Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Congressional research reportDec 21, 2015

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Department of Transportation (DOT):

FY2016 Appropriations

December 21, 2015

Congressional Research Service

https://crsreports.congress.gov

R44063

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Summary

On February 2, 2015, the Obama Administration proposed a $93.7 billion budget for the

Department of Transportation (DOT) for FY2016. That is about $22 billion (31%) more than was

provided in FY2015. The budget request for DOT reflected the Administration’s call for

significant increases in funding for highway, transit, and rail programs. Neither the surface

transportation reauthorization legislation (H.R. 22) that the House and Senate are currently

negotiating nor the DOT appropriations bill as passed by the House or reported out by the Senate

Committee on Appropriations (H.R. 2577) would increase transportation funding on the scale

requested by the Administration.

The annual appropriations for DOT are combined with those for the Department of Housing and

Urban Development in the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related

Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill. The House has passed H.R. 2577, which would provide

FY2016 appropriations for THUD. The House-passed version of H.R. 2577 would provide $70.6

billion for DOT, $1 billion less than DOT received in FY2015 (after rescissions are subtracted

from the FY2015 total, the difference is reduced to $646 million) and $23 billion less than the

Administration request.

The House-passed bill cuts funding for Amtrak by $242 million (17%) from its FY2015 level, to

$1.148 billion, less than half the amount requested by the Administration. The House

Appropriations Committee marked up the bill one day after an Amtrak passenger train derailed in

Philadelphia, which raised the profile of the cuts to Amtrak funding. The House-passed bill also

includes significant cuts to the TIGER discretionary grant program and the transit New Starts

program. These three programs account for most of the bill’s cut in transportation funding from

the FY2015 level.

The Senate Committee on Appropriations reported a version of H.R. 2577 providing $71.3 billion

for DOT, a reduction of $368 million from the FY2015 level (after rescissions are subtracted from

the FY2015 total, the difference is reduced to $17 million) and $22 billion less than the

Administration request. The committee recommended funding the TIGER grant program and

Amtrak at their FY2015 levels. It recommended a 25% ($535 million) cut to the New Starts

transit grant program, the major change in the recommended FY2016 levels from FY2015 levels.

On November 18, 2015, the Senate Committee on Appropriations released a substitute

amendment to H.R. 2577 that would increase DOT discretionary funding by $690 million,

reflecting the Balanced Budget Act of 2015 (which increased the amount of budget authority for

FY2016). Specifically, the substitute amendment would change the following accounts:



Under the Office of the Secretary, the National Infrastructure Investment

(TIGER) grant account would change from $500 million to $600 million.

The Federal Aviation Administration Facilities and Equipment account would

change from $2.6 billion to $2.855 billion.

The Federal Transit Administration Capital Investment grant (New Starts)

account would change from $1.585 billion to $1.896 billion.

The Maritime Administration account would change from $373 million to $397

million.

On December 18, 2015, the DOT Appropriations Act was passed as Title I of Division L of P.L.

114-113. The tables in this report have been updated to reflect the enacted numbers. The

remainder of this report has not been updated to reflect the substitute amendment or enacted bill.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Contents

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1

Understanding the DOT Appropriations Act ................................................................................... 1

Most DOT Funding Comes from Trust Funds .......................................................................... 1

Most DOT Funding Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary, Budget Authority ................................. 2

DOT Is Primarily a Grant-Making Agency ............................................................................... 2

Reauthorization of Surface and Air Transportation Programs .................................................. 3

DOT Funding Trend ........................................................................................................................ 3

DOT FY2016 Appropriations .......................................................................................................... 4

Recent Events ............................................................................................................................ 4

Selected Issues .......................................................................................................................... 7

Highway Trust Fund Solvency............................................................................................ 7

National Infrastructure Investment (TIGER Grants) .......................................................... 8

Essential Air Service (EAS) ................................................................................................ 9

Intercity Rail Safety ...........................................................................................................11

Intercity Passenger Rail Development ...............................................................................11

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

Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts (Capital Investment

Grants) ........................................................................................................................... 14

Grant to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority ......................................... 15

Commercial Vehicle Safety ............................................................................................... 16

Figures

Figure 1. DOT 10-Year Funding Trend (FY2006-FY2015) ............................................................ 4

Tables

Table 1. DOT Budget Authority Sources, FY2015.......................................................................... 2

Table 2. DOT FY2015 Budget Authority ........................................................................................ 2

Table 3. DOT Grant Accounts and Amounts, FY2015 .................................................................... 3

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2015-FY2016 Detailed Budget Table........................... 5

Table 5. Recent TIGER Grant Appropriation Pattern ...................................................................... 9

Table 6. Essential Air Service Program: Number of Communities and Annual Budget,

FY2008-FY2015 ........................................................................................................................ 10

Table 7. Essential Air Service Funding, FY2015-FY2016 ............................................................ 10

Table 8. Amtrak Budget and Request, FY2015-FY2016............................................................... 13

Table 9. Amtrak’s FY2016 Budget ................................................................................................ 14

Contacts

Author Information........................................................................................................................ 17

Key Policy Staff ............................................................................................................................ 17

Congressional Research Service

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Congressional Research Service

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Introduction

The Obama Administration released its FY2016 budget request on February 2, 2015. It requested

$93.7 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT), $22 billion (31%) more than DOT

received in FY2015. This request reflected the Administration’s proposal for reauthorizing the

federal surface transportation program and restructuring accounts and funding sources in several

DOT sub-agencies. Around 75% of DOT’s funding is mandatory budgetary authority, and the

Administration’s request maintained this split, with $24 billion of the request coming from

discretionary budgetary authority—$6 billion (33%) more than provided in FY2015.

