Order Code RL31308
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
June 17, 2002
David Randall Peterman and John Frittelli
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current
program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Subcommittees on
Transportation of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.sht
ml].

---

Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Summary
President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget on February 4, 2002. For the
FY2003 Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies budget, the
President requested $56.1 billion. This represents a decrease of 6% from the $59.6
billion FY2002 enacted total.
The events of September 11, 2001 had a significant impact on DOT’s budget in
FY2002 and likely will in FY2003. The DOT received an extra $1.8 billion in
FY2002 in an emergency supplemental bill passed on September 14th, and there is
another emergency supplemental bill pending in Congress that would add $6.7 billion
to DOT’s FY2002 budget (for details on the transportation portion of the emergency
supplemental request, see CRS Report RL31406, Supplemental Appropriations for
FY2002). Also, an entirely new agency was created within the DOT, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA).
While the FY2003 request is modestly down from the FY2002 enacted amount,
the funding levels of some DOT agencies vary widely from their FY2002 levels.
Most notably, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) budget would drop by
25% to $24.7 billion. Conversely, the new TSA would see its budget rise from $1.3
billion in FY2002 to $4.8 billion in FY2003, a 270% increase. The Coast Guard’s
budget would also grow significantly, from $5.0 billion to $5.9 billion (18%).
The abrupt change in FHWA funding from FY2002 to FY2003–from $33
billion to $25 billion–caused a stir. It was mandated by the Revenue-Aligned Budget
Authority (RABA) provision in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA21) that ties annual highway funding levels to trust fund revenues. There is
wide support for restoring FY2003 funding to the level guaranteed in TEA21 ($27.7
billion); some advocate providing an amount closer to the FY2002 enacted level.
Other significant budget issues facing Congress are the increasing costs of the
TSA and Amtrak. As the scale of the TSA’s responsibilities becomes clearer, its
costs are rising: from $1.3 billion in the FY2002 Appropriation Act to $4.8 billion
requested for FY2003, with $4.4 billion requested in the pending supplemental bill.
Some in Congress have expressed concern with the rising costs and lack of detailed
plans for the money. In recent months it has become clear that the TSA will not be
self-supporting, even with the revenues from two fees Congress authorized. In
FY1998, Congress authorized about $1 billion annually for Amtrak through FY2002,
with the provision that by FY2003 Amtrak would no longer require federal funds for
its operating expenses. While Congress appropriated only about half that amount
over that period, it funded what the President’s budget requested. After saying for
several years that it would be operationally self-sufficient by FY2003, Amtrak now
says it needs at least $1.2 billion in FY2003, up from $521 million in FY2002. The
Amtrak Reform Council submitted a passenger rail restructuring plan to the Congress
in February 2002, but it appears that the Congress will appropriate funds for FY2003
to Amtrak and put off any restructuring efforts until 2003.

---

Key Policy Staff
CRS
Area of Expertise
Name
Telephone
Division
Bob Kirk,
RSI
7-7769
Airport Improvement Program
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Amtrak
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Aviation Safety
Duane Thompson
RSI
7-7252
Federal Aviation Administration
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Bob Kirk
RSI
7-7769
Federal Highway Administration
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Federal Railroad Administration
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Federal Transit Administration
Randy Peterman
RSI
7-3267
Highway, Railroad, & Truck Safety
Paul Rothberg
RSI
7-7012
Surface Transportation Board
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
Transportation Infrastructure Policy
John Fischer
RSI
7-7766
Transportation Security
John Frittelli
RSI
7-7033
U.S. Coast Guard
Martin Lee
RSI
7-7260
Automobile and Traffic Safety
Duane Thompson
RSI
7-7252
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issue Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
RABA and Highway Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget . . . . 5
Amtrak Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Railroad Safety and Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 15
The TEA21 Funding Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T)
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
FTA Program Structure and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309) . . 19
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Other Transit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Essential Air Service (EAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Operations and Research (O&R) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Highway Traffic Safety Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
NHTSA Program Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Administrative and Research Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Grants to States and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Border Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations . . . 25
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2003 . . . 3
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs . . . 28

---

Appropriations for FY2003: Transportation
and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his budget proposal for
FY2003. The proposed FY2003 budget for the Department of Transportation (DOT)
is roughly $56.1 billion, a decrease of $3.5 billion (6%) from the FY2002 enacted
total. This decrease was primarily due to a decline in Highway Trust Fund revenues
during 2002, which triggered an automatic reduction in highway spending for
FY2003 of $4.4 billion.
On March 21, 2002, President Bush submitted an emergency supplemental
budget request to Congress for $27.1 billion; $6.7 billion of which was for the DOT.
The largest items were $4.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) for explosives detection equipment and screeners and $1.8 billion for the
Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Grants Program for rebuilding sections of
the Manhattan transit system damaged by the September 11th attack. Other items
included $255 million for the Coast Guard, $167 million for the Federal Highway
Administration, $100 million for the Federal Aviation Administration, $19 million
for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Border Enforcement
Program, and $3.5 million for the Research and Special Project Administration.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush submitted a proposal for a new Department
of Homeland Security. It would involve transferring the Coast Guard and the TSA
from the DOT to the proposed new agency, along with elements of other existing
federal agencies. These two agencies represent 19% of the DOT’s total budget, and
40% of its discretionary budget (generally, those activities funded out of the general
fund rather than trust funds), for FY2003.
The Transportation Appropriations Framework
Transportation is function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. It is
also considered part of the discretionary budget. Funding for the DOT budget is
derived from a number of sources. The majority of funding comes from dedicated
transportation trust funds. The remainder of DOT funding is from federal Treasury
general funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, which
contains two accounts, the highway trust account and the transit account; the airport
and airway trust fund; and the inland waterways trust fund. All of these accounts
derive their respective funding from specific excise and other taxes.
In FY2002 trust funds accounted for well over two-thirds of total federal
transportation spending. Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest

---

CRS-2
component of DOT appropriations. Most highway and transit programs are funded
with contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This is very
significant from a budgeting standpoint. Contract authority is tantamount to, but
does not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at some future
date. Under this arrangement, specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds are
automatically made available at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be
obligated without appropriations legislation; although appropriations are required to
make outlays at some future date to cover these obligations.
Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual
appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite
situation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control
already exists, and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs also is in
place.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the
relationships between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178) linked
annual spending for highway programs directly to revenue collections for the
highway trust fund. In addition, core highway and mass transit program funding was
given special status in the discretionary portion of the federal budget by virtue of the
creation of two new budget categories. The Act thereby created a virtual “firewall”
around highway and transit spending programs. The funding guarantees were set up
in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered as part of the annual
budget/appropriations process. Additional highway funds can be provided annually
by a mechanism called “Revenue Aligned Budget Authority” (RABA); RABA funds
accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased trust fund revenues. For FY2003,
however, it now appears that the RABA adjustment will lead to a significant and
unexpected drop in the availability of highway obligational funding.
TEA21 changed the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.
The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an
annual level of obligations. These were established by TEA21 and adjusted by an
annual RABA adjustment. In addition, it appears that TEA21 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
core programs or projects. In the FY2000 appropriations act, the appropriators took
some tentative steps to regain some of their discretion over highway spending. The
FY2000 Act called for the redistribution of some funds among programs and added
two significant spending projects. In the FY2001 appropriations act, the appropriators
continued in this vein by adding funds for large numbers of earmarked projects.
Further, the FY2001 Act called for redirection of a limited amount of funding
between programs and includes significant additional funding for some TEA21
programs. This trend continued, and even accelerated, in the FY2002 Act as
appropriators made major redistributions of RABA funds and, in some instances,

