Appropriations for FY2003: Transportation and Related Agencies
Congressional research reportFeb 26, 2003
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL31308
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Updated February 26, 2003
name redacted 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
bound 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 one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. 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, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].
Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Summary
On February 20, 2003, President Bush signed the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2: H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7), providing
appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) and other departments.
Congress agreed to the conference committee report on February 13, 2003. It
provides $64.6 billion to the DOT and related agencies for FY2003, minus a 0.65%
across-the-board rescission which reduces the total by around $420 million (figures
in this report do not reflect the 0.65% rescission, as it is unclear how that cut would
be calculated for DOT and related agencies overall and for particular departments,
agencies, and programs in the bill). This is $9 billion more than the President
requested for FY2003, the primary difference being increased highway spending. It
is $1.8 billion less than enacted in FY2002, a year in which transportation
appropriations were boosted by supplemental spending for security and for repair of
damage to transportation infrastructure in New York City. Prior to the passage of
P.L. 108-7, DOT was funded through a series of 8 Continuing Resolutions (CRs) that
provided funding at FY2002 levels, prorated.
The events of September 11, 2001, have had a significant impact on DOT’s
budget. The DOT received an extra $7.3 billion in FY2002 in emergency
supplemental appropriations, much of it for security-related activities, including the
creation of an entirely new agency, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). During FY2003 the Coast Guard and TSA are scheduled to be transferred to
the newly-created Department of Homeland Security.
The abrupt decrease from FY2002 to FY2003 in requested federal-aid highway
funding–from $32 billion to $24 billion–caused a stir. It was mandated by the
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provision in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) that ties annual highway funding levels to trust
fund revenues; trust fund revenues dropped below predicted levels in 2001. The
second FY2002 emergency supplemental act (P.L. 107-206) included a provision
setting the RABA adjustment for FY2003 to zero, effectively restoring the federalaid highway program to $27.7 billion, the level authorized in TEA-21. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended this level; the Senate-passed version of
H.J.Res. 2 maintained the FY2002 level (which was $4.5 billion over the authorized
level as a result of a RABA increase that year) for FY2003, $31.8 billion. P.L. 108-7
provided $31.8 billion.
P.L. 108-7 provides Amtrak $1.05 billion, plus deferral of repayment of a $100
million loan, which it said would be enough to keep it solvent through FY2003. The
bill introduced a new policy on Amtrak oversight, providing the money not to
Amtrak directly but to the Secretary of Transportation, who will provide the money
to Amtrak in quarterly installments through the grant-making process. Each of
Amtrak’s long-distance routes will have to have a separate grant application for
funding.
Key Policy Staff
CRS
Telephone
Division
Area of Expertise
Name
Airport Improvement Program
Bob Kirk,
John Fischer
RSI
RSI
7-....
7-7766
Amtrak
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Aviation Safety
(name redacted)
Federal Aviation Administration
John Fischer
RSI
7-....
Federal Highway Administration
Bob Kirk
John Fischer
RSI
RSI
7-....
7-7766
Federal Railroad Administration
(name redacted)
Federal Transit Administration
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-....
Highway, Railroad, & Truck Safety
Paul Rothberg
RSI
7-....
Surface Transportation Board
(name redacted)
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
John Fischer
Transportation Security
(name redacted)
U.S. Coast Guard
Martin Lee
RSI
7-....
Automobile and Traffic Safety
Duane Thompson
RSI
7-....
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
RSI
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
7-....
7-....
7-....
7-....
7-....
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issue Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Conference Agreement (H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7) . . . . . . 3
FY2003 Budget Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
RABA and Highway Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget . . . . 5
Amtrak Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Essential Air Service (EAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 17
The TEA-21 Funding Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Administrative and Research Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Grants to States and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Border Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
NHTSA Program Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Railroad Safety and Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
FTA Program Structure and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309) . . 26
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Other Transit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Appendix 1: The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Appendix 2: Transportation Budget Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
List of Figures
Figure 1. Transportation Security Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 2. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 3. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 4. Federal Highway Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations . . . 22
Figure 6. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Figure 7. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 8. Research and Special Programs Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2003 . . . 3
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FY2003 Budget . . . . 21
Table 4. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs . . . 30
Appropriations for FY2003: Transportation
and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his budget proposal for FY2003.
The proposed FY2003 budget for the Department of Transportation (DOT) is roughly
$56.1 billion, a decrease of $3.5 billion (6%) from the FY2002 enacted total. This
decrease was primarily due to a decline in Highway Trust Fund revenues during
2002, which triggered an automatic reduction in highway spending for FY2003 of
$4.4 billion.
On March 21, 2002, President Bush submitted an emergency supplemental
budget request to Congress for $27.1 billion; $6.7 billion of which was for the DOT.
The largest items were $4.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) for explosives detection equipment and screeners and $1.8 billion for the
Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Grants Program for rebuilding sections of
the Manhattan transit system damaged by the September 11 attack. Other items
included $255 million for the Coast Guard, $167 million for the Federal Highway
Administration, $100 million for the Federal Aviation Administration, $19 million
for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Border Enforcement Program,
and $3.5 million for the Research and Special Project Administration.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush submitted a proposal for a new Department of
Homeland Security. It would involve transferring the Coast Guard and TSA from the
DOT to the proposed new agency, along with elements of other existing federal
agencies. These two agencies represent 19% of the DOT’s total budget, and 40% of
its discretionary budget (generally, those activities funded out of the general fund
rather than trust funds), for FY2003.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of
the DOT Appropriations bill, S. 2808/S.Rept. 107-224. The Committee
recommended $64.7 billion, $8.6 billion more than the Administration request. The
major differences were an increase in FHWA spending to FY2002 levels, $8.6 billion
above the FY2003 request, and an increase of $679 million for Amtrak, to $1.2
billion.
On August 2, 2002, the President signed the second FY2002 emergency
supplemental bill (P.L. 107-206). This bill included an additional $6.6 billion for the
DOT for FY2002. This included $3.9 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration, $1.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (for grants to
rebuild New York City’s subway system in Manhattan), $728 million for the Coast
Guard, and $205 million for Amtrak.
CRS-2
On August 9, 2002, the President announced that he would not ask for the $5.1
billion in contingency emergency funding that was included in the supplemental bill
(P.L. 107-206). The act provides that if the President requests any of the contingency
emergency funding, all of it is released. This decision reduced the supplemental
funding to DOT by $1.1 billion, from $6.6 billion to $5.5 billion. The biggest
reductions were to TSA ($480 million), the Coast Guard ($262 million), and the
FAA’s Grants-in-Aid to Airports ($150 million).
On September 3, 2002, the Administration submitted a budget amendment
increasing the FY2003 request for TSA by $546 million.
On October 7, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version
of the DOT Appropriations bill, H.R. 5559/H.Rept 107-722. The Committee
recommended $60.1 billion, $4.0 billion more than the Administration request. The
major difference was a $4.6 billion increase in FHWA spending.
On November 19, 2002, the Congress passed the fifth in a series of Continuing
Resolutions (CR) to fund the Department of Transportation (and other government
agencies) in FY2003 in the absence of an FY2003 DOT appropriations act. This CR,
P.L. 107-294, provides funding through January 11, 2003, at the levels enacted in
FY2002, prorated on a daily basis.
On November 19, 2002, the Congress passed legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005;P.L. 107-296). This legislation
provides for the transfer of the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration from the DOT to the new Department of Homeland Security during
FY2003.
On January 8, 2003, the House passed H.J.Res. 2, a bill without any
transportation appropriations, as a vehicle for the Senate.
On January 23, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, now an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill including transportation appropriations. It provides a total of
$65.1 billion to DOT and related agencies, $9 billion more than the Administration
request (see Table 1); the major differences are $8.6 billion more in highway
spending and $679 million more for Amtrak under the Federal Railroad
Administration. However, in an effort to keep total spending in line with the
Administration’s request, the Senate included an across-the-board cut of 2.852% in
the bill. The House will now go to conference with the Senate in an effort to produce
a final omnibus appropriations act which will likely include transportation
appropriations.
On February 13, the Conference Committee passed out H.J.Res. 2, which was
agreed to by both House and Senate. It provides $64.6 billion for DOT and related
agencies, but by agreement with the White House it also includes a 0.65% acrossthe-board rescission to hold down overall spending.
On February 20, 2003, President Bush signed H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 108-7).
CRS-3
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2003
Subcommittee
Markup
Senate
House
Report
House
Passage
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conf.
Report
H.R. 5559 S. 2808
10-7-02 7-25-02
H.Rept.
107-722
10-7-02
H.J.Res. 2
1-8-03
vv
S.Rept.
107-224
7-26-02
H.J.Res. 2
1-23-03
69-29
H.Rept.
