Appropriations for FY2000: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

Congressional research reportFeb 4, 2000

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Order Code RL30208

CRS Report for Congress

Received through the CRS Web

Appropriations for FY2000:

Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies

Updated February 4, 2000

Duane Thompson and (name redacted)

Coordinators

Resources, Science, and Industry 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.

This report is a guide to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related

Agencies appropriations bill for FY2000. It is designed to supplement the information

provided by the Subcommittees on Transportation of the House and Senate

Committees on Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill,

its scope, major issues, historic funding levels (by agency and major programs), and

requests for the upcoming fiscal year, and related legislative activity. The report lists

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

It will be updated following each major legislative stage, 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 FY2000:

Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies

Summary

On October 9, 1999, the President signed the Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-69). The Act provided $50.2 billion for the

Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT had requested funding similar to the

level enacted in P.L. 106-69. However, the FY2000 Consolidated appropriations

act, P.L. 106-113, calls for an across-the-board rescission of 0.38% from each

agency’s discretionary budget authority and obligation limits. This will result in a

reduction of approximately $179 million from the level enacted in P.L. 106-69. The

Federal Highway Administration (-$105.3 million), the Airport Improvement Program

(-$54.4 million), the Federal Transit Administration (-$17.6 million), and the Coast

Guard (-$1.6 million) together absorb all but about $0.5 million of the DOT

reductions. Even with the rescission, the amount provided represents a nearly 6%

increase over the FY1999 enacted level.

Reflecting the continuing impact of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st

Century (TEA21), both the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal

Transit Administration (FTA) received increases of 7% above FY1999 enacted levels.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) received a more modest increase of just

under 3%. The FY2000 Act funds the entire FAA budget out of the airport and

airway trust fund. Historically, a significant portion of the FAA operations budget has

been provided from general fund revenues.

Much of the debate over the Department’s budget focused on allocating

resources raised by user fees and deposited in specific transportation trust funds. A

debate arose between those in favor of a unified budget vs. those seeking to protect

individual programs either by taking them off budget or using fiscal boundaries or

“firewalls” to ensure a minimum level of financing. This policy of creating

discretionary spending guarantees originated with the provisions of the Transportation

Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), legislation that placed “firewalls” around

certain categories of the Federal Highway Administration’s programs. The House

version of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) reauthorization bill, H.R. 1000,

proposes also changing the budgetary treatment of the airport and airway trust fund

by taking the fund off budget.

For the highway trust fund, TEA21 provided for the disposition of actual

receipts above those forecast and authorized. The Revenue Aligned Budget Authority

(RABA) provisions require additional trust fund receipts to be redistributed to

individual states based on the formula used to apportion highway dollars. The

enacted version of H.R. 2084 narrows the scope of RABA distribution to certain

core highway programs, thereby reducing the allocations to a number of smaller

TEA21 programs and increasing the funds flowing to the states.

Key Policy Staff

Name

CRS

Division

Telephone

Airport Improvement Program/FAA Reauthorization

(name redacted)

RSI

7-....

Automotive Safety

Duane Thompson

RSI

7-....

Federal Aviation Administration

J. Glen Moore

RSI

7-....

Federal Highway Administration

William Lipford

RSI

7-....

Federal Railroad Administration and Amtrak

Stephen

Thompson

RSI

7-....

Federal Transit Administration

William Lipford

RSI

7-....

Highway and Truck Safety

Paul Rothberg

RSI

7-....

Surface Transportation Board

Stephen

Thompson

RSI

7-....

Transportation Infrastructure Policy

John Fischer

RSI

7-....

U.S. Coast Guard

Martin Lee

James Mielke

RSI

7-....

7-7007

Technical Information Specialist, Transportation

Technical Information Specialist

Hussain Hassan

(name redacted)

RSI

—

Management Assistant, Transportation

Clare Brigidini

RSI

Area of Expertise

Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

Contents

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

The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA21 . . . . . . . . 2

Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Comparison of FY1999 and FY2000 Enacted Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Government Wide Recission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Railroad Safety and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

High Speed Rail and Maglev . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Amtrak Reform Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

The TEA21 Funding Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

FHWA Research, Development, and Technology Programs . . . . . . . 16

Motor Carrier Safety Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Passenger Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Research and Special Programs Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Incentive Funds for 0.08 BAC Laws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

List of Figures

Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration Appropriations . . . . 24

Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations . . . 25

List of Tables

Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2000 . . 3

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:

FY1988 to FY2000 Enacted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3. Department of Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Table 4. Department of Transportation Allocated Rescissions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 5. Total Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Appropriations for FY2000:

Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies

Most Recent Developments

The President signed the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

Act, 2000 (P.L. 106-69), hereafter referred to as the FY2000 Act, on October 9,

1999. The Act provided $50.2 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT).

However, the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113), mandates

a government wide rescission equal to 0.38% of discretionary budget authority

provided (or obligation limits imposed) for all government departments.

Approximately $179 million will be cut from the DOT funding levels provided for in

P.L. 106-69. The largest reductions are faced by the Federal Highway

Administration (-$105.3 million), the Airport Improvement Program (-$54.4

million), the Federal Transit Administration (-$17.6 million), and the Coast Guard

(-$1.6 million). Even accounting for the rescission, the final funding level represents

nearly a 6% increase over the appropriations level of the FY1999 Act.

The Transportation Appropriations Framework

Transportation is Function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. It is

also considered part of the discretionary budget. Funding for the DOT budget is

derived from a number of sources. The majority of funding comes from dedicated

transportation trust funds. The remainder of DOT funding is from Federal Treasury

general funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, the

transit account of the highway trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, and the

inland waterways’ trust fund. All of these accounts derive their respective funding

from specific excise and other taxes.

Together, highway and transit funding constitutes the largest component of DOT

appropriations, and can account for 60% to 70% of total federal transportation

spending in any given year. Most highway, and the majority of transit, programs are

funded with contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This is

very significant from a budgeting standpoint. 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., authorized funds are

automatically made available 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.

CRS-2

Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual

appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite

situation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control

already exists and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs is also in place.

Prior to the FY1999 Appropriations Act 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.

The authority to set a limitation on obligations for contract authority programs

gave appropriators considerable leeway in allocating funds between the various

federal transportation activities in function 400, which includes agencies such as the

Coast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, the inclusion of

the highway and transit programs and their trust fund generated revenue streams in

the discretionary budget provided appropriators with additional flexibility as part of

the annual process by which available funds were allocated amongst the 13 standing

appropriations subcommittees in the House and the Senate.

Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA21

TEA21 changed this budgetary procedure in two ways. First, it created new

budget categories and second, it set statutory limitations on obligations. The Act

amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to create

two new budget categories: highway and mass transit. The Act further amends the

budget process by creating a statutory level for the limitation on obligations in each

fiscal year from FY1999 to FY2003. In addition, TEA21 provides a mechanism to

adjust these amounts in the highway account, but not the transit account, to

correspond with increased or decreased receipts in the highway generated revenues

(see revenue aligned budget authority – RABA– under key policy issues).

The net effect of the creation of these budget categories is a predetermined level

of funding for core highway and transit programs, referred to in TEA21 as a

discretionary spending guarantee. These categories are separated from the rest of the

discretionary budget in a way that prevents the use of funds assigned to these

categories for any other purpose. These so called “firewalls” are viewed, in the

TEA21 context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levels of funding for highway and

transit programs. Additional funds above the firewall level can be made available for

highway and transit programs through the annual appropriations process.

TEA21 changes the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget

committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.

