Order Code RL30508
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2001: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies
Updated August 11, 2000
Robert S. Kirk
Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

ABSTRACT
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related
Agencies appropriations bill for FY2001. It is designed to supplement the information
provided by the Subcommittees on Transportation of the House and Senate Committees on
Appropriations. It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues,
historic funding levels (by agency and major programs), and requests for the upcoming fiscal
year, and related legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues
covered and related CRS products.
It will be updated following each major legislative stage, especially following legislative
action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]

---

Appropriations for FY2001: Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies
Summary
Both houses of Congress have passed somewhat different versions of the FY2001
Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations Act (H.R.4475). The House of
Representatives version provides total budgetary resources of $55.2 billion; the Senate
version provides $54.7 billion. The roughly $500 million difference is partly an outgrowth
of the lower budget cap that Senators had to work with. The House and Senate bills both
provide significant increases above FY2000 enacted funding for all major agencies except
the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). However, compared to the House bill, there
are two losers in the Senate bill. The Senate bill provides almost $200 million less for the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and $257 million less for the Coast Guard. For the
overall DOT budget, the Senate bill represents a 9.5% increase over the FY2000 budget;
the House bill represents a nearly 10.5% increase.
The President’s FY2001 budget, released on February 7, 2000, had proposed
spending just under $55 billion for the DOT and related agencies. This would have
amounted to an increase of slightly more than 9% above the FY2000 level.
The House and Senate bills as well as the Administration’s request reflect the
continuing impact of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). The
House and Senate figures for highway funding and for mass transit are in agreement and
conform closely to TEA21's provisions. The bills raise highway funding by over 6.5% and
transit funding by almost 8.5%. The Administration’s proposed increases of 5% for
highways and roughly 9% for transit reflected the Administration’s requested changes in
TEA21's provisions for distribution of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) funds.
The enactment of FAIR21 (P.L. 106-181), which reauthorized the FAA through
FY2003, has had a major impact on the agency’s funding for FY2001. Both the House
and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 4475 provide for an increase in the FAA’s total
budgetary resources of well over 20%. In the House-passed version, both the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) and the Facilities and Equipment (F&E) budget are funded
at the FAIR21 guaranteed level of $3.2 billion and $2.657 billion, respectively. However,
in a possible nonconformance with FAIR21, the Senate initially funded AIP and F&E at
the required levels but then provided for a transfer of $120 million of AIP contract
authority to the FAA Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget.
Most observers do not expect a difficult conference on H.R. 4475 but there are still
some issues to be resolved. These issues include: removing the Senate bill’s transfer of
$120 million of AIP funding that may not conform to FAIR21; language to strengthen state
drunk driver blood alcohol standards to 0.08%; raising the budget allocation to increase
the Coast Guard’s and FAA’s O&M budgets; motor carrier “hours of service” rules;
project earmarking; and spending restrictions related to the corporate average fuel
economy (CAFÉ) standards.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
Division
Airport Improvement Program/FAA
Bob Kirk,
RSI
7-7769
Reauthorization
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Randy
Amtrak
RSI
7-3267
Peterman
Federal Aviation Administration
J. Glen Moore
RSI
7-7033
John Fischer,
RSI
7-7766
Federal Highway Administration
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Federal Railroad Administration
Paul Rothberg
RSI
7-7771
John Fischer,
RSI
7-7766
Federal Transit Administration
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Highway and Truck Safety
Paul Rothberg
RSI
7-7012
Surface Transportation Board
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
U.S. Coast Guard
Martin Lee
RSI
7-7260
Duane
Vehicular Safety
RSI
7-7252
Thompson
Hussein
Technical Information Specialist, Transportation
RSI
7-2119
Hassan
Management Assistant, Transportation
Clare Brigidini
RSI
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA21 . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR 21 or AIR21)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Railroad Safety and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
High Speed Rail R&D and Magnetic Levitation R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Amtrak Reform Council . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
The 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Provision . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The TEA21 Funding Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs . . . 16
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
FTA Program Structure and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Administration Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
House Action on FY2001 FAA Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Senate Action on FY2001 FAA Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Impact of FAIR21 on the FAA FY2001 Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CRS Issue Briefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
CRS Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

---

List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . 27
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2001 . . . . . . 4
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs . . . . . . 29

---

Appropriations for FY2001: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On June 15, 2000, the Senate passed the Department of Transportation and
Related Agencies Appropriations (DOT) bill, 2001 (H.R. 4475, as amended by S.
2720). Although the bill provided more than a 9% increase for DOT, including
increases for nearly all major programs, the amount was roughly $500 million below
the amount the House of Representatives had approved in May. The Senate’s overall
spending appears to be in conformance with the Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA21). However, in including a provision to allow for the transfer
$120 million of Airport Improvement Program (AIP) contract authority to be
transferred to the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) operations and
maintenance (O&M) budget, the bill may not conform to the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21).
On May 19, 2000, the House had passed its version of H.R. 4475. The bill called
for a budget of just over $55 billion, an increase of more than 10% above the
FY2000 enacted level. The spending levels in the bill are in conformance with the
spending guarantees of both TEA21 and FAIR21 and provide increases for nearly
all agencies.
On February 7, 2000, the President submitted a DOT FY2001 budget request
that was slightly under $55 billion, roughly 9% above the enacted FY2000 level.
Conferees are expected to meet after the August recess to begin resolving
differences in the two versions of H.R. 4475. Issues include: the transfer of $120
million from AIP to the FAA Operations budget that may not be in conformance with
FAIR21; the inclusion of language to strengthen state drunk driver blood alcohol
standards to 0.08%; raising the budget allocation to the House’s level to allow more
spending on the Coast Guard and FAA Operations; changes in motor carrier “hours
of service” rules; the earmarking of projects; and the spending restrictions related
to corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards.
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

---

CRS-2
transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, the transit account of the highway
trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, and the inland waterways trust fund. All of
these accounts derive their respective funding from specific excise and other taxes.
Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest component of DOT
appropriations, and can account for 60% to 70% of total federal transportation spending
in any given year. Most highway and the majority of transit programs are funded with
contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This is very significant from
a budgeting standpoint. Contract authority is tantamount to, but does not actually involve,
entering into a contract to pay for a project at some future date. Under this arrangement,
specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds are automatically made available at the
beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated without appropriations legislation.
Appropriations are required to make outlays at some future date to cover these
obligations.
Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual
appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite situation.
That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control already exists
and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs is also in place.
Prior to the FY1999 DOT Appropriations Act, changes in spending in the annual
transportation budget component had been achieved in the appropriations process by
combining changes in budget/contract authority and placing limitations on obligations. The
principal function of the limitation on obligations is to control outlays in a manner that
corresponds to congressional budget agreements.
The authority to set a limitation on obligations for contract authority programs gave
appropriators considerable leeway in allocating funds among the various federal
transportation activities in function 400, which includes agencies such as the Coast Guard
and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, the inclusion of the highway and
transit programs and their trust-fund generated revenue streams in the discretionary budget
provided appropriators with additional flexibility as part of the annual process by which
available funds were allocated amongst the 13 standing appropriations subcommittees in
the House and the Senate.
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA21
TEA21 changed this budgetary procedure in two ways. First, it created new budget
categories and second, it set statutory limitations on obligations. TEA21 amends the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to create two new budget
categories: highway and mass transit. TEA21 further amends the budget process by
creating a statutory level for the limitation on obligations in each fiscal year from FY1999
to FY2003.
In addition, TEA21 provides a mechanism to adjust the amounts in the highway
account, but not the transit account, to correspond with increased or decreased receipts
in the highway-generated revenues. This Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA)