---

CRS-3
transferred RABA funds to agencies that are not eligible for RABA funding from
TEA21.
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called “guarantee” for Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation
spending, however, is significantly different from that provided by TEA21. Instead
of creating new budget categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two
point-of-order rules for the House and the Senate. Supporters of FAIR21 believe the
new law requires significant new spending on aviation programs; and, for at least the
FY2001 and FY2002 appropriations cycles, spending grew significantly. Most
observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being somewhat weaker than
those provided by TEA21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive points-of-order
during consideration of legislation.
Enactment of TEA21 and FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have
total control over spending only for the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad
Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of
these agencies are concerned about their funding prospects in any year where it is
believed that there is a constrained budgetary environment.
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for
FY2003
Subcommittee
Conference
Markup
Report Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House
Senate
Law
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
Key Policy Issues
Issue Overview
With release of the Bush Administration’s FY2003 budget proposal on February
4, 2002, the budget debate begins in earnest. In proposing a Department of
Transportation (DOT) budget of roughly $56.1 billion the Administration is
proposing a level of spending about 6% below FY2002's enacted level of $59.6
billion.1 The FY2003 budget includes a $4.4 billion reduction in highway funding
1 This report relies on figures from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations. Because of differing treatment of offsets, rescissions, and the structure of
DOT appropriations bills, the totals will at times vary from those provided by the
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
required by the provisions of the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority mechanism
created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21; P.L. 105-178).
The budget request is in conformance with the basic outline of both TEA21, which
authorizes spending on highways and transit, and the aviation funding authorized in
the Wendell Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act of the 21st Century (FAIR21
or AIR21; P.L. 106-181).
The FY2003 budget proposal continues trends of the past couple of years, with
proposed increases for the Coast Guard (18%) and Federal Transit Administration
(FTA, 5%), and decreases for the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA, down
11%). The big changes in the FY2003 DOT budget are the reduction in highway
funding and the presence of the TSA.
The events of September 11, 2001 had a significant impact on the DOT’s budget
in FY2002 and likely will in FY2003. The DOT received an additional $1.8 billion
for FY2002 through an emergency supplemental bill passed on September 14th,2 and
there is another emergency supplemental bill pending in Congress that would add an
extra $6.7 billion to the DOT’s FY2002 budget.3 In addition, an entirely new agency
was created within the DOT, the TSA, due to concerns about security.
RABA and Highway Funding. TEA21 created a mechanism called
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which was intended to prevent
revenues from accumulating in the Highway Trust Account. While TEA21 set
guaranteed spending levels for the highway program through FY2003, based on
forecast of future Highway Trust Account revenues, RABA allowed the highway
spending level to increase automatically if Highway Trust Account revenues
exceeded the forecasts. It also provided that the highway spending levels would be
reduced if revenues fell below the forecasts.
For several years, the RABA adjustment mechanism provided windfall gains for
highway funding: increases of $1.5 billion in FY2000, $3 billion in FY2001, and
$4.5 billion in FY2002 over the guaranteed funding levels. However, the recession
of 2001 slowed receipts into the Highway Trust Account, and in January 2002 it
became clear that revenues had dropped below the forecast levels. The result was an
automatic cut in the FY2003 highway program funding level of $4.4 billion. The
1 (...continued)
Administration. The DOT appropriations bills do not fund the Maritime Administration, but
do fund some smaller entities that are not included in the DOT budget, i.e, the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the National Transportation Safety
Board.
2 H.R. 2888, became Public Law 107-38 on September 18th. This bill appropriated $40
billion, available in three parts; $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
immediately (i.e. during FY2001); $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
15 days after he notified the Congress how he would use the funds; and the remaining $20
billion was allocated in a separate title of the FY2002 Defense Department Appropriations
bill (P.L. 107-117). Except where otherwise noted, the figures in this report do not include
the $1.8 billion in supplemental appropriations received by the DOT in FY2002.
3 H.R. 4775.

---

CRS-5
impact of this cut was magnified by the RABA boost to FY2002 highway funding of
$4.5 billion over the guaranteed level. This meant that RABA, by giving a $4.5
billion “bonus” in FY2002 and a $4.4 billion cut in FY2003, created an $8.4 billion
difference between FY2002 highway funding and FY2003 funding (for more
information, see CRS Report RS21164, Highway Finance: RABA’s Double-edged
Sword, March 5, 2002).
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget. The
TSA was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)(P.L. 107-
71) in November 2002 in response to concerns about the security of aviation and
other transportation systems. Congress required the TSA to assume responsibility
for screening passengers and checked baggage at airports, and to hire screeners and
purchase equipment to carry out this task, by the end of calendar year 2002. Initial
estimates were that the TSA would need to hire around 25,000-30,000 screeners to
do this, giving it a total workforce of 35,000-40,000 people. However, this estimate
was based on the existing number of screeners, and overlooked the impact of other
ATSA requirements, such as the screening of checked baggage; this was virtually
non-existent before September 11th, so there were no precise estimates of the total
workforce this would require. As the scale of that task has become clearer, estimates
are that the TSA will need another 25,000 or so screeners to screen checked baggage,
increasing estimates of TSA’s total workforce to as many as 70,000 people. Some
members of Congress have expressed concern about the TSA growing to such a size.
The TSA was appropriated $1.3 billion in FY2002; its FY2003 request is $4.8
billion–though that request is based on 41,300 full-time employees. The TSA also
has a request for $4.4 billion in the pending emergency supplemental bill. Some
members of Congress have questioned the amounts being requested, and criticized
the lack of detail about how the money would be used. At the same time, the TSA
is under pressure to hire and train as many as 50,000-60,000 screeners, and to
purchase and install thousands of baggage-screening devices at 429 airports, by
December 31, 2002.
When it created the TSA, Congress gave it the power to levy two fees, a fee on
passengers and one on airlines. The expectation, at least on the part of some in
Congress, was that these fees would provide enough revenue to cover the TSA’s
annual budget requirements. However, while the DOT estimates that these two fees
will bring in around $2.2 billion each year, the TSA’s budget request for FY2003 is
$4.8 billion. Revenue from fees will not come close to covering the TSA’s annual
budget.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush proposed the creation of a new federal agency,
a Department of Homeland Security. One of organizations which would be
transferred to this proposed new agency is the TSA. The budget implications of this
proposal are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request represents 9% of the DOT’s
total budget request; the portion of the TSA’s budget request that exceeds their
offsetting collections, $2.5 billion, is 12% of the discretionary portion ($20.7 billion)
of the DOT’s budget.