The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an

annual level of obligations. In addition, it appears that the House appropriations

committee is precluded, at least in part, from exercising what some Members view as

their traditional option of changing spending levels for any program or project.

The TEA21 firewalls appear to diminish the flexibility of the committees on

appropriations to meet the goals of the annual budget process, because they can only

CRS-3

adjust the DOT agency/program budgets outside the firewalls. Hence, any reduction

in spending for Function 400 must be allocated to these agencies/programs. This has

raised special concern for supporters of the FAA, the Coast Guard, and Amtrak,

which are the largest DOT functions without firewall protection. See the key policy

issues section for further amplification.

On June 15, 1999, the House completed action on H.R. 1000, the Aviation

Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21). H.R. 1000 contains

provisions that take the aviation trust fund off budget. Off budget differs from

firewalls and would give the trust fund status similar to the Social Security trust fund

as far as the annual budget debate is concerned. The Senate-passed version of H.R.

1000 contains no changes in the budgetary treatment of the aviation trust fund. A

conference version of the bill failed to emerge from conference before the end of the

first session of the 106th Congress. However, the conference remains open and action

could occur in the second session.

The budget treatment of the aviation trust fund has become a particular issue in

the 106th Congress. The aviation trust fund is expected to have large unobligated

balances in the years ahead unless spending from the fund is increased or the fund’s

tax revenues are decreased. This situation, combined with the belief in some quarters

that protected spending within the TEA21 firewalls constrains FAA spending in the

annual appropriations process, has heightened interest in providing some sort of

budgetary protection for aviation.

Supporters of the Coast Guard are also concerned about the new transportation

appropriations environment. The Coast Guard is not funded by a trust fund, and

hence cannot claim a user-fee base to support an argument for its own budget

firewalls. The Coast Guard has a unique status within the transportation budget

category because of its wartime role in national defense. It is not unusual for the

Coast Guard to receive some funds from military appropriations during the annual

appropriations process. It is possible that the Coast Guard will seek additional

funding from the military side of the budget in the years ahead if additional funds

from transportation appropriations do not become available. Amtrak does not have

a similar option.

Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2000

Subcommittee

Markup

Senate

House

Report

House

Passage

H.R.

2084 S. 1143

5-27-99 5-25-99

H.Rept.

106-180

6-9-99

S.Rept.

106-55

6-23-99 5-27-99

House

Senate

Report

Senate

Passage

Conference

Report

H.Rept. 106355

9-16-99

9-30-99

Conference Report

Approval

House

Senate

Public Law

10-1-99

10-4-99

P.L. 106-69

10-9-99

CRS-4

Key Policy Issues

The debate over FY2000 DOT appropriations included the major issues of: (1)

allocating funds among competing DOT programs and (2) seeking a compromise

between the concept of a unified budget versus specifically earmarked, “off budget”

activities. Competition for funds stems from various transportation interests and from

the modal administrations themselves. 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 throughout the various modes of transportation, 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

(NTSB), the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and several other

transportation-related independent agencies.1

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 framework

created by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21), signed into

law on June 9, 1998 (P.L. 105-178, H.R. 2400). The Act authorized appropriations

for key surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. The general sense

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

proceeds from the Federal fuels taxes must be targeted toward the capital and

recurring needs of the vast U.S. highway and transit network and not viewed as a

source of general revenue. Although attempts to move highway and transit programs

off budget prior to the 106th Congress were unsuccessful, Congress did insert

language within TEA21 to protect specific funding by creating firewalls around

selected programs. The firewalls effectively created minimum funding levels for the

selected programs. However, their creation has caused a congressional debate

between the authorizers and appropriators over who should exercise ultimate

authority for spending levels. Firewalls established by authorizing committees

guarantee minimum funding for selected programs, but in the process, are seen by

some as reducing the funding that might have been allocated to other (unprotected)

programs. Thus, unprotected programs must compete for finite amounts, generally

capped by the budget resolution. A similar initiative is underway for air transportation

through H.R. 1000, although it drops the firewall provision while retaining off-budget

provisions.

TEA21 also contained a provision (Section 1105, Revenue Aligned Budget

Authority — RABA) that authorizes DOT to redistribute trust funds, in excess of

projected receipts, to the various states for Title 23 highway programs. According

DOT has proposed each year since FY 1997 that the Surface Transportation Board (STB)

be fully funded by user fees. 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, The Surface Transportation Board (STB): An Overview and Selected Public

Policy Issues, by Stephen Thompson.

CRS-5

to RABA, the additional revenues are to be allocated to the states using the formulas

spelled out in the law. However, the FY2000 DOT request proposed redirection of

these funds from highway programs to other DOT initiatives, predominantly

environmental activities associated with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality

(CMAQ) program and transit. In the end, the FY2000 DOT appropriations act (P.L.

106-69) disallowed the Administration’s proposed redirection of RABA funds.

Major Funding Trends

Table 2 shows Department of Transportation actual funding levels for FY1988

through FY1998 and enacted funding for FY1999 and FY2000. The major portion

of these funds are contract authority.2 Total DOT funding almost doubled from

FY1988 through FY2000 (enacted). Totals may not include some user fee

collections; thus, program totals may vary from other figures cited in the text.

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:

FY1988 to FY2000 Enacted

(in millions of dollars)

Fiscal Year a

FY1988 Actual

Appropriation b

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 Actual

42,381

FY1999 Enacted

47,224

FY2000 Enactedc

49,995c

“Actual” amounts from FY1988 to FY1998 include funding levels initially enacted by

Congress in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies appropriations bill

as well as any supplemental appropriations and rescissions legislation enacted at a later

Starting in the early 1990s, about $300 million of the funds shown in Table 2 were

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

Coast Guard activities. The amounts requested for FY2000 are provided in Table 5 at the end

of this report.

CRS-6

date for that fiscal year. “Enacted” figures for FY1999 and FY2000 were mostly taken

from the conference report tables (H.Rept. 106-69).

Amounts include obligations, limitations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.

The across-the-board rescission mandated for FY2000 required a reduction of roughly $179

million from the $50.174 billion provided in P.L. 106-69. This reduces the FY2000

enacted level down to just under $50 billion.

Comparison of FY1999 and FY2000 Enacted Funding

On October 9, 1999, President Clinton signed the Department of Transportation

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the FY2000

Act or the Act). With total funding of $50.174 billion, the Act provided for an overall

increase of roughly 6% over FY1999 enacted levels. Table 3 sets forth a tabular

comparison of the FY1999 and FY2000 funding levels for a selection of agencies’

funding.3

Table 3. Department of Transportation Appropriations

(for selected agencies, in millions)

Enacted

FY1999

Final

FY2000

Percent

+/-

Federal Highway Administration

26,823

28,833

+7.5

Federal Aviation Administration

9,754

10,027

+2.8

Federal Transit Administration

5,390

5,779

+7.2

United States Coast Guard (FY1999

includes supplemental appropriations)

4,484

4,022

-10.3

Federal Railroad Administration

778

735

-5.5

National Highway Traffic Safety

Administration

361

368

+1.9

Office of the Secretary

-6.2

National Transportation Safety Board

Office of the Inspector General

+2.3

Surface Transportation Board

+6.3

Agency

Government Wide Recission

The FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-113) mandates a

rescission of an amount equal to 0.38% of discretionary budget authority provided (or

The allocation of the 0.38% government wide rescission across DOT’s organizational units

is reflected in these totals.

CRS-7

obligation limits imposed) for FY2000 provided by any act for each department,

agency, instrumentality, or entity of the federal government. This required that the

amounts provided in the FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-69) be reduced

by just over $179 million.

