilities at Sepulveda Dam, $2,719,000 for Long Tern Management Strategy for dredged material disposal in the San Francisco Bay region, and $200,000 for maintenance at Santa Bar bara Harbor, including removal of a pdon of West Beach for advance maintenma purposes.

District of Columbia 216,000 for maintenance of Washington Harbor.

Hawaii 292,000 for maintenance of Honolulu Harbor.

Illinois: $1,948,000 for maintenance of Chicago Harbor 1,386,000 for the Kentucky 300,000 to dredge approximately 1,000 feet of riverfront at Chicago River, and $16,428,000 for the Illinois Waterway.

Ashland, Kentucky, to accommodate the mooring of floating restaurants and riverboats Ports in order to alleviate migration impediments to anadramous fish.

Oregon/Washington 8,000,000 to dredge Columbia and Snake Rivers 22 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR BUREAU OF RECLAMATION General Investigations Total 13,789,000 The Bureau of Reclamation will conduct planning projects and general investiga tion s in 14 states. Some of these projects include Arizona: Upper San Pedro River Optimization Study 1992 Cost $150,000 Total Federal Cost $450,000 California: Santa AnaWatershed Management Study 1992 Cost $250,000 Total Federal Cost $250,000 Oregon: Josephin e County Water Management Improvement Study 1992 Cost $100,000 Total Federal Cost $71 1,000 Washington Yakima River Basin Water Management Enhancement Project 1992 Cost $600,000 Total Federal Cost $8,029,7 37 Various Projects in this section include Enviro n mental and Interagency Coordination Activities $2,928,000 Four Comers Water Assessment $150,000 General Planning Studies $900,OOO Investigation of Existing Projects $408,000 Minor Work on Completed Investigations Technical Assistance to States Walla Walla River Streamflow Improvement Project 540,000 1,4 17,000 130,000 Construction Program Total 553,209,000 The Bureau of Reclamation will conduct construction projects in 18 states. Some of these projects include California: Smelt Fishery Investigation 1992 C o st $300,000 Colorado: Grand Valley Unit, Title II, CRBSCP 1992 Cost $16,37 1 ,000 Total Federal Cost $265,259,000 23 North Dakota: Garrison Diversion Unit, P-SMBP 1992 Cost $25,000,000 Total Federal Cost $1,5O9,540,000 I DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Oregon: Umati l la Bash Project 1992 Cost South Dakota: Mni Wiconi Project 1992 cost Utah: Recreational Facilities 1992 Cost Total Federal Cost 4,000,000 2,150,000 13,642,000 179,454,441 Operation and Maintenance Total 258,685,000 In 1992 a total of 37 projects, project a xeas, or divisions of projects will be operated or maintained by the Bureau of Reclamation. Some of these pro jects include California: Central Valley Project $57,858,000 Including Nimbus Fish Hatchery $750,000 $120,000 Purchase of Aquatic Weed Harvester E nergy Supply, Research and Development Including Total 2,854,053,000 Solar Energy Programs $173,503,ooO Geothermal and Hydropower $24,670,000 Electric Energy Systems Storage $38,003,000 Environmental Safety Health $159,670,000 Human Genome Project $56,800 , 000 Nuclear Energy Programs $314,658,000 Magnetic Fusion $337,100,000 Environmental Restoration Waste Management $602,495,000 Uranium Supply and Enrichment $1,337,600,000 General Science and Research Activities Total 1,405,489,000 Including Super Conducti n g Super Collider $433,700,000 Isotope Production and Distribution Fund $8,500,000 I 24 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES Appalachian Regional Commission Delaware River Basin Commission Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin Including Anacostia River Study Nu c lear Regulatory Commission Susquehanna River Basin Commission Tennessee Valley Autharity 170,000,000 775,000 5 10,000 210,000 19,962,000 594,000 135,000,000 25 DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR Bureau of