DOT’s discretionary budget allocation is shared with the Department of Housing and Urban

Development, as the allocation is given to the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,

and Related Agencies (THUD) appropriations bill. The discretionary funding allocation given to

the House THUD subcommittee for FY2016 was $55.27 billion, $1.5 billion (3%) higher than the

enacted FY2015 funding; most of that increase would cover a decline in offsetting receipts to

HUD accounts in FY2016. With other changes in offsets recommended by the House

Appropriations Committee, the net increase in discretionary funding is $25 million, and the

committee recommended a $25 million reduction in mandatory funding, so there is no net change

in actual funding in the committee-recommended House THUD bill from FY2015. The Senate

THUD allocation was $55.646 billion, $376 million more than the House level.

There is little prospect for significantly increasing DOT’s overall funding. The Bipartisan Budget

Act of 2015 (P.L. 114-74) was signed into law on November 2, 2015, increasing the overall

FY2016 discretionary budget authority for nondefense accounts by $25 billion. That increase

could be divided among 12 appropriations bills; the amount of the increase that will be made

available for transportation, if any, is not yet known. And while the House and Senate are

currently negotiating the differences between their versions of surface transportation

authorization legislation (H.R. 22), the FY2016 funding levels provided in both the House and

Senate bills are not significantly higher than the FY2015 levels.

Understanding the DOT Appropriations Act

DOT’s funding arrangements are unusual compared to those of most other federal agencies. Most

of DOT’s funding comes from trust funds rather than the general fund of the Treasury and most

of DOT’s funding is mandatory rather than discretionary. Also, most of DOT’s funding is passed

through to state and local governments through formula grants.

Most DOT Funding Comes from Trust Funds

Most of DOT’s annual funding comes from two large trust funds: the Highway Trust Fund and

the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (see Table 1). The scale of DOT’s annual funding coming

from these funds is not entirely obvious in DOT budget tables; for while virtually all of the

funding from the Highway Trust Fund is in the form of contract authority (which is a form of

mandatory budget authority), most of the funding from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund is in

the form of discretionary budget authority and so is mingled with the discretionary budget

authority provided from the general fund of the Treasury.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 1. DOT Budget Authority Sources, FY2015

(in billions of dollars)

Source

Amount

% of Total DOT Budget

Authority

Airport and Airway Trust Fund

$15.0

21%

Highway Trust Fund

50.8

71%

Subtotal, trust fund budget authority

65.8

92%

Other

5.8

$71.7

100%

Total budget authority

Source: Calculated by CRS using information from the Explanatory Statement accompanying H.R. 83 (113th

Congress), Division K, and H.Rept. 114-129.

Most DOT Funding Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary, Budget

Authority

For most federal agencies, discretionary funding is close to, if not the same as, their total funding.

But roughly three-fourths of DOT’s funding is mandatory budget authority derived from trust

funds (contract authority), rather than discretionary budget authority. Table 2 shows the

breakdown between the discretionary and mandatory funding in DOT’s budget. See CRS Report

R43420, Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk

et al.

Table 2. DOT FY2015 Budget Authority

(in billions of dollars)

Budget Authority (BA)

Amount

DOT net discretionary BA

$17.8

DOT mandatory BA

$53.5

DOT total budgetary resources

$71.3

Source: Comparative Statement of Budget Authority in H.Rept. 114-129.

Note: Budget authority figures in this table are net of rescissions, advance appropriations,

offsetting receipts, and other adjustments.

DOT Is Primarily a Grant-Making Agency

Approximately 80% of DOT’s funding is distributed to states, local authorities, and Amtrak in the

form of grants (see Table 3). Of DOT’s largest sub-agencies, only the Federal Aviation

Administration, which is responsible for the operation of the air traffic control system and

employs roughly 83% of DOT’s 56,252 employees, largely as air traffic controllers, has a budget

whose primary expenditure is not making grants.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 3. DOT Grant Accounts and Amounts, FY2015

(in millions of dollars)

Account

Amount

Office of the Secretary: National Infrastructure Improvement (TIGER)

$500

Federal Aviation Administration: Grants-in-Aid to Airports

3,333

Federal Highway Administration: Federal-aid Highway Program

40,569

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Motor Carrier Safety Grants

313

Federal Railroad Administration: Grants to Amtrak and Rail Safety Grants

1,400

Federal Transit Administration: Formula Grants

8,595

Federal Transit Administration: Capital Investment Grants (New Starts and

Small Starts)

2,120

Federal Transit Administration: WMATA Capital and Preventive Maintenance

Grants

150

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: Highway Traffic Safety Grants

562

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration: Emergency

Preparedness Grants

Total Grant Accounts

57,449

Total DOT Funding

$71,790

Source: Accounts and amounts taken from Comparative Statement of Budget Authority, H.Rept. 114-129.

Note: Amounts shown in this table represent totals for grant-making accounts, except that where administrative

expenses were broken out in the source table they have been subtracted from the account total.

Reauthorization of Surface and Air Transportation Programs

Since most of DOT funding comes from trust funds whose revenues typically come from taxes,

the periodic reauthorizations of the taxes supporting these trust funds, and the apportionment of

the budget authority from those trust funds to DOT programs, are a significant aspect of DOT

funding. The current authorizations for both the federal aviation and surface transportation

programs are scheduled to expire during FY2016. Reauthorization of these programs may affect

both their structure and their funding levels. See CRS Report R43420, Surface Transportation

Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress, by Robert S. Kirk et al. and CRS Report R43858,

Issues in the Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in the 114th Congress,

by Bart Elias and Rachel Y. Tang for more information.