---

CRS-6
Amtrak Funding. Amtrak’s authorization expires at the end of FY2002; its
last authorizing act (the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, P.L. 105-
134) provided that if Amtrak were not able to cover its operating expenses without
federal assistance (as opposed to its capital expenses), Congress would consider
reorganizing Amtrak. It also provided that Amtrak should not receive any federal
assistance for its operating expenses after FY2002. Although over the last few years
Amtrak repeatedly said it was on a glide-path to meet that requirement, it is now
clear that it will not. The Amtrak Reform Council declared in November 2001 that
Amtrak would not meet that requirement; in February 2002 they submitted to
Congress their proposal for restructuring the passenger rail system. Amtrak’s former
president, George Warrington, told Congress in February 2002 that Amtrak would
require at least $1.2 billion in FY2003 (compared to $521 million in FY2002) just
to maintain its status quo; otherwise it would have to cancel all its long-distance
routes. The Inspector General of the Department of Transportation told Congress in
February 2002 that Amtrak would not make it to the end of the current fiscal year
without additional funding; in June 2002 Amtrak’s new president, David Gunn, said
that Amtrak needed $200 million to make it to the next fiscal year, which he hoped
to obtain through a commercial loan.
So far in 2002 Amtrak has laid off about 1,000 employees to save money; its
president, George Warrington, resigned to take another job; several Amtrak trains
were involved in accidents which damaged railroad cars, exacerbating Amtrak’s
equipment shortages; and the Federal Railroad Administration put Amtrak on a safety
watch because of a number of safety violations (unrelated to the accidents). Three
Amtrak reauthorization bills have been introduced: S. 1958, which would restructure
Amtrak along the lines suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council; S. 1991, which
would authorize $4.6 billion a year for Amtrak in its existing configuration; and H.R.
4545, which would reauthorize Amtrak for one year at $1.8 billion. The FY2003
budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 100) reported by the Senate Budget Committee on
March 21, 2002, provides $1.2 billion for Amtrak for FY2003. There seems to be
support for providing Amtrak $1.2 million to $1.8 billion (the higher figure includes
funds to make life-safety improvements to old railroad tunnels) for FY2003, while
postponing any restructuring efforts until next year.
Major Funding Trends
Table 2 shows DOT actual or enacted funding levels for FY1988 through
FY2002. Total annual DOT funding more than doubled from FY1988 through
FY2002.

---

CRS-7
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year a
Appropriation b
FY1988 Actual
25,779
FY1989 Actual
27,362
FY1990 Actual
29,722
FY1991 Actual
32,776
FY1992 Actual
36,184
FY1993 Actual
36,681
FY1994 Actual
40,359
FY1995 Actual
38,878
FY1996 Actual
37,378
FY1997 Actual
40,349
FY1998 Actual
42,381
FY1999 Actual
48,310
FY2000 Actual
50,851
FY2001 Actual
64,463
FY2002 Enacted
59,588c
a “Actual” amounts from FY1988 to FY2001 include funding levels initially enacted by
Congress in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill as
well as any supplemental appropriations and rescissions enacted at a later date for that fiscal
year. Source: DOT Budget in Brief, Budgetary Resources Table, “Actual” year column,
adjusted by subtraction of Maritime Administration funding and addition of Related
Agencies funding from DOT appropriations acts.
b Amounts include limitations on obligations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.
c FY2002 enacted figure does not include supplemental appropriations.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
[http://www.tsa.dot.gov/]
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71), passed in the
aftermath of the attack on September 11, 2001, created a new agency in the
DOT—the Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This new agency is
headed by an Under Secretary for Security who is appointed by the President and
confirmed by the Senate for a fixed five-year term. With respect to air transportation,
the Under Secretary assumes the civil aviation security functions of the FAA as
promulgated under 49 U.S.C. 449. TSA is responsible for screening passengers and
checked baggage at airports, and for hiring screeners and purchasing equipment to
meet these responsibilities. The TSA also deploys Federal Security Managers at
each airport to oversee screening and deploys Federal Air Marshals for every flight
considered a “high security risk.” TSA is assigned the task of improving airport
perimeter-access security and acquires and deploys explosive-detection machines and
other equipment designed to detect chemical or biological weapons. The Act
imposes various deadlines in the coming year that the agency must meet in providing
aviation security services; by the end of December 2002, TSA must be screening all
passengers and checked baggage at U.S. commercial airports.

---

CRS-8
TSA is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, passenger and
cargo. During a national emergency, TSA is to coordinate and oversee domestic
transportation for air, rail, maritime (including seaports), and other surface transport
modes and to coordinate threat assessments among appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. The agency is to develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with security threats, and to undertake R&D activities to enhance transportation
security.
In FY2002, TSA was appropriated $1.3 billion. It also received another $1.1
billion in transfers from the Federal Aviation Administration, most of whose security
functions were transferred to TSA. For FY2003, the first full year of funding for the
TSA, the Administration has requested $4.8 billion. Approximately $2.2 billion of
this amount will be offset with collections from the fees authorized under the
Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). ATSA imposes a fee of up to
$2.50 per passenger (limited to $5 per one-way trip) to pay for civil aviation security
services. If this fee proves to be insufficient to pay for the cost of security services,
TSA may impose a fee on air carriers–as it has done. The revenue collected from this
air carrier fee is limited to the amount air carriers paid in calender year 2000 for
screening services.
In addition, TSA has requested another $4.4 billion for FY2002 in the
emergency supplemental bill pending in Congress.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush proposed the creation of a new federal agency,
the Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which would be
transferred to this new agency are the TSA. The budget implications of this proposal
are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request represents 9% of the DOT’s total
budget request; the portion of the TSA’s budget request that exceeds their offsetting
collections, $2.5 billion, is 12% of the discretionary portion ($20.7 billion) of the
DOT’s budget.
Coast Guard
[http://www.uscg.mil/]
The Coast Guard is challenged by increased responsibilities for Homeland
Security, search and rescue, enforcement, drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on
the high seas as well as by its aging water craft and aircraft. The Administration
requests budget authority of $5.9 billion for Coast Guard funding in FY2003.
Compared to the $5.0 billion appropriated in FY2002, the FY2003 request would be
$862 million, or 17%, more.4 Planned increases of $936 million for Coast Guard
operating expenses account for most of the proposed increase. Coast Guard
programs are usually authorized every 2 years; see CRS Report RS20924, Coast
Guard Legislation in the 107th Congress, for discussion of current congressional
consideration of authorization bills. CRS Report RS211125, Homeland Security:
4 These figures includes $165 million in offsetting collections mandated by the FY2002
DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87, Section 333) but not yet authorized, and do not
include FY2002 supplemental appropriations of $209 million.

