Appropriations for FY1999: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

98-208 STM

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY1999:

Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies

Updated December 1, 1998

Duane Thompson

Coordinator

Science, Technology, and Medicine Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget

resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions,

and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget

request and is bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional

Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget

Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program authorizations. Customarily, each of

the 13 individual appropriations bills is considered and processed as a discrete

measure. On occasion, however, Congress may choose to bundle these bills into an

omnibus appropriation, containing two or more initially discrete appropriations bills.

Each of these bills is then represented as a separate title within the omnibus measure.

FY1999 funding for a broad range of government programs is contained in the

omnibus appropriations bill (H.R. 4328), originally introduced to fund the Department

of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies. Based on the conference report

(H.Rept. 105-825), published in the October 19 Congressional Record, DOT funding

appears as Subsection 101(g) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency

Supplemental Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-277, October 21,

1998; 112 Stat. 2681).

For a further breakdown of individual department and agency funding, refer to

the index provided at [http://www.congress.gov/homepage/omni.html].

The text of this report is a guide to of the original (DOT and Related Agencies)

appropriations bill for FY1999. It is designed to supplement the information provided

by the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Transportation

Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope,

major issues, funding levels, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key

CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.

This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments,

especially following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House

and Senate.

NOTE: A Web version of this document with

active links is available to congressional staff at

[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

Appropriations for FY1999: Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies

Summary

For FY1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total

funding of approximately $43 billion, a 1% increase over the FY1998 enacted level

of $39 billion. The FY1999 budget request for the DOT was similar in many respects

to the FY1998 appropriation.

There are many “macro” issues or factors that are influencing the debate over the

Administration’s FY1999 budget request. Some of them have been carried over from

the previous fiscal year. Complicating the budget process had been the delay

associated with reauthorizing many of the Department’s programs.

The recently concluded reauthorization of surface transportation programs will

dramatically effect the FY1999 appropriations process. The Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178, TEA21) provides for an increase in spending

at a level above that contemplated in the Administration budget request. In addition,

the new legislation provides a new budget environment for highway and transit

programs that limits the ability of the appropriations process to alter spending for

these activities.

In its FY1999 request, the Administration reiterated that safety is its highest

priority, followed by technology development, environmental enhancement,

infrastructure needs, and innovative financing. The budget proposal included requests

of: $3.1 billion for direct safety funding; $30.0 billion for infrastructure investments;

$1.1 billion for transportation research and development (R&D); and $0.6 billion for

Amtrak (See CRS Issue Brief 97030).

On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2307

(S.Rept. 105-249). The committee recommended total funding of approximately $47

billion for FY1999. S. 2307 was passed by the Senate on July 24, 1998. Few

amendments were made, excepting one controversial proposal to bar the use of

federal funds to impose “project labor agreements” on highway and transit fund

projects. A compromise substitute was offered.

The House Appropriations Committee reported its own bill (H.R. 4328, H.Rept.

105-648) which would have provided a total of $46.9 billion, an amount $4.8 billion

greater than FY1998 and $3.9 billion greater than the amount requested by the

Administration. The committee voiced its objections to the impact of TEA21

legislation, whose “firewalls” significantly limited its latitude in funding. According

to the report, “These ‘firewalls’ make it virtually impossible for the Appropriations

Committee to make downward adjustments to those funding levels in the annual

appropriations process over the next 5 years.”

By July 31, both the House and Senate had passed their respective bills; the

House bill was referred to the Senate; the Senate substituted its own language; and

the House requested a conference on the substitute amendment. See the “Most

Recent Developments” section of this report for the latest legislative action.

Key Policy Staff

CRS

Division

Area of Expertise

Name

Tel.

Automotive Safety

Duane Thompson STM

7-7252

Federal Aviation Administration

James G. Moore

STM

7-7033

Transportation Infrastructure Policy

John Fischer

E

7-7766

Federal Highway Administration

William Lipford

E

7-7764

Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak

Stephen J

Thompson

E

7-7771

Surface Transportation Board

Stephen J

Thompson

E

7-7771

Federal Transit Administration

William Lipford

E

7-7764

Highway and Truck Safety

Paul Rothberg

STM

7-7012

U.S. Coast Guard

James E. Mielke STM

Division abbreviations: E = Economics; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.

7-7007

Contents

Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Other Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Amtrak Reform Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Facilities and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Research, Engineering, & Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Peanut-Free Buffer Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 17

For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of DOT Appropriations, FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations, Obligations, Limitations,

DOD Transfers, and Exempt Obligations Subject to the Appropriations

Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Table 3. Total Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies/Offices . . . . . . . . . 18

List of Figures

Figure 1. DOT Funding Request for FY1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Appropriations for FY1999: Department of

Transportation and Related Agencies

Most Recent Developments

Funding for Department of Transportation programs was contained in the

President’s budget submission, issued in February, 1998. For FY1999, the U.S.

Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total funding of $43.3 billion, a 1%

increase over the FY1998 enacted level of $42.8 billion. Hearings on the budget

request were held in transportation subcommittees of the House and Senate

Appropriations Committees. In a related development, many of DOT’s surface

transportation programs were recently reauthorized by the Transportation Equity Act

for the 21st Century, generally referred to as TEA-21 (P.L. 105-178, June 9, 1998).

Both the House (H.Con.Res. 284) and the Senate (S.Con.Res. 86) passed their

respective versions of the budget resolution and subsequently held a conference.

H.Con.Res. 284 provided the following amounts of budget authority and outlays for

FY1999: $44.3 billion (BA) and $42.1 billion (BO). S.Con.Res. 86 provided for the

following amounts during the same period: $51.5 (BA) and $42.8 (BO).

In a related development, on June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) into law (P.L. 105-178, H.R.