DOT Funding Trend

DOT’s nonemergency annual funding peaked in FY2010 at $82.7 billion (in constant 2015

dollars) and has been declining since (see Figure 1). Starting in FY2013, it has received less

funding each year, in real terms, than it received in FY2006.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Figure 1. DOT 10-Year Funding Trend (FY2006-FY2015)

(in millions of constant 2015 dollars)

Source: Calculated by CRS based on figures in annual House THUD Appropriations

committee reports. Current figures converted to constant dollars using the GDP (Chained)

Price Index column in Table 10.1 (Gross Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the

Historical Tables: 1940-2020) in the FY2016 Budget Request: Historical Tables

(https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals), rebased to 2015.

Notes: Budget authority in this chart reflects an attempt to measure the amount of new

funding available to DOT each year; it equals discretionary appropriations plus limitations on

obligations. It does not include emergency appropriations (for example, to repair storm

damage) or rescissions of budget authority, rescissions of contract authority, and offsetting

collections (which reduce the amount of discretionary budget authority shown as going to

DOT without actually reducing the amount of funding available to DOT).

DOT FY2016 Appropriations

Recent Events

On November 10, 2015, the House and Senate went to conference to resolve their differences on

H.R. 22, legislation to reauthorize surface transportation programs, which would set funding

levels for surface transportation programs for FY2016 and subsequent years.

Congress passed a revised budget agreement (P.L. 114-74) on October 30, 2015, which increased

the amount of budget authority available for nondefense accounts for FY2016 by $24.6 billion.

Depending on how this additional funding is divided among nondefense accounts, this may allow

appropriators to increase funding for transportation programs.

Table 4 presents a selected account-by-account summary of FY2016 appropriations for DOT,

compared to FY2015.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 4. Department of Transportation FY2015-FY2016 Detailed Budget Table

(in millions of current dollars)

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

H.R. 2577

SenateReported

FY2015

Enacted

FY2016

Request

H.R. 2577

House

Enacted

P.L. 114-113

Payments to air carriers (Essential Air

Service)a

155

175

155

175

National infrastructure investment (TIGER)

500

1,250

100

500

Safe transport of oil

—

Total, OST

803

1,612

389

835

832

Operations

9,741

9,915

9,845

9,898

9,910

Facilities and equipment

2,600

2,855

2,503

2,600

2,855

Research, engineering, and development

157

166

157

163

166

Grants-in-aid for airports (Airport

Improvement Program) (limitation on

obligations)

3,350

2,900

3,350

Total, FAA

15,847

15,836

15,855

16,011

16,281

Limitation on administrative expenses

426

442

429

Federal-aid highways (limitation on

obligations)

40,256

50,068

40,256

42,361

Total, FHWA

40,995

51,307

40,995

43,100

Motor carrier safety operations and programs

271

329

259

267

Motor carrier safety grants to states

313

339

313

Total, FMCSA

584

669

572

580

Operations and research

269

331

278

249

296

Highway traffic safety grants to states

(limitation on obligations)

562

577

562

576

573

Total, NHTSA

830

908

840

825

869

Safety and operations

187

204

190

199

Research and development

Railroad Safety Grants

—

Rail Service Improvement Program

—

2,325

—

Current passenger rail service

—

2,450

—

Office of the Secretary (OST)

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

Federal Highway Administration

(FHWA)

Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration (FMCSA)

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration (NHTSA)

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Department of Transportation

Selected Accounts

H.R. 2577

SenateReported

FY2015

Enacted

FY2016

Request

H.R. 2577

House

250

—

289

Amtrak capital and debt service grants

1,140

—

859

1,102

Total Amtrak grants

1,390

2,450

1,148

1,390

Total, FRA

1,626

5,018

1,377

1,678

Formula grants (M)

8,595

13,800

8,595

9,348

Capital investment grants (New Starts)

2,120

3,250

1,921

1,585

2,177

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit

Authority

150

100

150

10,887

18,399

10,726

10,463

11,757

341

407

361

373

399

—

Amtrak operating grants

Enacted

P.L. 114-113

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

FTA Total

Maritime Administration (MARAD)

Assistance to small shipyards

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)

Subtotal

220

256

227

218

223

Offsetting user fees

-127

-154

-125

-127

-125

Emergency preparedness grants (M)

PHMSA net total

102

103

Office of Inspector General

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development

Corporation

Salaries and expenses

Offsetting collections

-1

STB net total

Appropriation (discretionary funding)

18,184

24,016

17,180

17,816

18,696

Limitations on obligations (M)

53,485

69,666

53,460

53,467

56,355

Subtotal—new funding

71,284

89,744

70,549

71,251

75,051

Rescissions of discretionary funding

-122

—

-31

-47

Rescissions of contract authority

-260

—

-1

-7

-1

Net new discretionary funding

17,801

24,008

17,179

17,784

18,648

Net new budget authority

71,286

93,674

70,639

71,251

75,003

Surface Transportation Board (STB)

DOT Totals

Offsetting collections

Sources: Table prepared by CRS based on information in H.R. 2577, H.Rept. 114-129, S.Rept. 114-75, and the

Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.

Notes: “M” stands for mandatory budget authority. Line items may not add up to the subtotals due to omission

of some accounts. Subtotals and totals may differ from those in the source documents due to treatment of

rescissions, offsetting collections, and other adjustments. The figures in this table reflect new budget authority

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

made available for the fiscal year. For budgetary calculation purposes, the source documents may subtract

rescissions of prior year funding or contract authority, or offsetting collections, in calculating subtotals and totals.

a. The Essential Air Service (EAS) program also receives an additional amount in mandatory budget authority;

see discussion below.

Selected Issues

Roughly three-fourths of DOT’s budget is mandatory budget authority (contract authority)

derived from the Highway Trust Fund. The authorizations for that funding were scheduled to

expire at the end of FY2014, but have been extended. The Highway Trust Fund was projected to

fall below the level needed to make timely payments to grantees during FY2015, but Congress

transferred $8 billion to the trust fund by means of spending offsets in July 2015 (P.L. 114-41) in

order to maintain the fund’s solvency.