108-10
2-13-03
House
Conference
Report Approval
Public
Law
House
Senate
2-13-03
338-83
2-13-03 P.L. 108-7
76-20
2-20-03
Note: H.R. 5559 and S. 2808 died at the end of the 107th Congress. FY2003 transportation
appropriations are included in H.J.Res. 2, an omnibus FY2003 appropriations bill. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations report for H.J.Res. 2 was printed in the Congressional Record for
January 15, 2003.
Key Policy Issues
Issue Overview
The Conference Agreement (H.Rept. 108-10, P.L. 108-7). While the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations passed out DOT appropriations
bills during the second session of the 107th Congress, that Congress ended without
passage of a DOT appropriations bill, or any other non-defense spending bill. All
pending legislation from the 107th Congress expired with the beginning of the 108th
Congress in January 2003, so new appropriations legislation had to be provided. The
House passed H.J.Res. 2, a bill without substantive appropriations language, on
January 8, 2003 and sent it to the Senate. The Senate amended it by inserting all the
non-defense agency appropriations for FY2003, and passed it January 24, 2003. On
February 13, 2003, the Committee on Conference issued their report (H.Rept. 10810), and the House and Senate agreed to the report and sent the legislation to
President Bush, who signed it on February 20, 2003. Prior to that, DOT funding had
come from a series of 8 continuing appropriations acts, known as continuing
resolutions (CRs), which provided agencies the same level of funding they received
in FY2002 (minus extraordinary one-time appropriations) prorated on a daily basis
for the life of the CR.
FY2003 Budget Overview. The Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget
request, released on February 4, 2002, proposed a Department of Transportation
(DOT) budget of roughly $56.1 billion–about 6% below FY2002's enacted level of
$59.6 billion.1 The FY2003 budget included a $4.4 billion reduction in highway
1
This report relies on figures from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations, though the FY2003 Senate figures come from the table at the back of the
Senate Appropriations Committee report published in the Congressional Record for January
15, 2003 (S710-765). Because of differing treatment of offsets, rescissions, and the
structure of DOT appropriations bills, the totals will at times vary from those provided by
the Administration. The DOT appropriations bills do not fund the Maritime Administration,
which is part of the DOT, but do fund some smaller entities that are not included in the DOT
(continued...)
CRS-4
funding required by the provisions of the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority
mechanism created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21;
P.L. 105-178). The budget request conformed to the basic outline of both TEA-21,
which authorizes spending on highways and transit, and the aviation funding
authorized in the Wendell Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st
Century (FAIR21 or AIR21; P.L. 106-181).
The FY2003 budget proposal continued trends of the past couple of years, with
proposed increases for the Coast Guard (18%) and Federal Transit Administration
(FTA, 5%), and decreases for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA, down
11%). The big changes in the FY2003 DOT budget were the reduction in highway
funding and the presence of the TSA.
The events of September 11, 2001, have had a significant impact on the DOT’s
budget. The DOT received an additional $1.8 billion for FY2002 through an
emergency supplemental bill passed on September 14,2 and another $5.5 billion
through another emergency supplemental bill passed on July 24, 2002, for a total of
$7.3 billion in supplemental funding in FY2002.3 In addition, an entirely new agency
was created within the DOT, the TSA, due to concerns about security. In FY2003,
both the Coast Guard and TSA are scheduled to be transferred out of the DOT to the
newly-created Department of Homeland Security.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations passed out a DOT appropriations bill
on July 25, 2002 (S.Rept. 107-224), which provided $64.7 billion; the House
Committee on Appropriations passed out a DOT Appropriations bill on October 7,
2002 (H.Rept. 107-722), which provided $60.1 billion. Neither the House nor the
Senate passed an FY2003 DOT appropriations bill during the second session of the
107th Congress; those bills passed by the Committees on Appropriations expired with
the convening of the 108th Congress. On January 8, 2003, the House passed H.J.Res.
2, a bill without substantive appropriations language, and sent it to the Senate. The
Senate inserted appropriations language for the 11 non-defense departments whose
FY2003 appropriations bills had not been enacted and passed the bill on January 23,
2003. The Senate version of H.J.Res. 2 provided $65.1 billion for transportation for
FY2003. The major difference between the Senate and House figures was $4.1
1
(...continued)
budget, i.e, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the
National Transportation Safety Board.
2
H.R. 2888, became P.L. 107-38 on September 18th. This bill appropriated $40 billion,
available in three parts; $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
immediately (i.e. during FY2001); $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
15 days after he notified the Congress how he would use the funds; and the remaining $20
billion was allocated in a separate title of the FY2002 Defense Department Appropriations
bill (P.L. 107-117).
3
H.R. 4775 became P.L. 107-206 on August 2, 2002. The bill provides $6.6 billion for
DOT, but $1.1 billion is contingency emergency funding, which the President has said
(August 9, 2002) he would not utilize. Except where otherwise noted, the figures in this
report do not include the $7.3 billion in supplemental appropriations received by the DOT
in FY2002.
CRS-5
billion more for the federal-aid highway program in the Senate bill. The Senate bill
also included a 2.852% across-the-board rescission to acknowledge President’s
Bush’s insistence on a limit for FY2003 non-defense spending. The Committee on
Conference’s report on H.J.Res. 2 was agreed to on February 13, 2003 (H.Rept. 10810); it provides $64.6 billion for DOT and related agencies, but also provides an
across-the-board rescission of 0.65%, by agreement with the White House, to hold
down overall non-defense spending. President Bush signed the bill on February 20,
2003 (P. L. 108-7).
RABA and Highway Funding. TEA-21 created a mechanism called
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which was intended to prevent
revenues from accumulating in the Highway Trust Account. While TEA-21 set
guaranteed spending levels for the highway program through FY2003, based on
forecast of future Highway Trust Account revenues, RABA allowed the highway
spending level to increase automatically if Highway Trust Account revenues
exceeded the forecasts. It also provided that the highway spending levels would be
reduced if revenues fell below the forecasts.
For several years, the RABA adjustment mechanism provided windfall gains for
highway funding: increases of $1.5 billion in FY2000, $3 billion in FY2001, and
$4.5 billion in FY2002 over the guaranteed funding levels. However, the recession
of 2001 slowed receipts into the Highway Trust Account, and in January 2002 it
became clear that revenues had dropped below the forecast levels. The result was an
automatic cut in the FY2003 highway program funding level of $4.4 billion. The
impact of this cut was magnified by the RABA boost to FY2002 highway funding of
$4.5 billion over the guaranteed level. This meant that RABA, by giving a $4.5
billion “bonus” in FY2002 and a $4.4 billion cut in FY2003, created an $8.4 billion
difference between FY2002 highway funding and FY2003 funding (for more
information, see CRS Report RS21164, Highway Finance: RABA’s Double-edged
Sword, March 5, 2002).
On August 2, 2002, the President signed the second FY2002 emergency
supplemental legislation (P.L. 107-206), which included a provision setting the
RABA adjustment for FY2003 to zero (Section 1402). This had the effect of
restoring FY2003 highway funding to the level guaranteed in TEA-21, $27.7 billion.
On October 7, the House Committee on Appropriations reported its version of
the FY 2003 DOT Appropriations bill (H.R. 5559). It recommended funding the
federal aid highways program at $27.7 billion, $4.4 billion over the Administration
request. On January 23, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill which includes transportation appropriations. It provided $31.8
billion for FY2003, the same amount provided in FY2002. P.L. 108-7 provides
$31.8 billion.
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget. TSA
was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)(P.L. 107-71)
in November 2002 in response to concerns about the security of aviation and other
transportation systems. Congress required TSA to assume responsibility for
screening passengers and checked baggage at airports, and to hire screeners and
CRS-6
purchase equipment to carry out this task, by the end of calendar year 2002. Initial
estimates were that TSA would need to hire around 25,000-30,000 screeners to do
this, giving it a total workforce of 35,000-40,000 people. However, this estimate was
based on the existing number of screeners, and overlooked the impact of other ATSA
requirements, such as the screening of checked baggage; this activity was virtually
non-existent before September 11, so there were no precise estimates of the total
workforce this task would require. As the scale of that task became clearer, estimates
of the workforce needed by the TSA increased by another 25,000 or so screeners, to
screen checked baggage, to a total workforce of as many as 70,000 people. Some
members of Congress expressed concern about TSA growing to such a size; the
FY2002 emergency supplemental act capped TSA’s full-time screener positions at
45,000, the House Appropriations Committee recommended that cap be extended for
FY2003, and P.L. 108-7 extended that cap. Currently, TSA employs nearly 62,000
screeners, of whom 28,000 are temporary.4
TSA was appropriated $1.3 billion in FY2002; it also received an additional
$3.9 billion in the second FY2002 emergency supplemental bill5. Its FY2003 request
was $5.3 billion–though that request was based on 41,300 full-time employees.