---

CRS-3
redistributes to the various states, for obligational TEA21 highway programs, the trust fund
revenues that are in excess of projected receipts. These additional revenues are allocated
to the states using the formulas spelled out in the law. However, the FY2000 DOT request
proposed redirection of RABA funds from highway programs to other DOT initiatives,
predominantly for environmental activities associated with the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ) program and for transit. In the end, the FY2000 DOT
appropriations act (P.L. 106-69) did not adopt the Administration’s proposed redirection
of RABA funds. In its FY2001 budget submission, the Administration again suggested that
a portion of RABA funds be redirected, although the beneficiary programs to which
additional funds would be made available are different from those proposed in FY2000.
The net effect of the creation of these new budget categories is a predetermined level
of funding for core highway and transit programs, referred to in TEA21 as a discretionary
spending guarantee. The highway and mass transit categories are separated from the rest
of the discretionary budget in a way that prevents the funds assigned to these categories
to be used for any other purpose.These so called “firewalls” are viewed, in the TEA21
context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levels of funding for highway and transit programs.
Additional funds above the firewall level can be made available for highway and transit
programs through the annual appropriations process.
TEA21 changes the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs. The
appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an annual level
of obligations. In addition, it appears that the Act precludes, at least in part, the House and
Senate appropriations committees from exercising what some Members view as their
traditional option of changing spending levels for specific programs or projects. In the
FY2000 Appropriations Act, however, it appears that appropriators have taken 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.
As suggested earlier, the TEA21 firewalls appear to diminish the flexibility of the
committees on appropriations to meet the goals of the annual budget process, because the
committees can only adjust the DOT agency or program budgets outside the firewalls.
Hence, any reduction in spending for function 400 must be allocated to agencies or
programs other than highways or transit. This has raised special concern for supporters of
the Coast Guard and Amtrak, which are the largest DOT functions without firewall
protection.
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of the
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (FAIR 21 or AIR21)
FAIR21 (P.L. 106-181, signed April 5, 2000) provides a so-called “guarantee” for
FAA program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is significantly
different from that provided by TEA21. Instead of creating new budget categories, the

---

CRS-4
FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two point-of-order rules for the House and the
Senate. The first point-of-order prevents Congress from considering any legislation that
does not spend all of the “total budget resources” as defined by FAIR21 for aviation
purposes. Total budget resources for purposes of the Act are essentially the revenues and
interest accruing to the aviation trust fund. The second point-of-order prevents any
spending for FAA operations and maintenance (O&M) or Research, Engineering and
Development (RE&D), unless the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Facilities
and Equipment (F&E) portions of the FAA account are funded at their fully authorized
levels.
Almost all observers view the FAIR21 guarantees as being somewhat weaker than
those provided by TEA21 for highway and transit programs. Congress can, and sometimes
does, waive points-of-order during consideration of legislation. In addition, there is a sense
that appropriators might still have some latitude to make significant changes to FAA O&M
funding, which is dependant on both trust fund and general fund contributions. For
FY2001, the supporters of FAIR21 have the assurances of House leadership that no
point-of-order waivers will be considered. Similar assurances were not provided by
Senate leadership.
Supporters of FAIR21 believe the Act requires significant new spending on aviation
programs. And for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, this is likely to be the case.
Enactment of FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have total control over
spending for 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 especially if overall domestic discretionary spending caps are not raised
sufficiently.
Supporters of the Coast Guard are especially concerned about this new
transportation appropriations environment. The Coast Guard is not funded by a trust fund,
and hence cannot claim a user-fee base to support an argument for its own budget
firewalls. The Coast Guard has a unique status within the transportation budget category
because of its wartime role in national defense. It is not unusual for the Coast Guard to
receive some funds from military appropriations during the annual appropriations process.
It is possible that the Coast Guard will seek additional funding from the military side of the
budget in the years ahead if additional funds from transportation appropriations do not
become available.
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2001
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Public Law
H.Rept.
S.Rept. 106-
H.R. 4475
S. 2720
106-622
309
5-8-00
6-13-00
5-17-00
5-19-00
6-14-00
6-15-00
–
–
–
–

---

CRS-5
Key Policy Issues
With release of the Clinton Administration’s FY2001 budget proposal on February
7, 2000, the budget debate began in earnest. In proposing an overall transportation
spending level of nearly $55 billion, the Administration continues to emphasize its safety,
research, environmental, infrastructure, and mobility priorities which complement Vice
President Gore’s proposals concerning the Administration’s “livability agenda.” Additional
issues have arisen during congressional consideration of the appropriations legislation,
however, perhaps because of the shortness of the election-year session there have not
been many. Another reason the FY2001 DOT appropriations debate was less contentious
than last year is that has been argued in a less constrained budgetary environment.
Conference is expected to occur after Labor Day.
The unresolved issues are relatively narrow. The Senate version of H.R. 4475
includes language that would penalize states, by reducing their funding under certain federal
highway programs, that do not adopt and enforce a 0.8 blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) law. The Senate bill also includes a provision that prohibits DOT from spending
funds to consider, adopt, or enforce any proposed rule or proposed amendment to the
existing hours of service regulations that govern the driving and work hours of commercial
drivers. In addition, the Senate bill includes a provision that could be in nonconformance
with FAIR21. It allows FAA to transfer $120 million of Airport Improvement Program
(AIP) funds to the Operations and Maintenance (O&M) budget. This could be interpreted
as lowering AIP funding below the $3.2 billion trigger level for the new AIP distribution
formulas. If the old formulas remain intact, this could cause a significant shift of funds from
the formula program and a relative increase in the monies available for discretionary grants.
The House version of H.R. 4475 includes language that restricts DOT spending related to
changing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards. The remaining issues
include project earmarking and whether to raise the budget allocation to the House level
to allow for more spending for the Coast Guard or FAA’s O&M budget.
Major Funding Trends
Table 2 shows Department of Transportation actual or enacted funding levels for
FY1988 through FY2000 plus the President’s budget proposal for FY2001. The major
portion of these funds are contract authority.1 Total DOT funding almost doubled from
FY1988 through FY2000 and the FY2001 proposal adds to this growth trend. Totals may
not include some user fee collections; thus, program totals may vary from other figures
cited in this report.
1 Starting in the early 1990s, about $300 million of the funds shown in Table 2 were
transferred from the DOD appropriations budget to DOT. These monies are used to support
Coast Guard activities.

---

CRS-6
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2001
(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
FY1966 Actual
37,378
FY1997 Actual
40,349
FY1998 Actual
42,381
FY1999 Enacted
47,224
FY2000 Enactedc
49,995c
FY2001 Proposed
54,566d
a “Actual” amounts from FY1988 to FY1998 include funding levels initially enacted by Congress in the
Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill as well as any supplemental
appropriations and rescissions legislation enacted at a later date for that fiscal year. “Enacted” figures
for FY1999 and FY2000 are mostly taken from the conference report tables (H.Rept. 106-355).
b Amounts include obligations, limitations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.
c The across-the-board rescission mandated for FY2000 required a reduction of roughly $179 million
from the $50.174 billion provided in P.L. 106-69.
d FY2001 proposed funding figure is taken from budget tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations.
Coast Guard
[http://www.uscg.mil/]
The Coast Guard’s increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant
interdiction on the high seas and its aging fleet of water craft and aircraft are two concerns
associated with its funding. The Administration requested $4.608 billion for Coast Guard
discretionary funds in FY2001.2 Compared to the total $4.022 billion appropriated in
2 The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees.
(continued...)

---

CRS-7
FY2000, the FY2001 request represents a $586 million, or 15% increase. In approving
FY2001 funds on May 16, 2000, the House Appropriations Committee (H. Rept. 106-
622 ) recommended a total of $4.617 billion, an amount approved by the House on May
19, 2000. This amount was $7.9 million above the President’s request. On June 14, 2000,
the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $4.359 (S. Rept. 106-309), an amount
approved by Senate on June 15. Coast Guard programs are authorized every 2 years; see
CRS Report RS20117, Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001 Authorization Issues, for
discussion of current congressional consideration of authorization bills. For a more in depth
discussion of the Coast Guard’s budget, see CRS Report RS20600, Coast Guard:
FY2001 Budget Issues.
The Coast Guard budget request of $4.609 billion is proposed to enable the Coast
Guard to continue its activities against drug smuggling and recapitalize aircraft and vessel
fleets. Of this amount, $3.199 billion (a 15% increase compared to FY2000) would be
allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
units, and aids to navigation. The House approved $3.192 billion, $7 million less than
requested; the Senate, $3.040, $159 million less than requested. Another major
component of the request would assign funds for acquisition, construction, and
improvement purposes. For this component, the Administration sought $520 million, a
2 (...continued)
Because of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001
request will differ from the figures in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the
House Appropriations Committee budget tables. The appropriations committee adjusted total
for the Coast Guard request is $4.609 billion.