2400). The law provides authorization for appropriations for DOT’s agencies and

programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2003. TEA 21 affects virtually all of the

Department’s surface transportation agencies, ranging from the National Highway

Traffic Safety Administration to the Coast Guard. The impact of its provisions have

been addressed in other sections of this report.

On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S.

2307, Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill for

1999 (S.Rept. 105-249). The report recommends $13,694,249,000 of new budget

obligational authority for the Department of Transportation. This amount represents

approximately $340,000,000 more than the Administration’s request, and almost $1

billion more than the enacted amount for FY1998. In conjunction with

$32,234,800,000 estimated obligation limitations (generated from trust funds), the

total obligational authority is approximately $45.9 billion.

On July 24, with few substantive floor amendments, the Senate passed its

version of the DOT appropriations for FY1999. One provision, relatively

controversial between the Administration and Congress, however, was dropped from

the legislation. That provision, which drew a veto warning from Administration

officials, would have barred the use of federal funds to impose “project labor

agreements” on highway and transit fund projects. A substitute amendment appears

to have served as a compromise, permitting passage.

CRS-2

On July 22, 1998, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 4328

(H.Rept. 105-648) The bill provides for a total of$46.9 billion (new budget

authoruty, guaranteed obligations contained in the TEA21, limitation on obligations

and exempt obligations) for FY1999. This amount is $4.8 billion greater than

FY1998 enacted levels, and $3.9 billion greater than the Administration’s FY1999

request.

On July 30, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4328, also with few substantive

amendments. H.R. 4328 was referred to the Senate, which amended the bill by

inserting S. 2307 after the enacting clause.

On September 17, 1998, the House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 128, a

continuing resolution to fund, until October 9, 1998, any government activity that

would have otherwise been funded by an annual appropriation.

Following the enactment of five subsequent continuing resolutions, the House

passed the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,

for Fiscal Year 1999 on October 19, 1998. On October 21, the Senate passed the

same measure.

The conference agreement provided approximately $47 billion in FY1999 for

federal transportation programs — an amount 12% greater than the FY1998

funding, 9% more than requested by the Administration, and about$150 million

more than that included in the House bill. The amount for some DOT programs

(including Federal Highways and Mass Transit) was virtually insured by funding

“firewalls” that had been placed in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA21).

For the complete legislative text of the Omnibus Act as it appears in the

October 19, 1998 Congressional Record, Members and staff should see the following

Internet Web site: http://www.clerkweb.house.gov.

Introduction

Transportation budgeting uses a confusing lexicon (for those unfamiliar with the

process) of budget authority and contract authority — the latter, a form of budget

authority.1 Contract authority, provides obligational authority for the funding of trust

fund financed programs, such as the federal-aid highway program. Prior to TEA21,

changes in spending in the annual transportation budget component had been achieved

in the appropriations process by combining changes in budget/contract authority and

placing limitations on obligations. The principal function of the limitation on

obligations is to control outlays in a manner that corresponds to congressional budget

agreements.

1

Much of this section was taken from, CRS Report 98-749 E, entitled The Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Federal Budget, by John W. Fischer,

September 4, 1998.

CRS-3

Contract authority is tantamount to, but does not actually involve, entering into

a contract to pay for a project at some future date. Under this arrangement, specified

in Title 23 U.S.C., which TEA21 amends, authorized funds are automatically made

available to the states at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated

without appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays at

some future date to cover these obligations. As will be discussed, TEA21 greatly

limits the role of the appropriations process in core highway and transit programs

because the Act sets the limitation on obligations level for the period FY1999 through

FY2003.

Highway and transit grant programs work on a reimbursable basis: states pay for

projects up front and federal payments are made to them only when work is

completed and vouchers are presented, perhaps months or even years after the project

has begun. Work in progress is represented in the trust fund as obligated funds and

although they are considered “used” and remain as commitments against the trust fund

balances, they are not subtracted from balances. Trust fund balances, therefore,

appear high in part because funds sufficient to cover actual and expected future

commitments must remain available.

Both the highway and transit accounts have substantial short- and long-term

commitments. These include payments that will be made in the current fiscal year as

projects are completed and, to a much greater extent, outstanding obligations to be

made at some unspecified future date. Additionally, there are unobligated amounts

that are still dedicated to highway and transit projects, but have not been committed

to specific projects.

Two terms are associated with the distribution of contract authority funds to the

states and to particular programs. The first of these, apportionments, refers to funds

distributed to the states for formula driven programs. For example, all national

highway system (NHS) funds are apportioned to the states. Allocated funds, are

funds distributed on an administrative basis, typically to programs under direct federal

control. For example, federal lands highway program monies are allocated; the

allocation can be to another federal agency, to a state, to an Indian tribe, or to some

other governmental entity. These terms do not refer to the federal budget process,

but often provide a frame of reference for highway program recipients, who may

assume, albeit incorrectly, that a state apportionment is part of the federal budget per

se.

For FY1999, the DOT requested total funding of $43.259 billion, about a 1.0%

increase from the FY1998 enactment of level $42.828 billion. The Department’s

FY1999 budget request was similar in many respects to the FY1998 appropriation.

The agencies targeted for gains include (in descending order): the Maritime

Administration (+35.3%); The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

(+21.92%); Research and Special Programs Administration (+16%); Federal Aviation

Administration (+7.0%); Federal Railroad Administration (+2.6%); Office of the

Secretary (+2.4%); and the U.S. Coast Guard (+2%). Those whose budget request

were reduced for FY1999 included (in descending order): St. Lawrence Seaway

Development Corporation (-100%); Federal Transit Administration (-1.38%). The

budgets for the Office of the Inspector General and the Surface Transportation Board

are set at the FY1998 level.

