FY2006 Appropriations for the Department of Transportation
Congressional research reportJan 11, 2006
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Order Code RL32945
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
FY2006 Appropriations for the
Department of Transportation
Updated January 11, 2006
name redacted
Analyst in Transportation
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
FY2006 Appropriations for the Department of
Transportation
Summary
The Department of Transportation (DOT) is funded through annual
appropriations acts. For FY2006, the Administration requested $58.3 billion for the
Department of Transportation. This is $1.4 billion (2%) less than the $59.7 billion
provided for FY2005. The major proposed reductions were the Administration’s
zeroing out of Amtrak (down from $1.2 billion in FY2005) and a reduction in
funding for the Airport Improvement Program (to $3.0 billion, $500 million (14%)
below FY2005’s $3.5 billion).
The FY2006 budget also reflected a statutory change to one of the DOT’s
operating administrations. The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426; 118 Stat. 2423) created two new operating
administrations in place of the former Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA): the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) and
the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA).
On June 30, 2005, the House passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 appropriations bill
funding the Department of Transportation (and several other agencies). The House
provided $63.5 billion for the Department, $3.7 billion over FY2005’s enacted level
and $5.2 billion over the Administration request. The bill increased funding (beyond
the requested levels) for the Federal Aviation Administration, the Federal Highway
Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and Amtrak. The House
approved two amendments relating to Amtrak; one added $626 million to the $550
million recommended by the House Committee on Appropriations, bringing
Amtrak’s FY2006 funding to $1.2 billion; the other eliminated the prohibition on
federal funding for routes with a per-passenger subsidy of $30 or more proposed by
the Appropriations Committee.
On October 20, 2005, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 3058. The Senate
provided $64.2 billion for the Department of Transportation, $4.3 billion over
FY2005 and $770 million over the House-passed figure. The Senate bill provided
more funding than the House approved for highway programs and Amtrak, and less
for aviation and transit programs. The Senate also passed several provisions
affecting Amtrak operations.
The conference version of H.R. 3058 was passed by Congress on November 18,
2005; the President signed the bill into law on November 30, 2005 (P.L. 109-115).
The conference bill provided $60.7 billion for the Department of Transportation, less
than either the House or Senate version, but $1.0 billion over FY2005 funding and
$2.4 billion more than requested. On December 30, 2005, the President signed the
FY2006 Department of Defense appropriations bill (P.L. 109-148), which included
a one percent across-the-board rescission of non-emergency federal discretionary
funding for FY2006 and $2.8 billion in supplemental funding to DOT for response
to the consequences of Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. This report will not be
updated.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislative Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Budget Structure of the Department of Transportation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Essential Air Service (EAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
The Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Administrative and Operations Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Grants to States and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Railroad Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FTA Program Structure and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Capital Investment Grants Program (Section 5309) . . . . . . . . . . 17
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Maritime Administration (MARAD) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) . . . . . 20
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) . . . . . . . . . . 20
Appendix A: List of Transportation Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Appendix B: The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Vision 100 — Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Appendix C: Transportation Budget Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Department of Transportation Appropriations
(H.R. 3058) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. DOT Budget by Funding Source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation Appropriations FY2000-FY2006 . . 3
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FY2006 Appropriations for the Department
of Transportation
Most Recent Developments
On December 30, 2005, President Bush signed the FY2006 Department of
Defense appropriations bill into law (P.L. 109-148). That bill included a provision
(Section 3801) rescinding one percent of all non-emergency federal discretionary
funding for FY2006. The bill also provided $2.8 billion in supplemental funding to
the Department of Transportation for response to the consequences of Hurricanes
Katrina, Rita and Wilma.
CRS-2
On November 30, 2005, President Bush signed H.R. 3058 into law (P.L. 109115). The bill had been passed by Congress on November 18.1 The bill provided
$60.7 billion in net budgetary resources for the Department of Transportation, less
than either the House or Senate versions, but $1.0 billion (1.6%) more than the
FY2005 enacted level and $2.4 billion (4.1%) more than the Administration
requested.
On November 2, 2005, the House Committee on Appropriations published a
revised suballocation of budget allocations for FY2006 (H.Rept. 109-264). Among
the changes made by this report were a reduction in the suballocation (“302(b)
allocation”) for the House Appropriations Committee Transportation-Treasury-HUDThe Judiciary-DC Subcommittee. The revised suballocation for discretionary budget
authority was $65.9 billion, $1 billion less than the previous suballocation (and $1
billion less than the discretionary funding level in the House-passed version of the
FY2006 transportation appropriations bill, which also funds several other federal
agencies). Most transportation appropriations funding comes from trust funds, and
for budgetary purposes is not considered discretionary spending. However, a portion
of aviation and transit funding, and all rail funding (including Amtrak), comes from
discretionary funds.
On October 20, 2005, the Senate passed H.R. 3058, the FY2006 Departments
of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, The Judiciary,
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill. The Senate
provided $64.2 billion for the Department of Transportation, $4.2 billion over the
FY2005 enacted level and $5.9 billion over the Administration’s request for FY2006.
The Senate bill provided $1.45 billion for Amtrak, for which the Administration had
requested no funding, and also included several provisions affecting Amtrak
operations.
On August 10, 2005, the President signed into law P.L. 109-59, the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users
(SAFETEA-LU), which reauthorized federal surface transportation programs.
1
The Senate, by unanimous consent, agreed to passage of the bill when the Senate receives
the paperwork from the House. Congressional Record, November 18, 2005, S13418.
CRS-3
Legislative Status
Table 1. Status of FY2006 Department of Transportation
Appropriations (H.R. 3058)
Subcommittee
Markup
House House Senate
Report Passage Report
Senate
Passage
Conference
Report
Approval
Conf.
Report
House Senate
Public
Law
House Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
11/30/05
6/30/05
10/20/05 H. Rept. 11/18 11/21
6/15/05 7/19/05 109-153
109-109
P.L. 109405-18
93-6
109-307 392-31 UC
6/21/05
7/21/05
115
UC: unanimous consent
Overview
Budget Structure of the Department of Transportation
The budget for DOT includes both budget and contract authority for
expenditures drawn from both trust funds and general funds, expended through both
formula and discretionary programs. Most of DOT’s funding is in the form of
contract authority, is drawn from trust funds, and is expended through formula
programs.
Table 2. DOT Budget by Funding Source
(billions of dollars)
FY2005 Enacted
Source
FY2006 Enacted
$
%
$
%
Trust Funds
$46.1
75%
$48.5
76%
General Funds
15.3
25%
15.2
24%
Total*
61.4
100%
63.7
100%
*Totals in this table do not reflect rescissions of contract authority, and so differ from other totals in
this report.
Source: Budget Authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. Figures may
differ from the figures in the Administration budget documents. Figures reflect the across-the-board
0.83% rescission imposed by the FY2005 Consolidated Appropriations Act, and emergency
appropriations for FY2005.