---

CRS-9
Coast Guard Operations–Background and Issues for Congress, and CRS Report
RS21079, Maritime Security: Overview of Issues also discuss related issues.
The FY2003 budget request is intended to allow the Coast Guard to continue its
activities against drug smuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets while
it conducts accelerated Homeland Security activities. A requested $4.3 billion ($936
million, or 28%, more than FY2002) is for operation and maintenance of a wide
range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. This includes $340
million in defense-related funding. Another major component of the request is
allocated to acquisition, construction, and improvement. The Administration seeks
$725 million, $89 million, or 14%, more than current year funding. For complying
with environmental regulations and cleaning up contaminated Coast Guard sites, the
budget seeks $17 million. No funds are requested for altering bridges; $15.5 million
was appropriated for the current year. The $22 million for research and development
would be 9% ($1.8 million) more than current year funding. Other Coast Guard
requested funding includes $62.1 million for spill clean-up and initial damage
assessment, available without further appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust
Fund.

---

CRS-10
The chief issue for the Coast Guard is how it is handling its heightened security
responsibilities along with its many other responsibilities, such as search and rescue,
and enforcement of laws and treaties. The planned $936 million increase for
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
operating activities is to be allocated among Homeland Security and these traditional
activities. Another prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a
major planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas vessels and aircraft,
with a special emphasis on improving the Coast Guard’s capabilities on the high seas
or in deep waters. Only planning and analysis funds were included for FY1998
through FY2001. For FY2003, $500 million is requested, a $179 million (56%)
increase over FY2002 funding. Actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated
over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. CRS Report 98-830, Coast Guard
Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the
issues associated with the program.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush proposed the creation of a new federal agency,
a Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which would be
transferred to this proposed new agency is the Coast Guard. The budget implications

---

CRS-11
of this proposal are not clear; the Coast Guard’s FY2003 budget request represents
11% of the DOT’s total budget request and 28% of the discretionary portion ($20.7
billion) of the DOT’s budget.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
[http://www.fra.dot.gov]
For FY2003, the Administration requests $711 million in funding for the FRA,
including $59 million in offsetting fees mandated by Congress in the FY2002 DOT
Appropriations Act but not yet authorized.5 This is $23 million less than the $734
million provided in FY2002. The request provides $521 million for Amtrak, the
same amount provided in FY2002, but this request serves as a placeholder as the
Administration works on a proposal for a new structure for intercity passenger rail,
involving a partnership between the Federal Government, the States, and the private
sector. Core safety and operations receive $118 million, a $7 million increase over
the FY2002 level.
The Administration’s request provides no funding for the Alaska Railroad
rehabilitation which was provided $20 million in FY2002. Funding for the ongoing
Pennsylvania Station relocation project in New York City is maintained at the $20
million level for FY2003, which is the last year of funding previously appropriated.
Spending for next generation high-speed rail development is reduced to $23 million,
$9 million less than was provided in FY2002.
5 P.L. 107-87, Section 331.

---

CRS-12
Although most of the debate involving the FRA budget centers on Amtrak,
agency safety activities (which receive more detailed treatment following this
section) and Next Generation High-Speed Rail, as well as how states might obtain
additional funds for high-speed rail initiatives, are also likely to be discussed.
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
Railroad Safety and Research and Development. The FRA is the
primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. The Bush
Administration proposes $118 million in FY2003 for FRA’s safety program and
related administrative and operating activities. Most of the funds are used to pay for
salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and headquarters
staff and to pay for information systems monitoring the safety performance of the
rail industry.6 Increased railroad traffic volume and density (train and passenger miles
6 Those funds also are used to conduct a variety of initiatives, including the Safety
Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC), and field inspections. SACP involves numerous partnerships forged by railroad
management, FRA personnel, and labor to improve safety and compliance with federal
railroad safety regulations. RSAC uses a consensus-based process involving hundreds of
(continued...)

---

CRS-13
are up 7.5% and 18.7%, respectively), make equipment, employees, and operations
more vulnerable to adverse safety impacts. The Administration’s request for FY2003
represents a nearly 6% increase above the $111 million provided in the FY2002 DOT
Appropriations Act (P. L. 107-87) for rail safety and operations.
The railroad safety statute was last reauthorized in 1994. Funding authority for
the program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety program continues using the
authorities specified in existing federal railroad safety law and funds provided by
annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held since 1994, the
deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorize continued
funding for FRA’s regulatory and safety compliance activities or change any of the
existing authorities used by FRA to promote railroad safety. A reauthorization statute
changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would most likely affect
budgets after FY2003.
The adequacy and effectiveness of FRA’s grade-crossing safety activities
continue to be of particular interest. Relevant safety issues include: How effectively
is FRA helping the states deal with the grade-crossing safety challenge? Is FRA’s
FY2003 budget adequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional reaction to these
questions had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2002. In its FY2003
budget, FRA requests funding to strengthen its grade-crossing safety program and
associated public education activities.
To improve its safety regulations and industry practices, the FRA conducts
research and development (R&D) on an array of topics, including fatigue of railroad
employees, technologies to control train movements, and track dynamics. In reports
accompanying House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in annual
conference reports, the appropriations committees historically have allocated FRA’s
R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety. The FY2002
DOT appropriations act (P.L. 107-87) provided $29 million for the R&D program.
For FY2003, FRA requests $28.3 million for these activities.
The request for FRA’s safety and research and development programs includes
a proposal to impose a user fee on the industry. The collected funds would offset
costs of safety-related activities, raising an estimated $59 million that would be
credited to the general fund in the U.S. Treasury; general funds appropriated for the
programs would be reduced by similar amounts. Industry, in the past, has objected
to such proposals, maintaining the industry already pays its share of taxes and invests
heavily in safety.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D. In FY2002, $32.3 million was
made available for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The FRA
requested $23.2 million to continue this program in FY2003.
6 (...continued)
experts who work together to formulate recommendations on new or revised safety
regulations for FRA’s consideration.