CRS-4

Figure 1. DOT Funding Request for FY1999

This report analyzes the FY1999 budget request and final action from a number

of perspectives. First, funding proposals for several national transportation priorities,

such as safety, national security, infrastructure needs, and technology development,

are highlighted and selected policy issues associated with these are presented.

Second, historical funding trends are analyzed. Third, highlights of the FY1999

budget request for several key modal administrations, such as the Federal Highway

Administration, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the U.S. Coast

Guard, are summarized.

Status

Table 1. Status of DOT Appropriations, FY1999

Subcommittee

Markup

House

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conference

Report

H.R.

4328

S. 2307

H.Rept.

105-648

S.Rept.

7-30-98 105-249 7-24-98

H.Rept 105825

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

Public Law

10-20-98

10-21-98

P.L. 105277

CRS-5

Key Policy Issues

One of the major challenges facing appropriators continues to be the allocation

of funds for the U.S. Department of Transportation among numerous competing

national interests. Competition for these funds stems from various transportation

interests, and from the modal administrations themselves seeking portions of the

“transportation pie.” Monies have been allocated for a diverse array of purposes, for

example, to pay for the expenses of the U.S. Coast Guard, to improve safety across

the transportation system, and to help finance various infrastructure needs. In the

DOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, monies are also provided to support

the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Surface Transportation Board

(STB), and several other transportation-related agencies.2

The perennial question of priorities surrounds the appropriations process.

Throughout its budget request, the DOT continues to emphasize several priorities

including: safety, infrastructure, innovative financing, environmental enhancement,

technology, and national security.

Much of the appropriations process must take place within the newly enacted

framework of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), signed

into law on June 9, 1998 (P.L. 105-178, H.R. 2400). The act, which authorizes

appropriations for key transportation programs through the fiscal year 2003,

emphasizes certain programs and de-emphasizes others. The general sense of

Congress appears to be that, although transportation trust funds are not sacrosanct,

proceeds from the gasoline tax must be targeted towards the maintenance of the vast

U.S. highway and transit network, and not viewed as a source of revenue for the

general treasury. Although attempts to move highway and transit programs “offbudget” were unsuccessful, Congress did insert language within TEA21to protect

specific funding by creating “fire walls” around programs. In addition to spending

ceilings, the fire walls effectively create floors. The creation of these devices emerged

as a point of contention between authorizers and appropriators.

Surface Transportation Infrastructure Policy

The Administration requested a total of approximately $30.0 billion for FY1999.

This requested increase occurred in spite of the limitations placed on domestic

discretionary spending by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Since many

discretionary budget allocations were reduced, the increase in transportation

infrastructure spending is regarded as a strong policy statement on the part of

Congress and the Clinton Administration that infrastructure is a policy priority.

In each of its budget submissions, the Clinton Administration has sought to

emphasize its commitment to improving the nation’s infrastructure. Increased

2

DOT proposed that the Surface Transportation Board (STB) be fully funded by user fees in

FY1998. The STB and its predecessor, the Interstate Commerce Commission, have never

been fully funded by user fees. For further information, see CRS Report 96-67 E, entitled The

Surface Transportation Board (STB): An Overview and Selected Public Policy Issues, by

Stephen J Thompson.

CRS-6

infrastructure spending to enhance national productivity and competitiveness was a

policy feature of both of the President’s election campaigns. The Administration’s

FY1999 budget request is predicated on a continuation of this policy at least in spirit.

The Administration makes the case in its budget document that the FY1999

budget request would compliment the spending increases that have occurred earlier

in this decade.3 The Administration view is that transportation infrastructure spending

at the $30.0 billion level envisioned in its request would provide the highest level of

infrastructure spending in DOT history. In addition, the Administration takes

considerable credit for some improvements in transit capacity, airport capacity, and

highway condition that have occurred in recent years. Finally, the Administration

contends that it has accomplished all of these advances and provided for future

improvements in a fiscally responsible manner.

In reality the Administration’s FY1999 request is very similar to the levels of

funding provided in the FY1998 Act. This is very much the result of the Balanced

Budget Act of 1997. The Administration request has now been somewhat superceded

by passage of TEA-21. By signing this legislation the Administration has agreed to

a somewhat higher level of spending for surface transportation in FY1998 then it had

proposed earlier in the year. In addition, the Administration has agreed to much

higher levels of spending in the period FY1999-FY2003.

One of the principal provisions of TEA-21 is a change in the budget treatment

of the highway and transit programs. This new legislation sets a limitation on

obligations for program spending in each of the next 6 fiscal years and does so by

creating “fire walls” that prevent reductions in spending below agreed upon levels.

This action deprives the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of their

traditional authority to determine the absolute level of spending for these programs.

Instead the committees now control spending of only a small portion of the highway

and transit programs.

Over the last several years the Administration has attempted to find more funding

for infrastructure by changing the way infrastructure was financed. To accomplish

this objective in FY1999, the DOT proposed to continue supporting State

Infrastructure Banks (SIBs) at the $150 million level and to finance a new

Transportation Infrastructure Credit Program at the $100 million level for FY1998.

The SIB program combines federal/state/private funding to help finance a variety

of transportation improvements, such as toll roads and intermodal terminals.

Although the SIB program had been adopted by 10 states, with an additional 15

expressing interest, the program was reduced to four states by language in TEA21.

Examples of innovative financing include a proposed new Transportation

Infrastructure Credit Program intended to leverage federal dollars and encourage

private sector investment in projects of national significance that may be too large to

attract local capital.4 The Administration also is trying to improve the efficiency of

3

U.S. DOT. Budget in Brief — FY1999. p. 8.

4

U.S. DOT. Budget in Brief — FY1997. p. 5.