“Trust Funds” figures equal ‘limitations on obligations’ plus ‘exempt obligations.’
CRS-4
Table 3. Funding Trends for Transportation Appropriations
FY2000-FY2006
(billions of current dollars)
Department
FY2000
FY2001b
FY2002
FY2003c
Title I:
Transportationa
$46.2
$51.9
$57.4
$55.7
FY2004d FY2005e
$58.4
FY2006f
$59.7
$60.7
Source: United States House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Comparative Statement of Budget
Authority tables from fiscal years 1999 through 2006, except FY2006 Senate figure is from S.Rept. 109-109.
a. Figures for Department of Transportation appropriations for FY1999-FY2003 have been adjusted for comparison with
FY2004 and later figures by subtracting the United States Coast Guard, the Transportation Security
Administration, the National Transportation Safety Board, and the Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, and by adding the Maritime Administration.
b. FY2001 figures reflect 0.22% across-the-board rescission.
c. FY2003 figures reflect 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
d. FY2004 figures reflect 0.59% across-the-board rescission.
e. FY2005 figures reflect 0.83% across-the-board rescission.
f. FY2006 figures do not reflect 1.0% across-the-board rescission or $2.8 billion supplemental.
Table 4. Department of Transportation Appropriations
(in millions of dollars — totals may not add)
FY2005
Enacteda
FY2006
Request
FY2006
House
Passed
FY2006
Senate
Passed
FY2006
Enactedc
$238
$209
$198
$217
$239
52
—
54
60
60
13,549
12,710
14,631
13,610
13,815
Operations (trust fund & general fund)
7,713
8,201
8,397
8,176
8,186
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust fund)
2,525
2,448
3,053
2,448
2,540
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP) (trust fund)
(limit. on oblig.)
3,517
3,000
3,620
3,520
3,570
Research, Engineering & Development
(trust fund)
130
130
130
135
138
35,834
35,439
37,026
38,713
34,669
34,422
34,700
36,287
40,194
36,032
(Exempt Obligations)
739
739
739
739
739
Additional funds (trust fund)
735
—
—
—
—
Additional funds (general fund)
1,315
—
—
80
20
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA)
444
465
501
490
495
National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA)
454
696
782
785
815
1,432
552
1,332
1,669
1,526
1,207
—
1,176
1,450
1,315
7,646
7,781
8,482
8,209
8,590
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Office of the Secretary of Transportation
Essential Air Service
b
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
(Limitation on Obligations)
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
Amtrak
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
CRS-5
FY2005
Enacteda
FY2006
Request
FY2006
House
Passed
FY2006
Senate
Passed
FY2006
Enactedc
General Funds
956
956
1,272
1,384
1,610
Trust Funds
6,691
6,825
7,210
6,825
6,980
St. Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation
16
16
16
16
16
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
305
294
291
323
301
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety
Administration
69
117
116
116
116
Pipeline safety program
69
73
73
73
73
Emergency preparedness grants
14
—
14
14
14
Research and Innovative Technology
Administration
47
6
4
4
6
Office of Inspector General
59
62
62
62
62
Surface Transportation Board
20
23
25
23
25
59,724
58,297
63,469
64,238
60,677
Department or Agency (Selected Accounts)
Total, Department of Transportation
Note: Figures are from a budget authority table provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except
Senate Committee figures from budget table in S.Rept. 109-109. Because of differing treatment of offsets, 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. These figures reflect the 0.83% across-the-board rescission included in P.L. 108-447.
b. These amounts are in addition to the $50 million annual authorization for the Essential Air Service program;
thus, the total FY2005 funding would be $102 million ($50 million + $52 million).
c. The FY2006 figure does not include the 1.0% across-the-board rescission or the $2.8 billion supplemental.
FY2006 Appropriations
The Administration’s FY2006 budget proposed a DOT budget of $58.3 billion,
$1.4 billion (2%) below FY2005’s enacted level of $59.7 billion (see Table 4).2 The
major funding changes from FY2005 are in the requests for Amtrak ($1.2 billion
(100%) below FY2005) and in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Airport
Improvement Program ($500 million (14%) below FY2005). The budget request
conformed to the basic outline of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
as extended (TEA-21; P.L. 105-178) which authorized spending on highways,
highway safety, and transit (see Appendix 2 for more information on this authorizing
act), though the request also reflected changes proposed in the Administration’s
reauthorization proposal (108th Congress: H.R. 2088/S. 1072).3
2
This report relies on figures from tables provided by the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. Because of differing treatment of offsets, rescissions, and the structure of
appropriations bills, the totals will, at times, vary from those provided by the
Administration. The FY2004 and later total budget numbers for DOT are not directly
comparable to those of previous years due to the transfer of the Coast Guard and
Transportation Security Administration to the Department of Homeland Security during
FY2003, as well as other changes.
3
Between the House and Senate passage of the FY2006 appropriations bill, Congress
(continued...)
CRS-6
The FY2006 budget also reflects a statutory change to one of the DOT’s
Administrations. The Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act, which was enacted as P.L. 108-426 (118 Stat. 2423), created two
new operating administrations in place of the former Research and Special Programs
Administration (RSPA): the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $62.8 billion; increases
over the requested amounts were provided for Federal Aviation Administration, the
Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, and Amtrak.
The House approved two transportation-related amendments to the bill, increasing
the level of funding for Amtrak beyond the Committee-recommended level, and
striking the Committee-recommended provision barring federal funding for Amtrak
routes with per-passenger subsidy levels of $30 or more. Floor amendments
increased the DOT funding in the bill as passed by the House to $63.5 billion.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $64.2 billion; increases
over the House proposal were provided for the Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) the Federal Railroad Administration (mostly for Amtrak), while less
funding was proposed for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal
Transit Administration (FTA) than was proposed by the House. The Senate-passed
bill followed the Committee’s recommendations.
The conference bill provided $60.7 billion, an increase of $1.8 billion (3%) over
the FY2005 enacted level.
Essential Air Service (EAS)
In its FY2006 request, the Administration once again proposed that the size of
the EAS program be reduced, capping the program at the $50 million level. The
House Committee on Appropriations recommended $104 million for the program,
up slightly from $102 million enacted for FY2005. This was reduced to $50 million
during House floor consideration when $54 million was struck on a point of order
relating to the source of the funding. The Senate Committee recommended $110
million; the Senate approved this amount. The conference agreement provided $110
million.
The EAS program was established in 1978, when Congress deregulated
commercial aviation. There was concern that airlines would drop service to smaller
airports with low levels of ridership. In order to preserve air service to small
communities, Congress established the EAS program, which subsidizes the cost to
airlines of providing service to these communities. The EAS program is operated
through the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and receives its authorized
3
(...continued)
passed legislation reauthorizing (and providing new authorized funding levels for) surface
transportation programs, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity
Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU/P.L. 109-59).