Overall, the FY2016 budget request totals $93.7 billion in new budget resources for DOT.1 The

requested funding is $22 billion more than that enacted for FY2015. The Administration request

reflected its surface transportation reauthorization proposal, which called for significant increases

in funding for highways, transit, and intercity rail. Transportation authorization is outside the

jurisdiction of the appropriations committees, but since most of DOT’s appropriations come from

the Highway Trust Fund, the status of the fund is a key concern.

Highway Trust Fund Solvency

Virtually all federal highway funding, and most federal transit funding, comes from the Highway

Trust Fund, whose revenues come largely from the federal motor fuels excise tax (“gas tax”). For

several years, expenditures from the fund have exceeded revenues; for example, in FY2015,

revenues are projected to be approximately $39 billion, while authorized outlays are projected to

be approximately $52 billion.2 Congress transferred more than $62 billion, mostly from the

general fund of the Treasury, to the Highway Trust Fund during the period FY2008-FY2015 to

keep the trust fund solvent.

One reason for the shortfall in the fund is that the federal gas tax has not been raised since 1993.

The tax is a fixed amount assessed per gallon of fuel sold, not a percentage of the cost of the fuel

sold: whether a gallon of gas costs $1 or $4, the highway trust fund receives 18.3 cents for each

gallon of gasoline and 24.3 cents for each gallon of diesel. Meanwhile, the value of the gas tax

has been diminished by inflation (which has reduced the purchasing power of the revenue raised

by the tax) and increasing automobile fuel efficiency (which reduces growth in gas sales as more

efficient vehicles are able to travel farther on a gallon of fuel). The Congressional Budget Office

(CBO) has forecast that gasoline consumption will be relatively flat through 2024, as continued

increases in the fuel efficiency of the U.S. passenger fleet are projected to offset increases in the

number of miles driven.3 Consequently, CBO expects highway trust fund revenues of $37 billion

to $38 billion annually from FY2014 to FY2024, well short of the current $53 billion annual level

of authorized expenditures from the fund.4

1 This number, taken from H.Rept. 114-129, may differ slightly from the figure in DOT budget documents because of

variations in the treatment of offsetting collections, mandatory funding, rescissions, and other budgetary considerations.

2 Congressional Budget Office, “Projections of Highway Trust Fund Accounts—CBO’s March 2015 Baseline,”

https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/43884-2015-03-HighwayTrustFund.pdf.

3 Ibid., p. 88.

4 Ibid., Table 4-3.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

National Infrastructure Investment (TIGER Grants)

The Transportation Investments Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) grant program

originated in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (P.L. 111-5), where it was referred to

as “national infrastructure investment” (as it has been in subsequent appropriations acts). It is a

discretionary grant program intended to address two criticisms of the current structure of federal

transportation funding:



that virtually all of the funding is distributed to state and local governments,

which select projects based on their individual priorities, making it difficult to

fund projects that have national or regional impacts but whose costs fall largely

on one or two states; and

that federal transportation funding is divided according to mode of transportation,

making it difficult for major projects in different modes to compete on the basis

of comparative benefit.

The TIGER program provides grants to projects of national, regional, or metropolitan area

significance in various modes on a competitive basis, with recipients selected by U.S. DOT.5

Although the program is, by description, intended to fund projects of national, regional, and

metropolitan area significance, in practice its funding has gone more toward projects of regional

and metropolitan area significance. In large part this is a function of congressional intent, as

Congress has directed that the funds be distributed equitably across geographic areas, between

rural and urban areas, and among transportation modes, and has set relatively low maximum ($15

million) and minimum ($1 million for rural projects) grant limits.

Congress has continued to support the TIGER program through annual DOT appropriations.6

There have been seven rounds of TIGER grants (from ARRA funding and from FY2010-FY2015

annual appropriations). After the restructuring of DOT programs in the 2012 surface

transportation reauthorization,7 the TIGER program is virtually the only remaining discretionary

grant program for surface transportation other than the Federal Transit Administration’s Capital

Investment Grant program (popularly referred to as New Starts), discussed below. It is heavily

oversubscribed; for example, DOT announced that it received a total of $10.1 billion in

applications for the $500 million available for FY2015 grants.8

The U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has reported that, while DOT has selection

criteria for the TIGER grant program, it has sometimes awarded grants to lower-ranked projects

while bypassing higher-ranked projects without explaining why it did so, raising questions about

the integrity of the selection process.9 DOT has responded that its project rankings are based on

transportation-related criteria (e.g., safety, economic competitiveness), but that it must sometimes

select lower-ranking projects over higher-ranking ones to comply with other selection criteria

5 For more information, see DOT’s TIGER website: http://www.transportation.gov/tiger.

6 Congress refers to the program as “National Infrastructure Investment” in appropriations acts.

7 Moving Ahead for Programs in the 21st Century (MAP-21), P.L. 112-141, enacted July 6, 2012.

8 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S. Transportation Secretary Foxx Announces $500 Million in TIGER Grants

Awarded to 39 Projects,” October 28, 2015, https://www.transportation.gov/briefing-room/secretary-foxx-announces500-million-in-39-tiger-grants.

9 U.S. Governmental Accountability Office, Surface Transportation: Actions Needed to Improve Documentation of Key

Decisions in the TIGER Discretionary Grant Program, GAO-14-628R, May 28, 2014.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

established by Congress, such as geographic balance and a balance between rural and urban

awards.10

There has also been criticism that TIGER grants go disproportionately to urban areas compared to

rural areas. However, for several years Congress has directed that at least 20% of TIGER funding

should go to projects in rural areas. According to the 2010 Census, 19% of the U.S. population

lives in rural areas.11

As Table 5 illustrates, the TIGER grant appropriation process has followed a pattern for several

years: the Administration requests as much as or more than Congress has previously provided; the

House zeroes out the program or proposes a large cut; the Senate proposes an amount similar to

the previously enacted figure; and the final enacted amount is similar to the previously enacted

amount.