Some members of Congress questioned the amounts being requested, and criticized
the lack of detail about how the money will be used. At the same time, TSA was
under pressure to hire and train as many as 50,000-60,000 screeners, and to purchase
and install thousands of baggage-screening devices at 429 airports, by December 31,
2002. The DOT Inspector General has noted resulting inefficiencies.6
When it created the TSA, Congress gave it the power to levy two fees, one on
passengers and one on airlines. The expectation, at least on the part of some in
Congress, was that these fees would provide enough revenue to cover the TSA’s
annual budget requirements. However, while the DOT estimates that these two fees
will bring in around $2.0 billion each year, the TSA’s budget request for FY2003 is
$5.3 billion. Revenue from fees will not come close to covering the TSA’s annual
budget.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $5.146 billion for TSA,
$200 million less than the Administration request. The Senate provided $5.346
billion in H.J.Res. 2, the amount requested by the Administration. P.L. 108-7
provides $5.180 billion.
4
Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, Aviation
Security Costs, Transportation Security Administration, Testimony before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation, February
5, 2003, CC-2003-066.
5
President Bush announced on August 9, 2002 that he would not request the contingent
emergency funding included in the second FY2002 supplemental bill (P.L. 197-206); that
would cut $480 million from the TSA’s FY2002 supplemental appropriation. The President
subsequently increased the FY2003 request for TSA by $546 million (Budget Estimate #23,
September 3, 2002).
6
Office of the Inspector General, op. cit.
CRS-7
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security. TSA is scheduled to be transferred from DOT
to this new department in March of 2002. The budget implications of this proposal
are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request represents 9% of the DOT’s total
budget request, and the portion of the TSA’s budget request that exceeds their
offsetting collections, $2.5 billion, is 12% of the discretionary portion ($20.7 billion)
of the DOT’s budget.
Amtrak Funding. Amtrak told Congress that it needed at least $1.2 billion
in FY2003 to maintain operations. The Administration requested $521 million for
Amtrak for FY2003, noting that this figure was a “placeholder” while the
Administration worked to finalize a plan to restructure passenger rail service. In the
midst of Amtrak’s quest for funds to make it through FY2002, the Administration
presented a set of principles for restructuring passenger rail service, including the end
of federal operating support and greater financial support from states, and said it
opposed providing Amtrak more than $521 million in FY2003 unless significant
reforms were made. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $762
million, while requiring enhanced financial reporting from Amtrak; the Senate
provided $1.2 billion in H.J.Res. 2. P.L. 108-7 provides $1.05 billion, and postpones
repayment of a $100 million loan. In a change of policy, Congress did not provide
the money directly to Amtrak, but to the Secretary of Transportation, who will
allocate the money to Amtrak quarterly through the grant-making process. Also,
each of Amtrak’s long-distance routes will have to make individual grant
applications to receive funding.
Major Funding Trends
Table 2 shows DOT actual or enacted funding levels for FY1988 through
FY2002. Total annual DOT funding more than doubled from FY1988 through
FY2002.
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year a
Appropriation b
FY1988 Actual
25,779
FY1989 Actual
27,362
FY1990 Actual
29,722
FY1991 Actual
32,776
FY1992 Actual
36,184
FY1993 Actual
36,681
FY1994 Actual
40,359
FY1995 Actual
38,878
CRS-8
Fiscal Year a
Appropriation b
FY1996 Actual
37,378
FY1997 Actual
40,349
FY1998 Actual
42,381
FY1999 Actual
48,310
FY2000 Actual
50,851
FY2001 Actual
64,463
FY2002 Enacted
66,450c
FY2003 Enacted
64,637d
a
“Actual” amounts from FY1988 to FY2001 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 enacted at a later date for that fiscal year. Source: DOT
Budget in Brief, Budgetary Resources Table, “Actual” year column, adjusted by subtraction of
Maritime Administration funding and addition of Related Agencies funding from DOT appropriations
acts.
b
Amounts include limitations on obligations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.
c
FY2002 and FY2003 enacted figures are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
d
FY2003 enacted figure does not reflect a 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
[http://www.tsa.dot.gov/]
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71), passed in the
aftermath of the attack on September 11, 2001, created a new agency in the
DOT—the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). With respect to air
transportation, the TSA assumes the civil aviation security functions of the FAA as
promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 449. TSA is responsible for screening passengers and
checked baggage at airports, and for hiring screeners and purchasing equipment to
meet these responsibilities. TSA also deploys Federal Security Managers at each
airport to oversee screening and deploys Federal Air Marshals for every flight
considered a “high security risk.” TSA is assigned the task of improving airport
perimeter-access security and acquires and deploys explosive-detection machines and
other equipment designed to detect chemical or biological weapons.
TSA is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, passenger and
cargo. During a national emergency, TSA is to coordinate and oversee domestic
transportation for air, rail, maritime (including seaports), and other surface transport
modes and to coordinate threat assessments among appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. The agency is to develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with security threats, and to undertake R&D activities to enhance transportation
security.
CRS-9
Figure 1. Transportation Security Agency
In FY2002, TSA received a total of $5.8 billion, including transfers. For
FY2003, the first full year of funding for TSA, the Administration initially requested
$4.8 billion. The Administration submitted a budget amendment on September 3,
2002 raising TSA’s budget request by $546 million to an overall total of $5.346
billion. Approximately $2.0-2.4 billion of this amount will be offset with collections
from the fees authorized under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
(ATSA). ATSA imposes a fee of up to $2.50 per passenger (limited to $5 per oneway trip) to pay for civil aviation security services. If this fee proves to be
insufficient to pay for the cost of security services, TSA may impose a fee on air
carriers–as it has done. The revenue collected from this air carrier fee is limited to the
amount air carriers paid in calender year 2000 for screening services. There is a
dispute over the amount of this fee; the federal government estimates that the airlines
paid around $700 million in 2000 for screening services, but the airlines say they paid
only around $300 million.
CRS-10
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating a new federal
agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which are
scheduled to be transferred by March 2003 to this new agency is TSA. The budget
implications of this proposal are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request
represents 9% of the DOT’s total budget request; the portion of TSA’s budget request
that exceeds their offsetting collections, approximately $3 billion, is 13% of the
appropriated portion ($22.1 billion) of the DOT’s budget.
The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003, H.J.Res. 2, provides
$5.2 billion for the TSA, $166 million less than the Administration’s budget request.
The Act provides $4.5 billion for civil aviation security services. This amount
includes $3 billion for screening activities, of which $265 million is provided for
modifying airports to make room for checked baggage explosive detection systems
and $175 million is provided for purchasing these systems. For airport support and
enforcement presence, the Act provides $1.5 billion. The Act also extends a cap of
45,000 full-time employees for TSA’s workforce.
The Act also provides $245 million for maritime and land transportation
security, which includes $150 million for seaport security grants and $30 million for
Operation Safe Commerce. Operation Safe Commerce is a pilot program for testing
new initiatives for ensuring the security of marine container shipments from their
point of origin to final destination. The Act includes $309 million for administrative
expenses including intelligence activities. For research and development related to
transportation security, the Act provides $110 million.
Among the key issues discussed regarding the TSA’s FY2003 budget was its
rapidly growing size and the fact that user fees, as mentioned above, are not covering
the costs. The issue of properly allocating funds among the various transportation
modes, reflecting the areas of greatest vulnerability, was also debated. Members of
Congress from coastal states, for instance, raised the issue of whether enough funds
have been allocated for seaport security.
Coast Guard
[http://www.uscg.mil/]
The Coast Guard is challenged by increased responsibilities for Homeland
Security, search and rescue, enforcement, drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on
the high seas as well as by its aging water craft and aircraft. The Administration
requested budget authority of $6.1 billion for Coast Guard funding in FY2003.7
Compared to the $5.2 billion appropriated in FY20028, the FY2003 request was $862
7
The Administration’s budget request was scored as $5.9 billion because of $165 million
in offsetting collections from a navigational fee requested by the Administration. The House
Appropriations Committee and the Senate-passed bill both denied this new fee proposal,
bringing the Administration’s request to $6.1 billion.
8
The Coast Guard received FY2002 supplemental funds of $209.2 million in P.L. 107-117
and $255 million in P.L. 107-206 (the Coast Guard received $528 million in P.L. 107-206,
(continued...)
CRS-11
million, or 17%, more. Planned increases of $771 million for Coast Guard operating
expenses accounted for most of the proposed increase. In the 107th Congress, the
House Appropriations Committee recommended $6.1 billion. In the 108th Congress,
Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2 provided $6.1 billion. The final FY2003 appropriation was
$6.1 billion, though the 0.65% across-the-board rescission will likely reduce that to
$6.0 billion. Coast Guard programs are usually authorized every 2 years;
authorization for FY2003 was included in the Maritime Transportation Security Act
of 2002 (P.L. 107-295). See CRS Report RS20924, Coast Guard Legislation in the
107th Congress, for discussion of authorization bills. CRS Report RS211125,
Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations–Background and Issues for Congress,
and CRS Report RS21079, Maritime Security: Overview of Issues also discuss
related issues. CRS Report RS21303, Homeland Security: the Coast Guard’s FY2003
Budget, also addresses Coast Guard funding.