CRS-7
funding from designated user fees collected from overflights of United States
territory by foreign aircraft.
The EAS program has had an annual authorized funding level of $50 million for
the last several years. The overflight funding mechanism, however, has never
provided this much annual funding, so funding has been provided from other sources
to make up the difference. In addition, for the past few years Congress has provided
additional funding in order to enable the program to serve more airports. The EAS
program continues to enjoy significant support in Congress.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[http://www.faa.gov/]
The Bush Administration request for FY2006 was $13.9 billion, slightly more
than the FY2005 enacted level of $13.8 billion. The proposal was essentially devoid
of major new initiatives, but contained some program adjustments and significantly
reduced funding for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP). The proposed cut to
the AIP program would have put its FY2006 appropriation below the level
‘guaranteed’ in the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Vision 100, P.L.
108-176). Both the formula provisions and the guarantee provisions of that act
would have caused significant disruption to the AIP program at the proposed funding
level. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $14.4 billion for the
FAA, and provided the authorized FY2006 level of funding for the AIP. The Housepassed bill provided $14.6 billion (after a $500 million rescission of contract
authority). The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $13.6 billion
(after a $1.2 billion rescission of contract authority), which the Senate approved. The
conference agreement provided $13.8 billion (after a $1.0 billion rescission of
contract authority). This was $266 million more than the FY2005 enacted level, and
$1.1 billion more than the Administration request.
The vast majority of FAA funding is provided from the Airport and Airway
Trust Fund. Only O&M funding uses a mix of trust fund and Treasury general fund
monies. Over the past ten years (FY1996-FY2005), the general fund has contributed
an average of 21% of FAA’s budget.4 In FY2002, a Treasury general fund
contribution of $1.1 billion was provided for O&M funding. While the general fund
contribution for FY2002 was on the low side historically (8% of FAA’s total budget),
the FY2003 amount returned to a higher contribution level of $3.2 billion (24% of
FAA’s total funding). However, the general fund contribution has been declining
since then: to $3.0 billion (22% of FAA’s total budget) in FY2004, to an estimated
$2.8 billion (20%) in FY2005, and to an estimated $1.6 billion (11%) in the
Administration’s FY2006 request.5 Historically, the trust fund/general fund split has
been an important part of the annual FAA budget debate. The rationale behind the
4
Testimony of Kenneth M. Mead, Inspector General, Department of Transportation, before
the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Aviation, May
4, 2005, p. 4.
5
Ibid.
CRS-8
general fund contribution has been that the public at large realizes some benefit from
aviation whether it uses the system or not.6
Trust fund revenues have been running below projections for several years.
With general fund contributions to FAA’s budget also declining from their historical
average, the difference between FAA’s budget level and these two funding sources
has been made up by tapping the trust fund’s uncommitted balance, which is now
quite low by historical standards ($2.4 billion).
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). For FY2006, the Administration
proposed $8.2 billion in total spending, a $500 million (6%) increase over the $7.7
billion enacted for FY2005. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$8.2 billion, virtually identical to the Administration request; the House-passed bill
provided $8.4 billion. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $8.2
billion, which the Senate approved. The conference agreement provided $8.2 billion.
The majority of funding in this category is for the salaries of FAA personnel engaged
in air traffic control, certification, and safety-related activities. Much of the increased
funding called for in the FY2006 request is for increased air traffic control system
costs and safety-related activities.
One issue is the increasingly urgent need to hire additional air traffic controllers.
There is concern that many of the current controllers, who were hired after the air
traffic controllers strike of 1981, are now rapidly approaching retirement age.
Controller union representatives contend that the FAA is not taking sufficient action
to mitigate against potential future staff shortages. The request funding included $25
million to hire 1,249 controllers in FY2006. This is expected to result in a net gain
of around 604 controllers, since around 645 controllers are expected to leave through
attrition during FY2006.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The Administration request for F&E was
$2.4 billion, slightly down from $2.5 billion in FY2005 and below the FY2006
authorized level of $3.1 billion. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended $3.1 billion, the authorized level; this was approved by the House.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $2.4 billion, which the
Senate approved. The conference agreement provided $2.5 billion. F&E funding is
used primarily for capital investment in air traffic control and safety.
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D). The Administration
requested $130 million in FY2006, identical to the FY2005 level. The House
Committee on Appropriations recommended the same amount; the House concurred.
The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $134.5 million, which the
Senate approved. The conference agreement provided $138 million. Most RE&D
activity is focused on safety/air traffic control activities. No significant new
initiatives were proposed in the Bush Administration FAA budget.
6
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).
CRS-9
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
provides grants for airport planning and development, and for projects to increase
airport capacity (such as building new runways) and other facility improvements.
The Bush Administration FY2006 budget proposal requested $3.0 billion for AIP,
$500 million below the FY2005 level. Some Members of Congress have questioned
AIP cuts at a time when aviation traffic is finally returning to pre-September 11th
volumes and is expected to continue to grow. Construction of new runways is seen
by many as the best way to alleviate airport congestion. The proposed $3 billion
level for FY2006 is also $600 million below the funding level “guaranteed” for
FY2006. Section 104 of Vision 100 (49 USC 48114(c)(2)) provides that “it shall not
be in order” for Congress to consider any bill appropriating funding for FAA
Operations or Research and Development accounts if the combined funding for the
Grants-in-Aid to Airports and Facilities and Equipment accounts is below their
combined authorization level for that year. The combined FY2006 proposal for the
AIP and F&E programs is $5.45 billion, $1.2 billion below their combined
authorized level of $6.65 billion. In addition, the proposed AIP funding level of $3
billion is below the $3.2 billion threshold set under AIP distribution formulas in
Vision 100. Due to a provision in the authorizing legislation, this shortfall could
result in cutting most AIP formula distributions in half.
The Administration defended its proposed reduction with three arguments: it
noted that the AIP funding level has increased significantly from its $1.9 billion level
in FY2000; it asserted that airport capital development needs (as measured by
requests for issuances of airport revenue bonds and in FAA’s National Plan of
Integrated Airport Systems) have declined by 15% in recent years; and it asserted that
airports could compensate for the reduction in AIP funding by increasing their use
of passenger facility charges.7 The Administration estimated that airports could raise
an additional $350 million annually by increasing passenger facility fees to the
maximum allowed by law. Some Members of Congress questioned the wisdom of
imposing fee increases on an unprofitable airline industry struggling unsuccessfully
with the impact of high fuel costs.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.6 billion for AIP,
the authorized level for FY2006; the House concurred. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $3.5 billion, which the Senate approved. The
conference agreement provided $3.55 billion.
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.