---

CRS-8
34% increase compared to FY2000 funds. The House passed $515 million, $5.2 million
less than requested; the Senate $407.8 million, $107 million less than the request. The
proposal sought, and the House and Senate approved, $17 million, roughly the current
level, for Coast Guard activities for environmental compliance and restoration. For
research, test, and evaluation, the plan requested and the Senate approved $21.3 million,
$3 million more than FY2000 funds; the House-approved amount of $19.7 million is $1.6
million less than requested. For Coast Guard retirement, the budget sought, and the House
and Senate approved, $778 million, $48 million more than the current level. The
Administration requested $73 million to train, support, and sustain a ready military Selected
Reserve Force of 7,600 members for direct support to the Department of Defense and to
provide surge capacity for responses to emergencies such as cleanup operations following
oil spills. The House and Senate approved $80.4 million, $7 million more than requested.
A prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a major planned
replacement of aging and outmoded high seas’ vessels and aircraft. Only planning and
analysis funds of about $45 million are requested for this in the FY2001 request; actual
purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002.
During hearings before the Coast Guard’s authorizing and appropriating subcommittees in
1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO) criticized the Coast Guard’s handling of this
vital replacement program. CRS Report 98-830F, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater
System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the issues associated with the
program. In approving FY2000 funds in P.L. 106-69, Congress specified that the Coast
Guard submit a comprehensive capital investment plan with its FY2001 budget
justification, a date not met by the Coast Guard. The House FY2001 bill includes language
requiring a capital investment plan covering 2002-2006 to be submitted with the FY2002
budget and specifies a recission of $100,000 per day if the due date is not met. The
Senate-passed bill would withhold FY2001 planning funds until the study is completed.
Another issue involves the Coast Guard’s planned use of user fees. The FY2001
budget anticipates using roughly $95 million from new user fees for recapitalization of
vessels, information management, and Coast Guard shore infrastructure not part of the
deepwater replacement effort. The Administration has proposed legislation to authorize
user fees for commercial cargo vessels and cruise ships; it anticipates collecting $212
million in FY2001 and $636 million annually when the fee system is fully operational. Past
proposals for user fees for traditional Coast Guard services, such as buoy placement and
vessel traffic regulation, have been controversial. Some have argued that these services
should be funded from general funds because of their widespread benefits; others think that
user fees should be assigned in instances where the beneficiaries can be clearly identified.
In passing FY2000 appropriations in P.L. 106-69 (H.R. 2084), Congress included bill
language prohibiting the Coast Guard from using any FY2000 funds “to plan, finalize, or
implement any regulation that would promulgate new user fees...” The FY2001 House-
and Senate-passed FY2001 bill continues this prohibition.

---

CRS-9
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
[http://www.fra.dot.gov]
The House and Senate-passed FY2001 appropriations bills (H.R. 4475) include
somewhat different funding for FRA. The House bill provides $689 million; the Senate bill
provides $705 million. Both the House and Senate bills include roughly $521 million for
Amtrak. Both bills also reject the Administration’s request for $468 million in RABA
funding for its expanded Intercity Passenger Service fund.
In the Senate, the floor debate included discussion of an amendment that would have
allowed states to use federal-aid highway funds for intercity passenger rail (see the
discussion at end of the FAA section).
During the debate in the House, two significant provisions were eliminated from the
points-of-order: one that would have allowed the use of Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ) or Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds for
intercity rail passenger vehicles and facilities; and a second provision that would have
increased the federal share for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards from 90%
to 100%.3
For FY2001, the Administration had requested $1.179 billion for FRA.4 This would
have been roughly a 60% increase over the FY2000 enacted level. This requested increase
reflected the impact of a new DOT initiative: the Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service
Program.
The most notable reduction from the FY2000 amount was a $50 million cut for
Amtrak. Amtrak issues are discussed in a separate section below.
Railroad Safety and Technology. The FRA is the primary federal agency that
promotes and regulates railroad safety. In the FY2000 budget, the Administration
requested about $95.5 million for the railroad safety program and all other administrative
and operating activities related to FRA staff and programs. Most of those funds were used
to pay for salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and
3 Although the 100% matching share provision was eliminated from H.R.4475, it was
included in the FY2000 emergency supplemental spending provisions included in the Military
Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-246).
4 The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees.
Because of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001
request will differ from the figures in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the
House Appropriations Committee budget tables. The Appropriations Committee total for the
Administration’s FRA request is $1.056 billion.

---

CRS-10
headquarters staff and for information systems monitoring the safety performance of the
industry.5 The conference agreement accompanying P.L. 106-69 specifies $94.3 million
for those expenses. For FY2001, the Administration is requesting $103.2 million for those
expenses. In H.R. 4475, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended $102.5
million for FRA’s safety and operations activities. In the Senate version of H.R. 4475, the
Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $99.4 million. The House and
Senate-passed bills retained the committee recommended levels.
The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994 and funding
authority for that program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs continue
using the authorities specified in federal railroad safety law already and with annual
appropriations. Subcommittees of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation
Committee and the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee held extensive
hearings during the 105th Congress on various railroad safety issues. Those deliberations
did not result in a consensus to enact a law that would have authorized continued funding
for the regulatory and safety compliance activities conducted by the FRA or change any
of the existing authorities used by that agency to promote railroad safety. A reauthorization
statute changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would most likely affect
budgets after FY2001.
The adequacy and effectiveness of FRA’s grade-crossing activities continue to be of
interest, especially after the March 1999 crash between an Amtrak train and a truck in
Bourbonnais, IL., which resulted in 11 deaths and more than 110 injuries. Relevant safety
issues include: How is FRA helping the states deal with the grade crossing safety
challenge? Is FRA’s FY2001 budget adequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional
reaction to those questions had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2000. The
FY2000 conference agreement increased funding for Operation Life- saver to $.95 million
and provided support for a national public service campaign to increase awareness to
crossing safety and trespass prevention. In its FY2001 budget, FRA is requesting
additional staff and funding to strengthen its grade crossing program and associated public
education activities. The House Report specified a total of $.95 million for Operation
Lifesaver activities for FY 2001. The Senate Report recommended $1.1 million.
5 Those funds also are used to conduct a variety of initiatives, including the Safety Assurance
and Compliance Program (SACP), the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), and
field inspections. SACP involves numerous partnerships forged by railroad management,
FRA personnel, and labor to improve safety and compliance with federal railroad safety
regulations. RSAC uses a consensus-based process involving hundreds of experts who work
together to formulate recommendations on new or revised safety regulations for FRA’s
consideration.

---

CRS-11
To support its safety program, the FRA conducts research and development (R&D)
on a diverse array of topics, including: fatigue of railroad employees, technologies to better
control train movements (positive train control), and track dynamics. For FY2000, the
FRA requested $21.8 million for railroad R&D. The conference agreement on P. L. 106-
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
69 specifies $22.5 million for the FY2000 R&D program. For FY2001, FRA is requesting
$26.8 million for railroad R&D activities. In H.R.4475, the House Committee on
Appropriations recommended $26.3 million for railroad R&D. The Senate Committee on
Appropriations recommended $24.7 million for railroad R&D. In the reports
accompanying the House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in the annual
conference report, the appropriations committees historically have allocated the railroad
R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety.
High Speed Rail R&D and Magnetic Levitation R&D. In FY2000, $27.1
million was made available for the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. The FRA
is requesting $22 million to continue this program in FY2001. In H.R. 4475, the House
Committee on Appropriations recommended $22 million for FRA’s high speed rail
program. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $24.9 million for
FRA’s high speed rail program. TEA21 authorizes $20 million of contract authority in
FY2000 to support the Magnetic Levitation (maglev) Transportation Technology
Deployment Program. For FY2001, TEA21 provides $25 million of contract authority for
continuation of the maglev program.