Although DOT had substantial discretion in how the cuts were distributed within

the department, the legislation did establish some limitations. The language of the

rescission legislation limited the amount that could be cut from any activity, program,

or project to 15% and exempts any military personnel accounts.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin no. 00-01 includes

criteria for allocating the reduction. The criteria state that:

reductions should be taken from the least critical funding available to

the agency;

! reductions should be considered from enacted funding above the

President’s request;

! wherever possible, no reductions should be taken that would require

reductions-in-force;

! agencies should make targeted recommendations rather than an

across-the-board funding cut.

Reductions could only be made from discretionary budget authority and

obligation limitations.

The allocation of the reductions, pursuant to P.L. 106-113, is set forth in Table

4. In implementing the OMB criteria DOT included reductions to amounts earmarked

in the language of the FY2000 appropriations reports.4

Table 4. Department of Transportation Allocated Rescissions

Organizational Unit

Reduction ($000)

Federal Highway Administration

105,260

Federal Aviation Administration

54,362

Federal Transit Administration

17,624

U.S. Coast Guard

1,600

Federal Railroad Administration

179

Office of the Inspector General

170

Surface Transportation Board

Saint Laurence Seaway

Office of the Secretary

Total

179,327

Table is based on OMB figures provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. All

allocated rescission figures in the report are from this source.

CRS-8

Coast Guard

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

The Coast Guard appropriation is constrained, and its management challenged,

by increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on the high

seas as well as by its aging fleet of water craft and aircraft. The Administration

requested $4.1 billion for Coast Guard discretionary funds in FY2000. Compared to

the total $4.5 billion appropriated in FY1999 (including emergency and supplemental

appropriations), the FY2000 request would have been $358 million, or 8%, less than

all FY1999 funds.5 In addition to these discretionary funds, there were mandatory

funds of $64 million for State Boating Safety grants. In passing H.R. 2084 on June

23, the full House approved the committee-reported $4.0 billion and adopted no

amendments affecting the committee recommendations for the Coast Guard. In

passing H.R. 2084, as amended, on September 16, 1999, the Senate approved the

$4.0 billion amount. Conferees approved $4.0 billion included in the final

appropriations, P.L. 106-69. Earlier, in emergency supplementary appropriations

legislation (P.L. 106-31; H.R. 1141), Congress appropriated $200 million for the

Coast Guard as emergency funding contingent on an official budget request being

made. Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation could be interpreted as being $4.224

billion. Coast Guard programs are authorized every two years; see CRS Report

RS20117, Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001 Authorization Issues, for discussion of

current congressional consideration of authorization bills.

According to preliminary OMB figures, the government wide rescission called

for in P.L. 106-113, the DOT will cut the Coast Guard’s enacted budget by $1.6

million with the acquisition, construction, and improvements account being cut by

almost $1.5 million; the environmental compliance and restoration account by

$65,000; and the alteration of bridges account by $57,000.

The Coast Guard budget request of $4.126 billion was proposed to enable the

Coast Guard to continue its activities against drug smuggling and recapitalize aircraft

and vessel fleets. Of this amount, $2.941 billion (a 4% decrease compared to

FY1999) would have been allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide range of

ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation, including $334 million in

defense-related funding. The Senate passed $2.772 billion; the House passed $2.791

billion; and the conference agreed to $2.781 billion of which $300 million shall be

available for defense-related activities. Another major component of the request

would have assigned funds for acquisition, construction, and improvement. For this

function, the Administration sought $350 million, a 44% decrease from FY1999,

This FY1999 total includes $3.9 billion in the FY1999 Department of Transportation and

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, as included in P.L. 105-277, and an additional $376

million in emergency funds in the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-277, Division B). P.L. 106-31. The FY1999 Supplemental

(P.L. 106-31), also appropriated $200 million in additional FY1999 funds to be carried into

FY2000. In reporting FY2000 bills, the House Committee included these additional FY1999

funds and the Senate Committee excluded them.

CRS-9

compared to total FY1999 funds.6 Senate-passed H.R. 2084 would have funded this

at $370.4 million and the House-passed version at $410 million. The conference

agreed to $389.3 million of which $20 million would be derived from the oil spill

liability trust fund. For research during FY2000, the agency requested $22 million,

an 83% increase over the current fiscal year. The Senate-passed bill would have

funded this at $17 million; the House-approved bill at $21 million. P.L. 106-69

provides $19 million, with $3.5 million to come from the oil spill liability trust fund.

The Senate approved $730.3 million for Coast Guard retirement; the full House

approved $721 million, level with the current estimate. The conference agreed to

$730.3 million. The Administration requested and both the House and Senate

recommended $72 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 cleanup operations

following oil spills.

Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations

A prominent issue was the Coast Guard’s management of a major planned

replacement of aging and outmoded high seas’ vessels and aircraft. Only planning and

analysis funds were included for this in the FY2000 request; actual purchases of nearly

$10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. At House

Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings on February 11, 1999, and at

the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee hearing,

Note: The addition of one-time FY1999 funds referenced in footnote 1 contribute to this

difference.

CRS-10

March 16, 1999, the General Accounting Office criticized the Coast Guard’s handling

of this vital replacement program. CRS Report 98-830 F, Coast Guard Integrated

Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the issues

associated with the program. In reporting S. 1143, the Senate Appropriations

Committee included several provisions in the bill language relating to these needs.

These include a requirement that funds from aircraft sales be credited to the

Deepwater Replacement Project Revolving Fund (created by a provision in S. 1143)

for new aircraft purchases. The Senate approved bill also permits the Commandant

of the Coast Guard to dispose of specified Coast Guard facilities. As specified in H.R.

2084, as amended by S. 1143, proceeds from the sale of these facilities would be

deposited into the Deepwater Replacement Project Revolving Fund. In H.R. 2084,

the House also included bill language providing for the crediting of sales of disposed

property to this appropriation account. It also specifies that the Coast Guard must

submit a comprehensive capital investment plan with its FY2001 budget justification.

These provisions were included in P.L. 106-69.

Another issue involved the Coast Guard’s planned use of user fees. The budget

anticipated using $41 million from new user fees for recapitalization of vessels,

information management, and Coast Guard shore infrastructure not part of the

deepwater replacement effort. The Administration proposed legislation to authorize

user fees for commercial cargo vessels and cruise ships; it anticipated collecting $41

million in FY2000 and $165 million annually when fully operational. Proposals for

user fees for traditional Coast Guard services such as buoy placement and vessel

traffic regulation have been controversial. Some argued that these services should be

funded from general funds because of their widespread benefits; others argue that user

fees should be assigned in instances where the beneficiaries can be clearly identified.

In passing H.R. 2084, the Senate included bill language prohibiting the Coast Guard

from using any FY2000 funds “to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that

would promulgate new user fees...” The House also included similar language in

passing H.R. 2084, which was retained in the enacted legislation, P.L. 106-69.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

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

For FY2000, the Administration requested a total of $678 million in total budget

authority for the FRA.7 This was down from the $778 million for FY1999, and from

the $743 million actual figure for FY1998. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084

recommended $750 million and the House-passed version recommended $719

million. The enacted legislation provided for $735 million.

Pursuant to the government wide rescission, DOT cut $179,000 from the

FY2000 enacted level. The largest reduction was allocated to the Next Generation

High Speed Rail Program (-$103,000). Rhode Island rail development (-$38,000)

and Alaska railroad rehabilitation (-$38,000) were also reduced.