CRS-7

federal funds distribution. In dollar terms, however, the Administration’s efforts to

promote innovative financing represent a small portion of the total DOT budget.

Technology

The Administration proposed to spend about $1.1 billion on transportation

research, development and technology activities during FY1999. This amount

represents about a 10% increase over the FY1998 level for those activities. The

support of research and technology activities is not a goal in and of itself, but it

underpins the other functions of the Department. For example, DOT seeks to apply

the results of its research and development activities to improve safety, enhance

mobility, further an intermodal transportation system, promote economic growth and

trade, and support national security. The three largest components of the FY1999

Research, Development and Technology budget request are for: FHWA’s program

($582 million), FAA’s program ($334 million), and NHTSA’s program ($53 million).

Increased investment in research and development continues to be a key theme of the

Clinton Administration and this emphasis has been reflected in the Department’s

budget during the last few years. It remains difficult to decide on the amount of funds

for the numerous R&T activities at the Department, especially when these decisions

are considered within the context of the other funding needs.

DOT is involved in a variety of technology programs, including the Partnership

for a New Generation of Vehicles, the National Advanced Driving Simulator, and the

Advanced Technology Transit Bus. One of the largest R&T activities is the

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. The FY1999 request for this

multifaceted activity that involves each of the surface transportation modes within the

Department is $250 million. These funds would support a comprehensive research

and demonstration program and deployment initiative. That initiative is designed to

stimulate investments in a variety of ITS technologies, such as traffic surveillance,

crash avoidance systems, and safety monitoring for commercial motor vehicles. The

actual amount of FY1999 contract funds authorized for ITS is set in the TEA21 law.

For FY1999, that act provides $95 million for research, development, operational

tests and other activities considered to be part of the core departmental ITS program.

TEA21 also authorizes $105 million of contract funds for ITS integrated deployment

projects. The overall highway obligation limitation will reduce the amount of funds

actually made available for those activities. P.L. 105-277 provides a total of

$200,000,000 to be available for implementation of the various ITS program specified

in TEA-21. With an obligation limitation of 88.3 percent for FY 1999, that amount

is effectively reduced to $176.6 million.

The Federal Railroad Administration requested that funding for the Next

Generation of High Speed Rail Program be reduced from about $20 million in

FY1998 to about $12.6 million in FY1999. The Senate Appropriations Committee

recommended $28,494,000 for this program. For FY1999, the Coast Guard

requested $18 million for research, development, testing and evaluation. Funds were

requested for technologies, materials, and human factors research to improve the

Coast Guard’s mission performance and delivery of services to the public.

CRS-8

Safety

Safety continues to be claimed as the Department’s highest priority. DOT’s

request for various transportation safety programs for FY1999 is $3.1 billion, an 11

percent increase over the FY1998 level. Substantial increases are requested for the

safety activities of several modal administrations, including: the Federal Aviation

Administration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and

the Federal Highway Administration. Each year debate continues over the perennial

question regarding funds for safety relative to other functions of the DOT.

DOT sought to promote public health and safety by working toward the

elimination of transportation-related injuries, deaths, and property damage. Funding

was requested to increase safety using a variety of approaches, including: rulemaking,

compliance efforts, public education and outreach, and direct operations (such as

vessel traffic services). In FY1999, some of the activities intended to achieve the

Department’s safety goals include: requesting additional personnel for the FRA’s

Office of Safety, promoting public-private partnerships to demonstrate cost-effective,

safety technologies, such as intelligent vehicles; and advancing research exploring

causes of, and countermeasures for, transportation incidents in all modes of

transportation.

Spending for NHTSA’s highway safety programs was intended to increase by

22%, from $333 million in FY1998 to $406 million in FY1999. Increased funding for

grants and research to improve the protection of automobile occupants was

requested: $31 million was proposed for the President’s initiative to increase seat belt

use; and $10.2 million was proposed for safety systems research which supports

improvements in vehicle structures and occupant protection. The 1998 Department

of Transportation Appropriations Act provided $186,500,000 for obligations for

highway traffic safety grants, and $146,962,000 for operations and research, for a

total of $333,462,000 for NHTSA’s activities. The conference bill ultimately

provided $159.4 million for NHTSA operations and research, and $361.4 million total

for all of NHTSA’s activities. TEA21 sets specify contract funding levels for the

various traffic safety grants administered by NHTSA. TEA21 also sets an

authorization level for NHTSA Section 403 research program and for NHTSA’s

various motor vehicle-related activities, which together form much of the Operations

and Research account of NHTSA. Consequently, TEA21 will likely have a

substantial impact on setting the overall NHTSA budget and appropriation during

FY1999 through FY2003. P.L. 105-277 provides $ 159,400,000 for NHTSA’s

operations and research account and $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register, and

limits obligations for highway traffic safety grants to $200,000,000.

Other Factors

The debate on the FY1999 budget request has focused partly on the

Administration’s funding priorities. Some Members, however, chose to focus their

interests on other priorities, such as local needs for roads, transit and airports. The

debate leading to passage of TEA-21 is indicative of these concerns. Passage of this

legislation has created new issues for the appropriations process. Primary among

these is the new budgetary treatment of highway and transit spending. The TEA-21

CRS-9

limitation on obligations for these activities restricts the ability of the transportation

appropriations committees ability to meet their 302(b) goals by requiring all that all

adjustments in spending be made in other program categories.

Finally, enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has

compelled DOT, along with other agencies, to reconcile their spending requests and

programs/projects with their more fundamental strategic and performance goals.

Major Funding Trends

Table 2 shows historical funding levels for FY1988 through FY1998 (actual and

enacted) and FY1999 request for the Department of Transportation. Almost all of

these funds are provided by new budget authority or a limitations on obligations in the

DOT appropriations act.5 Total DOT funding increased approximately 66% from

FY1988 through FY1998 (enacted).