Figure 2. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
8
(...continued)
but over half was contingent emergency funding, which the President has said he will not
request, reducing the total to $255 million). These supplemental funds totaling $464.2
million are not included in the FY2002 figure. They bring the total Coast Guard FY2002
appropriation to $5.7 billion.
CRS-12
The FY2003 budget request was intended to allow the Coast Guard to continue
its activities against drug smuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets
while it conducts accelerated Homeland Security activities. A requested $4.2 billion
($771 million, or 23%, more than FY2002) was for operation and maintenance of a
wide range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. The Senate
and House committees in the 107th Congress each recommended $4.3 billion.9 As
enacted, P.L. 108-7 included $4.3 billion. Another major component of the request
is allocated to acquisition, construction, and improvement. The Administration
sought $725 million, $89 million, or 14%, more than current year funding. The
Senate and House Committees on Appropriations had approved this amount. P.L.
108-7 provides $742 million. For complying with environmental regulations and
cleaning up contaminated Coast Guard sites, the budget seeks, and both committees
had approved $17 million, the final amount approved by Congress. No funds were
requested for altering bridges, but the House Appropriations Committee
recommended $17 million, and Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2 includes $17 million as
well as $22 million requested for research and development, about the same as
approved by earlier actions. Other Coast Guard requested funding includes $62.1
million for spill clean-up and initial damage assessment, available without further
appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Senate and House
recommended $889 million for retired pay, a mandatory expense, which P.L. 108-7
provides.
The chief issue for the Coast Guard is how it is handling its heightened security
responsibilities along with its many other responsibilities, such as search and rescue,
and enforcement of laws and treaties. The planned $771 million increase for
operating activities is to be allocated among Homeland Security and these traditional
activities. Another prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a
major planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas vessels and aircraft,
with a special emphasis on improving the Coast Guard’s capabilities on the high seas
or in deep waters. Only planning and analysis funds were included for FY1998
through FY2001. For FY2003, $500 million was requested, a $179 million (56%)
increase over FY2002 funding. The Senate Committee approved $480 million; P.L.
108-7 provides $478 million. Actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated
over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. CRS Report 98-830, Coast Guard
Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the
issues associated with the program.
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating a new federal
agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which are
scheduled to be transferred to this proposed new agency is the Coast Guard. The
budget implications of this proposal are not clear; the Coast Guard’s FY2003 budget
request represents 11% of the DOT’s total budget request and 27% of the
appropriated portion ($22.1 billion) of the DOT’s budget.
9
This figure includes $300 million for the Coast Guard in the FY2003 Department of
Defense appropriations bill, and $340 million in defense-related funding in the DOT
appropriations bill.
CRS-13
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[http://www.faa.gov/]
The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (P.L. 108-7) provides the FAA
with $13.6 billion for FY2003 (this does not reflect a required 0.65% recession that
applies to some portions of the FAA appropriation). This is essentially the same
amount provided earlier by both Senate-passed and House-recommended legislation
and is essentially the amount requested by the Bush Administration. The general
fund contribution to FAA operations is set at $3.4 billion which is near the
Administration requested level and above the FY2002 level. The Act makes some
changes in existing FAA programs and consolidates various earmarks from Senate
and House bills.
Figure 3. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
The Bush Administration was seeking $13.6 billion in budget authority for
FY2003. This compares with total budgetary resources of $13.3 billion provided in
the FY2002 Appropriations Act. The vast majority of FAA funding is provided from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In FY2002 a Treasury general fund contribution
of $1.113 billion was provided. The Administration proposed a general fund
CRS-14
contribution of almost $3.3 billion for FY2003. Whereas the general fund
contribution for FY2002 was on the low side historically, the Administration is now
trying to return to a higher contribution level. Historically, a significant portion of
the agency’s budget has come from general fund revenues, the rationale being that
the public at large realizes some benefit from aviation whether it uses the system or
not.10
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $13.6 billion. The
Senate Committee also accepted the Administration request for a general fund
contribution of $3.3 billion.
There were a number of programmatic
recommendations in the Senate bill that differ from the Administration’s request, but
these would not represent major changes to FAA programs or operations. The bill
also included a significant number of earmarks in various program categories.
The House Committee on Appropriations version of FY2003 appropriations also
supported a total spending level of nearly $13.6 billion for the FAA. Like its Senate
counterpart, the details of the bill differed in some ways from the Administration’s
request. The bill provided for a larger general fund contribution for operations
spending, $3.5 billion. The report accompanying the House bill enumerated a
growing concern about the long term health of the aviation trust fund. The events of
September 11 have reduced air travel with a concomitant reduction in trust fund
revenue collections. As a result, the bill instructed the FAA to reexamine its
spending priorities in light of what could become a significantly tighter budget
environment.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). The Administration proposed an
FY2003 funding level of $7.1 billion for this activity, compared to $6.9 billion in
FY2002.11 P.L. 108-7 provides about $30 million less than the amount proposed by
the Administration. The Senate Committee had previously proposed a funding level
$4 million higher than the Administration request, whereas the House provided for
a reduction of $17 million from the request. Both the House and Senate Committees
contended that their recommendations were actually significant increases over
FY2002 spending because certain security functions found in the FY2002 FAA
budget have since been transferred to TSA. The majority of funding in this category
is for the salaries of FAA personnel engaged in air traffic control, certification, and
safety related activities.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The Consolidated Act provides $2.96
billion for this activity, which is slightly more than the FY2002 level. The
Administration proposed raising this amount to $3 billion in FY2003, a level also
adopted by the Senate Committee. The House bill provided for a similar level of
spending. F&E funding is used primarily for capital investment in air traffic control,
10
General fund appropriations have varied substantially, both in dollar terms and as a
percentage of FAA appropriations as a whole, from year to year. Over the last 12 years the
share has ranged from 0% to 47%. See table 1 in CRS Report RS20177, Airport and Airway
Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress, by (name redacted).
11
Including supplemental appropriations, total FY2002 O&M spending was $7.119 billion.
CRS-15
and safety. There were no significant new F&E spending initiatives in the
Administration proposal and there are none in the Consolidated Act.
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D). P.L. 108-7
provided $148.5 million for this activity, well above the Administration proposal of
$124 million. This is well below the FY2002 funding level and significantly below
the $249 million authorized for this activity by FAIR21. Some of the difference is
accounted for by a proposed transfer of $50 million in appropriations to TSA budget
and the fact that this activity got a $50 million supplemental appropriation in
FY2002.
Essential Air Service (EAS). The EAS program is operated through the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), and receives its funding from
designated user fees collected from overflights of United States territory by foreign
aircraft. EAS has an annual authorized funding level of $50 million. The EAS
program received $63 million in the FY2002 appropriations bill plus $50 million in
emergency supplemental appropriations, available through FY2003.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration predicts that overflight user fees will
generate only $30 million. It therefore asked that $83 million in Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding be provided from the airport and airway trust
fund to bring EAS up to $113 million. P.L. 108-7 adopts this amount but changes
the funding sources to preclude use of trust fund monies. The Senate Committee bill
had recommended slightly more funding for EAS, $115 million. The Senate believed
that all existing points receiving EAS could continue to be funded without tapping
into the AIP program. The House set the total funding level at $100 million. It too
rejected the use of AIP funds for EAS. The House, however, suggested that F&E
funds could be used to make up any shortfall in program funding, and also suggested
that the EAS program has unused funds that will allow the FY2003 program to
operate at essentially the same level as it did in FY2002.
The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act also provided $20 million for the
somewhat related Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
(SCASD). The President’s budget proposal requests no funds for SCASD. The
Senate bill provides $20 million for this program for FY2003, as did the House
Appropriations Committee. The Consolidated Act, however, provides no funding for
this program.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program provides
grants for airport development and planning. The Bush Administration FY2003
budget requested $3.4 billion for AIP. This was a 3% increase over the FY2002
enacted level (not counting $175 million in emergency appropriations).
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.4 billion for AIP (S.
2808; S.Rept. 107-224). On October 7, 2002, the House Committee on
Appropriations also recommended $3.4 billion for AIP (H.R. 5559; H.Rept. 107722). The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2; H.Rept. 108-10; P.L.