---

CRS-14
Amtrak
[http://www.amtrak.com]
Amtrak’s authorization expires at the end of FY2002. The President’s FY2003
budget request for Amtrak is $521.5 million, the same as in FY2002. The President’s
budget notes that this is just a placeholder figure until a new paradigm for passenger
rail service is developed.
In February 2002, Amtrak’s then-president, George Warrington, declared that
Amtrak would require $1.2 billion in federal support (operating and capital) for
FY2003 just to maintain the system in its current condition; if it received less than
that, it would have to eliminate long-distance routes. In addition, Amtrak began
laying people off.
The Amtrak Reform Council estimated Amtrak’s annual operating subsidy
requirement at around $600 million (not counting another $125 million in operating
subsidies from various states); it estimated Amtrak’s capital need, just to maintain
its existing system, at around $1 billion.7 The Inspector General of the Department
of Transportation estimated Amtrak’s cash loss in FY2003 at $511 million, and its
capital needs at between $1 and $1.5 billion a year. In addition, the Inspector
General estimated that Amtrak would need additional funding to make it through the
current (FY2002) fiscal year.8 In June 2002, Amtrak’s new president, David Gunn,
declared that Amtrak needed an additional $200 million by July 2002 or it would
cease operations; he suggested that Amtrak would attempt to borrow against an
expected FY2003 appropriation.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134) prohibits
the appropriation of federal operating grant funds for Amtrak after FY2002 (Section
201). Amtrak declared repeatedly during FY2001 that it was on a glide-path to
breaking even (and thus not needing federal operating grants) by that deadline,
though observers doubted this. After September 11th, demand for Amtrak’s services
skyrocketed during the time that commercial air travel was suspended. Even after air
travel was restored, some travelers preferred not to fly, temporarily increasing
demand for Amtrak’s services. At the same time, however, after September 11th
many people preferred not to travel at all, with the result that Amtrak’s overall
passenger load was down slightly. The increased spending on security and slightly
decreased passenger demand exacerbated Amtrak’s existing revenue shortfall.
Amtrak ultimately lost more money in FY2001 than in FY1998, the first year of its
“glide-path” to breaking even on operations; its FY2001 cash loss was $585 million.
7 Amtrak Reform Council. An Action Plan for the Restructuring and Rationalization of the
National Intercity Rail Passenger System. February 7, 2002. P. 17-19. Available at
www.amtrakreformcouncil.org.
8 Inspector General, Department of Transportation. 2001 Assessment of Amtrak’s Financial
Performance and Requirements. Report #CR-2002-075. January 24, 2002. Available at
www.oig.dot/item_details.php?item=672.

---

CRS-15
The Act also required that if the Amtrak Reform Council determined that
Amtrak will not be able to operate without federal operating grant funds after
FY2002, it should submit to the Congress an action plan for a restructured national
intercity passenger system (P.L 105-134, Section 204). At the same time, Amtrak
should submit a liquidation plan to the Congress. The Council submitted its plan for
restructuring national passenger rail service to Congress on February 7, 2002.9 The
FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117), however,
prohibited Amtrak from using appropriated funds or revenues to develop a plan for
liquidation. Three Amtrak reauthorization bills have been introduced: S. 1958,
which would restructure Amtrak along the lines suggested by the Amtrak Reform
Council; S. 1991, which would authorize $4.6 billion a year for Amtrak in its existing
configuration (and which has passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee); and
H.R. 4545, which would reauthorize Amtrak for one year at $1.8 billion. The
FY2003 budget resolution (S.Con.Res. 100) reported by the Senate Budget
Committee on March 21, 2002, provides $1.2 billion for Amtrak for FY2003. There
appears to be support for providing Amtrak $1.2 million to $1.8 billion (the higher
figure includes funds to make life-safety improvements to old railroad tunnels) for
FY2003, while postponing any restructuring efforts until next year.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov]
The FHWA budget provides funding for the Federal-Aid Highway Program
(FAHP), which is the umbrella term for all the highway programs in the agency. For
FY2003 the President requests $24.1 billion for FHWA. This represents a decrease
of $8.4 billion, or 25%, from the FY2002 enacted level. The obligation limitation,
which supports most of the FAHP, is set at $23.8 billion and is significantly less than
the $31.8 billion provided in FY2002. Funding for exempt programs (emergency
relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) is set at $893 million, down
slightly from FY2002's $965 million. These levels of spending are in conformance
with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178). The
steep decline in spending is a result of TEA21 provisions that link federal highway
program spending with the revenues that flow into the highway account of the
Highway Trust Fund–the revenue aligned budget authority (RABA). The impact of
a negative RABA adjustment has dominated the early stages of the highway budget
debate.
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) Reduction. According to
estimates by the Department of Transportation (DOT) revenues (fuel taxes and other
fees) accruing to the Highway Trust Fund decreased in FY2001 as a result of the
ongoing recession and the effects of September 11. Most of this decrease in activity
seems to be related to problems in the trucking industry. The RABA process created
by TEA21 requires that federal highway obligational authority be adjusted
accordingly. In simple terms this means that the RABA adjustment for FY2003 is
9 An Action Plan for the Restructuring and Rationalization of the National Intercity Rail
Passenger System, Amtrak Reform Council, February 7, 2002. Available at
http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov/finalreport.html.

---

CRS-16
a negative $4.37 billion. Core highway program obligational authority for FY2003
will therefore be limited to approximately $23.2 billion, an $8.6 billion reduction
from the FY2002 level.
This is an unexpected and unwelcome development for state and local
governments whose long term transportation improvement plans (TIPs) are largely
predicated on continued growth in the federal contribution to highway program
funding. The RABA situation is equally unwelcome among those interests that build
roads or associated transportation infrastructure and those who support continued
highway improvements.
Concern has been expressed that DOT's estimates are incorrect. Some national
travel indicators do not indicate any significant falloff in travel. The House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has already asked that the General
Accounting Office investigate how DOT and the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) arrived at the $5 billion negative RABA figure. In addition, two Senate
Committees, Finance and Environment and Public Works, held hearings on this
issue.
On February 7, 2002, the Highway Funding Restoration Act (H.R. 3694; S.
1917) was introduced in both the House and Senate. This bill would amend TEA21
and require that the obligation limit for FY2003 be not less than $27.746 billion.
Although this would not bring spending up to the FY2002 level, it would meet or
exceed the spending for FY2003 originally provided for in TEA21.
The effects of the RABA reduction would not be felt immediately. Highway
construction is a multi-year process. DOT is suggesting that the RABA reduction
would only reduce the government's ability to spend on highway projects by only 1.8
percent in FY2003. Longer term, however, the effects of this decrease would be
dramatic.
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.