The following information from DOT shows actual, estimated, and requested

appropriations, obligations limitations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations subject

to the appropriations process (in millions of dollars). According to a DOT

spokesperson, this information does not include user fee collections; consequently,

program totals may vary from other figures cited in the text.

5

Starting in the early 1990s, about $300 million of the funds shown in Table 1 were

transferred from the DOD Appropriations budget to DOT. These monies are used to support

Coast Guard activities. The amounts requested for FY1998 are provided in Table 3.

CRS-10

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations, Obligations,

Limitations, DOD Transfers, and Exempt Obligations Subject to the

Appropriations Process

(in millions of dollars)

FY1988 Actual

25,779

FY1989 Actual

27,362

FY1990 Actual

29,722

FY1991 Actual

32,776

FY1992 Actual

36,184

FY1993 Actual

36,681

FY1994 Actual

40,359

FY1995 Actual

38,878

FY1996 Actual

37,378

FY1997 Actual

40,349

FY1998 Enacted

42,828

FY1999 Requested

43,259

Coast Guard

[http://www.uscg.mil/]

The Administration requested $4.1 billion for the Coast Guard in FY1999. This

was up 2.2% over FY1998 and maintains the same trend since FY1996. The budget

request would have allowed the Coast Guard to continue its activities against drug

smuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets to meet the President’s national

security goals. Of this amount, $2.8 billion would have been for operation and

maintenance of a wide range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to

navigation, including $309 million in defense-related funding. The Administration

requested $67 million to train, support, and sustain a ready military Selected Reserve

Force of 7,600 members for direct support to the Department of Defense and to

provide surge capacity for responses to emergencies such as clean-up operations

following oil spills.

Other Coast Guard requested funding included $61 million for spill clean-up and

initial damage assessment, available without further appropriation from the Oil Spill

Liability Trust Fund. No funds were requested for boat safety grants because these

would be funded from appropriations from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund.

The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $3.7 billion for the Coast

Guard, 1.1% less than the budget request, but 0.9% more than enacted for FY1998.

CRS-11

Of this amount, operating expenses would be funded at $2.8 billion, including $300

million in national security activities scored against defense funding. Environmental

compliance and restoration ($21 million), retired pay ($684 million), and reserve

training ($67 million) would be funded at the level of the request. Acquisition,

construction and improvements would be decreased from the request (from $442.6

million to $388.7 million) and research, development, test, and evaluation would be

decreased from $18.3 million to $17.5 million.

The House passed an appropriation of $3.887 billion for the Coast Guard which

is $29.4 million less than FY1998. Operating expenses were funded at $2.7 billion

including $300 million in national security scored against defense spending. This

would also include $406 million for drug interdiction activities, which is an increase

of $33.8 million over the President’s request. Increases in this area would be offset

by reductions in fisheries law enforcement and polar ice breaking. Acquisition,

construction, and improvements were funded at $389 million and environmental

compliance and restoration at $21 million. $684 million was appropriated for retired

pay and $69 million for reserve training. Research, development, test and evaluation

would receive $12 million.

The conference agreed to an appropriation of $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard,

which is $21.0 million less than FY 1998. Operating expenses were funded at the

House level of $2.7 billion of which $300 million shall be available for defense-related

activities This is $15.4 million less for operating expenses than FY 1998. However,

the Secretary may transfer funds from the Federal Aviation Administration

“Operations” account, not to exceed $71.7 million, for drug interdiction activities.

Acquisition, construction, and improvements is funded at $395.5 million, of which

$20 million shall be derived from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. There was no

disagreement between the Houses over either environmental compliance and

restoration or retired pay. The House-approved levels of $69 million were

appropriated for reserve training and $12 million for research, development, test, and

evaluation. Alteration of bridges received $14 million and no funds were appropriated

for boat safety.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

The Administration requested $751 million for the Federal Railroad

Administration for FY1999, compared to a FY1997 actual obligation of $1.1 billion,

and an FY1998 enactment of $937 million. The most notable reduction, $172 million

from the FY1998 amount, was the lower request for funding Amtrak (CRS Issue

Brief 97030) and the Northeast Corridor. The Northeast Corridor is the rail route

from Boston to Washington, DC. The House Appropriations Committee

recommended $729.3 million for FRA for FY1999, including $609.2 million for

Amtrak. The Senate recommended $707 million, including $555 million for Amtrak.

Congress appropriated $749.8 million to FRA for FY1999, including $609.2 million

for Amtrak, and allowed Amtrak to decide how much of its appropriation will be used

to upgrade the Northeast Corridor.

CRS-12

Amtrak

[http://www.amtrak.com]

Amtrak (see CRS Issue Brief 97030) receives its funding as part of the FRA

account. The Administration requested that FY1999 funding for Amtrak come from

the Federal Highway Trust Fund, rather than from the general fund as in past years.

The Administration requested $621 million for capital grants to Amtrak, of which not

less than $200 million would have been for the Northeast Corridor, and $12 million

for Penn Station in New York City. The Administration requested no funding for

operating grants for Amtrak for FY1999, proposing that sufficient operating funds

could come from capital grants.

The House recommended $609.2 million for Amtrak for FY1999, plus $2 million

for a third freight track in Rhode Island to give Amtrak a separate line from freight,

and $15.3 million for “next generation high speed rail” that would remove grade

crossings on rail passenger routes and provide other funding that benefits rail

passengers.

The Senate recommended $555 million for Amtrak for FY1999. This was a total

of $1.6 billion when coupled with the $1.1 billion Amtrak will receive in FY1999

without further legislative action as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L.

