Order Code RL31308
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Updated February 12, 2003
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.shtml].

---

Appropriations for FY2003:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Summary
The Department of Transportation (DOT) entered FY2003 without an FY2003
appropriations act to fund its activities; while the House and Senate Appropriations
Committees have reported out bills, neither the House nor the Senate have passed a
DOT appropriations bill. It is being funded through Continuing Resolutions (CRs)
that provide funding at FY2002 levels, prorated; the current CR (H.J.Res. 18) expires
February 20, 2003. The House and Senate are conferencing on an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill, H.J.Res. 2, that includes transportation appropriations.
For the FY2003 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 House Appropriations Committee recommended $60.1 billion, the
primary difference being an increase of $4.6 billion for highway spending. The
Senate bill (H.J.Res. 2) provides $65.1 billion, the primary difference being an
increase of $8.8 billion in highway spending. However, the Senate bill also provides
for a 2.852% across-the-board cut.
The events of September 11, 2001, have had a significant impact on DOT’s
budget. The DOT received an extra $7.3 billion in FY2002 in emergency
supplemental appropriations, much of it for security-related activities, including the
creation of an entirely new agency, the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA). During FY2003 the Coast Guard and TSA are scheduled to be transferred to
the newly-created Department of Homeland Security.
The abrupt decrease in requested federal-aid highway funding from FY2002 to
FY2003–from $32 billion to $24 billion–caused a stir. It was mandated by the
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provision in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) that ties annual highway funding levels to trust
fund revenues. The second FY2002 emergency supplemental act (P.L. 107-206)
included a provision setting the RABA adjustment for FY2003 to zero, effectively
restoring the federal-aid highway program to $27.7 billion, the level authorized in
TEA-21. The House Appropriations Committee recommended this level; the Senate
bill maintains the FY2002 level for FY2003, $31.8 billion.
Other significant budget issues facing Congress are the increasing costs of 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 another $3.4 billion in
FY2002 supplemental funding to $5.3 billion requested for FY2003. It has become
clear that TSA will not be self-supporting, even with the revenues from two fees
Congress authorized. 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 Administration has declared its opposition to
more than $521 million for Amtrak in FY2003 unless accompanied by significant
reforms. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $762 million for
Amtrak; the Senate bill provides $1.2 billion.

---

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
Bart Elias
RSI
7-7771
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
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Issue Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Impact of Continuing Resolutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FY2003 Budget Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
RABA and Highway Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget . . . . 6
Amtrak Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Major Funding Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Coast Guard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Operations and Maintenance (O&M) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Essential Air Service (EAS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Grants-in-Aid for Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . 18
The TEA-21 Funding Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Administrative and Research Expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Grants to States and Other Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Border Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
NHTSA Program Responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Railroad Safety and Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Amtrak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
FTA Program Structure and Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309) . . 28
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307) . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Other Transit Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
List of Acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Selected World Wide Web Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

---

Appendix 1: The Transportation Appropriations Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Appendix 2: Transportation Budget Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
List of Figures
Figure 1. Transportation Security Agency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 2. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 3. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 4. Federal Highway Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 5. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 6. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 7. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 8. Research and Special Programs Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2003 . . . 3
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration FY2003 Budget . . . . 22
Table 4. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs . . . 32