7
Marion Blakey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, testifying before the
House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, HUD, the
Judiciary and the District of Columbia, May 10, 2005.
CRS-10
There are several major highway programs within FHWA, and most funding is
reserved for these 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 another set of programs, known as the “allocated” programs (also
referred to as discretionary 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, the National Corridor
Infrastructure Improvement Program, and several other small programs. In recent
years, nearly all discretionary program funding has been earmarked by Congress in
the appropriations process.
The Administration Request. Federal surface transportation programs had
not yet been reauthorized when the President’s budget was released; the President’s
FY2006 budget assumed that the authorization would conform to the President’s
surface transportation reauthorization recommendations. Congress reauthorized
surface transportation programs with the passage of SAFETEA-LU (signed into law
in August 2005; P.L. 109-59).
For FY2006, the President requested $35.4 billion for FHWA. That was slightly
less than the $35.8 billion level for FY2005; it was significantly less than the FY2006
authorized level that was proposed in either the House ($37.0 billion) or Senate
($38.9 billion) versions of surface transportation reauthorization legislation (H.R. 3).
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $37.0 billion, the amount
authorized in the House reauthorization legislation. The House concurred with this
recommendation. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $38.7
billion; the Senate approved this figure. The conference bill provided $36.8 billion
for FHWA; after a $2 billion rescission of contract authority, the FHWA
appropriations is scored, for budgetary purposes, at $34.7 billion.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/]
FMCSA issues and enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations that
govern many aspects of specified commercial truck and bus operations, including the
interstate operation and maintenance of commercial vehicles and requirements for
commercial drivers. FMCSA also administers grants and programs to help states
conduct truck and bus safety enforcement activities. Together with the states,
FMCSA conducts inspections of Mexican-domiciled drivers and vehicles entering
the United States, advances Intelligent Transportation Systems for commercial
vehicle operations, and each year reviews or audits thousands of carriers transporting
property and passengers. Most of the funds used to conduct FMCSA activities are
derived from the Highway Trust Fund.
CRS-11
The FY2006 Administration request for the FMCSA is $465 million, 5% more
than the FY2005 level of $444 million. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended $501 million, 12% above the FY2005 enacted level and 8% above the
Administration request. The House concurred with this recommendation. The
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $490 million; the Senate
approved this amount. The conference bill provided $495 million, 11% above the
FY2005 enacted level.
The FMCSA appropriation has two primary components:
FMCSA
administrative expenses (including operations and research); and financial assistance
provided primarily to the states to conduct various truck and bus safety programs.
Administrative and Operations Expenses. The President’s budget
request for FMCSA’s administrative and operations expenses for FY2006 is $233
million. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $215 million; the
House concurred. The Senate Committee recommended $211 million; the Senate
concurred. The conference bill provided $213 million. This account includes funds
for research and technology (R&T) and regulatory development. Some of the
activities that would be funded include enforcement to reduce the number of unsafe
motor carriers and drivers, and the funding of a medical review board to assist
FMCSA in improving its physical examination requirements for commercial drivers.
Some of the core FMCSA activities or expenses supported by these funds include
rent, administrative infrastructure, personnel compensation and benefits and other
related staff expenses for more than 1,000 employees; outreach efforts to help
educate the commercial motor vehicle industry about the federal safety regulations;
and monies to improve truck and bus, as well as driver, standards and oversight. This
account also funds agency information systems used to oversee the safety of motor
carriers.
Grants to States and Other Activities. The Administration’s FY2006
request for these activities is $232 million. House Committee on Appropriations
recommended $286 million; the House concurred. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $279 million; the Senate concurred. The conference
bill provided $282 million. These funds are used primarily to pay for the Motor
Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), which provides grants to states to help
them enforce commercial vehicle safety and hazardous materials transportation
regulations. MCSAP grants cover up to 80% of the eligible costs of a state’s
commercial truck and bus safety program. Some 9,000 state and local lawenforcement officers conduct more than 2.9 million roadside inspections of trucks
and buses annually under the program.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
NHTSA funding supports behavioral (including both driver and pedestrian) and
vehicular (including crash worthiness and avoidance) programs that are intended to
improve traffic safety. More specifically, NHTSA seeks to reduce impaired driving,
increase occupant protection, improve police traffic services, enhance emergency
medical responses to crashes, ensure compliance with various federal vehicle safety
CRS-12
regulations, and track and seek to mitigate emerging vehicle safety problems.
NHTSA also provides grants to the states for the implementation of various highway
traffic safety programs.
For FY2006, the Administration requested $696 million to carry out NHTSA’s
mission, a $22 million (3%) increase over comparable FY2005 funding.8 Of the total
amount requested by the Administration, $465 million was designated to support
general traffic safety and incentive grants to states. The incentive grants are intended
primarily to encourage use of occupant protection measures and reduce impaired
driving. The remaining $231 million was for NHTSA’s operations and research
activities to reduce highway fatalities and prevent injuries due to traffic crashes.
More specifically, the funds proposed would be used for activities including research
and analysis (e.g., collection of crash statistics, research on vehicle performance and
occupant injury during these crashes, and driver distraction testing); highway safety
programs (e.g., developing improved countermeasures to combat alcohol- or drugimpaired driving and measures to increase safety belt usage); safety assurance (e.g.,
testing of vehicles to ensure compliance with federal motor vehicle safety standards
and maintaining a legislatively-required database to track vehicle defects); and
conducting crash avoidance and crash-worthiness testing, and evaluating child safety
seats.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $782 million for
FY2006, $108 million (16%) over the comparable FY2005 enacted level and $86
million (12%) over the Administration request. The House concurred. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $779 million; the Senate added $6
million by floor amendment for a total of $785 million. The conference bill provided
$815 million, $141 million (21%) over the comparable FY2005 enacted figure.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
[http://www.fra.dot.gov]
The Administration requested $552 million in funding for the Federal Railroad
Administration for FY2006. This is $880 million (61%) below the $1.4 billion FRA
received in FY2005. The difference is largely due to the Administration’s request for
no funding for Amtrak, which received $1.2 billion in FY2005; the Administration
request also zeroed out the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The House
Committee on Appropriations recommended $732 million for FRA for FY2006. The
House provided $1.3 billion, adding $626 million through a floor amendment
increasing funding for Amtrak. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $1.7 billion; the Senate provided $1.6 billion. The major difference
from the House-passed figure was recommending an additional $274 million for
Amtrak, for a total FY2006 level of $1.45 billion for Amtrak. The conference bill
provided $1.5 billion, $94 million over the FY2005 enacted level; the increase is
8
The Administration’s request includes a proposal to transfer $222 million from FHWA’s
budget to NHTSA’s budget; in previous years, that money was budgeted in FHWA for
programs that were administered by NHTSA.
CRS-13
largely due to the $1.3 billion provided for Amtrak, $100 million more than its
enacted FY2005 level.