Table 5. Recent TIGER Grant Appropriation Pattern

(in millions of current dollars)

Budget Request

House

Senate

Enacted

FY2013

$500

FY2014

500

550

600

FY2015

1,250

100

550

500

FY2016

1,250

100

500

Source: Committee reports accompanying Departments of Transportation, Housing and Urban Development,

and Related Agencies appropriations acts, various years.

Notes: Enacted figures do not reflect subsequent reductions due to sequester reductions or rescissions.

In addition to the reduced funding, the House-passed bill would reduce the federal matching share

for TIGER grants from 80% to 50% (though it could go higher for projects in rural areas). The

Senate-reported bill keeps the matching share at 80% (or more, in the case of rural areas), and

directs that at least 30% of funding go to projects in rural areas.

Essential Air Service (EAS)12

The EAS program seeks to preserve commercial air service to small communities by subsidizing

service that would otherwise be unprofitable. The cost of the program in real terms has doubled

since FY2008, in part because route reductions by airlines resulted in new communities being

added to the program. Congress made changes to the program in 2012, including allowing no new

entrants,13 capping the per-passenger subsidy for a community at $1,000, limiting communities

less than 210 miles from a hub airport to a maximum average subsidy per passenger of $200, and

allowing smaller, less expensive planes to be used for communities with few daily passengers.14

10 Ibid., p. 6.

11 U.S. Census Bureau, Frequently Asked Questions: “What percentage of the U.S. population is urban or rural?,”

https://ask.census.gov/faq.php?id=5000&faqId=5971.

12 For more information about EAS, see CRS Report R44176, Essential Air Service (EAS), by Rachel Y. Tang.

13 This limitation does not apply to Alaska or Hawaii. Forty-three (27%) of the EAS communities are in Alaska; none

are in Hawaii.

14 The program had previously required airlines to use 15-passenger aircraft at a minimum.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 6. Essential Air Service Program: Number of Communities and Annual Budget,

FY2008-FY2015

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

# of EAS

communities

146

153

159

155

163

160

Budget (millions

of current $)

$109

$138

$200

$216

$255

$268

$263

Budget in

constant 2015

dollars (millions)

121

151

217

213

226

262

272

263

Source: Prepared by CRS based on information from Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of

Transportation, FY2015 Budget Estimate, p. EAS/PAC -2; FY2014 and FY2015 budget data from H.Rept. 113-464,

p. 12, and H.Rept. 114-129.

Note: Budget figures deflated using the “Total Non-Defense Outlays” column from Table 10.1—Gross

Domestic Product and Deflators Used in the Historical Tables 1940-2020, Budget of the United States 2016;

numbers rebased to 2015 by CRS.

Supporters of the EAS program contend that preserving airline service to small communities was

a commitment Congress made when it deregulated airline service in 1978, anticipating that

airlines would reduce or eliminate service to many communities that were too small to make such

service economically viable. Supporters also contend that subsidizing air service to smaller

communities promotes economic development in rural areas. Critics of the program note that the

subsidy cost per passenger is relatively high,15 that many of the airports in the program have very

few passengers,16 and that some of the airports receiving EAS subsidies are little more than an

hour’s drive from major airports.

Table 7. Essential Air Service Funding, FY2015-FY2016

(in thousands of dollars)

FY2015

Enacted

FY2016

Request

H.R. 2577

House

H.R. 2577

SenateReported

Enacted

P.L. 114-113

Appropriation

$155,000

$175,000

$155,000

175,000

Mandatory

supplement

108,199

108,379

108,400

Total

$263,199

$283,379

$263,379

283,400

Source: H.Rept. 114-129 and Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.

In addition to the annual discretionary appropriation for the program, there is a mandatory annual

authorization, $108.4 million in FY2016,17 financed by overflight fees collected from commercial

airlines by FAA. These overflight fees apply to international flights that fly over, but do not land

15 To remain eligible for the program, a community’s subsidy per passenger must not exceed $1,000. The per-passenger

subsidy varies among communities from $6 to over $1,000 in rare cases. Information on EAS communities’ subsidy

per passenger is on pp. 21-23 of S.Rept. 113-182.

16 In 2012, 27 EAS communities averaged fewer than 10 passengers per day. In 2012, Congress disqualified airports

averaging fewer than 10 passengers per day unless they are more than 175 miles from the nearest hub airport: P.L. 11295, Title IV, Subtitle B.

17 The amount made available to the EAS program from the fees may exceed $100 million, if the fees provide sufficient

revenue.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

in, the United States. The fees are to be reasonably related to the costs of providing air traffic

services to such flights.

As Table 7 shows, the Administration requested $175 million for the EAS program in FY2016, in

addition to $108 million in mandatory funding for a total of $283 million. The House bill would

provide $155 million in discretionary funding and $263 million overall, the same amounts as in

FY2015. The Senate-reported bill would provide a total of $283 million, the requested amount.