---

CRS-12
Amtrak
[http://www.amtrak.com]
The FY2000 budget authority for Amtrak was $571 million compared to $609
million in FY1999. Amtrak also had about $1.1 billion available in FY1999 from the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 for such things as new equipment and improved signaling and
track. Amtrak borrowed some of that $1.1 billion to cover operating expenses. The
Administration requested $521 million for Amtrak for FY2001. The House-passed
appropriations bill provides $521 million for Amtrak for FY2001. The Senate-passed bill
also provides $521 million for Amtrak for FY2001.
Federal financial operating assistance to Amtrak is prohibited after FY2002 (49
U.S.C. 24101 (a) (1999)). GAO and the DOT Inspector General (IG), at the request of
Congress, have evaluated Amtrak operations and outlook, and have reported to Congress
that they are not optimistic that Amtrak will be able to operate without federal financial
operating assistance after FY2002. In 1997, Congress created an independent national
commission, entitled the Amtrak Reform Council (Council), and assigned it several tasks
regarding Amtrak and the future of intercity rail passenger service. The Council submitted
its first annual report to Congress in January 2000. In that report, the Council stated that
“During the decade when the American economy and most of its transportation system
have expanded in an unprecedented manner, Amtrak’s ridership has remained virtually
unchanged . . . . The most notable accomplishment of intercity rail passenger service since
1970 is that it has simply managed to survive, albeit as a declining percentage of the total
transportation market.” The report contains suggestions for Amtrak. The report also
contains issues the Council intends to study during 2000.
In addition to federal financial operating assistance to Amtrak, the DOT IG estimates
that over the next several years, Amtrak will require $2.7 billion to $4 billion in federal
funds for new equipment and improvements to signaling and track. Some of these funds
would be used to upgrade track between Washington, DC, and New York City, the most
heavily traveled Amtrak route. Beyond this amount, the DOT IG estimates that Amtrak will
have additional, continuing requirements for federal funding for new equipment and
improvements to signaling and track for the foreseeable future.
Amtrak Reform Council. Amtrak Reform Council (Council) funding is presented
within the budget request, although the Council is an independent federal commission. The
budget authority for the Council was $750,000 in FY2000 compared to $450,000 in
FY1999. The Administration requested $1 million for FY2000. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $1 million for FY2001. However, during debate on the floor the
bill (H.R. 4475) was amended to provide only $450,000 for the Council for FY2001. The
Senate-passed bill recommends $495,000 for the Council for FY2001.
The Council was created in 1997 to perform an independent assessment of Amtrak’s
labor agreements, Amtrak’s progress in increasing employee productivity, and [any time
after December 2, 1999] Amtrak’s ability to operate without federal operating assistance
after September 30, 2002. Congress added other duties later. If the Council concludes

---

CRS-13
that Amtrak will require federal operating assistance after September 30, 2002, then
federal law requires the Council to submit to Congress an Amtrak reorganization plan;
requires Amtrak to submit to Congress an Amtrak liquidation plan; and states that
legislative action will be taken by the Senate.
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund. The Administration’s budget
proposal requested the establishment of a new grant program to aid Amtrak and intercity
rail passenger service, to be funded at $468 million in FY2001. The Administration
requested that the $468 million come from RABA funds associated with the highway trust
fund. These funds would have required a 100% match of state funds. The projects would
have to make a positive financial contribution to Amtrak and produce public benefits in
excess of public costs. Projects would have to be located on a current or potential future
intercity rail corridor. Funds were to go toward the acquisition of equipment, construction
of infrastructure improvements including acquisition of right-of-way, and planning and
design. Funds were to be used only for capital as defined by Generally Accepted
Accounting Principles (GAAP), thus excluding them from being used for maintenance of
equipment or track. The House-passed bill provides no funding for FY2001. The Senate-
passed bill also provides no funding for FY2001.
An amendment was offered from the floor to allow states to use their apportionments
from the highway trust fund (specifically, from the national highway system program, the
surface transportation program, and the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement
program) to pay for capital improvements for intercity passenger rail service. The argument
for this amendment was that the individual states were the best judges of their most urgent
transportation needs and should be given the flexibility to spend their available
transportation funds as they see fit. The arguments against this amendment were that the
repair and maintenance needs of the nation’s highway system were very great, therefore
none of the money available for that purpose should be allowed to be used for anything
else, and that expanding the spending criteria of these programs to include things other than
highways would constitute legislating in an appropriations bill. The amendment failed on a
point of order objection that the amendment was legislating in an appropriations bill; the
objection was upheld by a 52-46 vote.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov]
The Senate passed version of the FY2001 appropriations bill provides FHWA with
total budgetary resources, $30.7 billion, comparable to those found in the House passed
version of the bill, also $30.7 billion. Both House and Senate bills provide funding at levels
slightly above the $30.6 billion level found in the Administration proposal.
Programmatically, the House and Senate bills closely track the Administration proposals,
which are in turn governed by the provisions of TEA21. The limitation on obligation funding
level in both bills is an identical $29.7 billion. The House and Senate bills essentially ignore
an Administration request to redistribute a portion of FY2001 revenue aligned budget
authority (RABA) funds.

---

CRS-14
The FHWA portion of the appropriations bill has drawn little comment during floor
consideration of this legislation in either the House or the Senate. There is little by way of
controversy surrounding the FHWA budget. The possible exception to this statement is the
level of specific project earmarking for the Federal Lands Highway Program and the
Transportation and Community and System Preservation Pilot Program. The reports
accompanying both the Senate and House bills detail specific, and in some cases different,
project earmarks for both of these programs.
The Administration was proposing a total FHWA budget of $30.358 billion for
FY2001. In terms of the total FHWA budget, this represented an increase of just over 5%
from the FY2000 level. The obligational limitation, which supports most of the federal-aid
highway program, was set at $29.319 billion; funding for exempt programs (emergency
relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) was set at just over $1 billion. All of the
core FHWA funding programs received considerable increases in the context of the
program framework established by TEA21 (described later in this section).
The Administration was also proposing that only $2.31 billion of the available RABA
be assigned to highway programs. This meant that $741 million of RABA fund would have
been transferred within DOT agencies for mostly non-highway activities. In addition, the
Administration was proposing that specific programs within FHWA’s jurisdiction receive
designated distributions of RABA funds. For example, funding for Indian reservation roads
and highway tax fuel evasion projects would have increased to levels beyond those that
would be provided by TEA21. The proposal to change the distribution of RABA funds is
a controversial one. The Administration made a redistribution proposal in FY2000 that
was ultimately ignored by Congress. The Administration proposal for FY2001 is of a
different nature than last year’s request in that it does not provide a major shift of RABA
funds to transit.
A final issue likely to have arisen as a result of the Administration proposal was the
use of contract authority to fund a number of the proposed increases discussed above. The
net effect of this proposal was to potentially exceed the obligational limitation detailed in
TEA21. In other words, the Administration spending proposal appeared to exceed TEA21
authorized levels for some programs. Hence, either new authorizing legislation, with
concomitant increases in contract authority, would have been needed to accommodate the
new funding levels (an unlikely prospect at the moment) or some existing programs would
have seen spending reductions to accommodate the increased spending for favored
initiatives. Both of these scenarios were unpopular with highway interest groups and with
those Members who do not want to see the TEA21 framework changed.