Although most of the debate involving the FRA budget centers on Amtrak,
agency safety activities (which receive more detailed treatment in the next section),
the Next Generation High-Speed Rail program, and how states might obtain
additional funds for high-speed rail initiatives are also continuing issues.
Railroad Safety. The FRA promotes and regulates railroad safety. Increased
railroad traffic volume and density make equipment, employees, and operations more
vulnerable to accidents. The Administration proposed $146 million in FY2006 for
FRA’s safety program and related administrative and operating activities, $9 million
(6%) above the FY2005 enacted level. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended the requested amount; the House concurred. The Senate Committee
recommended the same; the Senate concurred. The conference bill provided the
requested level, $146 million. The funds requested support FRA’s goals of reducing
rail accidents and incidents, reducing grade-crossing accidents, and contributing to
the avoidance of serious hazardous materials transportation incidents.
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. Though hearings have been held since 1994, the deliberations
have not resulted in agreement on reauthorization of FRA’s regulatory and safety
compliance activities or change to any of the existing authorities used by FRA to
promote railroad safety.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D. This program supports work on
high-speed train control systems, track and structures technology, corridor planning,
grade-crossing hazard mitigation, and high-speed non-electric locomotives. The
Administration did not request any funding for this program for FY2006; it received
$19 million in FY2005. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$10.2 million; the House concurred. The Senate Committee recommended $11.5
million; the Senate concurred. The conference bill did not provided any funding for
this program.
Amtrak. The Administration requested no funding for Amtrak for FY2006;
Amtrak’s Board of Directors (all of whom were appointed by the Administration) has
requested $1.8 billion. The DOT Inspector General has testified that Amtrak requires
at least $1.4 billion to survive in its current form. Amtrak received $1.2 billion in
FY2005; combined with the nearly $200 million in cash Amtrak had at the end of
FY2004, that gave Amtrak $1.4 billion for FY2005. Amtrak expects to end FY2005
with little or no cash on hand, partly due to its difficulties with its Acela trains on the
Northeast Corridor. The Administration requested $360 million for the Surface
Transportation Board to administer Amtrak operations necessary to support
commuter rail services in the event of an Amtrak shutdown.
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $550 million for
Amtrak for FY2006, of which $50 million is for the Secretary of Transportation to
make capital grants for repairs to the Northeast Corridor, in consultation with Amtrak
CRS-14
to select the projects most critical to help bring the Corridor into a state of good
repair. The Committee also recommended $20 million to be held in reserve for the
Surface Transportation Board to carry out directed service should Amtrak cease
operations, and $10 million to support the orderly discontinuation of Amtrak’s mail
and express service.
In addition, the Committee established a threshold subsidy figure for federal
support to Amtrak’s individual routes. Routes with a federal subsidy greater than
$30 per passenger would no longer be eligible for federal support. The Committee
noted that the states served by these routes could provide the funding needed to
support the routes; otherwise, the routes would be eliminated.
In its report accompanying the bill, the Committee wrote that “While the
Committee agrees that reform is critical, it is also equally important to sustain
passenger rail service in geographic regions where this service is viable.”9 In a press
release describing the bill’s Amtrak provisions, the Committee wrote that the bill
“fully supports rail service for ... 80 percent of Amtrak’s ridership.”10 Whether the
bill actually does that is not clear. The routes whose per passenger subsidy level is
below the Committee’s threshold are chiefly in the Northeast, on the West Coast, and
in the Midwest. The routes that would be eliminated serve other, largely rural,
sections of the country.
In a press release describing the bill’s Amtrak provisions, the Committee wrote
that the bill “fully supports rail service for ... 80 percent of Amtrak’s ridership.”11
Whether the Committee’s bill actually did that is not clear. The bill provided only
$550 million for Amtrak, far less than the $1.4 to $1.5 billion the DOT IG has
testified that Amtrak needs for FY2006.12 The Inspector General also testified
9
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives, United States Congress, preprint
of committee report on the FY2006 Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations
Bill distributed at the markup session, p. 44.
10
House of Representatives, United State Congress. Smarter, More Effective Funding for
Amtrak.
Press Release issued June 15, 2005. [Available at [http://
appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id
=492&Month=6&Year=2005]
11
House of Representatives, United State Congress. Smarter, More Effective Funding for
Amtrak. Press Release issued June 15, 2005. [Available at [http://appropriations.house.gov/
index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=492&Month=6&Year=2
005]
12
Kenneth Mead, Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, in
transcript of Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the
Judiciary and Housing and Urban Development, Hearing on FY2006 Appropriations, May
12, 2005, published by CQ. [http://www.cq.com/display.do?prod=4&dockey=
/cqonline/prod/data/docs/html/transcripts/congressional/109/congressionaltranscripts109
-000001677392.html@committees&metapub=CQ-CONGTRANSCRIPTS&binderName
=com.cq.oc.biz.BudgetTrackerNewsWidget%3Fsection%3Dhearings%26group-id%3D1
695&rthu=budgettrackerbill.do%23bthearhits]
CRS-15
concerning the idea that eliminating Amtrak’s long-distance trains would largely
solve Amtrak’s funding problem:
It’s important to appreciate that while they are highly subsidized and often
inefficient, their total elimination will not come close to making ends meet.
Savings ultimately would be in the neighborhood of around $300 million, and the
savings would not be immediate due to the need for labor severance payments.13
Amtrak’s then-President, David Gunn, asserting that Amtrak would owe its
employees $1.4 billion over three years in severance payments if the long-distance
trains were eliminated,14 said the Committee’s recommended funding would lead to
an Amtrak shut down, because the company could not meet debt service, pay its
obligations to the railroad retirement fund and make required payments to the
workers it would have to lay off. 15 In an “Additional Views” section of the
Committee’s report on the bill, the ranking members of the Committee and the
transportation Subcommittee argued that the bill would make it impossible for
Amtrak to operate even a limited number of routes. “After mandatory debt service
payments of $275 million to $287 million and mandatory labor payments of $300
million or more [severance payments to Amtrak workers laid off as a result of
terminating the long distance routes] are made, no funds would available to operate
even a few routes and no funds would be available to invest in sorely needed capital
upgrades.”16
During consideration of the bill on the House floor, the chair of the House
Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Representative
LaTourette, and the ranking member of the Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Representative Oberstar, introduced an amendment to increase Amtrak’s
funding by $626 million, to $1,176 million. This is $31 million less than Amtrak
received for FY2005, but $276 million more than the House proposed for Amtrak for
FY2005. The amendment was offset by reductions in several other accounts in the
bill, and passed by voice vote.