---

Appropriations for FY2003: Transportation
and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his budget proposal for
FY2003. The proposed FY2003 budget for the Department of Transportation (DOT)
is roughly $56.1 billion, a decrease of $3.5 billion (6%) from the FY2002 enacted
total. This decrease was primarily due to a decline in Highway Trust Fund revenues
during 2002, which triggered an automatic reduction in highway spending for
FY2003 of $4.4 billion.
On March 21, 2002, President Bush submitted an emergency supplemental
budget request to Congress for $27.1 billion; $6.7 billion of which was for the DOT.
The largest items were $4.4 billion for the Transportation Security Administration
(TSA) for explosives detection equipment and screeners and $1.8 billion for the
Federal Transit Administration’s Capital Grants Program for rebuilding sections of
the Manhattan transit system damaged by the September 11 attack. Other items
included $255 million for the Coast Guard, $167 million for the Federal Highway
Administration, $100 million for the Federal Aviation Administration, $19 million
for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Border Enforcement
Program, and $3.5 million for the Research and Special Project Administration.
On June 7, 2002, President Bush submitted a proposal for a new Department
of Homeland Security. It would involve transferring the Coast Guard and TSA from
the DOT to the proposed new agency, along with elements of other existing federal
agencies. These two agencies represent 19% of the DOT’s total budget, and 40% of
its discretionary budget (generally, those activities funded out of the general fund
rather than trust funds), for FY2003.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of
the DOT Appropriations bill, S. 2808/S.Rept. 107-224. The Committee
recommended $64.7 billion, $8.6 billion more than the Administration request. The
major differences were an increase in FHWA spending to FY2002 levels, $8.6 billion
above the FY2003 request, and an increase of $679 million for Amtrak, to $1.2
billion.
On August 2, 2002, the President signed the second FY2002 emergency
supplemental bill (P.L. 107-206). This bill included an additional $6.6 billion for the
DOT for FY2002. This included $3.9 billion for the Transportation Security
Administration, $1.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (for grants to
rebuild New York City’s subway system in Manhattan), $728 million for the Coast
Guard, and $205 million for Amtrak.

---

CRS-2
On August 9, 2002, the President announced that he would not ask for the $5.1
billion in contingency emergency funding that was included in the supplemental bill
(P.L. 107-206). The act provides that if the President requests any of the
contingency emergency funding, all of it is released. This decision reduced the
supplemental funding to DOT by $1.1 billion, from $6.6 billion to $5.5 billion. The
biggest reductions were to TSA ($480 million), the Coast Guard ($262 million), and
the FAA’s Grants-in-Aid to Airports ($150 million).
On September 3, 2002, the Administration submitted a budget amendment
increasing the FY2003 request for TSA by $546 million.
On October 7, 2002, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version
of the DOT Appropriations bill, H.R. 5559/H.Rept 107-722. The Committee
recommended $60.1 billion, $4.0 billion more than the Administration request. The
major difference was a $4.6 billion increase in FHWA spending.
On November 19, 2002, the Congress passed the fifth in a series of Continuing
Resolutions (CR) to fund the Department of Transportation (and other government
agencies) in FY2003 in the absence of an FY2003 DOT appropriations act. This CR,
P.L. 107-294, provides funding through January 11, 2003, at the levels enacted in
FY2002, prorated on a daily basis.
On November 19, 2002, the Congress passed legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005;P.L. 107-296). This legislation
provides for the transfer of the Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration from the DOT to the new Department of Homeland Security during
FY2003.
On January 8, 2003, the House passed H.J.Res. 2, a bill without any
transportation appropriations, as a vehicle for the Senate.
On January 23, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, now an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill including transportation appropriations. It provides a total of
$65.1 billion to DOT and related agencies, $9 billion more than the Administration
request (see Table 1); the major differences are $8.6 billion more in highway
spending and $679 million more for Amtrak under the Federal Railroad
Administration. However, in order to keep total spending in line with the
Administration’s request, the Senate included an across-the-board cut of 2.852% in
the bill. The House will now go to conference with the Senate in an effort to produce
a final omnibus appropriations act which will likely include transportation
appropriations.