---

CRS-15
In FY2000, the FHWA was provided with $28.8 billion in total budgetary resources.
This was a $2.0 billion plus increase over the FY1999 level. The FY2000 Appropriations
Act continued the dramatic growth in FHWA funding that has resulted from passage of
TEA21 in 1998. By way of comparison, funding for FY2000 was over $10 billion more
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations
than what was available in FY1995. A final adjustment to FY2000 FHWA spending was
a reduction of just over $105 million pursuant to the government wide rescission (P.L.
106-113) of 0.38% that occurred at the end of the first session.
The FY2000 Act largely followed the provisions of TEA21 in terms of overall funding
distribution (a discussion of the TEA21 program structure follows this section). The
principal change in the FY2000 Act was in the distribution of RABA funds for programs
under the direct control of the FHWA. These so called “allocated” funds go to programs
such as the Federal Lands Highway Program and the Highway Beautification Program.
The effect of the Act’s provisions was to transfer a significant portion of the RABA funds
designated for the allocated funds to core highway programs (surface transportation
program, national highway system program, etc.) for distribution to the states on a formula
basis. The other major change in the Act was a significant increase in the number of
specific projects and funding levels detailed in the legislation. This earmarking is a common
feature in other parts of the transportation appropriations Act, but had been absent from
the highway section of the Act for several years. H.R. 4475 also includes significant
earmarking for FY2001.
The 0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Provision. The Senate-passed
version of H.R. 4475 includes a provision that would reduce the amount of highway trust

---

CRS-16
funds that a state receives if it does not adopt and enforce a”0.08 blood alcohol
concentration (BAC)” law. Such a statute makes it illegal (by definition) to operate a motor
vehicle at or above a 0.08 BAC. Under the Senate provision, the DOT Secretary would
be required beginning in FY 2004 to withhold 5% of certain federal aid highway funds for
any state that has not yet adopted and enforced a 0.08 BAC law. Beginning in FY 2005,
that amount increases to 10%. The withheld funds would be reapportioned to a state if it
adopts and enforces a 0.08 BAC law within three years from the date that the funds were
initially withheld. Those supporting this approach often assert that the incentive specified
in TEA-21 (see section 163 (a) of chapter 1 of title 23of the U.S. Code), which provides
additional federal aid funds to those states that enact and enforce a 0.08 BAC law, has not
proven sufficient to encourage many additional states to implement the 0.08 BAC limit and
that stronger measures are needed. Those against the approach specified in the Senate bill
typically maintain that each state should determine its own traffic safety laws without federal
pressure or dictates. Some also argue that the weight of evidence documenting the
effectiveness of a 0.08 BAC law needs to be strengthened before the federal government
forces enactment of this measure on all states.
The TEA21 Funding Framework. TEA21 created the largest surface transportation
program in U.S. history. For the most part, however, it did not create new programs.
Rather, it continued most of the highway and transit programs that originated in its
immediate predecessor legislation, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240). Programmatically, TEA21 can be viewed as a
refinement and update of the ISTEA process. There are a few new funding initiatives in
TEA21, 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, 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 contract authority), the National
Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program, and several other small programs.

---

CRS-17
As discussed earlier, TEA21 provides a link between the highway generated
revenues that flow into the highway account and highway spending. The Act requires that
the Secretary of Transportation make an annual evaluation of revenues into the highway
account during the previous fiscal year vis-a-vis spending authorized within the highway
firewall for the new fiscal year. If revenues go up, program spending is increased.
Conversely, spending can go down if revenues go down. TEA21 specifies a formula to
determine the direction and amount of highway funding adjustment. Known as RABA, this
mechanism was employed beginning in FY2000.
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs. The
FHWA proposed increasing funding for various RD&T activities from $437.2 million in
FY2000 to $658.8 million in FY 2001. These funds were to be used primarily to advance
and deploy technologies intended to improve pavements, highway structures, roadway
safety, highway policies, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The largest requested
increases, in dollar amounts, were in FHWA’s Surface Transportation R&D and the
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs. More specifically, FHWA requested
increased funding for its surface transportation R&D program from $98 million in FY2000
to $138 million in FY2001. The Administration also requested $238 million for ITS
deployment, which is $120 million above the amount of contract authority specified in
TEA21. 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. The source of the proposed additional
funding was to be new contract authority that would be added to the contract authority
already authorized under TEA21. Because a legislative change to Title V of TEA21 would
have been required to add this additional contract authority, it was uncertain whether the
additional funding requested by FHWA for RD&T would be provided. In H.R. 4475, the
House Committee on Appropriations recommended $437.2 million, including $98 million
for surface research program and $118 million for ITS deployment, the amounts authorized
in TEA-21. The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended identical amounts.
The House and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 4475 provide for the committee
recommended levels.
An issue associated with the ITS deployment program is the earmarking of funds.
During the last few years, the appropriators have designated a substantial portion of the
incentive funds used to accelerate ITS deployment. For example, in FY1999 the
appropriators earmarked the entire deployment account by specifying which cities or states
would receive those funds and the amounts to be obligated. The conference agreement
accompanying P.L. 106-69 also earmarked the FY2000 deployment account. TEA21
also specifies several projects which are to receive some of the ITS deployment funds.
Some Members and proponents of ITS would prefer to have the deployment funds
competitively awarded. Numerous earmarks for ITS deployment projects are specified in
the FY 2001 House and Senate Reports.

---

CRS-18
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
Both the House and Senate-passed FY2001 appropriations bills (H.R. 4475)
provide $6.3 billion in total budgetary resources for FTA. This is essentially the TEA21
guaranteed level. The two versions of the bill agree on all major funding categories. This
funding level compares with an FY2000 appropriation of almost $5.8 billion.
For FY2001, the Administration proposal would have funded FTA programs at
nearly the same $6.3 billion level as the House and Senate, with much of the difference
being the addition of $75 million from RABA, mostly for the job access and reverse
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
commute program. Congress has rejected the Administration’s proposed use of some
RABA funding for transit.
In FY2000, most of the discussion on the budget submission focused on the Clinton
Administration’s proposal to divert a large chunk of RABA funding to transit. Congress
basically ignored this proposal and funded the program at the TEA21 transit guarantee
funding levels.
As mentioned above, the FY2000 Act provided a total of $5.8 billion for FTA.
Almost all FTA programs received funding increases. The transit appropriations shown in
Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase in funding for FY1999 to FY2000 and proposed
for FY2001, following the enactment of TEA21 in 1998. As Figure 4 shows, transit

---

CRS-19
funding under TEA21 reached its highest funding level to date in FY2000.6 The $ 6.3
billion (an 8.4% increase over FY2000), provided for FY2001 in the House and Senate-
passed versions of H.R. 4475, continues the impact of TEA21 on transit spending.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit programs: the
Major Capital Investment Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Program. There are
also several smaller formula and planning and research programs.
The Major Capital Investment Program (Section 5309—formerly known as Section
3) is comprised of three major components: new transit starts, fixed guide way
modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2001, the Clinton Administration
proposed funding of this program at $2.65 billion. This is slightly higher than the FY2000
level of $2.5 billion. These funds are allocated on a discretionary basis by FTA or
earmarked by Congress. The House and Senate-passed bills both provide $2.65 billion
for the program for FY2001.
The Administration FY2001 budget proposes that 12 new rail transit projects be
considered for full funding grant agreements. Rail transit project selection is always a
controversial exercise because there are more potential projects listed in TEA21 than can
be funded within the transit guaranteed funding level. The Senate report (S. Rept. 106-
309) language expresses the opinion that DOT should reassess its request for the 12 new
projects given the number of projects deemed eligible for funding under TEA21. The
House and Senate bills provide $1.058 billion for new starts.
The Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307—formerly known as Section
9) provides for the urbanized area capital and, in some cases, operating needs. These
activities include bus and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed guide way
modernization, new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For FY2001, the
Administration requested $3.45 billion, a slight increase over the $3.05 provided in
FY2000. These funds are apportioned on a complicated formula process based, in part,
on population and transit service data. The House and Senate-passed bills provide $3.45
billion for the Section 5307 program for FY2001.
Section 5307 contains several specific formula set asides: urbanized areas (areas with
populations of 50,000 or more), nonurbanized areas (less than 50,000), grants for elderly
and individuals with disabilities, clean fuels, and over-the-road bus accessibility. Slightly
less than 90% of the Administration FY2001 Section 5307 proposal is for urbanized areas
(urbanized areas over 1,000,000 population receive two-thirds of the funding; urbanized
areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive the remaining third) and just over 6% of
this is designated for nonurbanized areas.
TEA21 authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Grant Program. This
program provides transportation assistance for welfare recipients and low income persons
6 Pursuant to the government wide 0.38% rescission at the end of the 1st Session, FTA programs were
cut by $17.6 million from the level provided in the FY2000 Act.