Another amendment, introduced by the ranking member of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Railroads, Representative Brown, and
Representative Menendez and Representative Rahall, deleted the Appropriation
Committee’s recommendation that federal funding not be available to Amtrak routes
requiring more than $30 per passenger in subsidy. This amendment passed by a vote
of 269-152.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $1.45 billion for
Amtrak, $274 million more than the House-passed figure. The Committee also
13
Ibid.
14
Chris Mondics, “Amtrak Chief says ‘Ideologues’ Urging Cuts,” Philadelphia Inquirer,
June 16, 2005, A1.
15
Matthew L. Wald, “National Briefing Washington: Committee Votes To Cut Amtrak
Subsidy “, New York Times, June 16, 2005, A23.
16
H.Rept. 109-153, 249.
CRS-16
recommended several provisions affecting Amtrak operations. These included
forbidding the use of federal funding to support food and beverage service and
sleeper car service on Amtrak’s routes.17 Other provisions would require Amtrak to
adopt a managerial accounting system that can identify average and marginal costs
for Amtrak’s services, allow Amtrak to impose a surcharge on its passenger tickets
to raise money for capital improvements, and allow the Secretary of Transportation
to impose fees on commuter rail operations using the Northeast Corridor to cover the
direct maintenance costs imposed by each operator.
The Senate supported the Amtrak funding level recommended by the Committee
on Appropriations. The Senate approved two floor amendments deleting some of the
Amtrak provisions recommended by the Committee: one amendment deleted the
restriction on food and beverage service and sleeper car service; the other deleted the
permission to impose fees on commuter rail authorities using the Northeast Corridor.
The White House issued a veto threat against the Senate’s Amtrak funding level,
reflecting the Administration’s stance that Amtrak should not receive funding unless
fundamental reforms are also made to Amtrak.18
The conference bill provided $1.315 billion to Amtrak, a 9% increase over the
FY2005 enacted level. The conference bill also included a number of provisions
affecting Amtrak’s receipt of, and use of, these funds.
These provisions continue a recent trend in which Congress has attempted to
exert more control over Amtrak’s finances. Beginning with Amtrak’s FY2003
appropriation (P.L. 108-7), Congress directed that Amtrak’s appropriation would not
go directly to Amtrak, but rather that the Secretary of Transportation would provide
funding to Amtrak quarterly through the grant-making process. Congress also
imposed several other requirements on Amtrak beginning in FY2003 which had the
effect of reducing Amtrak’s discretion with its federal funding. Among these was a
requirement that Amtrak submit a five-year business plan to Congress, which it did
in April 2003. In this plan, Amtrak requested average annual federal support of $1.6
billion for FY2004-FY2008 to both maintain the current network and begin to
address the estimated $6 billion in backlogged maintenance needs. The plan did not
propose expansion of the existing rail network. Amtrak has submitted annual
updates of this Strategic Plan to Congress. Congress has not supported the funding
levels requested in these Strategic Plans.
Amtrak’s authorization expired in September 2002. Efforts to reauthorize
Amtrak have been stymied by disagreement over the future shape of federal
passenger rail policy. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
has ordered to be reported out legislation reauthorizing Amtrak at $2 billion annually
for FY2006-FY2009 (H.R. 1630); similar legislation was reported out by the
Committee in the 108th Congress but saw no further action. Legislation reflecting the
17
Recent reports by the Amtrak Inspector General and the DOT Inspector General found
that Amtrak loses money on both its food and beverage service and its sleeper car service.
These provisions would, in effect, require Amtrak to either break even on these operations
or eliminate them.
18
White House, Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 3058, October 19, 2005, 1.
CRS-17
Administration’s reauthorization proposal, which would restructure Amtrak and
transfer responsibility for administering and funding passenger rail service to the
states, has also been introduced (H.R. 1713); similar legislation was also introduced
in the 108th Congress, but was not supported. The Amtrak Board has submitted a
restructuring proposal to Congress, but no legislation has been introduced reflecting
that proposal. The Senate passed an Amtrak reauthorization bill as a floor
amendment to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 2005,
on November 3, 2005; the amendment was approved by a vote of 93-6. The
reauthorization bill attached to S. 1932 was similar to S. 1516, the Passenger Rail
Investment and Improvement Act of 2005, which was reported out of the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation in October 2005. The
Amtrak reauthorization section was not included in the conference version of S.
1932.
The DOT and the Amtrak Board have also made changes on their own recently.
The Board voted in September 2005 to create a subsidiary to manage the Northeast
Corridor, and in November 2005 to dismiss David Gunn, Amtrak’s president and
CEO since 2002. In the wake of a GAO report critical of the way Amtrak’s finances
have been managed, the DOT announced that additional limits would be placed on
Amtrak’s autonomy: Amtrak will be required to submit plans for improving its
financial reporting and management, and must provide a new annual report to
Congress describing its progress in implementing those plans.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
President Bush’s FY2006 budget request for FTA was $7.8 billion, $167 million
(2%) more than FTA’s FY2005 appropriation of $7.6 billion. The House Committee
on Appropriations recommended $8.5 billion, the amount authorized for FY2006 in
the House’s surface transportation reauthorization bill (H.R. 3 as passed by the
House). The House concurred. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $8.2 billion, $430 million more than the request and $270 less than the
House-passed figure. The Senate concurred. The guaranteed authorization level for
FTA for FY2006 in the surface transportation reauthorization legislation approved
by Congress in July 2005 (P.L. 109-59) is $8.6 billion. The conference bill provided
that amount.
The Administration’s request also proposed changes to FTA’s program
structure, reflecting the Administration’s transit reauthorization proposals. These
proposals included grouping all funding into three categories (administrative
expenses, formula funds, and capital investment grants), zeroing out the Bus
Discretionary grant program, and creating a New Freedom Initiative program to help
assist persons with disabilities with transportation to work. Other new proposals in
the President’s request included an Intermodal Passenger Facilities Program to
provide intercity bus intermodal passenger facility grants ($75 million) and a
National Parks Legacy Project to improve access to national parks ($30 million);
elements of some of these proposals were included in the surface transportation
authorization legislation signed into law in August 2005 (SAFETEA-LU; P.L. 10959).
CRS-18
FTA Program Structure and Funding. The largest transit programs are
the Capital Investment Grants Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Grants
Program. There are also several smaller formula and discretionary programs.
Capital Investment Grants Program (Section 5309). This program
(formerly known as Section 3) has three components: a discretionary grant program
supporting creation of new transit infrastructure (‘New Starts’), a formula grant
program supporting modernization of fixed guideway transit infrastructure, and a
discretionary grant program supporting the acquisition of buses and bus facilities.