---

CRS-3
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations
for FY2003
Conference
Subcommittee
Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House
Senate
Report Passage
Report
Passage Report
House Senate
Law
S.
H.J.
H.J. Res.
H.R.
2808
H.Rept.
Res. 2
S.Rept.
2
5559
7-25-
107-722 1-8-03
107-224
1-23-03
10-7-02
02
10-1-02
vv
7-26-02
69-29
–
–
–
–
Note: H.R. 5559 and S. 2808 died at the end of the 107th Congress. FY2003
transportation appropriations are included in H.J.Res. 2, an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill. The Senate Committee on Appropriations report for H.J.Res. 2
was printed in the Congressional Record for January 15, 2003, S710-765.
Key Policy Issues
Issue Overview
The Impact of Continuing Resolutions. Congress has not yet passed an
FY2003 DOT appropriations act; the DOT’s programs are currently being funded by
a series of continuing appropriations acts, known as continuing resolutions (CRs),
which provide agencies the same level of funding they received in FY2002 (minus
extraordinary one-time appropriations) prorated on a daily basis for the life of the
CR. The current CR (H.J.Res. 18) provides funding through February 20, 2003.
Funding through CRs creates complications for some types of programs: (1)
those that may receive less funding in FY2003 than in FY2002; and (2) those that are
earmarked.
1.
The federal-aid highway program in FHWA received $31.8 billion in FY2002,
but the House Appropriations Committee approved only $27.7 billion for
FY2003; the program is receiving $31.8 billion prorated through the CRs, but
with an overall cap of $27.7 billion, as agreed to by congressional leadership.
Amtrak received a total of $1.1 billion in federal assistance in FY2002, but the
House Appropriations Committee approved only $762 million for FY2003; it
is receiving $1.0 billion prorated through the CRs. For these programs, the
further into the fiscal year funding is provided by CRs, the greater the potential
problem posed by the proposed lower funding level in the FY2003 bill. For
example, by February 20, 2003, Amtrak will have received almost $400 million;
if its final FY2003 appropriation is $762 million, Amtrak’s monthly funding
would drop from around $83 million in the first 4 months of FY2003 to around
$45 million for the rest of the fiscal year
2.
Several Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transportation
Administration discretionary programs have been extensively earmarked in
recent years, and earmarks for those programs are provided in bills marked up

---

CRS-4
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. Until Congressional
direction for expending those programs’ funds during FY2003 is provided,
program administrators probably will not provide any funding to recipients.
FY2003 Budget Overview. With release of the Bush Administration’s
FY2003 budget proposal on February 4, 2002, the budget debate began in earnest.
In proposing a Department of Transportation (DOT) budget of roughly $56.1 billion
the Administration proposed 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 required by the provisions of the Revenue-Aligned Budget
Authority mechanism created in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21; P.L. 105-178). The budget request is in conformance with the basic
outline of both TEA-21, which authorizes spending on highways and transit, and the
aviation funding authorized in the Wendell Ford Aviation Investment and Reform
Act of the 21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21; P.L. 106-181).
The FY2003 budget proposal 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, have had a significant impact on the DOT’s
budget. The DOT received an additional $1.8 billion for FY2002 through an
emergency supplemental bill passed on September 14,2 and another $5.5 billion
through another emergency supplemental bill passed on July 24, 2002, for a total of
$7.3 billion in supplemental funding in FY2002.3 In addition, an entirely new agency
was created within the DOT, the TSA, due to concerns about security. In FY2003,
1 This report relies on figures from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations, though the FY2003 Senate figures come from the table at the back of the
Senate Appropriations Committee report published in the Congressional Record for January
15, 2003 (S710-765). Because of differing treatment of offsets, rescissions, and the
structure of DOT appropriations bills, the totals will at times vary from those provided by
the Administration. The DOT appropriations bills do not fund the Maritime Administration,
which is part of the DOT, but do fund some smaller entities that are not included in the DOT
budget, i.e, the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the
National Transportation Safety Board.
2 H.R. 2888, became P.L. 107-38 on September 18th. This bill appropriated $40 billion,
available in three parts; $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
immediately (i.e. during FY2001); $10 billion was available for allocation by the President
15 days after he notified the Congress how he would use the funds; and the remaining $20
billion was allocated in a separate title of the FY2002 Defense Department Appropriations
bill (P.L. 107-117).
3 H.R. 4775 became P.L. 107-206 on August 2, 2002. The bill provides $6.6 billion for
DOT, but $1.1 billion is contingency emergency funding, which the President has said
(August 9, 2002) he would not utilize. Except where otherwise noted, the figures in this
report do not include the $7.3 billion in supplemental appropriations received by the DOT
in FY2002.