Land Management Total 909,064,000 Management of Lands and Reso u rces Total: $516,865,000 Including Wild Horse and Buno Management $13,769,000 Alaska Cadastral Surveys $12320,000 Four Comers Cultural Resources Protection Task Force $400,000 Land Acquisition Total 18,073,000 Including Colorado: Blanca Waterfowl Habitat $ 400,000 Oregon: West Eugene Wetlands $2,000,000 Wyoming Coffman Ranch SRMA $2,400,000 Desert Turtle Habitat $700,000 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Management Service Including African Elephant Conservation Migratory Bird Management Urban Wetlands Project, Portla n d, Oregon Sport Fish Restoration Account Fish Hatcheries Southeast Fish Culture Laboratory Youth Conservation Corps Arkansas NWR, Texas (Boat/Ranch House Rehab Striped Bass Study Afognak Island Study, Arkansas Establishment of an office in Austin, Texas T o tal 691,361,000 1,201 ,000 18,327,000 800,000 190,000,000 40,010,000 1,200,000 $1,000,000 199,000 $300,000 $250,000 $500,000 National Park Service Total: $1,377,464,000 Concessions Management $6,174,000 Capitol Hill Concerts $160,000 Volunteers-In-Parks $ 1 350,000 Accokeek Foundation $230,000 A New Film for Cabrillo NM, California $300,000 National Institute for Consexvation of Cultural Property $700,000 Columbia River Bicentennial Commission $250,000 Johnstown Area Heritage Association $380,000 Roosevelt C a mpobello International Park Commission $566,000 Including 26 Sloss Furnaces NHL Steel Industry Heritage Task Force Historic Preservation Fund Including Chicago Public Library Rehabilitatiofi Chickamauga Road Relocation Jaite Paper Mill, Cuyahoga Valley, O H Urban Park and Recreation Fund Land Acquisition and State Assistance JFK Center for Perfming Arts Illinois Michigan National Heritage Corridor Commission Bureau of Mines Including Regulatory Impact Analysis Marine Minerals Technology Center Fan Noise Can c ellation Rock Burst Mechanics Nonroutine Decisionmaking Behavior Mountain Bump Studies Pyrolsis Microstructure Chicago River Sediments Assessments Surface Mining Reclamation i?k Enforcement Including State Regulatory Program ;rants Abandoned Mine Reclamau o n Fund Bureau of Indian Affairs Including Fish Hatcheries Irrigation Systems Rock Point Community School Haskell Junior College Dormitory Lac Courte Oreilles School Gymnasium Close Up Foundation Grant Indian Enterprises Technical Assistance h-Law Summer I n stitute for American Indians Yurok Interim Council Gila River Farms Crop Establishment Western Washington Rights Protection Community Fire Protection 250,000 1,250,000 Total 35,931,000 2,000,000 $1,000,000 1,800,000 10,o0o,o0O 108,365,000 22,945,000 250,0 0 0 Total 175,890,000 2,670,000 1,200,000 350,000 $300,000 $200,000 $250,000 $220,000 $530,000 Total 301,950,000 49,100,000 190,2OO,000 Total 1,602,694,000 l,o00,000 45,857,000 6,350,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 300,000 1,000,000 160,000 $250,000 $650,000 2,408, 0 00 446,000 27 Territorial and International Affairs Total 15'7,WS,000 Including BrownTree Snake $500,000 Northem Mariana Islands Airpart Control Tower $2,500,000 virgin ~slancis Consauction Grants Republic of Palau Operations Eniwetok Support Community Co l lege of Micronesia National Indian Gaming Commission RELATED AGENCIES Department of Agriculture Forest Service Forest Research Including Riverside Califomh Urban Area Uses Chicago, Illinois Recreation, Urban Fast Syracuse, New Yak Recreation Corvallis, Or e gon New Perspectives Radnor, Pennsylvania PearThrips Burlington, Vennont Tree Stress Physiology State and Private Forestry Including Urban Forestry Timber Bridges Gifford Pinochot Institute Walla WallaTrail 23,500,000 17,651,000 1,100,000 $4,000,000 $1,89 0 ,000 Total 2,308,516,000 Total 183,572,000 350,000 250,000 $100,000 400,000 $155,000 120,000 Total 205,041,000 32,117,000 2,800,000 500,000 $125,000 