---

CRS-17
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),
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration Appropriations
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (BRR), and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment
on an annual basis by formula and are not subject to program-by-program
appropriation.
There is a second category of highway funding within the firewalls. This so
called “exempt” category consists of two elements: an additional annual
authorization of minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) and
emergency relief ($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to the
annual limitation on obligations.
A further set of programs, which are also within the firewall, are known as the
“allocated” programs. These programs are under the direct control of FHWA or other
governmental entities. These programs include: the Federal Lands Highway Program,
High Priority Projects (former demonstration project category), Appalachian

---

CRS-18
Development Highway System roads (formerly ineligible for trust fund contract
authority), the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program, and
several other small programs.
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs.
The Administration proposes decreased funding for various RD&T activities, from
$417.5 million in FY2002 to $351.2 million in FY2003. The amount requested
includes the impact of the RABA reduction (previously discussed) as well as the
impact of the estimated obligation limitation. RD&T funds are used primarily to
advance and deploy technologies intended to improve highway pavements, structures,
roadway safety, highway policies, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The
ITS deployment program provides funds for states and local governments to use
advanced communication and information systems to improve the management and
safety of their surface transportation systems, primarily highway and transit systems.
An issue associated with the ITS deployment program is the earmarking of
funds. During the last few years, the appropriators have earmarked a substantial
portion of the incentive funds intended to accelerate ITS deployment. This practice
was continued in the FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act. Some Members and
proponents of ITS would prefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded.
TEA21, however, also specifies several projects which are to receive some of the ITS
deployment funds.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
President Bush’s FY2003 budget request for FTA is $7.23 billion, essentially
the TEA21 guaranteed level. This is a 7% increase above FTA’s FY2002
appropriation of $6.747 billion.10
The transit appropriations shown in Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase
in FTA funding from FY1999 to FY2002 that occurred following the enactment of
TEA21 in 1998.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit
programs: the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program and the Urbanized Area
Formula Grants Program. There are also several smaller formula and planning and
research programs. In FTA’s Formula Grants Program, 86% of the FY2003 funding
is for the Urbanized Area Formula Program, and 6% is for the Non-Urbanized Area
Formula Program (less than 50,000 population). The remaining 8% is split between
the other programs.
10 These figures for FTA do not include any projections to account for possible flexible
funding transfers from FHWA to FTA. In FY2001 such transfers amounted to $1.23 billion.
The Bush Administration budget assumes that flex-funding transfers between FHWA and
FTA will continue.

---

CRS-19
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309). This
program (formerly known as Section 3) has three components: new transit starts,
fixed guideway modernization, and bus & bus facilities. The Administration requests
$3.036 billion for FY2003, up from $2.841 billion in FY2002, a 7% increase. The
funds are allocated among these three components on a 40-40-20 basis, respectively;
funds for the fixed guideway component are distributed by formula, while funds for
the other components are distributed on a discretionary basis by FTA or earmarked
by Congress.
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307). The program
(formerly known as Section 9) provides for capital and, in some cases, operating
needs for urbanized areas (population 50,000 or more). These activities include bus
and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed guide way modernization,
new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For FY2003, the Administration
proposes $3.3 billion (the TEA21 guaranteed amount), a 1% increase over the $3.26
billion provided in FY2001. These funds are apportioned on a formula based, in part,
on population (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receive two-thirds of the
funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive the remaining
one-third) and transit service data.
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
With the enactment of TEA21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. However, preventive maintenance,

---

CRS-20
generally considered an operating expense, is now eligible for funding as a capital
expense. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population, and non-urbanized areas
(Section 5311), can use formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.
Other Transit Programs.
! Non-Urbanized Areas Formula Program (Section 5311), which
provides capital and operating needs for non-urbanized areas (areas
with populations under 50,000)–$235 million requested for FY2003
($223 in FY2002);
! Grants for Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities (Section
5310)–$90 million requested for FY2003 ($85 million in FY2002);
! Clean Fuels (Section 5308)–$50 million requested for FY2003; and
! Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program (Section
3038), also known as the over-the-road bus accessibility program–$7
million requested for FY2003.
The President’s budget request proposes to create a new formula program, the
New Freedom Initiative, which seeks to use alternative methods to promote access
to transportation for persons with disabilities. The President’s budget requests $145
million for this program in FY2003.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. TEA21 authorized a new
discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program. This program
provides funding for transportation projects that assist welfare recipients and low-
income persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administration
proposes $150 million in FY2003, up from $125 million in FY2002.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[http://www.faa.gov/]
The Bush Administration is seeking $13.6 billion in budget authority for
FY2003. This compares with total budgetary resources of $13.0 billion provided in
the FY2002 Appropriations Act. The vast majority of FAA funding is provided from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In FY2002 a Treasury general-fund contribution
of $1.113 billion is provided for in the Act. The Administration is proposing a
general fund contribution of almost $3.7 billion for FY2003. Whereas the general
fund contribution for FY2002 was on the low side historically, the Administration
is now trying to return to a higher contribution level. Historically, a significant
portion of the agency’s budget has come from general-fund revenues, the rationale
being that the public at large realizes some benefit from aviation whether it uses the
system or not.11
11 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
The FY2002 Act increased funding for all FAA activities. There were few
significant new policy initiatives, excluding the transfer of all FAA security functions
to the new Transportation Security Administration (although funding for existing
security activities is shown in the FAA portion of the Act). Rather the request
focuses on continued safety and infrastructure upgrades.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). The Administration is proposing
an FY2003 funding level of $7.1 billion for this activity, compared to $6.9 billion in
FY2002. This is actually a decrease from the FY2002 funding level of $8.4 billion,
which mostly reflects the transfer of security activities to the new TSA. The majority
of funding in this category is for the salaries of FAA personnel engaged in air traffic
control, certification, and safety related activities.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). F&E received $2.9 billion in the FY2002
Act. The Administration would raise this amount to $3 billion in FY2003. F&E
funding is used primarily for capital investment in air traffic control, and safety.
About $124 million of the proposed FY2003 funding would be used to reimburse
TSA for explosive detection equipment. Otherwise, there are no significant new
F&E spending initiatives in the Administration proposal.
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D). The Administration
is proposing to allot $124 million to this program in FY2003. This is well below the
FY2002 funding level and significantly below the $249 million authorized for this
activity by FAIR21. Some of the difference is accounted for by a proposed transfer
of $50 million in appropriations to the TSA budget and the fact that this activity got
a $50 million supplemental appropriation in FY2002.

---

CRS-22
Essential Air Service (EAS). The EAS program is operated through the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), and receives its funding from
designated user fees collected from overflights of United States territory by foreign
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
aircraft. EAS has an annual authorized funding level of $50 million. For FY2003,
the Bush Administration predicts that overflight user fees will generate only $30
million. It therefore asked that $83 million in Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
funding be provided from the airport and airway trust fund to bring EAS up to $113
million. The EAS program received $63 million in the FY2002 appropriations bill
plus $50 million in emergency supplemental appropriations, available through
FY2003.
The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act also provided $20 million for the
somewhat related Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
(SCASD). The President’s budget proposal requests no funds for SCASD.