---

CRS-20
to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administration proposed that this program
be funded at a level of $150 million in FY2001, with $50 million coming from redistributed
RABA funds. The House and Senate bills both rejected the use of $50 million in
redistributed RABA funds and provide $100 million for the program. The FY2000 funding
level for this program was $75 million, although the Administration had requested $150
million.
With the enactment of TEA21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas (UZAs) with 200,000 or more population. However, preventive
maintenance, previously eligible for funding from operating assistance, is now eligible under
an expanded capital grants formula program. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population,
including rural areas (under 50,000 population), can use all of the formula funds for either
capital or operating purposes.
The earmarking of transit projects could be an issue in conference, given the
differences in the report language of the House report (H. Rept. 106-622) which lists, for
example, dollar amounts for bus and bus facilities, and that of the Senate report (S. Rept.
106-309) which does not.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[http://www.faa.gov/]
Administration Request. For FY2001, the Administration proposed funding the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at $11.2 billion, which would have been $1.2
billion, or 12% more than was enacted last year. In FY2000, the agency was, for the first
time, funded in full from the airport and airway trust fund with no general fund support. The
Administration again proposed full funding from the trust fund, supplemented with $1.5
billion in new user fees not yet enacted. The issue of no general fund support for the FAA
is highly controversial, however. Historically, a significant portion of the agency’s budget
comes from general fund revenues, the rationale being that the public at large realizes some
benefit from aviation whether it uses the system or not.7
The Administration is again calling for the creation of a semiprivate air traffic control
system supported by fees on airlines but still under the jurisdiction of the federal
government. Specifically, the Administration wants Congress to replace the current excise
tax on airline passengers with a system in which the actual commercial users of air traffic
control services pay, based on the cost of those services. The FAA intends to use existing
authority to create a performance-based organization for air traffic control services headed
by a chief operating officer. Last year, the same structure drew opposition from airlines and
the general aviation lobby, which represents owners of small private planes. Such plans
7 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 John W. Fischer.

---

CRS-21
have been consistently rejected by Congress. The Administration’s proposal for Air Traffic
Control reform was outlined by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey in testimony before the
House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Aviation, on
March 1, 2000 [http://www.faa.gov/apa/testimony/2000/301tejg.htm].
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Primarily for salaries, the $6.6 billion
requested for operations was almost 12% more than last year’s appropriation and was to
cover mandatory cost increases and additional staffing. The increase included funding for
202 additional field maintenance staff and $129 million to maintain traffic control and
navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the modernization of the air traffic
control system. The request also was for funding 64 additional staff for air carrier and
aircraft certification and safety surveillance, and 94 additional staff to inspect hazardous
goods shipments and monitor the performance of airport security measures. An additional
$25 million was included for initiatives to protect FAA’s computer systems from criminal
intrusion, as part of a larger $91 million FAA-wide effort.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The $2.5 billion F&E request was 22% more
than the FY2000 appropriation and was to be used to improve and modernize the national
air space system infrastructure. The request includes:
! $1.1 billion for procurement and modernization of air traffic control
facilities.
! $614 million for engineering, development, test, and evaluation of
advanced systems. This account included $220 million for FAA’s Free
Flight program, which is a satellite-based air traffic management concept
intended to give pilots greater control over the routes they fly, saving
airlines fuel and time. Wide area augmentation, a key element of the
program, was zeroed out last year because of concerns that the
Administration had not adequately justified the program and was moving
too fast. The Administration requested $111 million for wide area
augmentation this year.
! $586 million for mission support, including systems engineering technical
support, contractor oversight of equipment installation, and expenses
related to FAA employees who manage and implement FAA projects.
! $202 million for procurement of facilities and equipment to support
missions other than air traffic control, including $97.5 million to continue
implementation of explosive detection devices.
Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D). The RE&D request of $184
million was 18% above the amount appropriated last year. It included $49 million for
continued research in aircraft structures and materials, and $49 million for explosive
detection and other security research. The remaining research funding provides for
improvements in weather information, resolution of environmental issues, human factors,
and support of the FAA laboratories.

---

CRS-22
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides
grants for airport development and planning. The President’s FY2001 budget proposes
AIP spending of $1.95 billion. This is the same level enacted in the FY2000 appropriations
bill (P.L. 106-69). However, for FY2000 AIP funding was reduced by $54.4 million as
part of the 0.38% across-the-board rescission required by P.L. 106-118.
FAIR21 (P.L. 106-181), which reauthorizes AIP, was signed into law by the
President on April 5, 2000. For FY2001, FAIR21 authorizes $3.2 billion, a 68 % increase
over FY2000, if AIP is funded at the fully authorized level. FAIR21 includes so-called
funding “guarantee”language that supporters believe will assure AIP funding at the fully
authorized level. The House-passed FY2001 appropriations bill, H.R. 4475, conforms
with the FAIR21 guarantee of $3.2 billion for AIP in FY2001. In the Senate version of
H.R. 4475, the bill’s conformance has been questioned because of a provision that allows
for $120 million of the $3.2 billion of AIP contract authority be made available for “air
traffic services to maintain aviation safety.”
If the provision is included in the enacted legislation, there could be programmatic
ramifications for the distribution of AIP grants. In FAIR21, most of the new funding
formulas are designed to adjust for the much larger amounts of money to be distributed and
have an AIP funding trigger level of $3.2 billion. If $3.2 billion is cut by the $120 million
transfer, the old funding formulas might remain in effect. If this happens, it could cause a
significant shift of monies away from formula program grants and a relative increase in the
monies available for discretionary grants.
Although neither the House report (H. Rept. 106-622) not the Senate report (S.
Rept. 106-309) earmark specific amounts of AIP discretionary funding to individual
airports, both bills “place-name” a large number of Airports and direct the FAA to
consider project grant applications at these airports as priority projects. Place-naming
could become an issue in conference, either because of the large number of airports place-
named, or because some conferees might wish to add specific dollar amounts to place-
named projects. Traditionally appropriations bills have not added specific dollar earmarks
to place-named airports.

Both the House and Senate-passed FY2001 appropriations bills (H.R. 4475) include
a rescission of $579 million in FY2000 contract authority made available in FAIR21. The
rescission will have no programmatic impact on the AIP funding available for FY2001 .

---

CRS-23
House Action on FY2001 FAA Appropriations. The House Appropriations
Committee reported H.R. 4475, the FY2001 DOT appropriations bill, on May 17, 2000
(H.Rept. 105-622). The measure passed the full House on May 19, 2000, with little
debate. Under the House bill, FAA funding will increase to $12.585 billion, which is about
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
$2.5 billion more than last year’s amount and $1.363 billion more than the Administration
request. Concerns that the operations account might have to be cut because it was not
protected by FAIR21 were unfounded, at least in the House bill.
The facilities and equipment account mark is $2.657 billion, roughly the same as
called for by FAIR21. This is an increase of $582 million over last year, and $162 million
more than the Administration request. Funding for the Airport Improvement Program is
increased to $3.2 billion. This is almost 70% more than was appropriated last year, and
in line with the increase called for by FAIR21. The operations account is raised to $6.544
billion, an increase of $644 million (11%) over this year’s level, but $48 million under the
Administration request. About 70% of the operations budget ($4.4 billion) is reportedly
drawn from the Aviation Trust Fund with the balance coming from the general fund. This
is roughly the ratio envisioned by FAIR21. The $184 million mark for FAA’s research,
engineering, and development program matches the Administration’s request, but does not
meet the FAIR21 authorized level of $237 million.
Senate Action on FY2001 FAA Appropriations. The Senate Appropriations
Committee reported H.R. 4475 on June 14, 2000 (S. Rept. 106-309), and the bill passed
unanimously on June 15, 2000. The Senate bill provides a total of $12.540 billion for the
FAA, including $6.470 billion (adjusted for the $120 million transfer from AIP) for
operations, $2.656 billion for facilities and equipment, $183 million for research,