This amount excludes $93 million in current and proposed federal receipts for a total of $746

million. See Budget of the United States, Fiscal Year 2000, Appendix, page 762.

CRS-11

The most notable reduction from the FY1999 amount was the $38 million cut

for Amtrak. Amtrak issues are discussed in a separate section below.

Railroad Safety and Technology. The FRA is the primary federal agency that

promotes and regulates railroad safety. In P.L. 105-277, Congress appropriated

about $77.3 million in FY1999 to fund the expenses associated with FRA’s Office of

Safety and the expenses of associated offices within FRA. In the FY2000 budget, the

Administration requested about $95.5 million for the railroad safety program and

associated offices. Most of those funds were to pay for salaries as well as associated

travel and training expenses for field and headquarters staff and for information

systems monitoring the safety performance of the industry.8 The Senate-passed

version of H.R. 2084 recommended $91.8 million and the House-passed version

recommended $94.4 million for those activities. The conference agreement

accompanying P.L. 106-69 specifies $94.3 million.

Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations

The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994 and funding

authority for that program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs

Those funds also are used to conduct a variety of initiatives, including the Safety Assurance

and Compliance Program (SACP) the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), and

field inspections. SACP involves numerous partnerships forged by railroad management,

FRA personnel, and labor to improve safety and compliance with federal railroad safety

regulations. RSAC uses a consensus-based process involving hundreds of experts who work

together to formulate recommendations on new or revised safety regulations for FRA’s

consideration.

CRS-12

continue using the authorities already specified in federal railroad safety law and funds

appropriated annually. Subcommittees of the Senate Commerce, Science, and

Transportation Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure

Committee held extensive hearings during the 105th Congress on various railroad

safety issues. Those deliberations did not result in a consensus to enact a law that

would have authorized continued funding for the regulatory and safety compliance

activities conducted by the FRA or change any of the existing authorities used by that

agency to promote railroad safety. Any reauthorization statute enacted during the

106th Congress could change the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities but that

new safety law would most likely only affect budgets after FY2000.

Especially after the March 1999 crash between an Amtrak train and a truck in

Bourbonnais, IL, which resulted in 11 deaths and more than 110 injuries, the 106th

Congress is paying particular attention to railroad-grade crossing safety. Relevant

issues include: Are FRA’s grade crossing activities adequate and effective? How is

FRA helping the states deal with that safety challenge? Is FRA’s FY2000 budget

adequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional reaction to the answers of those

questions appears to have had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2000.

The conference agreement increased funding for Operation Life Saver to $950,000

and provided support for a national public service campaign to increase awareness to

crossing safety and trespass prevention.

To support its safety program, the FRA conducts research and development

(R&D) on a diverse array of topics, including: fatigue of railroad employees,

technologies to better control train movements (positive train control), track research,

and grade crossing safety. For FY2000, the FRA requested $21.8 million for railroad

R&D compared to $22.4 million appropriated in FY1999. The Senate-passed version

appropriates $22.4 million and the House-passed version appropriates $21.3 million

for railroad R&D. The conference agreement on P. L. 106-69 specifies $22.5 million.

In the reports accompanying each of the transportation appropriation bills and the

conference report, the appropriations committees historically have allocated the

railroad R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety.

High Speed Rail and Maglev. For FY2000, FRA requested $12 million of

appropriated funds and $10 million of RABA funds to continue the Next Generation

High Speed Rail Program. In FY1999 $20.5 million was appropriated for that

program. TEA21 also authorizes $20 million of contract funds in FY2000 to support

the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Program.

The Administration did not request liquidating authority to use those funds, but

instead proposed to use $20 million of RABA funds to support research to reduce the

costs of maglev systems. In FY1999 TEA21 authorized $15 million of contract funds

to conduct the maglev program. For FY2000, the Senate rejected the

Administration’s request to use RABAfor maglev, and instead recommended the $20

million of contract funds authorized in TEA21 for maglev. The House also rejected

the Administration’s request for maglev, and left intact the funding provided in

TEA21 for maglev. The enacted legislation, P.L. 106-69, specifies $27.2 million for

the Next Generation Program. As mentioned earlier, the Next Generation Program

was reduced by $103,000 pursuant to the government wide rescission mandated by

P.L. 106-113.

CRS-13

Amtrak

[http://www.amtrak.com]

The FY1999 budget authority for Amtrak was $609 million compared to $594

million in FY1998. These figures do not include an estimated $1.1 billion in funds

available to Amtrak each year in FY1998 and FY1999 from the Taxpayer Relief Act

of 1997. The Administration requested $571 million for FY2000, as did both the

Senate and House-passed versions of H.R. 2084. The enacted legislation (P.L. 10669) also provides $571 million.

Amtrak’s financial condition remains weak. The Administration requests a

change in legislation allowing Amtrak to use “capital” grants for routine maintenance

of equipment and facilities such as track. Amtrak testified before Congress in March

1999 that without this change in legislation, Amtrak might not make it through

FY1999, the current fiscal year, on a cash basis. Amtrak typically borrows money

from a private-sector line-of-credit near the end of each fiscal year to bridge the gap

between its operating loss and federal financial assistance. Amtrak typically repays

the loan early in each new fiscal year.

Federal operating aid to Amtrak is prohibited after FY2002 (49 U.S.C. 24101

(a) (1999)). The DOT Inspector General (IG), at the request of Congress, has

evaluated Amtrak operations and outlook, and concluded that Amtrak probably will

continue to require federal financial operating assistance after FY2002.

In addition to the funding already discussed, the DOT IG estimates that over the

next several years, Amtrak will require $2.7 billion to $4 billion in federal funds for

new equipment and improvements to signaling and track. Some of these funds would

be used to upgrade track between Washington, DC, and New York City. Beyond this

amount, the DOT IG estimates that Amtrak will have additional, continuing

requirements for such federal funding for the foreseeable future.

Amtrak Reform Council. Amtrak Reform Council funding is presented within

the Federal Railroad Administration budget request. The budget authority for the

council was $450,000 in FY1999 compared to $50,000 in FY1998. The

Administration requested $750,000 for FY2000. The Senate recommended

$950,000 to be available through September 30, 2001, and the House recommended

$450,000 to be available through December 30, 2001. The enacted legislation (P.L.

106-69) provides $750,000 for the Amtrak Reform Council and requires that each

annual report of the council to Congress include the identification of Amtrak routes

which are candidates for closure or realignment.

The council was created in FY1998 to perform an independent assessment of

Amtrak’s labor agreements, Amtrak’s progress in increasing employee productivity,

and Amtrak’s ability to operate without federal operating assistance after September

30, 2002. If the council concludes, anytime after December 2, 1999, that Amtrak will

require federal operating assistance after September 30, 2002, then federal law

requires the council to submit to Congress an Amtrak reorganization plan; requires

Amtrak to submit to Congress an Amtrak liquidation plan; and requires legislative

action by the Senate.

CRS-14

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

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

The FY2000 Act provides the FHWA with $28.9 billion in total budgetary

resources. This is a $2.1 billion increase over the FY1999 level. The FY2000 Act

continues the dramatic growth in FHWA funding that has resulted from passage of

the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178) (TEA21) in 1998.

By way of further comparison, funding for FY2000 will be over $10 billion more than

was available in FY1995.

The FY2000 Act funding was reduced by just over $105 million pursuant to the

government wide rescission (P.L. 106-113).