---

CRS-23
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program provides
grants for airport development and planning. The FY2003 budget requests $3.4
billion for AIP. This is a 3% increase over the FY2002 enacted level (not counting
$175 million in emergency appropriations). The request includes $81 million for
administration and, as mentioned above, $83 million for EAS. The request is in
conformance with the FAIR21 funding guarantees for AIP.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
http://www.rspa.dot.gov
For FY2003, RSPA requests a budget of $124.5 million 12 (with 64% of the
budget offset by user fees) compared to an appropriation of $96 million in FY2002.
Most of RSPA’s budget is allocated to activities that promote transportation safety.
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration
12 The Administration’s FY2003 request includes $14.3 million in permanent appropriations
and $6 million in proposed fees that are not included in the FY2003 request amount used
by the House Appropriations Committee, which is the amount used in Figure 6.

---

CRS-24
For its pipeline transportation safety program, RSPA proposes $63.8 million in
FY2003, an increase of $5.6 million over FY2002. For its hazardous materials
transportation safety program, the agency requests $23.8 million in FY2003, an
increase of $2.6 million over FY2002.
Currently, much of the cost of RSPA’s pipeline safety program is paid for by a
fee that is imposed on the regulated industry. For RSPA’s hazardous materials safety
program, conversely, only the cost of the emergency grant program is offset by a
registration fee paid by specified regulated companies. The Bush Administration
proposes to offset additional costs of both the pipeline and hazardous materials safety
programs by increasing the user fees on industry. In the past, the pipeline industry
has been willing to pay only what it considers to be a reasonable increase in the fees
imposed to support RSPA’s pipeline safety program. Likewise, the hazardous
materials (hazmat) industry has objected to user fees to pay the basic costs of RSPA’s
hazmat regulatory and enforcement program. Neither the House nor the Senate
Committee on Appropriations have agreed with previous requests to fund the hazmat
safety program from user fees.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
NHTSA funding represents a relatively small portion of total DOT funding. For
FY2003, budget authority requested for NHTSA totaled approximately $425 million.
This amount represents an increase of about 0.5% above the Agency’s FY2002
enacted funding of roughly $423 million.
Operations and Research (O&R). The Administration budget authority
request of $200 million for O&R was virtually flat, a mere 0.1% above the amount
enacted for FY2002. The largest increase requested by the Administration in this
budget category was for the Safety Performance Standards program, which, if met,
would provide $25 million, $3 million over last year’s enacted level. This increase,
however, was offset by a reduced request for the Highway Safety program of $54.4
million, $4 million less than the enacted level for FY2002.
Highway Traffic Safety Grants. The Administration has requested a total
of $225 million for programs in this category, an increase of only $2 million over the
enacted amount for FY2002. This $225 million is to be distributed to individual
programs as follows: $165 million for State and Community Highway Safety Grants
(in the Sec. 402 program); $40 million for Alcohol-Impaired Driving
Countermeasures Incentive Grants (Sec. 410 program); and $20 million for Occupant
Protection Incentive Grants (Sec. 405 program). No funding has been requested for
the State Highway Safety Data Grants (Sec. 411 program); in FY2002 it received $10
million.

---

CRS-25
NHTSA Program Responsibilities. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for
automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Appropriations
drivers, identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state
governments to enact laws and implement programs (through safety grants) to reduce
drunk driving and to encourage the use of occupant protection devices. The Bush
Administration has continued a long-standing DOT priority that, “Improving
transportation safety is the number one Federal Government transportation
objective.” NHTSA plays a key role in implementing this objective.
In its policy statements, the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has
targeted specific program activities that have potential for reducing highway deaths
and injuries. Included among these are programs to: reduce drunk and drugged
driving; reduce the incidence of aggressive driving and “road rage”; aid in the
development of “smart air bags” that will continue to provide protection to
occupants, while reducing risk associated with the bags themselves; enhance infant
and child safety in vehicle crashes; and explore transportation options and safety
programs for an aging population.

---

CRS-26
In addition, NHTSA, in its program highlights, has emphasized its intent to
comply with the legislative requirement of the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (Public Law 106-414). The
TREAD Act requires NHTSA to undertake more than a dozen rulemaking actions
within the next two years in the areas of tire safety standards, rollover propensity, and
improving child safety.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/]
The FY2003 request for the FMCSA is $367 million; the appropriation for
FY2002 was $335 million. The Administration’s FY2003 request represents an
increase of about 10%. The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety
Improvement Act of 1999 (MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.13 This agency became
operational on January 1, 2000, and assumed the responsibilities and personnel of
DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety.14 FMCSA issues and enforces the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which govern the operation and maintenance of
interstate commercial truck and bus operations and specify requirements for
commercial drivers. FMCSA also administers several grants and programs to help
states conduct truck and bus safety activities. Most of the funds used to conduct
FMCSA activities are derived from the federal highway trust fund.
The FMCSA appropriation consists of two primary components: FMCSA
operations and administrative expenses and assistance to states for the conduct of
truck and bus safety programs.
Administrative and Research Expenses. The FY2003 budget request for
FMCSA administrative and operations expenses is $117 million, including funds for
research and technology (R&T). The FY2002 comparable appropriation was $110
million. The FY2003 request provides that from FHWA’s limitation on
administrative expenses, $7 million shall be available for motor carrier safety
research and $10 million shall be available for commercial drivers licensing
improvement. The R&T program seeks to improve truck and bus safety regulations
and associated safety and compliance activities conducted by both federal and state
enforcement officers.
Grants to States and Other Activities. The Administration’s FY2003
request for these activities is $190 million. A limitation on obligations of $205.9
million for the National Motor Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP) was provided in
13 During various hearings held in the first session of the 106th Congress, a number of
organizations, including DOT’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and
many industry associations raised a variety of concerns regarding the effectiveness of the
federal truck and bus safety program. In response to these concerns, Congress created the
FMCSA.
14 DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety, which operated from October 9 through December
31, 1999, replaced the Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration of
the DOT.

---

CRS-27
FY2002. These funds, are used primarily to pay for the Motor Carrier Safety
Assistance Program (MCSAP), a grant program that helps the states enforce truck
and bus safety regulations. MCSAP grants cover, typically, up to 80% of the costs
of a state’s truck and bus safety program. Some 7,000 state and local public-utility
and law-enforcement officers conduct more than 2.1 million roadside inspections of
trucks and buses annually under the program. Some funds provided in this sub-
account of FMCSA are also used to pay for information systems and analysis as well
as other state compliance activities.
Border Enforcement. The Administration’s FMCSA request also includes
$60 million for border enforcement intended to enhance the ability of U.S. DOT and
the states to promote the safety of Mexican trucks and buses entering the United
States. In addition, funds provided elsewhere for border enforcement in the FY2003
budget include $47 million for border infrastructure improvements within the
FHWA-administered TEA21 Sec. 1119 Coordinated Border Infrastructure program
( including inspection facilities construction), and $8.3 million in MCSAP grants to
fund state inspection personnel (included within the core MCSAP funding amount
specified above).