30,250 Tnco Housing Panel Project, Washington Tourboat/train Deversification Project, Washington 30,000 Na t ional Forest System Total 1,280,947,000 Including Silvicultural Examination 37384,OOO Recreation Management $175,977,000 Anadramous Fish Management $24,823 ,000 Wild Horse and Bum, Management 300,000 Noxious Weed Control $2,079,000 Construction Total 350, 4 20,000 Including 725,000 Big Cottonwood Canyon sewer, Utah Road Obliteration $5,000,000 28 Land Acquisition 93,129,000 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Fossil Energy Research and Development Total 445,989,000 Including Support for Coal Exports Wilsonville, Alabama Pi l ot Facility Fuel Cells Oil Shale Energy Tech Center Program Direction Illinois Cost-Share Program Economic Regulation Oil Purchase for Strategic Petroleum Reserve OTHER RELATED AGENCIES National Endowment for the Arts National Endowment for the Humanities Institute of Museum Services Commission on Fine Arts National Capital Arts and Cultural Affairs Advisory Council on Historic Preservation National Capital Planning Commission Franklin Delano Roosevelt Memorial Commission Pennsylvania Avenue Development Co r poration Public Open Space Cultural Activities Including 1,500,000 $4,700,000 48,758,000 5,300,000 36,240,000 1,500,000 15,114,OOO 203,000,000 $178,200,000 178,2OO,OOO 27,344,000 722,000 7 ,o0o,o0O 2,623,000 $4,500,000 33,000 7,298,000 100,000 29 DEPARTME N T OF VETERANS AFFAIRS Grants to the Republic of the Philippines $500,000 Construction, Major Projects Total 522,000,000 Approximately 21 percent of the budget for fiscal year 1992 in this cate gory will be used to rectify past budget mistakes, unfinished p rojects, and inaccurate estimates Tuscaloosa, Alabama: Renovation Addition $6,400,000 Palo Alto, California: Seismic Corrections $3,500,000 Tampa Florida: Clinical addition and parking garage $6,300,000 Chicago, Illinois: Building Renovations $8,000,000 K n oxville, Iowa: Laundry Replacement $8,000,000 Ann Arbor, Michigan: Clinical addition $16,800,000 Brooklyn, New York: Modernization of Kitchen and Dining Areas $4,9OO,OOO Including Parking Garage Revolving Fund Including Total 19,200,000 Miami, Florida: Pa r king garage $5,000,000 of the clinical addition $13,000,000 Various Locations: Parking garage leases $1200,000 Nashville, Tennessee: Parking garage component DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT Grants to Local Governments for Lead-Based Paint Abat e ment in Privately-owned Housing ReconstructiodNew Development for about 7,500 public housing units ($76,600 per unit Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS Housing Counseling Assistance Community Planning and Development Including 25,000,000 574,500, 0 00 50,000,000 8,350,000 Total 3,265,000,000 30 Grant to the Population and Marketing Analysis Center in Towanda, Penn sylvania for mapping projects in kkawanna County, Dunmore, Carbon dale Tioga County, Wks-Bam, and Hazelton 500,000 Policy Development and Research Total 29,5OO,OOO Including Grant to the National Association of Home Builders for innovative building technologies xesearch $1,000,000 INDEPENDENT AGENCIES American Battle Monuments Commission $18,440,000 Consumer Product Safety Commission Includ i ng Little Cigar and Cigarette Safety study 40,200,000 l,o00,000 Environmental Protection Agency Total 6,566,861,000 Research and Development Total 333,875,000 Including All are increases above the Administrations Request Center for Environmental Managemen t $3,500,000 Indoor Air Research $3,200,000 Electromagnetic Field Research $1,100,OOo Drinking Water Research $1,500,000 Purchase of Specialized Equipment for Neural Science Research $3,300,000 Center for Excellence in Polymer Research and Environmental St u dy $1,500,000 Natural Resources Research Institutes Minemls Research Labaatory $760,000 Adirondack Destruction