The FY2000 Act largely follows the provisions of TEA21 in terms of overall

funding distribution (a discussion of the TEA21 program structure follows this

section). There are a number of provisions in the Act, however, that waiver from the

formula guidance found in TEA21. The principal change is in the distribution of

Revenue Enhanced Budget Authority (RABA) funds for programs under the direct

control of the FHWA (these are the so called “allocated” funds and include programs

such as the federal lands highway program and the highway beautification program).

The effect of the Act’s provisions is to transfer a significant portion of the RABA

funds designated for the allocated funds to core highway programs (surface

transportation program, national highway system program, etc.) for distribution to the

states on a formula basis. The other major change in the Act is a significant increase

in the number of specific projects and funding levels detailed in the legislation. This

earmarking is a common feature in other parts of the transportation appropriations

Act, but has been absent from the highway section of the act for several years.

Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations

CRS-15

The earmarking and the RABA reallocation, are the most contentious features

of the FY2000 Act and were opposed by the leadership of the House Transportation

and Infrastructure Committee which viewed these changes as constituting legislating

(i.e. authorizing) in an appropriations act. Opposition in the House, however, was

insufficient to defeat the Conference Report on final passage.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 (formerly S. 1143) honored the

TEA21-created program structure and spending guarantee provisions and provided

a small additional increase in spending over the Clinton Administration proposal. The

legislation as reported included total budgetary resources for FHWA of just under $29

billion. Almost all of the programmatic changes proposed in the bill affected research

programs and intelligent transportation systems (ITS) programs that will be discussed

later in this section. The major difference between the Senate Act and the Clinton

proposal was in the treatment of RABA funding. The Senate Act distributes RABA

funds of $1.46 billion on the basis of TEA21 formulas, thereby rejecting the

Administration’s attempt to use these funds for non-highway activities. The Senatepassed version of H.R. 2084 differs from the House version in that it narrows the

scope of RABA distribution to certain of the core highway programs instead of

allocated programs, thereby excluding a number of smaller previously mentioned

programs. During floor debate, this provision was challenged on a point of order as

violating the Senate rule against legislating in an appropriations bill. The point of

order failed.

H.R. 2084 as passed by the House also honored the TEA21 guarantee levels.

Federal aid highway funds and RABA funds are identical to the Senate levels. Total

budgetary resources available to FHWA were slightly lower in the House-passed

version. The House bill also rejected the Clinton Administration RABA redistribution

proposal.

The FY2000 budget proposal submitted by the Clinton Administration requested

FHWA funding at the TEA21 firewall level, $27.3 billion. In addition, a RABA

distribution of $1.46 billion in additional highway funding was forecast. The

Administration chose to make the very controversial suggestion that the RABA

distribution be reprogrammed to a number of transportation programs outside the

highway program firewall. These changes were designed to complement Vice

President Gore’s proposals concerning the Administration’s “livability agenda.” For

example, the Administration proposed $250 million in additional funding for highway

research activities, which are outside the highway firewall. RABA funding would also

have been used for highway safety, transit, and rail related activities. The

Administration proposal failed to gain congressional support and, as detailed above,

was not seriously considered as part of the FY2000 appropriations process.

The TEA21 Funding Framework. TEA21 created the largest surface

transportation program in U.S. history. For the most part, however, it did not create

new programs. Rather, it continued most of the highway and transit programs that

originated in its immediate predecessor legislation, the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240). Programmatically,

TEA21 can be viewed as a refinement and update of the ISTEA process. There are

a few new funding initiatives in the Act, such as a border infrastructure program, but

the vast majority of funding is reserved for continuing programs.

CRS-16

There are several groupings of highway programs within the highway firewall.

Most of the funding is reserved for the major federal aid highway programs, which

can be thought of as the core programs. These programs are: national highway system

(NHS), interstate maintenance (IM), surface transportation program (STP), bridge

replacement and rehabilitation, and congestion mitigation and air quality improvement

(CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment on an annual basis by

formula and are not subject to program-by-program appropriation.

There is a second category of highway funding within the firewalls. This so

called “exempt” category consists of two elements, an additional annual authorization

of minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) and emergency relief

($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to the annual limitation on

obligations.

A further set of programs, which are also within the firewall, are known as the

allocated programs. These programs are under the direct control of FHWA or other

governmental entities. These programs include: the federal lands highway program,

high priority projects (former demonstration project category), Appalachian roads

(formerly ineligible for trust fund contract authority), most minimum guarantee funds,

the national corridor planning and border infrastructure program, and several other

small programs.

TEA21 provides a link between the highway generated revenues that flow into

the highway account and highway spending. The Act requires that the Secretary of

Transportation make an annual evaluation of revenues into the highway account

during the previous fiscal year vis-a-vis spending authorized within the highway

firewall for the new fiscal year. If revenues go up, program spending is increased.

Conversely, spending can go down if revenues go down. The Act specifies a formula

to determine the direction and amount of highway funding adjustment. This

mechanism, known as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), is employed

beginning in FY2000.

FHWA Research, Development, and Technology Programs. For FY2000,

the FHWA requested $641 million to support its research, development, and

technology-related (RD&T) activities; this is an increase of $268 million over the

FY1999 estimate of $373 million. The request consisted of $370 million to conduct

RD&T related to FHWA’s traditional highway programs and $271 million to support

the National Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program.

An important issue associated both with the traditional highway component and,

particularly, with the ITS deployment program component of the RD&T program,

is the earmarking of funds. The appropriators, historically, have designated a

substantial portion of the incentive funds used to accelerate ITS deployment. For

example, in FY1999 the appropriators earmarked the entire deployment account by

specifying which cities or states would receive those funds and the amounts to be

obligated.9 Both the House Appropriations Committee and the Senate Committee on

U.S. House of Representatives. Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

(continued...)

CRS-17

Appropriations again earmarked the entire ITS deployment program in their FY2000

recommendations. The conference agreement accompanying P.L. 106-69 earmarked

almost all of the deployment account. Many Members and proponents of ITS would

prefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded.

The FY2000 budget request poses other issues regarding highway RD&T

programs, but one is of particular note. This issue pertains to the use of RABA

funds. As previously stated, the Administration has been seeking the flexibility to

allocate those monies according to its priorities instead of the distribution specified

in TEA21. The Administration proposed allocating $250 million of the RABA funds

to supplement both components of the RD&T program. If highway RD&T programs

had received only their proportional share of the RABA funds now allowed under

TEA21, the funding for those activities could have been increased up to about 5%

(plus any increase now specified in TEA21 for FY2000), instead of the 72% increase

proposed by DOT.10 This would have upset the agreements forged in TEA21

regarding how the RABA funds would be distributed. The Senate and the House did

not accept the Administration’s proposal to use RABA funds to increase RD&T

activities by 72%.

Motor Carrier Safety Operations.

In FY2000 FHWA requested

approximately $55.4 million for the motor carrier safety (MCS) program that is

managed by the newly established Office of Motor Carrier and Highway Safety. In

an amended request, FHWA asked for an additional $5.8 million for that program.

The requested funds are used primarily to pay for the salaries and expenses of some

630 staff who conduct audits or reviews of motor carriers, write and revise the

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and conduct many other activities intended

to improve commercial motor vehicle safety. In FY1999, $53.4 million was

appropriated for those functions. For FY2000, the Senate specified about $57.4

million for motor carrier safety operations, and the House appropriated about $70.5

million for that function. The conference agreement specified the amount

recommended by the House.