Intercity Rail Safety

On May 12, 2015, an Amtrak passenger train derailed in Philadelphia; 8 passengers died and over

200 were injured. The incident is still being investigated, but preliminary findings indicate that

the derailment resulted from the train traveling at nearly twice the speed prescribed for that

section of track. National Transportation Safety Board officials have stated that the incident could

have been prevented if positive train control technology had been operating on that section of

track.18

In 2008, Congress directed railroads to install positive train control (PTC) on certain segments of

the national rail network (including the segment where this incident occurred) by the end of

2015.19 Amtrak had installed the necessary equipment but had not yet put it into operation. It is

unclear whether greater federal funding for Amtrak would have led positive train control to be

implemented earlier on this section of track. Freight railroads have reportedly spent billions of

dollars thus far to meet this requirement, but most of the track required to have PTC installed will

not be in compliance by the end of 2015; Congress extended the deadline to the end of 2018—

with an option for individual railroads to extend to 2020 with Federal Railroad Administration

(FRA) approval—in October 2015.20

Congress provided $50 million in FY2010 for grants to railroads to help cover the expenses of

installing PTC. The Administration’s FY2016 budget request included $875 million for the cost

of positive train control implementation on commuter railroad routes; neither the House-passed

nor Senate-reported bill included funding specifically for this purpose, though the Senate-reported

bill recommends $50 million for rail safety grant programs.

H.Rept. 114-129 directs the Administrator of FRA to require all states to prepare railroadhighway grade crossing safety action plans identifying specific solutions to improve safety at

high-risk crossings. Currently only the 10 states that had the highest number of grade crossing

collisions during the period 2006-2008 are required to have such plans. S.Rept. 114-75 notes that

the committee’s recommendations included an increase of $1.9 million to improve passenger rail

safety (by hiring staff to develop and implement passenger rail risk reduction system safety

programs, and additional inspectors) and $10 million for grants to states for highway-rail grade

crossing safety, plus an additional $1 million to reduce grade crossing incidents and improve

pedestrian safety.

Intercity Passenger Rail Development

Reflecting the Administration’s surface transportation reauthorization proposal, the budget

proposed a total of $4.8 billion for a new National High Performance Rail System program within

18 Testimony of Christopher Hart, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board, before the House

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, June 2, 2015, http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/2015-06-02hart.pdf.

19 See CRS Report R42637, Positive Train Control (PTC): Overview and Policy Issues, by John Frittelli.

20 Positive Train Control Enforcement and Implementation Act of 2015, §1302 of P.L. 114-73.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

FRA, consisting of two grant programs: $2.45 billion for a Current Passenger Rail Service grant

program (which would primarily fund maintenance and improvement of existing intercity

passenger rail service, i.e., Amtrak) and $2.325 billion for a Rail Service Improvement grant

program (which would fund new intercity passenger rail projects as well as some improvements

to freight rail). The funding would come from a new transportation trust fund rather than

discretionary funding. The Administration made a similar proposal in FY2014 and FY2015.

Funding provided in H.R. 2577 follows the existing FRA structure, taking the form of grants to

Amtrak. The Senate-reported bill does recommend rescinding $17 million in unobligated

balances and making that funding available for improvements to the Northeast Corridor.

The 111th Congress (2009-2010) provided $10.5 billion for DOT’s high-speed and intercity

passenger rail grant program, beginning with $8 billion in the American Recovery and

Reinvestment Act of 2009. Since then, Congress has provided no additional funding and in

FY2011 rescinded $400 million of the unobligated portion of the $10.5 billion already

appropriated.

This program has provided funding mainly to develop intercity passenger rail service with top

speeds of 90 or 110 miles per hour. One state, California, is actively pursuing development of a

high-speed rail line that would provide dedicated tracks for passenger trains traveling at speeds

greater than 150 miles per hour. California has received $3.6 billion in federal funding for this

project, but the total cost of constructing the line is estimated at more than $70 billion, and the

prospects for financing the full project are uncertain.

Amtrak

The Administration proposal for a new Current Passenger Rail Service account would almost

double the amount Congress provided Amtrak in FY2015. Amtrak submits a grant request to

Congress each year, separate from the Administration’s budget request. Amtrak requested $2.0

billion for FY2016,21 $450 million less than the Administration’s request for Amtrak. Amtrak’s

request used different categories than the Administration budget, making a comparison difficult.

The House-passed bill would provide $1.148 billion for Amtrak for FY2016, 17% below the

FY2015 amount. The Senate-reported bill recommended $1.39 billion for Amtrak, the same

amount as in FY2015.

Table 8 shows the amount of funding provided for Amtrak grants in FY2015 and the amounts

requested and proposed for FY2016.

21 Amtrak, FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request, February 17, 2015, Table 1, available at http://www.amtrak.com/

ccurl/785/933/Amtrak-FY16-Grant-Legislative-Final.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Table 8. Amtrak Budget and Request, FY2015-FY2016

(in millions of dollars)

Grant

FY2015

Enacted

FY2016

Administration

Request

FY2016 Amtrak

Independent

Budget Request

H.R. 2577

House

Operating grants

$250

—

$732

$289

289

Capital and debt

service grants

1,140

—

712

859

1,101

1,102

Current

Passenger Rail

Service

—

$2,425

—

Northeast

Corridor

—

(550)

—

State corridors

—

(225)

—

Long-distance

routes

—

(850)

—

National assets

—

(475)

—

Stations ADA

compliance

—

(350)

—

PRIIA Section 212

Grant Program

—

556

—

$1,390

$2,425

$2,000

$1,148

Total

H.R. 2577

SenateReported

Enacted

P.L. 114-113

—

$1,390

—

$1,390

Source: H.Rept. 114-129, S.Rept. 114-75; Federal Railroad Administration FY2016 Budget Estimate, Amtrak

FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request, and Congressional Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.

Notes: ADA refers to compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. PRIIA is the Passenger Rail

Investment and Improvement Act of 2008, Division B of P.L. 110-432. Numbers in parentheses are breakdowns

of the total number. Amtrak’s independent budget request breaks down its overall request differently; the

breakdown is altered here for better comparison with appropriations bills. The $17 million for Northeast

Corridor grants in the Senate-reported H.R. 2577 is repurposed from previous years’ appropriated funding; it is

not added to Amtrak’s total funding to reflect treatment of the funding in the Senate committee report budget

table, but the grants would be made to Amtrak for work on the Northeast Corridor.