---

CRS-28
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add) a
Final
House-
Senate-
FY2003
Conf.
FY2003
Agency
FY2002
Passed
Passed
Request
Report
Enacted
Enacted b
OST
105
141
Essential Air Srvc (trust fund)
TSAc
1,250
4,800
USCGd
5,031
5,893
Operating Expenses
3,382
4,153
Acquisition, Construction, &
636
725
Improvements
FAAe
13,295
13,582
Operations (trust fund &
6,886
7,077
general fund)
Facilities & Equipment
2,899
2,981
(F&E) (trust fund)
Grant-in-aid Airports (AIP)
3,300
3,400
(trust fund) (limit. on oblig.)
Research, Engineering &
195
124
Development (RE&D) (trust
fund)
FHWAf
32,895
24,694
(Limitation on Obligations)
31,799
23,801
(Exempt Obligations)
955
893
Additional funds (trust fund)
–
–
Addnl. funds (general fund)
g200
–
FMCSA
335
367
NHTSA
425
425
FRAh
734
711
Amtrak
521
521
FTA
6,747
7,226
Formula Grants (general fund)
718
768
Formula Grants (trust fund)
2,874
3,071
Capital Invest. (general fund)
568
607
Capital Invest. (trust fund)
2,273
2,429
St. Lawrence Seaway
13
14
Development Corp.
RSPAi
96
102
OIG
51
57
STB
18
18
NTSB
68
70
Budgetary Resources
Grand Total (estimated)j
59,588
56,060

---

CRS-29
Sources and notes:
a Unless otherwise noted, figures in Table 3 were taken from tables provided to CRS by the
House Committee on Appropriations. Because of differing treatment of offsets, the
inclusion of the NTSB and Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board,
and the exclusion of the Maritime Administration, the totals will not always match the
Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the
text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns
may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
b The figures for FY2002 do not reflect supplemental appropriations authorized under P.L.
107-38.
c The FY2003 figure includes estimated offsetting collections of $2.8 billion, which are not
included in the House Appropriations Committee’s calculation of TSA’s FY2003 request.
d FY2002 figures are budget authority. The figures do not include the annual $64 million
in mandatory funding for boat safety grants.
e The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-87) provides for a rescission of $317
million of FY2000 AIP contract authority. This rescission has no impact on the budgetary
resources available for FAA programs for FY2002 but are subtracted from the grand total
because it is significant in relation to the overall budget cap for the transportation function.
f FY2002 total reflects rescission of $59 million. FY2003 figure reflects a negative RABA
adjustment of $4.4 billion.
g For Appalachian Development Highway System ($200 million).
h FY2003 figure reflects rescission of $59 million.
i The Bush Administration request proposes to finance $6 million of this program by
hazardous materials registration fees in FY2003. The figures do not reflect $14 million in
permanent appropriations. Therefore, the requested total resources for RSPA for FY2003
may be seen as $123 million.
J The DOT and related agencies appropriation does not fund the Maritime Administration
(MARAD) or the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), and their budgets are therefore not
included in this report. They receive funding from the Commerce, Justice, State
appropriations bills. The Administration budgets do not include the NTSB or the
Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board budgets; they are included in
this total because their budgets are included in the DOT Appropriations bills. The rescission
of unobligated previous years’ contract authority have been subtracted from this total.
Because the rescissions have no impact on the budgetary resources available for FY2002,
the total resources available could be seen as $61.3 billion for FY2002 enacted, and $56.3
billion for FY2003 requested.

---

CRS-30
List of Acronyms
ARC: Amtrak Reform Council
AIP: Airport Improvement Program (FAA)
AIR21: the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181), the current aviation authorizing legislation
ARAA: the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), the
current Amtrak authorizing legislation
ATSA: the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71), legislation which
created the Transportation Security Administration within the DOT
BRR: Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation program (FHWA)
BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
CG: Coast Guard
CMAQ: Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (FHWA)
DOT: Department of Transportation
EAS: Essential Air Service (FAA)
F&E: Facilities and Equipment program (FAA)
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration
FAHP: Federal-Aid Highway Program (FHWA)
FAIR21: the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st
Century (P.L. 106-181), the current aviation authorizing legislation
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration
FTA: Federal Transit Administration
Hazmat: Hazardous materials (safety program in RSPA)
HPP: High Priority Projects (FHWA)
HTF: Highway Trust Fund
IM: Interstate Maintenance program (FHWA)

---

CRS-31
ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems (FHWA)
MCSAP: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (FMCSA)
New Starts: part of the FTA’s Capital Grants and Loans Program which funds new
fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing systems
NHS: National Highway System; also a program within FHWA
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMCSA: National Motor Carrier Safety Administration
O&M: Operations and Maintenance program (FAA)
OIG: Office of the Inspector General of the DOT
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation
RABA: Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority
RD&T: Research, Development and Technology program (FHWA)
RE&D: Research, Engineering and Development program (FAA)
RSPA: Research and Special Projects Administration
SCASD: Small Community Air Service Development program (FAA)
STB: Surface Transportation Board
STP: Surface Transportation Program (FHWA)
TCSP: Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program (FHWA)
TEA21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), the current
highway and transit authorizing legislation
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (FHWA)
TSA: Transportation Security Administration

---

CRS-32
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress,
by John W. Fischer.
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RL30659. Amtrak: Overview and Options, by David Randall Peterman.
CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÉ Up
to Standards?, by Rob Bamberger.
CRS Report RS20469. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies, by William
Lipford and Glennon J. Harrison.

CRS Report RS20600. Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001 authorization issues, by
Martin R. Lee.
CRS Report RS20790. The Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program: Issues for
Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RS20841. Environmental streamlining provisions in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st century: status of implementation, by David Michael
Bearden.
CRS Report RL30915. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Status and
Challenges, by Paul F. Rothberg and Hussein Hassan.
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 Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization
Issues, by Paul F. Rothberg and John Williamson.
CRS Report RL31027. High-Speed Rail: Development and Investment Issues in the
107th Congress, by David Randall Peterman and Steven Maguire.
CRS Report RS21164. Highway Finance: RABA’s Double-edged Sword, by John
W. Fischer.
CRS Report RL31028. North American Free Trade Agreement: Truck Safety
Considerations, by Paul Rothberg.
CRS Report RL31150. Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the
September 11 Attack, by Robert S. Kirk.

---

CRS-33
CRS Report 98-749 E. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
and the Federal Budget, 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 Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress, coordinated
by Glennon J. Harrison.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget in Brief FY2003
[http://www.dot.gov/bib/bibindex.html]
Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/]
House Appropriations Committee
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Interactive Budget Web Site
[http://ibert.org/civix.html]
Maritime Administration
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html]
Office of Management and Budget
[http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html]
Senate Appropriations Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]

---