Various congressional committees have recently conducted hearings on the truck

and bus safety program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT). Two of the key issues that were discussed include: How effectively is the

current program being conducted? Is a new administrative structure needed to

improve its implementation? The debate on the future administrative structure of the

federal truck and bus safety program appears to have affected the FY2000 DOT

Appropriations Act. P.L. 106-69 prohibits the use of any funds to carry out certain

motor carrier safety functions and operations by the FHWA, and would transfer those

funds to any DOT entity other than the FHWA to carry out those activities. On

October 9, 1999, FHWA’s motor carrier safety functions were transferred to a newly

(...continued)

Appropriations Act for FY1999. 105th Congress, 2nd Session. H.Rept. 105-825. pp. 76-77.

The Administration proposed using RABA monies to fund $250 million of the requested

increase of $268 million for RD&T.

CRS-18

established entity, the Office of Motor Carrier Safety, outside of FHWA but still

within the DOT.

In addition to the funds used to conduct FHWA’s motor carrier safety program,

the FHWA budget request included $105 million of contract funds authorized by

TEA21 to support the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) and

various information systems used to promote truck and bus safety, and an amended

request of another $50 million to fund additional MCSAP activities and other safety

initiatives. MCSAP provides grants to the states to implement inspection and review

programs affecting both interstate and intrastate commercial vehicle operations. In

FY1999 $100 million was made available for MCSAP and related information

systems. The House-passed H.R. 2084 appropriates $105 million for those activities.

The Senate-passed version appropriates $155 million. The Act, P.L. 106-69, specifies

$105 million.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

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

The Clinton Administration proposed $6.1 billion for transit in FY2000. This

would have been an increase of almost $700 million, or 14%, over the FY1999 level

of $5.4 billion. However, TEA21 authorized $6.8 billion for FY2000, of which, $5.8

billion was guaranteed under the so-called firewall provisions. The additional amount

of $291 million over the guaranteed level of $5.8 billion under the Administration’s

proposal for transit would have come from highway gasoline tax revenues derived

from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Act (RABA) funds designated by

TEA21 for highway programs. The reallocation of RABA funds to transit was

opposed by highway proponents. The American Public Transit Association (APTA)

also opposed the Administration’s use of RABA funds for transit purposes. APTA

believed that the additional funds proposed by the Administration over the guaranteed

funding level could be found within the discretionary budget category. However,

APTA wanted transit to be funded at the full TEA21 authorization level of $6.8

billion for FY2000.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 (originally introduced in the Senate as

S. 1143) provided FTA with total budgetary resources of $5.8 billion. In doing so the

Senate complied with the TEA21 budgetary firewalls. The Senate bill provided no

additional transit funding over this amount and rejected the Clinton Administration

proposals for the redistribution of RABA funds. During consideration in the Senate,

a deadlock occurred over a provision that the would have limited a state’s total transit

funding to 12.5% of total formula grant transit funding. The provision was

controversial not only because it entailed changing the grant distribution formula

enacted in TEA21 but also because all of the reductions would have come out of the

projected distribution of transit funds to the two states, New York and California.

After a vote to invoke cloture failed, the provision was withdrawn in the face of the

certainty of a filibuster by the delegations from New York and California and

opposition from those who were against changing any of TEA21's provisions in

general.

The FY2000 Act provides a total of $5.8 billion for FTA. This exceeded FY1999

funding by $407 million, an increase of more than 7.6%. Almost all FTA programs

CRS-19

received funding increases. The transit appropriation figures below illustrate the

significant increase in funding from FY1999 to FY2000 following the enactment of

TEA21. As shown in Figure 4, transit funding under TEA21 reached its highest

funding level to date with a request of $5.8 billion in FY2000, although this was

below the Clinton Administration proposal of $6.1 billion.

Pursuant to the government wide rescission, DOT cut $17.6 million from the

level provided for in the FY2000 Act. Capital investment grants absorbed most of the

reduction.

Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations

There are two major transit programs: the Major Capital Investment Program

and the Urbanized Area Formula Program. There are also several smaller formula and

planning and research programs.

The Major Capital Investment Program (Section 5309 — formerly known as

Section 3) is comprised of three major components: new transit starts, fixed guide

way modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2000, the Clinton

Administration had proposed a level of $2.5 billion. Section 5309, under P.L. 106-69,

received $2.5 billion in FY2000, compared to $2.3 billion in FY1999, an increase of

8.4%. These funds are allocated on a discretionary basis by FTA or earmarked by

Congress.

The Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307 — formerly known as

Section 9) provides for the everyday basic urbanized area capital and operating needs.

These activities include bus and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed

CRS-20

guide way modernization, new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For

FY2000, the Administration had requested $3.3 billion, an increase over the $2.8

billion enacted for FY1999. Under the FY2000 Act, section 5307 received $3.05

billion, an increase of 8.9% over FY1999. These funds are apportioned on a

complicated formula process based, in part, on population and transit service data.

There are also several smaller formula and planning and research programs that

received increased funding in FY2000 over FY1999 funding levels. These programs

include the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program, the Elderly and Persons with

Disabilities Program, and several transit planning and research programs.

TEA21 authorized a new Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program to purchase clean

fuel vehicles in urbanized areas. Urbanized areas over 1,000,000 population will

receive two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining third to urbanized areas with

populations under 1,000,000. FY1999 was the first year these funds ($100 million)

were appropriated. The FY2000 request was also for $100 million. P.L. 106-69

provides $100 million for FY2000.

TEA21 also authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Grant

Program. This program is designed to help welfare recipients and low income persons

with transportation assistance to suburban areas to find work. This would provide

funds for projects using transit for individuals needing job training, child care, and for

other purposes. The program’s initial funding level was $75 million for FY1999. The

FY2000 funding request was for $150 million. However, for FY2000, P.L. 106-69

retains the previous year’s funding level of $75 million.

With the enactment of TEA21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for

urbanized areas (UZAs) with 200,000 or more population. However, preventive

maintenance, previously eligible for funding from operating assistance, is now

allowable under an expanded capital grants formula program. Urbanized areas under

200,000 population, including rural areas (under 50,000 population), can use all of

the formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

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

For FY2000, the Administration proposed to fund the entire FAA with a

combination of current excise taxes and new user fees, and to establish a

Performance-based Organization (PBO) for air traffic services.11 The funding level

for the FAA would have been increased from $9.75 billion to $10.13 billion, or by

about 4% over the FY1999 level. The budget request emphasized two major areas:

(1) safety initiatives to reduce the fatal accident rate on U.S. commercial carriers 80%

by 2007; and (2) the upgrading of air traffic control automation to allow efficiencies

through flights that are more direct.

A PBO is a distinct management unit within a government agency with strong incentives

to manage for results. It would commit to specific measurable goals with targets for improved

performance. In exchange, it is granted managerial flexibilities and accountability to achieve

these targets.

CRS-21

P.L. 106-69, the FY2000 DOT appropriations bill, was signed by the President

on October 9, 1999; the bill provides a total of $10.081 billion for the FAA. This is

a $327 million increase over FY1999 funding levels, although it is slightly less, by $50

million, than the amount requested by the Administration. The FAA’s Operations and

Research accounts both receive increases over the FY1999 levels (however, these

increases are $139 million and $17 million, respectively, lower than the Administration

requested). The Airport Improvement Program is funded at the same level as FY1999

(however, $350 million above the Administration request).12 The Facilities and

Equipment budget is reduced by $12 million from the FY1999 level (however, $244

million below the Administration request).

Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations

Although the amount of funding for FAA is within $50 million of the requested

funding, the Administration expressed concerns about the lower than requested levels

for operations, research, and facilities and equipment.