---

CRS-24
engineering and development, and $3.2 billion (excluding the transfer to operations) for the
Airport Improvement Program.
While the total appropriation represents a substantial increase over last year’s
amount, the Senate mark for FAA operations is $120 million less than the Administration’s
request (the House mark is about $50 million under the request). An even larger shortfall
in the operations account was avoided when the Senate Appropriations Committee
redirected $120 million in airport grants to air traffic services. According to press accounts,
FAA Administrator Jane Garvey has said that the funding shortfall will prevent the agency
from hiring 170 more safety inspectors and medical certification staff, and result in 10,000
fewer safety inspections than last year. The Senate Appropriations Committee has
indicated that the budget pinch in the operations account is due in part to FAA’s “failure
to manage its workforce.” The situation, it said, “will necessitate a comprehensive
reevaluation of the agency’s approach to operational functions.” (S. Rept. 106-309, p.
46.)
Impact of FAIR21 on the FAA FY2001 Budget. The recently enacted FAA
reauthorization act, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (FAIR21, P.L. 106-181), will have a significant impact on the DOT budget and
appropriations debate for FY2001. This is because the so-called funding “guarantees” and
point-of-order enforcement provisions in the Act make it more difficult than in previous
years for appropriators to fund the FAA below the authorized level. Funding at the fully
authorized level of $12.7 billion would exceed the Administration’s request by $1.5 billion
(13% higher) and would be $2.7 billion above (17% higher) the FY2000 enacted level.
The funding guarantee enforcement provisions require that all annual aviation trust
fund revenues be spent on aviation and that the AIP and F&E accounts must be fully
funded at the authorized level before any legislation to fund the O&M or RE&D accounts
can be considered (See introductory section for a more detailed explanation). This
arrangement provides the capital portions of the FAA budget, AIP and F&E, with stronger
procedural protection from reductions during the appropriations process. However, by
implication it may leave the O&M and RE&D budgets more at risk from reductions which
might otherwise have been made agency-wide. The assumption by supporters of FAIR21
is that, because the O&M account is mostly for salaries for air traffic controllers and other
safety-related personnel, it is a difficult target for “budget hawks” to cut. Therefore, by
protecting AIP and F&E, FAIR21 leaves the more difficult targets available for cuts.
FAIR21 authorizes the O&M budget at $6.592 billion, the same as the
Administration request. AIP is authorized at $3.2 billion, F&E at $2.657 billion, and
RE&D at $237 million. The levels for these three accounts are all significantly higher than
the amounts requested by the Administration.
Aviation trust fund revenues alone will not sustain the level of funding called for by
FAIR21. To be fully funded at FAIR21 authorized levels, resources must be appropriated
from the general fund. For FY 2001, trust fund revenues are projected to be $10.6 billion.
AIP and F&E must be fully funded first, at $5.9 billion. This leaves a balance of $4.7
billion of the year’s trust fund revenues to fund FAA’s O&M and RE&D accounts. This

---

CRS-25
balance is roughly $2.1 billion below both the Administration request and the FAIR21 level
of approximately $6.8 billion for those accounts. The $2.1 billion difference could be dealt
with by: providing funding from the general fund; cutting from the unprotected budget
accounts, O&M and FE&D; drawing down unexpended trust fund balances; or a
combination of the three.
The FAA’s FY2000 budget relied solely on aviation trust fund revenues. FAIR21
clearly assumes that general fund revenues will be appropriated. For FY2001 the
Administration has again proposed funding FAA entirely from the aviation trust fund with
the aid of a proposed new user fee. Some members of the House and Senate would also
prefer to make the FAA’s budget self-sustaining.
The House-passed appropriations bill (H.R. 4475), by fully funding AIP and F&E,
conforms with the FAIR21 requirements. By providing for $2.14 billion from the general
fund, the bill makes only a modest reduction in the O&M budget request. The Senate-
passed version (H.R. 4475 as amended by S. 2720), as discussed in the Grants-in-Aid
to Airports discussion, may not conform to FAIR21 because of a provision that allows for
$120 million of AIP contract authority to be used for air traffic services. If this is
interpreted as cutting the $3.2 billion level “guaranteed” for AIP, some would argue that
the Senate bill does not conform to FAIR21.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
For FY2001, RSPA requested $99.2 million in budget authority, compared to $83
million provided in FY2000.8 Most of RSPA’s budget is allocated to activities seeking to
promote transportation safety. For pipeline safety, RSPA was seeking $47.1 million, an
increase of $10.5 million over FY2000; and for hazardous materials transportation safety,
the agency requested $18.8 million, an increase of $1.1 million over FY2000. In H.R.
4475, the House Committee on Appropriations recommended $76.789 million for RSPA,
including $18.773 million for the hazardous materials transportation program. For the
pipeline safety program, the Committee recommended $40.137million. The Senate
Committee on Appropriations recommended $75.214 million for RSPA, including
$18.620 million for the hazardous materials transportation program. For the pipeline safety
program, the Committee recommended $43.144 million, including $2.5 million to be drawn
8 The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees.
Because of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001
request will differ from the figures in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the
House Appropriations Committee budget tables. The appropriations committee tables put the
Administration’s RSPA request at $85 million. Of the Administration’s $99 million figure, $14
million is linked to a legislative proposal for a user fee to finance hazardous materials safety
activity that requires authorizing legislation. Under current law, the emergency preparedness
grants are funded by permanent appropriations.

---

CRS-26
down from the reserve in the Pipeline Safety Fund. The House and Senate-passed bills
adhered to their committee report recommendations.
RSPA’s budget request included several proposed enhancements of existing
programs and some new initiatives. For example, RSPA was seeking to increase funding
for: state efforts to prevent damage to underground facilities, including gas and liquid
pipelines, by outside forces (e.g., by a construction crew), grants to support state efforts
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration Appropriations
to improve pipeline safety, and its Office of Emergency Transportation. RSPA also is
seeking to initiate a new R&D program on transportation infrastructure assurance, and to
obtain funding for the proposed University Marine Transportation Research Program. The
House Committee approved increased funding for each of these initiatives, except funds
for the proposed university marine research program were not approved.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established as a separate
organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. The agency’s
responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for automotive equipment,
serving as a clearing house and information source for drivers, identifying and studying
emerging safety problems, and encouraging state governments to enact laws and implement
programs (through safety grants) to reduce drunk driving and to encourage the use of
safety devices. Once again, the Administration has emphasized that, “Improving

---

CRS-27
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; reduce the likelihood of child automobile trunk entrapment;
enhance infant and child safety in vehicle crashes; and explore transportation options and
safety programs for an aging population. In their respective appropriations committee
reports, the House and Senate have suggested that they also share a concern for these
NHTSA initiatives.
For FY2001, the NHTSA requested an appropriation of $499 million, approximately
a 37 percent increase over the enacted amount for FY2000. In its submittal, the agency
requested an infusion of $70 million from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA).
Both the Senate and the House, however, denied the agency’s proposal to transfer RABA
money from highway projects to safety programs.
The House-passed legislation (H.R.4475) provides $395 million total budgetary
resources for NHTSA, a significantly smaller amount than requested, but still an increase
of 7 percent over the FY2000 enactment of $368 million. The Senate-passed funding
legislation likewise provided total resources of $395, reducing the chance for debate during
the conference on NHTSA funding.
More specific program areas and their recommended amounts include the following:
! Operations and Research: Administration request – $286 million total;
House-passed legislation provides – $182 million; Senate-passed
legislation – $182
! Highway Traffic Safety Grants (Highway Trust Fund): Administration
Request – $213 million (obligation limitation) total. House-passed
legislation (no change from requested amount) – $213 million, distributed
to the following programs: $155 million for State and Community
Highway Safety Grants; $36 million for Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Incentive Grants; $13 million for Occupant Protection
Incentive Grants; and $9 million for State Highway Safety Data Grants.
The Senate-passed legislation also provides $213 million for the Traffic
Safety Grants initiative, using the same general breakdown, by program.