108-7), which included the DOT appropriations legislation and was signed by
President Bush on February 20, 2003, provided $3.4 billion less a 0.65% across-the
CRS-16
-board rescission (roughly $20 million) for AIP. Administrative expenses were
limited to $63.6 million and $20 million was designated for the small community air
service development pilot program. The conference report (H.Rept. 108-10) “place
names” 164 airports (significantly fewer than listed in the House or Senate reports)
as AIP high priority projects. The report language, however, requires DOT to ensure
that airport sponsors of the listed projects first use available AIP formula funds to
finance the projects. The report also directs that the specific funding listed in the
report should not “diminish or prejudice the application of a specific airport or
geographic region to receive other AIP discretionary grants or multi-year letters of
intent.”
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov]
The FHWA budget provides funding for the Federal-Aid Highway Program
(FAHP), which is the umbrella term for nearly all the highway programs of the
agency.12 For FY2003, the President requested $24.1 billion for FHWA. This
represented a decrease of $9 billion, or 27%, from the FY2002 appropriation of $33.1
billion. The obligation limitation, which supports most of the FAHP, was set at
$23.2 billion and is significantly less than the $31.8 billion provided in FY2002.
Funding for exempt programs (emergency relief and a portion of minimum guarantee
funding) was set at $893 million, down slightly from FY2002's $965 million. These
levels of spending were in conformance with the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178). As detailed below, the steep decline in
spending is a result of TEA-21 provisions that link federal highway program
spending with the revenues that flow into the highway account of the Highway Trust
Fund–the revenue-aligned budget authority (RABA). The impact of a negative
RABA adjustment dominated the highway budget debate.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended a total program level
of $28.7 billion for FY2003. This would have been $4.2 billion less than the FY2002
enacted level but $4.6 billion more than the President’s budget request. In effect, the
House Committee recommended elimination of the $4.369 negative FY2003 RABA
but, unlike the Senate Committee recommendation, would not have compensated for
the FY2002 RABA bonus to raise the total program funding to the FY2002 level.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations took a different approach and
recommended a total FY2003 program level of $32.9 billion, roughly the same as the
FY2002 level. The FY2003 limitation on obligations was set at $31.8 billion,
virtually the same as FY2002 and $8.6 billion above the President’s budget request.
In effect, the Committee recommendation not only eliminated the $4.369 billion
negative FY2003 RABA, but provided amounts roughly equal to the FY2002 RABA
bonus of $4.543 billion to raise the FY2003 obligation limitation to the FY2002
level.
12
FHWA’s appropriation also funds the Federal Lands Highways Program which is an
adjunct program the Federal-Aid Highway Program, and is also under FHWA control.
CRS-17
The FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2; P.L. 108-7),
which incorporated DOT’s FY2003 appropriations and was signed by President Bush
on February 20, 2003, provides $32.9 of total budgetary resources for FHWA. The
Act, however, also included rescissions of previous years’ funding of $264 million,
and section 601 of the Act imposes an 0.65% across-the-board rescission which will
reduce the FHWA total by roughly another $200 million to approximately $32.4
billion. As has been the case in the past three annual DOT appropriations bills, the
FHWA discretionary programs have been extensively earmarked in the FY2003
Conference Report (H.Rept. 108-10).
Figure 4. Federal Highway Administration
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) Reduction. According to
DOT estimates revenues (fuel taxes and other fees) accruing to the Highway Trust
Fund decreased in FY2001 as a result of the then ongoing recession and the effects
of September 11. Most of this decrease in activity seemed to be related to problems
in the trucking industry. The RABA process created by TEA-21 required that federal
highway obligational authority be adjusted accordingly. In simple terms this means
that the RABA adjustment for FY2003 was a negative $4.37 billion. Core highway
program obligational authority for FY2003 would, therefore, have been cut from the
TEA-21 guaranteed level of $27.7 billion to approximately $23.2 billion. This $4.4
billion reduction in guaranteed spending, combined with the FY2002 RABA $4.5
CRS-18
billion addition to the TEA-21 guaranteed spending, resulted in a potential $8.6
billion reduction from the FY2002 level.
This was an unexpected and unwelcome development for state and local
governments whose long-term transportation improvement plans (TIPs) are largely
predicated on continued growth in the federal contribution to highway program
funding. The RABA situation was equally unwelcome among those interests that
build roads or associated transportation infrastructure and those who support
continued highway improvements.
Hearings on this issue were held in both the House and the Senate during the
107th Congress. The FY2002 supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 4775; P.L. 107206) provided for a restoration of RABA funding for FY2003 to $28.9 billion. The
Senate-passed bill went even further and increased funding to a level comparable
with that in FY2002, $31.8 billion (obligation limitation). The House Committee
had passed an appropriations bill that set spending at the $27.7 billion level, but some
Members of the House made it clear that they supported the higher level contained
in the Senate bill and supported adoption of the $31.8 billion funding level in
conference. P.L. 108-7 provides $31.8 billion.
The TEA-21 Funding Framework. TEA-21 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,
TEA-21 can be viewed as a refinement and update of the ISTEA process. There are
a few new funding initiatives in TEA-21, such as a Border Infrastructure Program,
but the vast majority of funding is reserved for continuing programs.
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 (BRR), 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 Development Highway System roads (formerly ineligible for trust fund
CRS-19
contract authority), the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure
Program, and several other small programs.
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs.
The Administration proposes decreased funding for various RD&T activities, from
$417.5 million in FY2002 to $351.2 million in FY2003. The conferees provide a
general limitation on transportation research of $462.5 million, as proposed by both
the House and the Senate Committees and consistent with the contract authority
specified in TEA-21.
RD&T funds are used primarily to advance and deploy technologies intended
to improve highway pavements, structures, roadway safety, highway policies, and
intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The ITS deployment program provides funds
for states and local governments to use advanced communication and information
systems to improve the management and safety of their surface transportation
systems, primarily highway and transit systems.
An issue associated with the ITS deployment program is the earmarking of
funds. During the last few years, the appropriators have earmarked a substantial
portion of the incentive funds intended to accelerate ITS deployment. This practice
was continued in the FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act and the FY2003 Consolidated
Appropriations Act. Some Members and proponents of ITS would prefer to have the
deployment funds competitively awarded. TEA-21, however, also specifies several
projects which are to receive some of the ITS deployment funds.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/]
The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.13 This agency became operational on January 1, 2000, and
assumed the responsibilities and personnel of DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier
Safety.14 FMCSA issues and enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations,
which govern the operation and maintenance of interstate commercial truck and bus
operations and specify requirements for commercial drivers. FMCSA also
administers several grants and programs to help states conduct truck and bus safety
activities. Most of the funds used to conduct FMCSA activities are derived from the
federal highway trust fund.
13
During various hearings held in the first session of the 106th Congress, a number of
organizations, including DOT’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and
many industry associations raised a variety of concerns regarding the effectiveness of the
federal truck and bus safety program. In response to these concerns, Congress created the
FMCSA.
14
DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety, which operated from October 9 through December
31, 1999, replaced the Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration of
the DOT.
CRS-20
The FY2003 Administration request for the FMCSA was $367.5 million; this
amount is provided for in the FY2003 Consolidated Appropriations Act, with $60
million for border enforcement activities included within FHWA’s limitation on
administrative expenses. The appropriation for FY2002 was $354.3 million,
including funds contained in the supplemental appropriations measure. The FMCSA
appropriation consists of three primary components: FMCSA operations and
administrative expenses, assistance to states for the conduct of truck and bus safety
programs, and the border enforcement program.
Administrative and Research Expenses. The DOT FY2003 budget
request for FMCSA administrative and operations expenses was $117.5 million,
including funds for research and technology (R&T). The conference agreement
provides for this same amount–$117.5 million. The FY2003 appropriation includes
$7 million for research and technology activities, which seek to improve truck and
bus safety regulations and associated safety and compliance activities conducted by
both federal and state enforcement officers.
Grants to States and Other Activities. The Administration’s FY2003
request for these activities was $190 million. The conference agreement approved
this level. A limitation on obligations of $205.9 million for the National Motor
Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP) was provided in FY2002. These funds, are used
primarily to pay for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), a grant
program that helps the states enforce truck and bus safety regulations. MCSAP
grants cover, typically, up to 80% of the costs of a state’s truck and bus safety
program. Some 10,000 state and local public-utility and law-enforcement officers
conduct more than 2.6 million roadside inspections of trucks and buses annually
under the program. Some funds provided in this sub-account of FMCSA are also
used to pay for information systems and analysis as well as other state compliance
activities.
Border Enforcement. The Administration’s FMCSA request also includes
$60 million for border enforcement intended to enhance the ability of U.S. DOT and
the states to promote the safety of Mexican trucks and buses entering the United
States. The conference agreement approved funding at the $60 million level as well.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
In their conference report on H.J.Res.2 (H.Rept. 108-10), the Senate and House
conferees established a total budget authority for the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration of $435.3 million. Of this amount, $225 million is designated for the
Highway Traffic Safety Grants component of the agency’s funding. The remainder,
$210.3 million is designated for the discretionary budget authority and obligation
limitation (from the highway trust fund) components of Operations and Research
activities. This amount appears to be a compromise between the amount
recommended by the respective appropriations committees of the Senate and House
in their individual reports.