For the first time, assuming no general fund supplementals, the FAA will be

funded entirely from the aviation trust fund with no contribution from the general

fund. Historically, a substantial portion of the FAA’s budget has come from general

fund revenues rather than the aviation trust fund, the rational being that the public at

large realizes some benefit from the aviation system whether it uses the system or not.

The government wide rescission led to a $54 million reduction in AIP’s enacted funding

level.

CRS-22

In related developments, the FAA reauthorization legislation, H.R. 1000, failed

to emerge from conference before the end of the first session of the 106th Congress.

The conferees were unable to agree on the treatment of the aviation trust fund, the

general fund share, and the cap on the passenger facility charge (PFC). Although

most FAA programs and activities can operate without authorization, the Airport

Improvement Program cannot, and has been in abeyance since October 1, 1999.

However, conference remains open and action may occur in the second session.

Operations. The Act includes $5.900 billion for FAA operations, an increase of

$334 million (6%) above the FY1999 level, but $139 million (2.3%) below the

Administration’s request. The increase will be used in part to fund 100 additional

field maintenance technicians and to bring on-line and maintain air traffic control and

aeronautical navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the modernization

of the air traffic control system. The operations budget also includes $668 million for

aviation regulation and certification, and $145 million for civil aviation security.

In a statement released following the signing of the Act, the Administration said that

the reduction in the operations account will slow hiring for safety and security

positions and postpone implementation of needed efficiency and management

improvements.13

Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The $2.075 billion for the F&E account is

$10 million less than last year’s appropriation, and $244 million, or 10.5% less than

the request. This account is the principal means for modernizing and improving air

traffic control and airway facilities. It also finances major capital investments required

by other agency programs, experimental research and development facilities, and other

improvements to enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system. Concerned

that the FAA has not adequately justified the Wide Area Augmentation System, which

will be used in conjunction with a satellite-based navigation system, the Act zeros out

the Administration’s request of $108.1 million for this program. The Local Area

Augmentation System request of $4 million was also zeroed. Other cuts in this

account reflect a general concern with the agency’s poor record with respect to the

modernization of the air traffic control system, and its failing to evidence a strong

commitment to mission focus, accountability, coordination , or adaptability. The

Administration said that the reductions in the F&E account will constrain funding for

the modernization of the air traffic control system, including needed modernization

and improvement of the Global Positioning System. Furthermore, it said the

reductions may increase air travel delays and ill-position the FAA to meet the growing

challenges of the future.14

Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D). The Act provides

$156.495 million in the RE&D account, which is $6 million more than last year but

$17 million, or 10%, less than the request. Although programs were trimmed across

the board, $5 million was added to the aging aircraft program request to continue and

expand research activities at the National Institute for Aviation Research.

Statement by the President. The White House. Office of the Press Secretary, Oct. 12,

1999. [http://www.whitehouse.gov/library/ThisWeek.cgi?type=p&date=1&briefing=7]

Ibid.

CRS-23

Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)

provides grants for airport development and planning. The FY2000 Act provides the

program with a limitation on obligations of $1.95 billion for AIP. This amount is the

same as was available in FY1999. The Administration requested $1.6 billion.15 As

mentioned earlier, pursuant to the government wide rescission, DOT reduced the

AIP’s budget by $54.4 million below the level provided for in the FY2000 Act.

Because no FAA reauthorization bill that would authorize AIP for FY2000 has

passed, the AIP has been in abeyance since October 1, 1999. Although existing

projects may continue, no new projects may be funded.

Passenger Rights. During floor debate in the Senate on H.R. 2084, airline

passenger consumer protection issues emerged in the form of a number of

amendments to the bill. In the appropriations Act (P.L. 106-69), this resulted in

language requiring the Office of the Inspector General report on a number of issues:

first, to investigate whether domestic and foreign air carriers are engaging in “unfair

or deceptive practices” and “unfair methods of competition” (pursuant to 49 U.S. C.

section 41712), when they sell tickets on flights that are already over booked or offer

different low fares through different media (for example, different lowest fares via

telephone or internet); second, the OIG is required to report, not later than June 15,

2000, on the extent that barriers exist to consumer access to comparative price and

service information from independent sources (such as travel agents) on the purchase

of airline tickets; third, the OIG is required to report on the extent to which air

carriers deny travel to airline consumers with non-refundable tickets from one carrier

to another. In another provision, the FY2000 Act also expresses the sense of the

Senate that the penalty for involuntary “bumping” of passengers should be doubled.

The Senate version of the FAA reauthorization bill (H.R. 1000) also includes a

number of consumer protection provisions.

Research and Special Programs Administration

For FY2000, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)

requested $85.8 million in budget authority, compared to $71.7 million which was

appropriated in FY1999, to conduct a variety of safety and technology programs. For

pipeline safety, RSPA requested $38 million, an increase of $3.6 million over FY1999;

and for hazardous materials transportation safety, the agency sought $18.2 million,

an increase of $2.1 million over FY1999. RSPA estimates that 80% of its budget is

allocated for activities seeking to promote transportation safety. The FY2000 budget

seeks to enhance RSPA’s efforts to prevent damage to gas and liquid pipelines by

outside forces (e.g., by a construction crew) and to increase grants to support state

efforts to reduce environmental damage from pipeline spills. RSPA also seeks to

increase its staff supporting the hazardous materials (hazmat) transportation safety

This lower amount of AIP funding was proposed by the Administration in conjunction with

a proposal to increase the cap on the passenger facility charge (PFC) to provide an alternative

non-federal source of funds for airport development. However, no FAA reauthorization bill,

with such a PFC provision has passed. H.R. 1000 remained in conference at the end of the

first session.

CRS-24

program and to increase funding provided for hazmat training and planning assistance

provided to emergency responder and local planning committees.

Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration Appropriations

For FY2000, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 recommended total

budgetary resources for RSPA of $76.656 million, including $16.960 million for the

hazardous materials transportation safety program and $36.104 for the pipeline safety

program. The House-passed version recommended $82.953 million in new budget

authority for RSPA, including $17.813 million for hazardous materials transportation

safety program and $36.092 million for pipeline safety. The conference agreement

accompanying P.L. 106-69 provides $67.7 million for RSPA, but does not set a limit

on obligations for the emergency preparedness grant program for hazmat training and

planning. The agreement specifies $36.9 million for the pipeline safety program and

$17.7 million for the hazardous materials transportation safety program.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

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

For FY2000, the NHTSA requested an appropriation of $406 million, up from

$361 million enacted for FY1999. The requested increase included $125 million

derived from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. The $125 million of RABA

funds constituted about 30% of the agency’s overall budget request of $406 million.

The Administration proposed using RABA funds to pay for all of NHTSA’s

motor vehicle safety activities, which include defect investigations, the auto-safety

hotline, and various consumer information programs on the crash worthiness of new

CRS-25

vehicles. Last year, the appropriations committees funded the entire NHTSA account

using highway trust fund monies.

Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations

The Senate-passed H.R. 2084 recommended agency funding totaling $376

million, a reduction of about 7.4% from the Administration’s request, but $15 million

(or about 4.2%) more than the amount enacted for FY1999. The House-passed

version of H.R. 2084 recommended $368.2 million for NHTSA during FY2000. The

conference report (H.Rept. 106-355) passed by both houses recommends $368

million, which was the amount contained in the bill signed into law (P.L. 106-69) by

the President on October 9, 1999.

The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed dismay at the Administration’s

proposal to use RABA funds for Operations and Research. The Committee has

recommended that $72 million of contract authority (from TEA21) be combined with

$89.4 million authorized under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49 U.S.C. and

chapter 303 of title 49 R.S.C. for FY2000, bringing the total to $161.4 million for

operations and research activities. This amount is about $38 million less than the

$199.5 million requested by the Administration.