105-34). The committee bill (S. 2307) included language to allow the capital funds

provided in the bill to be spent under the same definition of capital expenses that

currently pertains to federal capital funds provided for other transportation modes.

This use of capital funds for capital expenses could come to $400 million during

FY1999, according to the committee report (S.Rept. 105-249, pp. 120-121). The

committee recommended that $200 million of the $555 million be used for upgrading

the Northeast Corridor. The New York Pennsylvania Station is to get $40 million as

a result of the TEA-21 highway reauthorization legislation (P.L. 105-178). Congress

appropriated $609.2 million to Amtrak for FY1999, and allowed Amtrak to decide

how much of that will be used to upgrade the Northeast Corridor. The Committee

report rejected the proposal to allow Amtrak to use capital grants for equipment

maintenance in the same way federal transit funds can be used, but the report set no

specific limit on the amount of federal capital grants that Amtrak can use for

equipment maintenance during FY1999. The funds are to come from the general

fund, as in past years, rather than from the Highway Trust Fund, as proposed by the

Administration. Congress appropriated no funds for the Penn Station redevelopment

in New York City. Congress appropriated $20.5 million for “next generation high

speed rail” and $5 million for the Rhode Island freight rail project.

Amtrak Reform Council. The Amtrak Reform Council, established by the

Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), is given additional

responsibility by the report language of the Senate Appropriations Committee for

FY1999. The Council is directed to help Amtrak reach its financial goals and

decrease reliance on federal aid by identifying which Amtrak routes are candidates for

closure or realignment, and the Council is directed to report this information to

Congress annually (p. 25). The Council is prohibited by the committee report

language from using any of the Council’s appropriation to pay for outside consultant

services, since, the report states, the members of the Council were selected because

CRS-13

of their technical qualifications, professional standing, and demonstrated expertise in

areas related to the needs of the Council (p. 24). Congress appropriated $450,000 to

the Amtrak Reform Council for FY1999. The conference report is silent on the above

issues that are addressed in the Senate committee report.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/]

The highway section of the FY1999 Appropriations Act provides an obligation

limitation of $25.5 billion for highway program activities. This is an increase of over

$4.0 billion over the FY1998 Act and is consistent with the levels authorized by the

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). An additional $1.2 billion

in exempt obligations is provided by the Act.6

The FY1999 Act provides for a few modest changes in the highway program,

but generally follows the program guidance provided in TEA21. One important

provision in the Act is a clarification of TEA21's distribution of high priority project

funds. The Act gives the states considerable leeway in their treatment of these funds

and allows the states to set overall priorities without having to treat each high priority

project as a separate pot of money. Finally, the Act provides no funding in the

transportation section for the Appalachian highway program.

The Act also provides some highway funding in the emergency supplemental

portion of the omnibus act. These provisions provide an additional $100 million for

Alabama and Massachusetts that had been promised to these states during the TEA21

conference. Further highway funding from this section is provided for West Virginia

and Arkansas. Some of these funds are for the Appalachian highway program.

The total level enacted for FY1999 is well above what had been proposed by the

Clinton Administration, $23.5 billion, with a limitation on obligations of $21.5 billion

is identical to the FY1998 level.

As mentioned above, TEA-21, and its accompanying technical corrections,

establish an FY1999 limitation on obligations for all highway activities, including

safety, of approximately $25.5 billion. The limitation on obligations could not be

changed by the appropriations process and the Act provided specific unamenable

funding levels for all major highway programs. Appropriators’s had the ability to

make specific decisions about a number of smaller highway and highway safety

programs.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations bill set core spending at the TEA-21

limitation on obligation level. Total FHWA spending was just over $27.0 billion.

The committee did make a number of recommendations about spending for particular

activities. For example, FHWA operating expenses were increased over the FY1998

level, but not to same degree as proposed by the Administration. The committee also

made a number of recommendations about the ITS program aimed primarily at

6

Exempt program spending is used for the emergency relief and minimum allocation programs.

CRS-14

increasing spending for actual ITS projects, as opposed to ITS promotion. Finally,

spending for the Appalachian highway system was set at $200.0 million. This is

$100.0 million less than the FY1998 level and below the spending level that could be

supported by TEA-21.

The House Committee on Appropriations also respected the TEA-21 fire walls

for core highway spending. Total funding for FHWA was set at $26.7 billion, which

is somewhat below the Senate level. Much of this difference can be accounted for by

the committee’s decision to zero out funding for the Appalachian highway system and

a new transportation infrastructure credit program that had received $80.0 million in

the Senate bill.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]

The FY1999 Act provided a total of $5.39 billion for the FTA. This exceeded

FY1998 funding by $549.0 million, an increase of more than 11%. Almost all FTA

programs, with the significant exception of the operating assistance program, received

funding increases. Operating assistance funding was eliminated under formula grants

by TEA21. However, preventive maintenance previously eligible for funding from

operating assistance is now an eligible use under an expanded capital grants program.

Several transit programs have been controversial almost since their inception,

especially the operating assistance program. Recent Administrations, beginning with

the Reagan Administration, have proposed reductions and/or outright elimination of

these programs. Transit tends to be supported on a local basis, with the majority of

support coming from urban areas. Support for sometimes competing highway

programs is seen as having a much broader base, especially because of the absence of

transit systems in rural areas. Transit programs have continued largely, due to strong

congressional support from Members representing urban areas.