CRS-21
In S. 2808, the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended virtually
across-the-board increases beyond the amounts requested by the Administration for
NHTSA programs. For FY2003, the Committee recommended budget authority for
NHTSA of $440 million, approximately $15 million (3.5%) above the $425 million
requested by the Administration and about four percent above the FY2002 enacted
level of $423 million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended total
NHTSA funding of $430 million (comprised of approximately $205 million for
Operations & Research and $225 million for Highway Traffic Safety Grants), about
$10 million less than the Senate recommendation, and approximately $5 million
above the Administration’s request.
Table 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
FY2003 Budget
($ millions)
Program
FY2002 Administration
Level
Request
House
Recommended
Senate
Passed
FY2003
Enacted
Operations &
Research (O&R)
$200
$200
$205
$215
$212
Highway Traffic
Safety Grants
$223
$225
$225
$225
$225
Total
$423
$425
$430
$440
$437
NHTSA Program Responsibilities. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for
automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for
drivers, identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state
governments to enact laws and implement programs (through safety grants) to reduce
drunk driving and to encourage the use of occupant protection devices. The Bush
Administration has continued a long-standing DOT priority that, “Improving
transportation safety is the number one Federal Government transportation
objective.” NHTSA plays a key role in implementing this objective.
In its policy statements, the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has
targeted specific program activities that have potential for reducing highway deaths
and injuries. Included among these are programs to: reduce drunk and drugged
driving; reduce the incidence of aggressive driving and “road rage”; aid in the
development of “smart air bags” that will continue to provide protection to
occupants, while reducing risk associated with the bags themselves; enhance infant
and child safety in vehicle crashes; and explore transportation options and safety
programs for an aging population.
In addition, NHTSA, in its program highlights, has emphasized its intent to
comply with the legislative requirement of the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414). The TREAD Act
requires NHTSA to undertake more than a dozen rulemaking actions within the next
two years in the areas of tire safety standards, rollover propensity, and improving
child safety.
CRS-22
In its report, the Senate Committee on Appropriations expressed its
disappointment that NHTSA had not met its mandated deadline (under Section 13(h)
of the TREAD Act,) to produce a study on the use and effectiveness of automobile
booster seats for children. That report was due November 1, 2001. The Committee
urged NHTSA to issue the results of the booster seat study without delay. Moreover,
the Committee expressed concern that a previously established safety goal had not
been achieved and that the agency adjusted that goal downward; NHTSA lowered its
target of an 87% national seat belt usage rate in 2002 to a target of 78% in 2003.
Figure 5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Appropriations
In its report, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed its awareness
of “extensive dissatisfaction and a significant drop in morale following the
reorganization” of NHTSA during fiscal year 2002. It indicated that temporary
dissatisfaction can be expected when programs and responsibilities are altered, but
that if a resulting decline in program effectiveness continues into fiscal year 2003, the
Administrator should be prepared to address the negative results of this
reorganization during the fiscal year 2004 hearing cycle.
CRS-23
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
[http://www.fra.dot.gov]
For FY2003, the Administration requested $711 million in funding for the FRA,
including $59 million in offsetting fees. This is $23 million less than the $734
million provided in FY2002. The request provided $521 million for Amtrak, the
same amount provided in FY2002, but this is called a placeholder while the
Administration works on a proposal for a new structure for intercity passenger rail,
involving a partnership between the Federal Government, the States, and the private
sector. Core safety and operations would receive $118 million, a $7 million increase
over the FY2002 level.
The Administration’s request provided no funding for the Alaska Railroad
rehabilitation, which received $20 million in FY2002. Spending for next generation
high-speed rail development was reduced to $23 million, $9 million less than was
provided in FY2002. The Administration requested $28 million for railroad research
and development.
The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for FY2003, H.J.Res. 2 (P.L. 1087), provides $1.05 billion for Amtrak, which is lower than the $1.2 billion originally
approved by the Senate but more than the $763 million originally recommended by
the House Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act also provides $30 million for next generation high-speed rail
development, which is $7 million more than the Administration’s request. For core
safety and operations and for railroad research and development, the Act provides
similar amounts to the President’s request, $117 million and $29 million respectively.
The Act provides $22 million for the Alaska Railroad versus the President’s request
for no funding.
Although most of the debate involving the FRA budget centers on Amtrak,
agency safety activities (which receive more detailed treatment following this
section) and Next Generation High-Speed Rail, as well as how states might obtain
additional funds for high-speed rail initiatives, are also issues.
Railroad Safety and Research and Development. The FRA is the
primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. The Bush
Administration proposed $118.2 million in FY2003 for FRA’s safety program and
related administrative and operating activities. Most of the funds are used to pay for
salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and headquarters
staff and to pay for information systems monitoring the safety performance of the
rail industry.15 Increased railroad traffic volume and density make equipment,
15
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
(continued...)
CRS-24
employees, and operations more vulnerable to adverse safety impacts. The
Administration’s request for FY2003 represents a nearly 6% increase above the $111
million provided in the FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) for rail safety
and operations. The conference agreement provides $117.4 in FY2003.
Figure 6. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
The railroad safety statute was last reauthorized in 1994. Funding authority for
the program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety program continues using the
authorities specified in existing federal railroad safety law and funds provided by
annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held since 1994, the
deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorize continued
funding for FRA’s regulatory and safety compliance activities or change any of the
existing authorities used by FRA to promote railroad safety. A reauthorization statute
changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would most likely affect
budgets after FY2003.
15
(...continued)
experts who work together to formulate recommendations on new or revised safety
regulations for FRA’s consideration.
CRS-25
The adequacy and effectiveness of FRA’s grade-crossing safety activities
continue to be of particular interest. Relevant safety issues include: How effectively
is FRA helping the states deal with the grade-crossing safety challenge? Is FRA’s
FY2003 budget adequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional reaction to these
questions had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2002. In its FY2003
budget, FRA requests funding to strengthen its grade-crossing safety program and
associated public education activities.
To improve its safety regulations and industry practices, the FRA conducts
research and development (R&D) on an array of topics, including fatigue of railroad
employees, technologies to control train movements, and track dynamics. In reports
accompanying House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in annual
conference reports, the appropriations committees historically have allocated FRA’s
R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety. The FY2002
DOT appropriations act (P.L. 107-87) provided $29 million for the R&D program.
For FY2003, FRA requested $28.3 million for these activities. The conference
agreement provides $29.3 million.
The request for FRA’s safety and research and development programs includes
a proposal to impose a user fee on the industry. The collected funds would offset
costs of safety-related activities, raising an estimated $59 million that would be
credited to the general fund in the U.S. Treasury; general funds appropriated for the
programs would be reduced by similar amounts. Industry, in the past, has objected
to such proposals, maintaining the industry already pays its share of taxes and invests
heavily in safety. The conference agreement provides that none of this funding is to
be offset from user fees.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D. In FY2002, $32.3 million was
made available for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The FRA
requested $23.2 million to continue this program in FY2003. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $30.45 billion, $7.25 billion over the
Administration request; the Senate provided $30.0 million in H.J.Res. 2. P.L. 108-7
provides $30.45 million.
Amtrak
[http://www.amtrak.com]
The President’s FY2003 budget request for Amtrak was $521.5 million, the
same as in FY2002. The President’s budget noted that this was just a placeholder
figure until a new policy for passenger rail service was developed. In June 2002 the
Administration presented its principles for Amtrak reform, and announced it would
not support additional funding for Amtrak (over the $521.5 million) unless
accompanied by significant reform to Amtrak. Amtrak had said as early as February
2002 that it would need at least $1.2 billion in FY2003. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $762 million for Amtrak, while requiring better financial
reporting from Amtrak and limiting the amount of operating support for longdistance trains to $150 million, $50 million less than Amtrak says is required to
maintain the current level of long-distance service. The Senate provided $1.2 billion
CRS-26
in H.J.Res. 2. P.L. 108-7 provides $1.05 billion, and defers repayment of a $100
million loan; Amtrak said that should be sufficient to keep it operating through
FY2003. In a change of policy, Amtrak’s funding will not go directly to the
corporation, but to the Secretary of Transportation, who will provide funding to
Amtrak quarterly through the grant-making process.
Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002; Congress is likely to
consider Amtrak reauthorization during the first session of the 108th Congress. See
CRS Report RL31743, Amtrak Issues in the 108th Congress, for further information.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
President Bush’s FY2003 budget request for FTA is $7.226 billion, essentially
the TEA-21 guaranteed level. This is a 7% increase above FTA’s FY2002
appropriation of $6.747 billion.16 The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $7.226 billion, the amount requested. The Senate provided $7.226 in
H.J.Res. 2. P.L. 108-7 provides $7.226 billion (figures in this section do not include
the 0.65% rescission). For every existing FTA program Congress agreed with the
amounts requested by the Administration.
The transit appropriations shown in Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase
in FTA funding from FY1999 to FY2003 that occurred following the enactment of
TEA-21 in 1998.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit
programs: the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program and the Urbanized Area
Formula Grants Program. There are also several smaller formula and planning and
research programs. In FTA’s Formula Grants Program, 86% of the FY2003 funding
is for the Urbanized Area Formula Program, and 6% is for the Non-Urbanized Area
Formula Program (less than 50,000 population). The remaining 8% is split between
the other programs.
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309). This
program (formerly known as Section 3) has three components: new transit starts,
fixed guideway modernization, and bus & bus facilities. The Administration
requested $3.036 billion for FY2003, up from $2.841 billion in FY2002, a 7%
increase. The funds are allocated among these three components on a 40-40-20 basis,
respectively; funds for the fixed guideway component are distributed by formula,
while funds for the other components are distributed on a discretionary basis by FTA
or earmarked by Congress. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
16
These figures for FTA do not include any projections to account for possible flexible
funding transfers from FHWA to FTA. In FY2001 such transfers amounted to $1.23 billion.
The Bush Administration budget assumes that flex-funding transfers between FHWA and
FTA will continue.
CRS-27
$3.036 billion; the Senate provided $3.036 billion in H.J.Res. 2. P.L. 108-7 provided
$3.036 billion.
Figure 7. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307). The program
(formerly known as Section 9) provides for capital and, in some cases, operating
needs for urbanized areas (population 50,000 or more). These activities include bus
and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed guide way modernization,
new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For FY2003, the Administration
proposed $3.3 billion (the TEA-21 guaranteed amount), a 1% increase over the $3.26
billion provided in FY2001. These funds are apportioned on a formula based, in part,
on population (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receive two-thirds of the
funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive the remaining
one-third) and transit service data. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount; the Senate provided the requested amount, and
P.L. 108-7 provides the requested amount, $3.3 billion.
With the enactment of TEA-21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. However, preventive maintenance,
generally considered an operating expense, is now eligible for funding as a capital
expense. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population, and non-urbanized areas
(Section 5311), can use formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.
CRS-28
Other Transit Programs.
Non-Urbanized Areas Formula Program (Section 5311), which
provides capital and operating needs for non-urbanized areas (areas
with populations under 50,000)–$235 million requested for FY2003
($223 in FY2002);
! Grants for Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities (Section
5310)–$90 million requested for FY2003 ($85 million in FY2002);
! Clean Fuels (Section 5308)–$50 million requested for FY2003; and
! Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program (Section
3038), also known as the over-the-road bus accessibility program–$7
million requested for FY2003.
!
All of these proposed amounts were agreed to by the House Committee on
Appropriations, provided by the Senate, and provided by P.L. 108-7.
The President’s budget request proposed to create a new formula program, the
New Freedom Initiative, which seeks to use alternative methods to promote access
to transportation for persons with disabilities. The President’s budget requested $145
million for this program in FY2003. This request was not supported.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. TEA-21 authorized a new
discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program. This program
provides funding for transportation projects that assist welfare recipients and lowincome persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administration
proposed $150 million in FY2003, up from $125 million in FY2002. P.L. 108-7
provides this amount.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
[http://www.rspa.dot.gov]
For FY2003, RSPA requested a budget of $102.5 million17 (of which about 70%
is offset by user fees) compared to an appropriation of $96 million in FY2002. Most
of RSPA’s budget is allocated to activities that promote transportation safety. For
its pipeline transportation safety program, RSPA proposed $63.8 million in FY2003,
an increase of $5.6 million over FY2002. For its hazardous materials transportation
safety program, the agency requested $23.8 million in FY2003, an increase of $2.6
million over FY2002. The House Committee recommendation was $99.6 million,
including $58.7 million for pipeline safety and $23.0 million for hazardous materials
safety. The Senate approved $107.8 million for RSPA, including $63.9 million for
pipeline safety and $23.1 million for hazardous materials safety. The conference
agreement (P.L. 108-7) provides $105 million, including $63.8 million for pipeline
safety and $23.3 million for hazardous materials transportation safety.
17
The Administration’s FY2003 request totals $124.5 million, but includes $14.3 million
in permanent appropriations, $6 million in proposed fees, and approximately $2 million in
retirement contributions that are not included in the FY2003 request amount used by the
House Appropriations Committee, which is the amount used in Figure 6.
CRS-29
Figure 8. Research and Special Programs Administration
Currently, much of the cost of RSPA’s pipeline safety program is paid for by a
fee that is imposed on the regulated industry. For RSPA’s hazardous materials safety
program, conversely, only the cost of the emergency grant program is offset by a
registration fee paid by specified regulated companies. The Bush Administration
proposed to offset additional costs of both the pipeline and hazardous materials safety
programs by increasing the user fees on industry. In the past, the pipeline industry
has been willing to pay only what it considers to be a reasonable increase in the fees
imposed to support RSPA’s pipeline safety program. Likewise, the hazardous
materials (hazmat) industry has objected to user fees to pay the basic costs of RSPA’s
hazmat regulatory and enforcement program. Neither the House nor the Senate
Committee on Appropriations have agreed with previous requests and, likewise, the
conferees agree to deny the request to begin funding the hazardous materials safety
program from user fees.
CRS-30
Table 4. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected
Programs
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)
Agency
OST
Essential Air Serviced (trust
fund)
TSAe
USCGf
Operating Expenses
Acquisition, Construction, &
Improvements
FAAg
Operations (trust fund &
general fund)
Facilities & Equipment
(F&E) (trust fund)
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP)
(trust fund) (limit. on oblig.)
Research, Engineering &
Development (trust fund)
FHWAh
(Limitation on Obligations)
(Exempt Obligations)
Additional funds (trust fund)
Addnl. fundsi (general fund)
FMCSA
NHTSA
FRAj
Amtrakk
FTA
Formula Grants (general fund)
Formula Grants (trust fund)
Capital Invest. (general fund)
Capital Invest. (trust fund)
St. Lawrence Seaway
Development Corp.
RSPAl
OIG
STB
NTSB
Budgetary Resources
Grand Total (estimated)m
Final
FY2002
Enacteda
155
FY2003
House
Committee
141
181
FY2003
Request
FY2003 FY2003
c
Senate
Enacted
b
b
Passed
182
175
63
3,465
5,495
3,780
113
5,346
6,058
4,153
100
5,146
6,061
4,305
115
5,346
6,099
4,318
102
5,180
6,079
4,322
702
13,512
725
13,582
725
13,599
752
13,552
742
13,578
7,119
7,077
7,060
7,047
7,069
3,008
2,981
2,981
2,981
2,961
3,173
3,400
3,400
3,400
3,400
245
32,928
31,799
965
100
442
354
425
1,045
826
8,671
742
2,874
2,468
2,273
124
24,098
23,205
893
–
–
367
425
711
521
7,226
768
3,071
607
2,429
138
28,695
27,653
893
55
100
367
430
958
762
7,226
768
3,071
607
2,429
124
32,893
31,800
893
148
32,617
31,800
893
200
307
440
1,423
1,200
7,226
768
3,071
607
2,429
188
307
437
1,269
1,050
7,226
768
3,071
607
2,429
13
98
52
18
69
14
108
57
18
70
15
100
57
18
71
13
108
57
18
72
14
105
57
18
72
66,450
56,010
60,054
65,055
64,637
CRS-31
Note: Figures in Table 3 were taken from tables in House Committee on Appropriations reports. Because
of differing treatment of offsets, the inclusion of the NTSB and Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, and the exclusion of the Maritime Administration, the totals will not always match the
Administration’s totals. The figures 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.
a
The figures for FY2002 reflect supplemental appropriations authorized under P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-206.
These figures do not reflect the 2.852% across-the-board rescission included in the Senate bill.
c
These figures do not reflect the 0.65% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-7.
d
The total FY2002 funding, including supplementals, was $113 million.
e
TSA’s total FY2002 funding, including supplementals, transfers and offsetting collections, was $5.8 billion.