The funds have typically been allocated among these three components on a roughly
40-40-20 basis, respectively, though SAFETEA-LU increases the share going to New
Starts projects. The Administration request reflected its proposed change to this
program’s structure: it requested $1.53 billion for the transit New Starts program (up
about 6% from $1.44 billion in FY2005). It also requested $1.3 billion for the fixed
guideway modernization component (up 9% from FY2005’s $1.2 billion), which
would be placed under a different program area (an enlarged Formula Grants
program area). No funding was requested for the bus and bus facilities discretionary
component, which received $725 million in FY2005.19
The House Committee on Appropriation recommended $1.56 billion for the
New Starts program (9% above FY2005), $1.39 for fixed guideway modernization
(15% above FY2005), and $693 million for buses and bus facilities (4% above the
comparable FY2005 figure). The House concurred. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $1.39 billion for New Starts, $1.31 billion for fixed
guideway modernization, and $797 million for bus and bus facilities; the Senate
concurred. The authorized level for FY2006 is $1.5 billion for New Starts, $1.4
billion for fixed guideway modernization, and $822 million for bus and bus facilities.
The conference bill funded the overall FTA authorized level for FY2006, without
breaking down the funding by program. However, it transfers $47.8 million from the
fixed guideway modernization program to the New Starts account.
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307). This program
(formerly known as Section 9) provides capital and, in some cases, operating funds
for urbanized areas (population 50,000 or more). Eligible activities include bus and
bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed guideway modernization, new
systems, planning, and operating assistance. Funds are apportioned by 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 on transit service data. For FY2006, the Administration
proposed $3.7 billion, up 3% from FY2005’s $3.6 billion.
The House Committee on Appropriations did not specify a figure for this
program; the FY2006 authorization for this program in the House version of surface
transportation reauthorization legislation (H.R. 3) was $3.98 billion (11% above
19
In FY2005, as in previous years, the Bus and Bus Facilities appropriation was
supplemented by $50 million authorized for the clean bus program. The appropriation for
bus and bus facilities was $675 million; the additional funding resulted in a total of $725
million.
CRS-19
FY2005). The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.7 billion; the
Senate concurred. The authorized level under SAFETEA-LU (which added new
formulas, for small transit-intensive urbanized areas and for fast-growing and highdensity states) is $3.8 billion.
With the enactment of TEA-21 in 1998, operating assistance funding was
generally 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.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. This program provides
funding for transportation projects that assist welfare recipients and low-income
persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administration proposed $164
million for it in FY2006, up from $125 million in FY2005, and proposed to convert
it to a formula program. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended
$175 million for FY2006; the House concurred. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $122 million; the Senate concurred. Congress
converted the program to a formula basis in SAFETEA-LU, which authorized $138
million for the program for FY2006.
Maritime Administration (MARAD)
[http://www.marad.dot.gov]
MARAD’s mission is to promote the development and maintenance of a U.S.
merchant marine capable of carrying the nation’s waterborne domestic commerce,
a portion of its waterborne foreign commerce, and to serve as a naval and military
auxiliary in time of war. MARAD administers programs that benefit U.S. vessel
owners, shipyards, and ship crews. For FY2006, the President requested $294
million for MARAD, about 3% below the FY2005 level of $305 million. The House
Committee on Appropriations recommended $291 million. The House concurred.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended$323 million; the Senate
concurred. The conference bill provided $301 million.
The Maritime Guaranteed Loan Program (the “Title XI” program) provides
guaranteed loans for purchasing ships from U.S. shipyards and for the modernization
of U.S. shipyards. The purpose of the program is to promote the growth and
modernization of U.S. shipyards. As in budget requests in prior years, the
Administration has requested no funds for new loan guarantees, calling the program
a “corporate subsidy.” The Administration has, however, requested $4 million for
the administration of existing loans, $1 million less than the FY2005 enacted figure.
The House Committee supported this request; the House concurred. The Senate
Committee recommended $5 million for administrative expenses, the amount
provided in FY2005; the Senate concurred. Conferees agreed on $4 million.
For operations and training, the Administration requested $114 million, about
5% above the FY2005 funding of $109 million. The House Committee
recommended $112 million; the House agreed to that. The Senate Committee on
CRS-20
Appropriations recommended $119 million; the Senate concurred. Conferees agreed
on $122 million. Most of this funding goes to the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy
and to MARAD operations.
The Administration requested $156 million, 59% above the FY2005 level of
$98 million, for the Maritime Security Program (MSP); the House Committee
supported this request, and the House concurred. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations also recommended $156 million; the Senate concurred. Conferees
agreed on $156 million, the requested amount. MSP pays to support a fleet of
privately-owned U.S. flag commercial vessels engaged in international trade that are
available to support the Department of Defense in a national emergency. The request
would increase the size of the fleet from 47 to 60 vessels.
For the disposal of obsolete vessels in the National Defense Reserve Fleet
(NDRF), the Administration requested $21 million, about the same as provided in
FY2005; the House and Senate supported this request, and the conferees agreed to
it. There are over 130 vessels in the NDRF that are awaiting disposal because of
their age. These vessels have raised environmental concerns due to the presence of
asbestos and other hazardous substances. MARAD has until 2006 to dispose of
these surplus ships, most of which are located on the James River in Virginia and in
Suisan Bay, California.
The Administration requested no funding for the National Defense Tanker
Vessel Construction program, and requested a rescission of the $74 million
appropriated for this program in FY2005. The House Committee on Appropriations
recommended no funding for FY2006, but did not support the rescission of the
FY2005 funding; the House concurred. The Senate Committee on Appropriations
recommended $25 million for FY2006, and did not rescind any of the FY2005
appropriation; the Senate concurred. Conferees agreed on the House position: no
new funding, no rescission of previous funding.
The National Defense Tanker Vessel Construction program was authorized
under subtitle D of the Maritime Security Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-136), National
Defense Tank Vessel Construction Assistance. The program would provide up to
$50 million per vessel for the construction of a commercial tank vessel in a U.S.
shipyard, provided that the vessel was also capable of carrying militarily useful
petroleum products and the shipowner entered into an agreement with the
Department of Defense to make the ship available for the military’s use in time of
war. The intent of the law is to decrease the Department of Defense’s reliance on
foreign-flag oil tankers. An aspect of the program that has proved controversial is
the allowance of up to 10% of a vessel’s total steel weight to be constructed by a
foreign shipyard. Some argue this is necessary to allow U.S. shipyards to import
foreign technological expertise, while others argue that it results in subsidies flowing
to foreign shipyards.
CRS-21
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
(PHMSA)
[http://www.phmsa.dot.gov]
PHMSA was created with passage of the Norman Y. Mineta Research and
Special Programs Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426, 118 Stat. 2423), which was
signed into law on November 30, 2004. The statute creates two new operating
administrations in place of the Research and Special Programs Administration
(RSPA). is charged with maintaining the safety and integrity of the Nation’s pipeline
transportation system, as well as maintaining the safety of hazardous materials
transported by any mode. The Administration requested $117 million for PHMSA
for FY2006, up from $69 million in FY2005. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended $116 million, plus a limitation on obligations of $14
million for the emergency preparedness grant program. The House concurred with
this recommendation. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended
$116 million, plus the $14 million limitation on obligations. The Senate concurred
with this recommendation. Conferees agreed on $116 million, plus the $14 million
limitation on obligations for the emergency preparedness program.
Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)
[http://www.rita.dot.gov]
RITA, the other offspring of the former Research and Special Programs
Administration, focuses on research and development activities, transportation
analysis, and statistics (it includes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, formerly
a separate agency within DOT). RITA also conducts transportation-related research
and provides training to transportation professionals in safety methods and
technologies (through the Transportation Safety Institute) on a reimbursable basis.
The Administration requested $6.3 million for RITA in the FY2006 budget to
carry out DOT’s priorities for innovation and research in transportation technologies
and concepts, up from a comparable level of $4.3 million in FY2005. The House
Committee on Appropriations recommended $4.3 million for FY2006; the House
concurred. The Senate Committee on Appropriations also recommended $4.3
million; the Senate concurred. Conferees agreed on $5.8 million.
CRS-22
Appendix A: List of Transportation Acronyms
AIP: Airport Improvement Program (FAA)
AIR21 (sometimes FAIR21): the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 106-181), the previous aviation authorizing legislation
ARAA: the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), the
previous 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
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)
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FMCSA: Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
Hazmat: Hazardous materials (safety program in PHMSA)
HPP: High Priority Projects (FHWA)
HTF: Highway Trust Fund
IM: Interstate Maintenance program (FHWA)
ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems (FHWA)
MCSAP: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (FMCSA)
CRS-23
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
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation
PHMSA: Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
RABA: Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority
RITA: Research and Innovative Technology Administration
RD&T: Research, Development and Technology program (FHWA)
RE&D: Research, Engineering and Development program (FAA)
RSPA: the former Research and Special Projects Administration
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (P.L. 109-59), the highway and transit authorizing legislation
enacted in 2005.
SCASD: Small Community Air Service Development program (FAA)
Small Starts: a component added to the transit Capital Investment Grant program
(“New Starts”) in SAFETEA-LU to support new transit infrastructure projects
seeking less than $75 million in federal funding.
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 highway
and transit authorizing legislation enacted in 1998
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (FHWA)
TSA: Transportation Security Administration (now in the Department of Homeland
Security)
CRS-24
Vision 100: Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176), the aviation
reauthorization act enacted in 2003
CRS-25
Appendix B: 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 mass 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 FY2005 trust funds accounted for three-fourths 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.
Vision 100 — Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act
The vast majority of the Federal Aviation Administration’s budget is funded by
the airport and airway trust fund, also known as the aviation trust fund, which is
supported by user fees and excise taxes. Funding for the FAA’s two capital
programs, the Airport Improvement Program and the Facilities and Equipment
program, as well as the Research, Engineering, and Development funding, are
supported entirely by the aviation trust fund. The Operations and Maintenance
(O&M) component — the largest component of the FAA budget — is, in most years,
funded partially from aviation trust fund revenues and partially from Treasury general
fund revenues. Using general fund revenues for O&M is somewhat controversial and
the size of the general fund share of the O&M budget does at times emerge as an
issue in both the transportation authorization and appropriations process. One of the
justifications of using general fund revenues to support O&M is the belief that
Congress’s original intent was that the aviation trust fund was mostly for the capital
and research components of the FAA budget. The other rationale was that the public
sector, as well as the non-flying public, benefit from the operation of the nation’s
aviation system and should help pay for this benefit through general tax revenues.
CRS-26
The recent economic difficulties of the aviation industry have had a negative
effect on trust fund revenues. Historically, the trust fund has ended each year with
an uncommitted balance. Since 2001 the uncommitted balance has been decreasing.
According to GAO, the trust fund’s uncommitted balance decreased from $7.3 billion
in 2001 to $4.8 billion in 2002 and has continued to fall at a rate of $1 billion a year
since.20 GAO found this occurred because revenues started trending downward in
1999, while expenditures have exceeded revenues since FY2001. The increase in
expenditures from the trust fund reflected increased spending under two authorization
bills: the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(AIR21; P.L. 106-181), which covered FY1999-FY2003, significantly increased
FAA spending, especially capital spending; and Vision 100 — Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act (Vision 100; P.L. 108-76), covering FY2004-FY2007, which
authorized continued increases in spending, although at a more modest rate. GAO
has warned that revenue declines as small as 5%-10% below projected levels could
eliminate the trust fund’s uncommitted balances under current authorization levels.
AIR21 created a budgetary regime for aviation programs that was closely linked
to the availability of funds in the trust fund. The act requires appropriators to use
aviation trust funds only for aviation purposes, and to fully fund FAA’s capital
programs (the Airport Improvement Program and the Facilities and Equipment
program) at authorized levels, using House and Senate point-of-order rules for
enforcement. One provision in the act made it out of order to consider legislation
that spends aviation trust fund revenues for non-aviation purposes. Another
provision made it out of order to consider legislation funding FAA’s Operations and
Maintenance and Research, Engineering and Development budgets if the Airport
Improvement Program and Facilities and Equipment program are funded at less than
their authorized levels. Vision 100 continued this arrangement. This budgetary
regime was created at a time when revenues to the trust fund were sharply increasing.
Should revenues decline significantly, funding beyond the guaranteed AIP and F&E
components could be severely constrained unless supported by the general fund.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
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
20
GAO, Airport and Airway Trust Fund: Preliminary Observations on Past, Present, and
Future. GA0-05-657T. May 4, 2005.
CRS-27
accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased trust fund revenues. For FY2003,
however, the RABA adjustment, if it had been applied during the appropriations
process, would have led to a significant and unexpected drop in the availability of
highway obligational funding. Congress set the RABA adjustment for FY2003 to $0
(in a provision in P.L. 107-206) and appropriators ultimately provided FY2003
highway funding at the same level as provided for FY2002 (which was $4 billion
higher than the FY2003 authorized level). RABA was not included in the FY2004
or FY2005 appropriations calculations.
TEA-21 changed the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.
The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an
annual level of obligations. These were established by TEA-21 and were adjusted
by an annual RABA computation. TEA-21 also limited the discretion of the House
and Senate appropriations committees in exercising what some Members view as
their once traditional option of changing spending levels for specific core programs
or projects, though during the authorization period appropriators increasingly
returned to their customary use of this option.
On July 29, 2005, Congress adopted new surface transportation authorization
legislation, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA — LU/P.L. 109-59). This legislation maintains the
general program structure of TEA-21. It continued the practice of guaranteeing the
authorized funding levels, and further diminished the discretion of the House and
Senate appropriators by converting several discretionary grant programs to formula
programs.
CRS-28
Appendix C: 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 (112 Stat. 107).
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.