---

CRS-28
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.9 This agency became operational on January 1, 2000, and
assumed the responsibilities and personnel of DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety.10
FMCSA issues and enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which govern
the operation and maintenance of commercial truck and bus operations and specify
requirements for commercial drivers. Most of the funds used to conduct FMCSA activities
are derived from the federal highway trust fund. The FY2001 budget request for FMCSA
administrative expenses and operations was $82.6 million, which is a $12.1 million increase
compared to the FY2000 appropriated level of $70.5 million. FMCSA also conducts a
research program that is intended to improve the truck and bus safety regulations and
associated safety and compliance activities conducted by both federal and state
enforcement officers. During FY2000, the appropriation for the motor carrier research
program was $6.4 million. The FY2001 request was $9.6 million. In H.R. 4475, the
House Committee on Appropriations recommended $92.2 million for the administrative
expenses of the FMCSA, including $8.7 million for research. The bill passed in the House
9 During various hearings held in the first session of the 106th Congress, a variety of
organizations, including DOT’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and many
industry associations raised numerous concerns regarding the effectiveness of the federal
truck and bus safety program. In response to these concerns, Congress created the FMCSA.
10 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-29
with no change to the recommended numbers. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4475
included the Senate Committee on Appropriations recommendation of $92.2 million for
the administrative expenses of the FMCSA, including $9.85 million for research.
During the conference on the House and Senate-passed bills, conferees will address
a provision in the Senate-passed version of H.R. 4475 that prohibits the Department from
spending funds to consider, adopt or enforce any proposed rule or proposed amendment
to the existing hours of service regulation that governs the driving and work hours of
commercial drivers. The House-passed bill does not include such a provision. During
recent administrative hearings held by FMCSA, numerous groups representing various
aspects of the motor carrier community raised a wide variety of concerns or objections to
DOT’s proposal. Strong support for FMCSA’s proposal was limited.
In addition to the funds used to conduct its motor carrier safety program, FMCSA’s
budget request includes funds for Motor Carrier Safety Grants and information systems,
which are proposed to increase from $105 million in FY 2000 to at least $187 million in
FY 2001.11 Most of that additional increase will come from the increase in grant funding
authorized in the MCSIA. Additional funds are proposed to be diverted from the RABA
to support a $10 million request for activities to improve the Commercial Driver’s
Licensing Program. The House Committee on Appropriations recommended $177 million
for the Motor Carrier Safety Grants and information systems, but it did not approve the
$10 million to be transferred from other RABA sources. The Senate Committee took
identical action.
Several congressional committees are conducting oversight on DOT’s implementation
of P.L. 106-159. Interest is likely to focus on the amount of resources and number of
personnel that FMCSA has requested to conduct its responsibilities as specified under the
MCSIA, as well as the plans of the FMCSA to implement recommendations of the
General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the DOT. The Appropriations
Committees are expected to decide the amount of funding to support FMCSA operations
as well as whether to increase the research and development program for motor carrier
safety as requested by the FMCSA.
11 The expected distribution from RABA, as specified under current law, may increase the
contract authority amount for the motor carrier safety grant program by roughly $16.3 million
during FY2001.

---

CRS-30
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add) a
Final FY2000
FY2001
Conference
Agency
House Passed
Senate Passed
FY2001 Enacted
Enacted b
Request
Report
FHWA
28,802
30,358
30,701
30,701
–
–
(Limitation on Obligations)
27,701
29,319
29,662
29,662
–
–
(Exempt Obligations)
1,207
1,040
1,040
1,040
–
–
NHTSA.
368
499
395
395
–
–
FRA
f 735
1,056
689
705
–
–
Amtrak (total)
571
521
521
521
–
–
Amtrak Reform Council
0.75
1
0.450
0.495
–
–
FTA
5,785
6,321
6,271
6,271
–
–
Formula Grants, (Capital, Plan.., &
620
669
669
669
–
–
Limited Operating) (general funds)
Formula Grants, (Capital & Plan.)
2,478
2,676
2,676
2,676
–
–
(trust funds)
Capital Investment (general funds)
490
529
529
529
–
–
Capital Investment (trust funds)
1,967
2,117
2,117
2,117
–
–
FAA
c 10,027
11,222
12,585
c 12,390
–
–
Operations (trust fund &
5,900
6,592
6,544
c 6,350
–
–
general fund)
(+120 transfer)
Facilities & Equipment (F&E) (trust
c 2,075
2,495
2,657
2,657
–
–
fund)
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP) (trust
1,896
1,950
c 3,200
c 3,200
–
–
fund) (limitation on obligations)
(-120 transfer)
Research, Engineering, & Developmt
156
184
184
183
–
–
(RE&D) (trust fund)
USCGd
4,022
4,609
4,617
4,359
–
–
Operating Expenses
2,781
3,199
3,192
3,039
–
–
Acquisition, Construction, &
389
520
515
408
–
–
Improvements
St. Lawrence Seaway
12
13
13
12
–
–
OIG
45
48
e53
e 49
–
–
RSPA
68
g85
77
75
–
–
OST
f 76
88
78
76
–
–
Essential Air Service (trust fund)
50
50
50
50
–
–
STBg
17
17
17
16
–
–
NTSB (Budg Auth)
57
j 53
63
59
–
–
FMCSA
150
279
269
269
–
–
Budgetary Resources
–
–
Grand Totalh
50,027
54,630
55,239
i 54,767

---

CRS-31
Sources and notes:
a Unless otherwise noted, figures in Table 3 were taken from tables provided to CRS by the House Committee on Appropriations.
Numbers within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding
actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
b FY2000 budget reductions pursuant to the government wide rescission (P.L. 106-113) that were too small to be reflected in the FY2000
column in T a b l e 3 are as follows: Federal Railroad Administration, $-179,000; Transit Planning and Research, -$243,000; Coast Guard
alteration of bridges, -$57,000; and environmental compliance and restoration, -$65,000; Saint Laurence Seaway, -$46,000; OIG, -
$170,000; STB, -$58,000; and Office of the Secretary, -$28,000.
c The Senate-passed FY2001 bill includes provision for a transfer from AIP to Operations of $120 million “if necessary to maintain
aviation safety.” The Senate and House bills for FY2001 also provide for a rescission of $579 million of FY2000 AIP contract authority.
The FY2000 Facilities and Equipment appropriation included a rescission of $30 million of FY1998 budget authority. These rescissions
have no impact on the budgetary resources available for FAA programs for FY2001 and are not subtracted from the FAA totals. The
supplemental appropriations act of 2001 (P.L. 106-246) added $75 million to the FY2000 O&M budget.

d In general, the Coast Guard total budgetary resources includes substantial funding from the Department of Defense and from
emergency supplemental appropriations. For more detail, see CRS report RL30246, Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget. For
FY2000, Congress appropriated an additional $200 million as emergency funding contingent on an official budget request being made.
Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation could be interpreted as being $4.224 billion. FY2001 figures are budget authority.
e The House figure includes $4.5 million in transfers from other agencies. The Senate passed figure includes $38.5 million by transfer.
f $5 million in offsetting collections from a proposed fee to finance hazardous materials transportation safety activities would increase
the total funding to $104 million.
g Includes Surface Transportation Board estimated offsetting collections for FY2000 and estimated collections for FY2001.
hThe DOT and related agencies appropriations 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.
I This figure is taken from the table in S. Rept. 106-309. The House Committee on Appropriations total for the Senate version of H.R.
4475 is $54.785 billion. The difference appears to emerge from the score keeping sections of the tables.
J The Administration proposed that an additional $10 million be raised from user fees. P.L. 106-246, the emergency supplemental
appropriations act provided $19.7 to cover expenses connected with the Egypt Air 990 and Alaska Air 261 accidents.

---

CRS-32
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 106th Congress, coordinated
by Glen Moore.
CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization
Issues, by Paul F. Rothberg and Anthony J. Solury.
CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÉ Up
to Standards?, by Rob Bamberger.
CRS Reports
CRS Report 98-749 E. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
and the Federal Budget, by John W. Fischer.
CRS Report RL30096. Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Legislation
in the 106th Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RS20176. Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization and the 106th
Congress, by Stephen Thompson.
CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress,
by John W. Fischer.
CRS Report RL30068. Automobile Air Bags: Current Issues Associated With New
Technology, by Duane A. Thompson and John R. Justus.
CRS Report 98-890 STM. Federal Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century: Analysis and Oversight Issues, by Paul F.
Rothberg and Anthony J. Solury.
CRS Report 98-63E. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment, by John W.
Fischer.
CRS Report 98-646 ENR. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L.
105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions, by David M.
Bearden.
CRS Report RL30246. Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget, by Martin Lee.

---

CRS-33
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget Site
[http://www.dot.gov/ost/budget/]
Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/]
House Appropriations Committee
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Interactive Budget Web Site
[http://ibert.org/civix.html]
Maritime Administration (financial reports)
[http://marad.dot.gov/finstatm.htm]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html]
Office of Management and Budget
[http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html]
Senate Appropriations Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]

---