The FY2003 figure includes estimated offsetting collections of $2.65 billion. TSA’s FY2003 request
was increased by $546 million and its estimate of offsetting collections was reduced by $124 million
on September 3, 2002.
f
FY2002 figures are budget authority. The figures do not include the annual $64 million in mandatory
funding for boat safety grants.
g
The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) provides for a rescission of $317 million of FY2000
AIP contract authority. This rescission has no impact on the budgetary resources available for FAA
programs for FY2002 but is subtracted from the grand total because it is significant in relation to the
overall budget cap for the transportation function.
h
FY2002 total reflects rescission of $59 million. FY2003 figure reflects a negative RABA adjustment of $4.4
billion.
i
For Appalachian Development Highway System ($200 million).
j
FY2003 figure reflects rescission of $59 million.
k
Amtrak’s total FY2002 funding was $1.1 billion, including supplemental and carryover appropriations.
l
The figures do not reflect $14 million in permanent appropriations. Therefore, the requested total resources
for RSPA for FY2003 may be seen as $123 million.
m
The DOT and related agencies appropriation does not fund the Maritime Administration (MARAD) or the
Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), and their budgets are therefore not included in this report. They
receive funding from the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bills. The Administration budgets do
not include the NTSB or the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board budgets; they
are included in this total because their budgets are included in the DOT Appropriations bills. The
rescission of unobligated previous years’ contract authority have been subtracted from this total.
Because the rescissions of prior years’ contract authority have no impact on the budgetary resources
available for the current fiscal year, the total resources available could be seen as $61.3 billion for
FY2002 enacted, and $64.9 billion for FY2003 enacted.
b
CRS-32
List of Acronyms
ARC: Amtrak Reform Council
AIP: Airport Improvement Program (FAA)
AIR21: the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181), the current aviation authorizing legislation
ARAA: the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), the
current Amtrak authorizing legislation
ATSA: the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71), legislation which
created the Transportation Security Administration within the DOT
BRR: Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program (FHWA)
BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CG: Coast Guard
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (FHWA)
DOT: Department of Transportation
EAS: Essential Air Service (FAA)
F&E: Facilities and Equipment program (FAA)
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAHP: Federal-Aid Highway Program (FHWA)
FAIR21: the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181), the current aviation authorizing legislation
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
Hazmat: Hazardous materials (safety program in RSPA)
HPP: High Priority Projects (FHWA)
HTF: Highway Trust Fund
IM: Interstate Maintenance program (FHWA)
CRS-33
ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems (FHWA)
MCSAP: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (FMCSA)
New Starts: part of the FTA’s Capital Grants and Loans Program which funds new
fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing systems
NHS: National Highway System; also a program within FHWA
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMCSA: National Motor Carrier Safety Administration
O&M: Operations and Maintenance program (FAA)
OIG: Office of the Inspector General of the DOT
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation
RABA: Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority
RD&T: Research, Development and Technology program (FHWA)
RE&D: Research, Engineering and Development program (FAA)
RSPA: Research and Special Projects Administration
SCASD: Small Community Air Service Development program (FAA)
STB: Surface Transportation Board
STP: Surface Transportation Program (FHWA)
TCSP: Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program (FHWA)
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), the current
highway and transit authorizing legislation
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (FHWA)
TSA: Transportation Security Administration
CRS-34
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress,
by (name redacted).
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RL30659. Amtrak: Overview and Options, by (name redacted).
CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÉ Up
to Standards?, by Rob Bamberger.
CRS Report RS20469. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies, by William
Lipford and (name redacted).
CRS Report RS20790. The Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program: Issues for
Congress, by (name redacted).
CRS Report RS20841.
Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Status of Implementation, by
David Michael Bearden.
CRS Report RL30915. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Status and
Challenges, by (name redacted) and Hussein Hassan.
CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization
Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
CRS Report RL31027. High-Speed Rail: Development and Investment Issues in the
107th Congress, by (name redacted)
and (name redacted).
CRS Report RS21164. Highway Finance: RABA’s Double-edged Sword, by (nam
e redacted).
CRS Report RL31028. North American Free Trade Agreement: Truck Safety
Considerations, by Paul Rothberg.
CRS Report RL31150. Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the
September 11 Attack, by (name redacted).
CRS Report 98-646 ENR. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L.
105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions, by (name re
dacted).
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress, coordinated
by (name redacted).
CRS-35
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget in Brief FY2003
[http://www.dot.gov/bib/bibindex.html]
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
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/]
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.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html]
Senate Appropriations Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]
CRS-36
Appendix 1: 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, which
contains two accounts, the highway trust account and the transit account; 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.
In FY2002 trust funds accounted for well over two-thirds of total federal
transportation spending. Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest
component of DOT appropriations. Most highway and 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; although appropriations are required to
make outlays at some future date to cover these obligations.
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 also is in
place.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the
relationships between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178) linked
annual spending for highway programs directly to revenue collections for the
highway trust fund. In addition, core highway and mass transit program funding was
given special status in the discretionary portion of the federal budget by virtue of the
creation of two new budget categories. The Act thereby created a virtual “firewall”
around highway and transit spending programs. The funding guarantees were set up
in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered as part of the annual
budget/appropriations process. Additional highway funds can be provided annually
by a mechanism called “Revenue Aligned Budget Authority” (RABA); RABA funds
accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased trust fund revenues. For FY2003,
however, it now appears that the RABA adjustment, if it had been left intact during
the appropriations process, would have led to a significant and unexpected drop in
the availability of highway obligational funding.
TEA-21 changed the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.
CRS-37
The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an
annual level of obligations. These were established by TEA-21 and are adjusted by
an annual RABA computation. In addition, it appears that TEA-21 precludes, at
least in part, the House and Senate appropriations committees from exercising what
some Members view as their once traditional option of changing spending levels for
specific core programs or projects. In the FY2000 appropriations act, the
appropriators took some tentative steps to regain some of their discretion over
highway spending. The FY2000 Act called for the redistribution of some funds
among programs and added two significant spending projects. In the FY2001
appropriations act, the appropriators continued in this vein by adding funds for large
numbers of earmarked projects. Further, the FY2001 Act called for redirection of a
limited amount of funding between programs and includes significant additional
funding for some TEA-21 programs. This trend continued, and even accelerated, in
the FY2002 Act as appropriators made major redistributions of RABA funds and, in
some instances, transferred RABA funds to agencies that are not eligible for RABA
funding under TEA-21.
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called “guarantee” for Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation
spending, however, is significantly different from that provided by TEA-21. Instead
of creating new budget categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two
point-of-order rules for the House and the Senate. Supporters of FAIR21 believe the
new law requires significant new spending on aviation programs; and, for at least the
FY2001 and FY2002 appropriations cycles, spending grew significantly. Most
observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being somewhat weaker than
those provided by TEA-21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive points-oforder during consideration of legislation.
Enactment of TEA-21 and FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have
total control over spending only for the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad
Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of
these agencies are concerned about their funding prospects in any year where it is
believed that there is a constrained budgetary environment.
CRS-38
Appendix 2: Transportation Budget Terminology
Transportation budgeting uses a confusing lexicon (for those unfamiliar with the
process) of budget authority and contract authority—the latter, a form of budget
authority. Contract authority provides obligational authority for the funding of trust
fund-financed programs, such as the federal-aid highway program. Prior to TEA-21,
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.
Contract authority is tantamount to, but does not actually involve, entering into
a contract to pay for a project at some future date. Under this arrangement, specified
in Title 23 U.S.C., which TEA-21 amended, authorized funds are automatically made
available to the states at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated
without appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays at
some future date to cover these obligations. TEA-21 greatly limited the role of the
appropriations process in core highway and transit programs because the Act
enumerated the limitation on obligations level for the period FY1999 through
FY2003 in the Statute.
Highway and transit grant programs work on a reimbursable basis: states pay
for projects up front and federal payments are made to them only when work is
completed and vouchers are presented, months or even years after the project has
begun. Work in progress is represented in the trust fund as obligated funds and
although they are considered “used” and remain as commitments against the trust
fund balances, they are not subtracted from balances. Trust fund balances,
therefore, appear high in part because funds sufficient to cover actual and expected
future commitments must remain available.
Both the highway and transit accounts have substantial short- and long-term
commitments. These include payments that will be made in the current fiscal year
as projects are completed and, to a much greater extent, outstanding obligations to
be made at some unspecified future date. Additionally, there are unobligated
amounts that are still dedicated to highway and transit projects, but have not been
committed to specific projects.
Two terms are associated with the distribution of contract authority funds to the
states and to particular programs. The first of these, apportionments, refers to funds
distributed to the states for formula driven programs. For example, all national
highway system (NHS) funds are apportioned to the states. Allocated funds, are
funds distributed on an administrative basis, typically to programs under direct
federal control. For example, federal lands highway program monies are allocated;
the allocation can be to another federal agency, to a state, to an Indian tribe, or to
some other governmental entity. These terms do not refer to the federal budget
process, but often provide a frame of reference for highway program recipients, who
may assume, albeit incorrectly, that a state apportionment is part of the federal budget
per se.
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
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
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.