Assessment Program $1,000,000 Research Project to Recycle Mixed Mice Waste at Western Michigan University $1,655,000 Pollution Abatement Demonst r ation in Hamburg New York $105,000 Zebra Mussel Research $250,000 Earth Observing System Activities $750,000 2,000,000 Great Lakes National Program Mice Abatement, Control, and Compliance Total: $1,133,625,000 Including: Clean Lakes Program $8,000,000 Aca d emicTraining $2,000,000 Multimedia Grants for Indian Tribes Rural Water Grants 1,500,000 31 Climate Change Protection Prograxn Wastewater OperamTraining Activities Program to Reduce Lead Paint Poisoning Controlling Erosion and Sedimentation Alternative Fu e ls Demonstration Project in the Great Lakes Basin EPA National Training Center at Heavy Duty Engine Dynamometer Environmental Efforts at the Canaan Valley Development of Lackawanna Institute for Small Flows Clearinghouse at West Virginia University West V i rginia University West Virginia Wetlands Complex Environmental Renewal Leaking Underground Storage TankTrust Fund 4,500,000 $5,000,000 $1,500,000 3,000,000 1,000,000 500,000 l,000,o00 $1,500,000 300,000 2,200,000 1,000,000 85,000,000 Construction Grants T o tal: $2,195,000,000 Including sewage treatment facilities in the following localities Los Angeles, California $70,000,000 San Diego, California $40,000,000 Boston, Massachusetts $100,000,000 Wayne County, Michigan $46,000,000 New York, New York $70,000,00 0 Seattle, Washington $35,000,000 OTHER AGENCIES Thousand Points of Light Foundation National Institute of Building Sciences Neighborhood Reinvestment Corporation 7,500,000 250,000 26,900,000 32 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR Training and Employment Services Dislocat e d Worker Assistance Employment Transition Assistance Under the Clean Air Act Job Corps Training and Technical Assistance Labor and Market Infannation National Commissions Rural Concentrated Employment Programs Pilot and Demonstration projects Including To t al 4,137,771,000 526,986,000 50,000,000 898,497,000 4,760,000 3,698,000 4,348,000 $3,900,000 27,753,000 Community Service Employment for Older Americans $390,360,000 DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Health Resources and Services Including Public He a lth Special Projects Public Health Traineeships Health Adminstration Traineeships Preventive Medicine Residencies Family Medicine Residencies General Dentistry Residencies General Internal Medicine and Pediatrics Physician Assistants Health Administration Grants Health Professions Data Analysis Disadvantaged Assistance Allied Health Grants and Contracts Health Professions Special Education Initiatives Pacific Basin Activities Native Hawaiian Health Care Nurse Training Advanced Nurse Education Nurse Practit i oners/Nurse Midwives Medical Facilities Guarantee Loan Fund Total 2,137,533,000 3,757,000 3,416,000 484,000 1,654,000 36,108,000 3,834,000 17,256,000 5,021,000 1,554,000 $1,762,000 30,817,000 1,659,000 2,398,000 2,440,000 $3,416,000 59,979,000 12,463,000 1 4,639,000 19,o00,000 33 Agency for Health Care Policy and Research $95.75 6,000 Energy Assistance Programs Total: $1,600,000,000 Refugee and Entrant Assistance Cash and Medical Assistance Social Sexvices Voluntary Agency Program Reventive Health Targeted A ssistance Including Total 294,014,000 1 17,600,000 82,952,000 39,036,000 5,631,000 48,795,000 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Compensatory Education for the Disadvantaged Total: $7,075,750,000 Including Capital Expenses for Private School Children State Adminisua t ion State Program Improvement Grants Evaluation and Technical Assistance Rural Technical Assistance Centers Impact Aid School Improvement Programs Including School Personnel Training Magnet Schools, Desegregation Program Women's Educational Equity General Assistance to the Virgin Islands Native Hawaiian Education.