Amtrak’s operating grant request totals $732 million, reflecting projected operating losses of its

state-supported routes and long-distance routes. It projects a $367-million operating profit on the

Northeast Corridor (NEC), but plans to apply that toward capital investment on the corridor, the

capital needs of which are far greater than can be covered by its operating profits. Because

Amtrak’s budget request applies that operating revenue to its capital needs and also requests $556

million for matching grants to states for contributions to NEC infrastructure per PRIIA Section

212, which would offset a portion of Amtrak’s capital needs,22 comparing Amtrak’s budget

22 Section 212 of the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA) requires the Northeast Corridor

Infrastructure and Operations Advisory Commission (made up of Amtrak, U.S. DOT, states along the NEC, and other

NEC stakeholders) to develop and implement a method to allocate shared costs for NEC infrastructure and services.

The cost-sharing agreement has been approved and will go into effect in FY2016. The commission has recommended

that Congress establish a matching grant fund program for states to invest in the NEC; see testimony of a commission

representative before the Senate Commerce Committee Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and Merchant Marine

Infrastructure Safety and Security in May 2015, http://www.nec-commission.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/201504-30-JPR-Testimony-Senate-Commerce-2015-05-04_Final.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

request to the funding proposed in the House bill can be confusing; a more direct comparison is

shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Amtrak’s FY2016 Budget

(in millions of dollars)

Amtrak Estimate

Operating revenues

$3,354

Operating expenses

(3,642)

Net gain (loss)

(288.5)

Operating grant

Debt service

(169)

Capital needs

(1,804)

State and commuter contributions

H.R. 2577

House

H.R. 2577

SenateReported

Enacted

P.L. 114-113

288.5

859

1,101.5

$1,147.5

$1,390

261

Net capital needs

(1,543)

Net capital and debt service needs

(1,703)

Capital and debt service grant

Total request

2,000

Total funding

$3,354

Source: Amtrak FY2016 Grant and Legislative Request; H.Rept. 114-129 and S.Rept. 114-75, and Congressional

Record, December 17, 2015, H10451-H10462.

Notes: Amtrak debt service amount includes federal holdback. Numbers in parentheses are expenses.

Federal Transit Administration New Starts and Small Starts

(Capital Investment Grants)

The majority of FTA’s almost $11-billion funding is funneled to state and local transit agencies

through several formula programs. The largest transit discretionary grant program is the Capital

Investment Grants program (commonly referred to as the New Starts and Small Starts program).

It funds new fixed-guideway transit lines23 and extensions to existing lines. Before 2012, the

program had two components, New Starts and Small Starts, based on project cost. The New Starts

component funds capital projects with total costs over $250 million that are seeking more than

$75 million in federal funding, and the Small Starts component funds capital projects with total

costs under $250 million that are seeking less than $75 million in federal funding.

In the transit program reauthorization enacted in 2012, Congress added a third component, Core

Capacity. This component funds expansions to existing fixed-guideway systems that are at or near

capacity.

The Capital Investment Grants program provides funding to large projects over a period of years.

Much of the funding for this program each year is committed to existing New Starts projects with

multi-year grant funding agreements. FTA reports that its existing grant agreements will require

$1.25 billion in New Starts funding in FY2016.

23 Fixed-guideway refers to systems in which the vehicle travels on a fixed course; for example, subways and light rail.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

For FY2016, the Administration requested $3.25 billion for the program, $1.13 billion (53%)

more than the $2.12 billion provided in FY2015. The House-passed bill would provide $1.92

billion, roughly $200 million (9%) less than the FY2015 level. According to the committee, that

amount would fully fund all projects with existing grant agreements and would provide $250

million for projects expected to sign a full funding grant agreement during FY2016, plus $353

million for nine Small Starts projects included in the Administration request. The Senate-reported

bill recommends $1.585 billion, 25% ($535 million) below the FY2015 level.

The federal share for New Starts projects, by statute, can be up to 80%. Since FY2002, DOT

appropriations have included a provision directing FTA not to sign any full funding grant

agreements that provide a federal share of more than 60%. The House-passed bill lowers the

maximum federal share to 50%. The Senate-reported bill does not lower the share, but directs

FTA to give priority to projects requesting a lower federal share.

Critics of lowering the federal share provided for New Starts projects note that the federal share

for highway projects is typically 80% and in some cases is higher. They contend that, by

providing a lower share of federal funding (and thus requiring a higher share of local funding),

this provision makes highway projects relatively more attractive for communities considering

how to address transportation problems. Advocates of this provision note that the demand for

New Starts funding greatly exceeds the amount available, so requiring a higher local match

allows FTA to support more projects with the available funding. They also assert that requiring a

higher local match likely encourages communities to estimate the costs and benefits of proposed

transit projects more carefully, reducing the risk of subsequent cost overruns.

Grant to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

The Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 authorized $1.5 billion over 10

years in grants to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) for preventive

maintenance and capital grants, to be matched by funding from WMATA’s three jurisdictions: the

District of Columbia and the states of Maryland and Virginia. Under this agreement, Congress has

provided $150 million in each of the past six years to WMATA.

WMATA faces a number of difficulties. It is dealing with a backlog of maintenance needs due to

inadequate maintenance investment years ago; it has experienced several fatal incidents, most

recently in January of this year, that have raised questions about the safety culture of the agency;

and an investigation that found numerous instances of mismanagement of federal funding has led

FTA to restrict WMATA’s use of federal funds. An FTA audit of WMATA’s safety practices in

2015 produced many recommendations for change, and in October 2015 FTA assumed oversight

of WMATA’s safety compliance practices from the Tri-State Oversight Commission, the agency

created by the governments of the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia to oversee

WMATA safety performance. Richard Sarles, WMATA’s general manager since January 2011,

retired in January 2015 (he had announced his retirement date in September 2014), and a new

manager was not appointed until November 2015 after other candidates chosen by the Board

backed out.