For FY1999, the Clinton Administration proposed a slight decrease in total FTA

funding over FY1998 levels, $4.78 billion. Essentially, the Administration’s proposal

would have consolidated most of the existing programs into a $3.6 billion formula

program. The Administration’s proposal would have consolidated the discretionary

bus and bus related program and fixed guideway modernization program into the

formula grants program All funding for this program would have come from the

transit account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Only the fixed guideway

modernization formulas would have been retained as a separate component of the

consolidated program. The new starts programs, renamed the Major Capital

Investment Program, would have continued to allocate discretionary funds for fixed

guideway systems. New start funds would have been increased to $876.0 million over

the FY1998 level of $800.0 million. The Clinton Administration proposed one new

initiative for access to jobs and training, which was included in the recently-passed

TEA-21.

The full Senate and House Appropriations Committees passed their versions of

the FY1999 Transportation Appropriations Act, respectively on July 14, and July 22,

1998. The House and Senate transit proposals recommended the same funding levels

CRS-15

for FY1999, $5.39 billion, an increase of $549 million over FY1998. These funding

levels were enacted into law on October 21, 1998, under the Omnibus Appropriations

Act of 1999 (H.R.4328, P.L.105-277). The Major capital investment program was

increased to $2.3 billion from the FY1998 level of $2.0 billion, an increase of 12.8%.

This included $902.8 million each for new starts and fixed guideway modernization

and $451.4 million bus/bus facility for FY1999. The formula grant program was set

at $2.85 billion, or $350 million over the FY1998 level of $2.5 billion, an increase of

14%. This included $2.5 billion for urbanize area grants, $50 million for clean fuel

vehicle grants, $67 million for elderly and disabled grants, $188 million for

nonurbanized area grants, $2 million for rural transportation grants, and $4.8 million

for the Alaska railroad for FY1999. Other funding included $75 million to the new

access to jobs/reverse commute program, $98 million for planning and research, $6

million for university centers, $54 million for the Federal Transit Administration, and

$50 million the Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

[http://www.faa.gov/]

P.L. 105-277 appropriates $9.6 billion for the FAA in FY 1999, up 5% from the

$9.1 billion provided in Fiscal 1998. The appropriation is about $85 million more

than the amount recommended by the House, but $300 million less than the Senate

mark and $150 million less than the Administration’s request. Division C — Other

Matters, provides for the reauthorization of the FAA for a period of 6 months.7

Airport Improvement Program (AIP) spending is limited to half the annual

authorization level, which could affect approved airport construction work. Separate

provisions in Division C give DOT the authority to intervene earlier in airline

consolidation proposals and halt DOT rulemaking on airline competition until at least

the middle of 1999.

Operations. FAA’s Operations account is funded at $5.563 billion, which is $25

million less than the Administration’s request. The conference assumed, however,

that $17 million of the Operations account will instead be provided in the Facilities

and Equipment account, making the net reduction in this account $8 million. This

account funds air traffic services, aviation regulation and safety certification, and

aviation security activities.

Facilities and Equipment. This account is funded at $2.0 billion (including

$100 million from the supplemental appropriations title), which is $130 million below

the budget request. Funds from this account provide for the modernization of air

traffic control and other facilities. The Act fully funds the Administration’s $168

million request for several programs collectively described by the FAA as the Free

Flight Phase I program.8 It also includes $100 million (in Title II of the Supplemental

7

Division C— Other Matters, Title I — Other Matters, Sec. 110, Reauthorization of the

Federal Aviation Administration.

8

Free Flight is an air traffic management concept that has the potential for greatly increasing

users’ flexibility to plan and fly their preferred routes, saving airlines a potential $3 to $5

(continued...)

CRS-16

Appropriation) requested by the Administration for explosive detection devices.

However, the FAA is prohibited from obligating funds for explosive detection systems

until 30 days after the Administrator certifies to Congress that the major air carriers

agree to fund operation and maintenance of the systems in FY 1999 and substantially

increase their use of the machines.

Programs to address the Year 2000 computer problem are funded in the Act at

$25 million, $14 million below the Administration request. Additional funds,

however, are provided on a government wide basis as a result of Title III of the

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations section of the Omnibus bill. An unspecified

amount is likely to be available for FAA FY2K activities.

Research, Engineering, & Development. This account is funded at $150

million, which is $140 million less than the budget request. Most of the reduction is

the result of Congress denying $90 million in direct funding and approximately $45

million in indirect funding for the Flight 2000 program.9 The decision to not fund this

program was based on a determination that the FAA was not yet ready to begin

“such an ambitious and expensive undertaking, had not decided on the sites for the

project, and had not achieved industry consensus.”10 Full funding is provided for

aircraft safety technology, including $15 million for aging aircraft research. Also in

this account is $41.7 million for explosives and weapons detection research, which is

$2.2 million more than the request.

Grants-in-Aid for Airports. Airport grants are limited to $1.95 billion, which

is $250 million above the President’s request. Only $975 million of the limit is

available, however, until an FAA reauthorization bill is enacted in the next Congress.

The FAA is directed to give priority consideration to grant applications for projects

listed in the House and Senate bill reports and in the conference agreement. Airport

Improvement Program (AIP) contract authority for the first six months of FY 1999

(a total of $1.205 billion) is included in the Act.

Peanut-Free Buffer Zone. The Act prohibits the FAA from providing a peanutfree buffer zone or any other peanut-restricted area, or from restricting the

distribution of peanuts, until 90 days after the agency has conducted a study that

shows that some passengers may suffer severe reactions from the mere smell of

peanuts (sec. 372).

8

(...continued)

billion annually in fuel and time.

9

Flight 2000 is a research and development program to test new technologies that will be used

in the modernization of the National Airspace System. The program envisions equipping

approximately 2000 aircraft with new generation avionics for testing in all classes of airspace

and all phases of flight operations and surface movement.

10

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations. Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1999. H.Rept. 105-648, July 24, 1998, p. 60.

CRS-17

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established as a

separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970.

The agency’s responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for

automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for drivers,

identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state

governments to enact laws and implement programs to reduce drunk driving, and

encourage the use of safety devices.