Foreign Language Assistance Bilingual and Immigrant Education Vocational and Adult Education Including Supplemental Grants Community-Based Organizations Consumer and Homemaking Education State Councils on Vocational Education Tech-Rep Education National P r ograms, Research National Programs, Demonstrations 38,000 64,500,000 32,250,000 17,000,000 5,000,000 764,756,000 Total: $1,577,618,000 23,395,000 1 10,000,000 2,000,000 $4,500,000 $6,400,000 5,000,000 249,000,OOO Total: $1,651,500,000 100,OOO,000 12,000,0 0 0 $3 8 ,000,000 9,000,000 100,000,000 12,000,000 12,000,000 34 Bilingual Vocational Training Adult Education State Programs Adult Education National Programs Technology Education Workshops Howard University Higher Education Including Innovative Projects f o r Community Services Cooperative Education Law School Clinical Experience Interest Subsidy Grants for Construction Projects at Colleges and Universities Assistance to Guam Robert A. Taft Institute of Government Robert C. Byrd Scholarships Education Resear c h, Statistics, and Improvement Including statistics Assessment Fund for Innovation in Education National Difussion Network Territorial Teacher Training National Board for Professional Teacher Standards RELATED AGENCIES 3,000,000 250,000,000 9,000,000 1,00 0 ,000 212,960,000 Total 821,438,000 l,463,OOo 14,000,000 8,000,000 19,412,000 500,000 $550,000 9,27 1 ,000 ACTION VISTA Student Community Service Special Volunteer Programs Older Americans Volunteer Programs Corporation for Public Broadcasting Soldiers, an d Airmens Home Operation and Maintenance United States Institute of Peace Total 233,879,000 50,000,000 28,000,000 19,000,000 14,000,000 1,769,000 4,880,000 193,678,0OO 32,693,000 976,000 1 ,000,000 123,940,000 $253,309,000 40,581,000 8,393,000 35 DEPARTMEN T OF TRANSPORTATION Office of the Secretary Total 221,680,000 Including Travel A 196% increase 160,000 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Administration Total 30,262,000 Including Travel A 62% increase 175,000 Full-Time National Bicycling Program Manage r Unspecified Coast Guard Total: $3,508,831,000 Shore and Aids to Navigation Facilities Total 62,550,000 Including New London, Connecticut Child Care Center $1,95O,OOO Public Family Housing $15,600,000 Alteration of Bridges Total ll 6,200,000 4,000,000 Inc l uding Alteration of Bridge, E. Pasagoula River, Mississippi Alteration of Bridge, Mississippi River, Iowa Research, Development, Test and Evaluation Total: $27,800,000 South Florida Oil Spill Research Center $1 ,000,000 Zebra Mussel Research $500,000 Incl u ding Federal Aviation Administration Total: $8,929,650,000 Including Human Resource Management $292,125,000 Mid-American Aviation Resource Consortium Including Minnesota $2,000,000 Facilities and Equipment Including Total: $2,469,500,000 36 DallasFt. Wort h Airport New Denver Airport Provide FAA Housing in Alaska Airport Datum Monument Controller Chairs Airway Science Program, Middle Tennesse State University A national aviation and transportation center to be developed by Dowling College at MacArthur Airpo r t in Islip, New Yorlc Distance Learning Project, University of North Dakota-Grand Forks 5 3,500,000 41,700,000 4,000,000 1,500,000 5,500,000 250,000 5,000,000 $2,000,000 Research, Engineering, and Development Including Total 218,000,000 800,000 Institute f or Aviation Research, Wichita State University Federal Highway Administration Total 16,640,367,000 Contract Programs Total 114,200,00 Intelligent VehicleMghway Systems $50,000,000 Long Term Pavement Performance $10,000,000 Rural Technical Assistance $3,75 0 ,000 National Highway Institute $3,000,000 Multimodal Studies $4,000,000 Minority Business