For FY2016, the House-passed H.R. 2577 would provide $100 million, $50 million less than in

previous years. The House Committee on Appropriations had initially recommended $75 million,

and in the committee report accompanying H.R. 2577, the committee noted that if it sees

evidence that WMATA is addressing its safety and financial issues, the committee would

reevaluate its funding recommendation. During committee markup, an amendment was approved

adding $25 million to the WMATA funding. The Senate Committee on Appropriations

recommended $150 million, the same amount as in previous years.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

Commercial Vehicle Safety

Truck Size

Both the House-passed and Senate-reported bills would increase the length of trucks permitted on

the Interstate System and National Network by amending 49 U.S.C. Section 31111(b)(1)(A) to

increase the maximum length of twin trailers from 28 feet to 33 feet.

DOT has published technical reports as part of a comprehensive truck size and weight limits

study mandated by Congress. In the reports the department found that this particular

configuration—a tractor unit towing twin 33-foot trailers—caused increased damage to road

surface and increased costs for bridge maintenance, while reducing enforcement costs and truck

vehicle miles traveled (since fewer trucks would be needed for the same amount of cargo). Its

safety impacts could not be estimated because such configurations are not currently in use (other

than in limited use on one route in one state).24

Some trucking industry interests support the increased length on the grounds of improved

productivity; it would enable a driver to haul a larger load.

Commercial Driver Hours of Service and the 34-Hour Restart Requirement

Both the House-passed and the Senate-reported bills continue a provision from the FY2015

THUD act that suspends portions of commercial driver hours-of-service rules pending a study of

their costs and benefits. These rules were imposed by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety

Administration in June 2013. Drivers are required to take at least 34 hours off duty, covering two

consecutive 1 a.m.-5 a.m. periods, after working for 60 hours in a seven-day period (or 70 hours

in an eight-day period). And drivers are only allowed to take this 34-hour “restart” once in a 168hour (seven-day) span. If drivers work for less than 60 hours in a week, they do not have to take

the 34-hour restart; for example, if a driver worked eight hours every day, for a total of 56 hours

in a seven-day period, that driver could continue to work every day without taking a 34-hour rest

period.

The purpose of the 2013 change in the hours-of-service rules was to promote highway safety by

reducing the risk of driver fatigue. Under the previous rules, drivers had to take a 34-hour restart

period after working for 60 hours in a seven-day period (or 70 hours in an eight-day period). But

drivers could start this rest period at any time, and could take more than one such rest period per

week. Thus a driver was able to work the maximum permitted time per day (14 hours) and take

the 34-hour restart after five days, and then, after a rest period of as little as one night and two

daytime periods, work 14 hours a day for another five consecutive days. FMCSA asserted that

this schedule allowed a driver to work up to 82 hours over a seven-day period, which it judged to

be insufficient to prevent the driver being fatigued while driving.

By limiting the use of the 34-hour restart to once in a seven-day (168-hour) period, FMCSA

sought to limit drivers to a maximum of 70 hours of work in any seven-day span. And by

requiring that the 34-hour restart period cover two 1 a.m.-5 a.m. periods, the current rule allows

drivers to get more sleep during the 1 a.m.-5 a.m. period, when studies indicate that sleep is most

restorative (compared to sleeping during other times of the day).

24 U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Comprehensive Truck Size and Weight Limits

Study: Volume 1: Technical Reports Summary, June 2015, http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/sw/map21tswstudy/

technical_rpts/vol1technicalsummary.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

The provision in Section 132 of the House bill prohibits enforcement of the new requirement,

returning the requirement to what it was prior to June 2013, unless the study required by Section

133 of Division K of P.L. 113-235 (the FY2015 THUD act) finds that commercial drivers

operating under the new restart provisions showed “statistically significant improvement in all

outcomes related to safety, operator fatigue, driver health and longevity, and work schedules.”

This is slightly different than the original standard in P.L. 113-235, which looked for whether the

study showed a “greater net benefit for the operational, safety, health and fatigue impacts of the

restart provisions.” The provision in the Senate-reported bill (§134) is similar to this original

standard, looking for “statistically significant net safety benefits.” FMCSA published a costbenefit analysis in the final rule that implemented the change, which found that the change was

cost-beneficial, but critics of the change said that the impacts were greater than FMCSA had

estimated.

Author Information

David Randall Peterman

Analyst in Transportation Policy

Key Policy Staff

Area of Expertise

Name

General DOT funding, passenger rail, NHTSA, FMCSA, surface

transportation safety and security

D. Randall Peterman

Aviation safety, aviation security, Federal Aviation Administration,

National Transportation Safety Board

Bart Elias

Federal Highway Administration, Highway and Airport and

Airway Trust Funds, tolling

Robert S. Kirk

Federal Railroad Administration, freight transportation, Maritime

Administration, Surface Transportation Board

John Frittelli

Federal Transit Administration, surface transportation policy,

private investment in infrastructure

William J. Mallett

Airport Improvement Program, Essential Air Service, airport and

airline issues

Rachel Tang

Motor vehicle safety, electric and alternative-fuel vehicles and

infrastructure

Bill Canis

Disclaimer

This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan

shared staff to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and

under the direction of Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other

than public understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in

connection with CRS’s institutional role. CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

Department of Transportation (DOT): FY2016 Appropriations

subject to copyright protection in the United States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in

its entirety without permission from CRS. However, as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or

material from a third party, you may need to obtain the permission of the copyright holder if you wish to

copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

Congressional Research Service

R44063 · VERSION 12 · UPDATED

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.