For FY1999, the agency requested an appropriation of $406 million, up from

$333 million enacted for FY1998. Of the total, about $233 million (a 25% increase

and this year expressed as an “obligation limitation”) will be devoted to Highway

Traffic Safety Grants. Although the appropriation for the NHTSA represents a small

portion of the total DOT budget, successful implementation of its programs could be

instrumental in saving a significant percentage of the $150 billion lost to highway

deaths, injuries, and property damage annually.

One of the agency’s programs to encourage the use of seat belts has been

bolstered by the recent presidential seat belt initiative. Also, NHTSA has encouraged

the establishment of a uniform 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. Senate

and House reauthorization proposals took significantly different approaches for

convincing the states to enact 0.08 BAC levels. The Senate (S. 1173) recommended

a more stringent approach by reducing the basic allocations and apportionments (for

construction projects) to the states. The House, however, recommended a safety

grant program to induce states to adopt 0.08. The House prevailed in conference.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its report on S. 2307,

acknowledged a number of NHTSA initiatives, including the (state) alcohol incentive

program mentioned above. Other programs included increased seat belt use, side

impact standards, and other occupant protection programs. Although air bags are not

specifically mentioned in the committee’s report, it does encourage continuing work

to develop an appropriate child crash dummy to better assess the effectiveness of

crash protection devices, which would include air bags.

In conference, Congress provided a total funding for NHTSA of $361.4 million,

an amount $28 million greater than the FY1998 enactment, but $44.5 million less

than that requested by the Administration for FY1999. The conference bill gives the

agency $159.4 million for Operations and Research. This represents an amount $12.4

million above its FY1998 amount, but less than half of its requested $25 million

increase for this program. It also permits additional obligations (from the Highway

Trust Fund) of $13.5 million ($200 million total) for Highway Safety Grants versus

the $33 million requested; and provides $2 million for the National Driver Register,

although no funding for this program was requested by the Administration.

CRS-18

Table 3. Total Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies/Offices

(in millions of dollars)

Admin.

FHWA

FY1998

Enact.*

FY1999

Req.*

S.Rept. 105249

H.Rept. 105648

Conference

P.L. 105-277,

Title VII

23,482.0

23,115.0

27,018.9

26,722.6

26,822.6

—

BTS

25.0

31.0

31.0

31.0

31.0

—

NHTSA.

333.0

406.0

361.4

461.4

361.4

—

FRA

931.0

751.0

707.2

729.3

749.8

—

FTA

2,843.7

4,775.7

5,365.0

5,365.0

5,390.0

—

FAA

9,101.1

9,751.0

9,856.6

9,477.6

9,562.6

—

USCG

3,916.4

4,004.8

3,959.8

3,887.0

3,895.5

—

St. Lawrence Seaway

11.2

0.0

11.5

11.5

11.5

—

OIG

42.0

42.5

42.7

43.5

43.5

—

RSPA

60.5

65.3

63.4

77.6

73.7

—

OST.

78.2

78.4

76.9

73.2

81.3

—

STB

13.9

16.0

**-16.0

13.9

16.0

**-2.6

16.0

—

40,838.0

42,942.3

47,146.9

46,893.0

46,986.0

—

Grand

Total—Budgetary

Resources

Sources:

* Figures for enacted FY1998, and requested FY1999 were taken from S.Rept. 105-249, various pages.

**Surface Transportation Board estimated offsetting collections for FY1999.

Note: Numbers within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other

funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding.

CRS-19

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief 97030. Amtrak and the 105th Congress, by Stephen J Thompson.

CRS Issue Brief 97029. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1997,

coordinated by Stephen Daggett.

CRS Reports

CRS Report 98-749 E, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)

and the Federal Budget, by John W. Fischer, September 4, 1998.

CRS Report 98-593E. Airport Improvement Program: Airport Finance Issues for

Congress, by Robert S. Kirk

CRS Report 96-67E. The Surface Transportation Board (STB): An Overview and

Selected Public Policy Issues, by Stephen J Thompson.

CRS Report 96-901. Automobile Air Bags: New Issues/New Research, by Duane A.

Thompson.

CRS Report 97-271. Federal Traffic Safety Programs and Grants: Issues and

Options for Reauthorization, by Paul F. Rothberg and Brad A. Trullinger.

CRS Report 97-516E. ISTEA Reauthorization: Highwway Related Legislative

Proposals in the 105th Congress, 1st Session, by John W. Fischer.

CRS Report 98-221E. ISTEA Reauthorization: Highwway Related Legislative

Proposals in the 105th Congress, 2nd Session, by John W. Fischer.

CRS Report 96-803. Reauthorization of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance

Program: Options to Promote Flexibility and Performance, by Paul F.

Rothberg, et al.

CRS Report 98-63E. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment, by John W.

Fischer.

CRS Report 97-691. Intelligent Transportation Systems Program: Importance,

Status, and Options for Reauthorization, by Paul Rothberg, Frederick W.

Ducca, and Brad A. Trullinger.

CRS Report 97-951. Traffic Safety Provisions in Various Highway Reauthorization

Bills, by Paul F. Rothberg.

CRS-20

Selected World Wide Web Sites

Department of Transportation Budget Site

[http://www.dot.gov/ost/budget/]

Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer

[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/]

House Appropriations Committee

[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]

Interactive Budget Web Site

[http://ibert.org/civix.html]

Maritime Administration (financial reports)

[http://marad.dot.gov/finstatm.htm]

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)

[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html]

Office of Management and Budget

[http://www.access.gpo.gov/omb/omb003.html]

Senate Appropriations Committee

[http://www.senate.gov/committee/appropriations.html]