Enterprise $8,000,000 International Transportation $100,000 Port of St. Bernard, Louisiana, Intermodal Facility Site Engineering and Feasibility Study 450,000 Furth e r Development of North Carolinas Geographic Information System $1,000,000 Minnesota Humphrey Institute and the University of Minnesotas Center for Transportation Studies University Transportation Centers $5,000,000 Including 750,000 The Committee commends the Department for its appointments of two na tional bicycle program managers and its work on the national bicycling and walk ing study included in the fiscal year 1991 appropriations Act The Federal Highway Administration is directed, within funds provid e d in this bill, to have emted along Inter-states 75,475 and 280, the appropriate signage giving directions to the Farmers Market in downtown Toledo, Ohio 37 Demonstration Projects Total 294,950,000 None of the following examples of demonstration projects w ere included in the Presidents budget request Railroad Crossings Demonstration Projects Total l3,270,000 Lafayette, Indiana $5,100,000 Bmwnsville, Texas $4,800,000 Including Highway Demonstration Projects Including Baltimore-Washington Parkway $22,000,000 Franklin Ave and 59th Street, Minneapolis, MN $10,000,000 between Paintsville and Prestonburg, Kentucky $8,000,000 Tioga County, Pennsylvania $7,000,000 $4,000,000 Alabama Highway Bypass Demonstration Project $10,000,000 Kentucky Bridge Demonstration Proj e ct $5,000,000 Macomb County, Michigan l,OOO,OOO 23 15,000 New York, Mount Vernon Parking Facility $400,000 Ohio Railroad-Highway Conidor Studies $300,000 Intennodal Urban Demonstration Project Highway Widening and Improvement Demonstration Project Climbin g Lane and Highway Safety Demonstration Project Indiana Industrial Corridor Safety Demonstration Project Bicycle Transportation Demonstration Project Florida, Northeast Dade Bikepaths Washington, Snohomish County HOV Lanespark and Ride Project Federal Rail r oad Administration Including AlaskaRailroad Railroad Research Development Northeast Corridor Improvement Program Including Improvements at Rt 128 Station, Boston Grants to Amtrak Including A mare aggressive marketing program A Feasibility Study of High-sp e ed Rail Service Between Chicago and St. Louis l,OOO,000 Total 793,526,000 1,243,000 14,7 13,000 Total 36,OOO,OOO 2,700,000 Total 503,900,000 5,000,000 500,000 38 Demonstration Project at 13th Street Station Area Conrail Commuter Transition Assistance 27,2 0 0,000 Philadelphia 1 0,000,000 Urban Mass Transportation Administration Including Total 3,847,000,000 Washington Mea0 $124,000,000 Center for Suburban Mobility in Northem Virginia $750,000 Brazos Transit System in East Texas $10,000,000 10 Vans for Raleig h , Nd Carolina $311,000 73 Buses for Maryland Mass Transit Administration $WOO,000 Houston "Better-Bus" System 15,000,000 Rail modernization in nine urban mas $560,000,000 New Rail Systems Total s60,000,OOO Including Queens Boulevard Connection Project, Ne w York $9,800,000 South Boston Piers Transitway $25,000,000 Allegheny County Busway System, Pennsylvania $14,000,000 Planning and Technical Studies Including Total 4S,OOo,O00 Alternatives Analysis, Sacramento, California $2,500,000 Passenger Rail Feasibili t y Study, Lackawanna and Monroe Counties, Pennsylvania $200,000 Regional Transit Planning Study, North Carolina $750,000 Transit Improvement Study Jefferson County, Missouri $80,000 Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Copration $lO,ao0,000 RELATED AGENCIES A rchitectural h Transportation Barriers Compliance Board $2,900,000 Interstate Commerce Commission $41,398,000 Washington Metropolitan ha Transit Authority $5 1,663,569 39


Scott A.