Likewise, the Administration’s suggestion that a substantial portion of NHTSA’s

programs be funded from RABA was not well received by the House Appropriations

Committee. In its report, the committee states that, “Such budget gimmickery does

not indicate a sincere commitment to safety. Further, by submitting this request to

Congress, the department is shortchanging safety by not continuing a reliable funding

source for safety programs.”

CRS-26

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

bolstered by the recent presidential seat belt initiative. Although the “Buckle Up

America” program began in FY1999, it continues to be an important component of

the agency’s entire safety agenda. In addition, the agency is focusing its research and

regulatory efforts on “smart air bags” and other lifesaving technologies. The Senate

Appropriations Committee, in S.Rept. 106-55 accompanying S.1143, expressed its

concern over additional safety issues, including the emerging issue of tragedies of

children becoming locked in auto trunks. The committee directs NHTSA to prepare

a report determining the frequency of these incidents and to recommend strategies to

reduce such incidents. Although the trunk lid study deadline is March 31, 2000,

there is no funding earmarked to prepare the report.

Incentive Funds for 0.08 BAC Laws. Section 163 of Title 23, U.S.C.,

provides contract authority of $80 million for FY2000 to provide incentive grants to

those states that adopt and enforce a law that makes it illegal per se (by definition) to

operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above

0.08%.16 TEA21 provides $80 million of contract authority for the Section 163

program for FY2000, compared to $65 million in FY1999. Currently 16 states qualify

to receive those monies. Those funds do not require a separate appropriation and are

protected within the firewall for federal aid highway programs established by TEA21.

Although the apportioned funds may be obligated for any program authorized under

Title 23, U.S.C., states are using most of those funds for behavioral-oriented traffic

safety activities, rather than for highway infrastructure projects. In general, states

support incentive programs that encourage them to adopt specified laws rather than

“disincentive” programs that take away or transfer a portion of their federal aid

monies if they do not enact those laws.

Section 163 was added to Title 23, U.S.C., by Section 1404 of TEA21.

CRS-27

Table 5. Total Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs

(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)

Public Law

P.L. 106-69f

Final FY2000

(after .38%

reduction)

28,938

28,833

27,806

27,701

1,132

—

406

376

368

778

678

750

719

735

Amtrak (total)

609

571

Amtrak Reform

Council

450,000.00

(actual $)

750,000.00

(actual $)

950,000.00

(actual $)

450,000.00

(actual $)

750,000.00

(actual $)

750,000.00

(actual $)

750,000.00

(actual $)

5,390

6,088

5,797

5,779

Formula Grants,

(Capital, Plan.., &

Limited Operating)

(general funds)

570

620

Formula Grants,

(Capital & Plan.)

(trust funds)

2,280

2,690

2,478

Capital Investment

(general funds)

451

490

Capital Investment

(trust funds)

1,806

1,961

1,944

FAA

9,754

10,131

9,763

4,623

10,081

10,027

Operations (trust

fund & general

fund)

5,567

6,039

5,857

5,900

Facilities &

Equipment (F&E)

(trust fund)

2,087

2,319

2,046

2,200

2,075

Grant-in-aid

Airports (AIP) (trust

fund) (limitation on

obligations)

1,950

1,600

2,000

2,250

($300 mil. of

unobligated

funds are

rescinded)

1,950

1,896

Research,

Engineering, &

Developmt (RE&D)

(trust fund)

150

173

150

173

156

Senate

Passed

H.R. 2084a

Agency

FY1999

Enacted a

FY2000

Request a

FHWA

26,823

28,549

(Limitation on

Obligations)

25,611

(Exempt

Obligations)

1,212

1,132

BTS

(31)

NHTSA.

361

FRA

FTA

27,417

Conf. Rept

House Passed

H.Rept. 106a

H.R. 2084

355a

28,966

27,806

28,938

27,806

735

2,478

CRS-28

Senate

Passed

H.R. 2084a

Conf. Rept

House Passed

H.Rept.

106H.R. 2084a

355a

Public Law

P.L. 106-69f

Final FY2000

(after .38%

reduction)

Agency

FY1999

Enacted a

FY2000

Request a

USCGc

4,484

4,126

3,988

4,048

4,024

Operating Expenses

3,048

2,941

2,772

2,791

2,781

Acquisition,

Construction, &

Improvements

626

350

370

410

389

388

St. Lawrence

Seaway

OIG

RSPA

OST

Essential Air

Service (trust fund)

STB

NTSB (Budg Auth)

Budgetary Resources

Grand Total

47,224

50,158

49,500

44,474

50,174

49,995

4,022

Sources:

Unless otherwise noted, figures for FY1999 enacted, and FY2000 requested were taken from H.Rept. 105-825, H. Rept. 106-355, the

Budget of the United States, fiscal year 2000, and the FY2000 Budget in Brief and justifications. Department of Transportation

figures include adjusted figures that may not match the conference report or Budget of the United States figures. The columns

pertaining to the Senate, House, and Conference funding levels For FY2000 have been taken from the table at the end of H.Rept.

106-355. OMB figures provided by the House Committee on Appropriations were used to calculate the final funding levels.

Includes $105 million to account for motor carrier safety grants obligation limitation.

Figures for the Coast Guard were taken from H.Rept. 106-355. In general, the Coast Guard total budgetary resources includes

substantial funding from the Department of Defense and from emergency supplemental appropriations. For more detail, see CRS

Report No. RL30246, Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget. For FY2000, Congress appropriated an additional $200

million as emergency funding contingent on an official budget request being made. Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation could

be interpreted as being $4.224 billion.

This figure for the Office of the Inspector General includes $9 million transferred from the FTA administrative category.

Includes Surface Transportation Board estimated offsetting collections for FY1999 and estimated collections for FY2000.

Budget reductions pursuant to the government wide rescission (P.L. 106-113) that were too small to be reflected in the Final FY2000

column in Table 5 are as follows: Federal Railroad Administration, $-179,000; Transit Planning and Research, -$243,000; Coast

Guard alteration of bridges, -$57,000; and environmental compliance and restoration, -$65,000; Saint Laurence Seaway, -$46,000;

OIG, -$170,000; STB, -$58,000; and Office of the Secretary, -$28,000.

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 or exclusion of smaller program line-items.

Maritime Administration (MARAD) funding, and funding for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), are contained in CRS Report

RL30209, Appropriations for FY2000: Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies, coordinated by (name

redacted).

CRS-29

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by (name redacted).

CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 106th Congress, coordinated

by Glen Moore.

CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization

Issues, by (name redacted) and Anthony J. Solury.

CRS Reports

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

and the Federal Budget, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30096. Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Legislation

in the 106th Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RS20176. Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization and the 106th

Congress, by Stephen Thompson.

CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress,

by (name redacted).

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

Congress, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30068. Automobile Air Bags: Current Issues Associated With New

Technology, by (name redacted) and John R. Justus.

CRS Report 98-890. Federal Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation Equity

Act for the 21st Century: Analysis and Oversight Issues, by (namer edacted) and

Anthony J. Solury.

CRS Report 98-63. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment, by (namer

edacted).

CRS Report 98-646. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178):

An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions, by (name redacted).

CRS Report RL30246. Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget, by Martin

Lee.

Selected World Wide Web Sites

Department of Transportation Budget Site

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

CRS-30

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/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not 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 permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

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' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

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.