---

CRS-5
both the Coast Guard and TSA are scheduled to be transferred out of the DOT to the
newly-created Department of Homeland Security.
The House and Senate are now in conference on H.J.Res. 2, an omnibus
FY2003 appropriations bill which includes transportation appropriations. The House
passed the bill without any transportation appropriations language, on January 8,
2003. The Senate amended the bill, adding transportation appropriations, and passed
it January 23, 2003. The House conferees will work from the House Committee on
Appropriations report on transportation appropriations passed October 7, 2002
(H.Rept. 107-722), which provided $60.1 billion. The Senate version of H.J.Res. 2
provides $65. 1 billion for transportation for FY2003. The major difference between
the Senate and House figures is $4.1 billion more for the federal-aid highway
program in the Senate bill. However, the Senate bill also includes a 2.852% across-
the-board cut.
RABA and Highway Funding. TEA-21 created a mechanism called
Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), which was intended to prevent
revenues from accumulating in the Highway Trust Account. While TEA-21 set
guaranteed spending levels for the highway program through FY2003, based on
forecast of future Highway Trust Account revenues, RABA allowed the highway
spending level to increase automatically if Highway Trust Account revenues
exceeded the forecasts. It also provided that the highway spending levels would be
reduced if revenues fell below the forecasts.
For several years, the RABA adjustment mechanism provided windfall gains for
highway funding: increases of $1.5 billion in FY2000, $3 billion in FY2001, and
$4.5 billion in FY2002 over the guaranteed funding levels. However, the recession
of 2001 slowed receipts into the Highway Trust Account, and in January 2002 it
became clear that revenues had dropped below the forecast levels. The result was an
automatic cut in the FY2003 highway program funding level of $4.4 billion. The
impact of this cut was magnified by the RABA boost to FY2002 highway funding of
$4.5 billion over the guaranteed level. This meant that RABA, by giving a $4.5
billion “bonus” in FY2002 and a $4.4 billion cut in FY2003, created an $8.4 billion
difference between FY2002 highway funding and FY2003 funding (for more
information, see CRS Report RS21164, Highway Finance: RABA’s Double-edged
Sword, March 5, 2002).
On August 2, 2002, the President signed the second FY2002 emergency
supplemental legislation (P.L. 107-206), which included a provision setting the
RABA adjustment for FY2003 to zero (Section 1402). This has the effect of
restoring FY2003 highway funding to the level guaranteed in TEA-21, $27.7 billion.
On October 7, the House Appropriations Committee reported its version of the
FY 2003 DOT Appropriations bill (H.R. 5559). It recommended funding the federal
aid highways program at $27.7 billion, $4.4 billion over the Administration request.
On January 23, 2003, the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, an omnibus FY2003
appropriations bill which includes transportation appropriations. It provides $31.8
billion for FY2003, the same amount provided in FY2002.

---

CRS-6
Under the CRs, the federal-aid highways program is being funded at FY2002
levels ($31.8 billion), with a $27.7 billion cap on obligations (per agreement with
Congressional leadership).
The Transportation Security Administration’s (TSA) budget. TSA
was created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA)(P.L. 107-71)
in November 2002 in response to concerns about the security of aviation and other
transportation systems. Congress required TSA to assume responsibility for
screening passengers and checked baggage at airports, and to hire screeners and
purchase equipment to carry out this task, by the end of calendar year 2002. Initial
estimates were that TSA would need to hire around 25,000-30,000 screeners to do
this, giving it a total workforce of 35,000-40,000 people. However, this estimate was
based on the existing number of screeners, and overlooked the impact of other ATSA
requirements, such as the screening of checked baggage; this activity was virtually
non-existent before September 11, so there were no precise estimates of the total
workforce this task would require. As the scale of that task has become clearer,
estimates are that 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 TSA growing to such a
size; the FY2002 emergency supplemental act capped TSA’s full-time screener
positions at 45,000, and the House Appropriations Committee recommended that cap
be extended for FY2003. Currently, TSA employs nearly 62,000 screeners, of whom
28,000 are temporary.4
TSA was appropriated $1.3 billion in FY2002; its FY2003 request is $5.3
billion–though that request is based on 41,300 full-time employees. TSA also
received an additional $3.9 billion in the second FY2002 emergency supplemental
bill5. Some members of Congress questioned the amounts being requested, and
criticized the lack of detail about how the money will be used. At the same time,
TSA was under pressure to hire and train as many as 50,000-60,000 screeners, and
to purchase and install thousands of baggage-screening devices at 429 airports, by
December 31, 2002.
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 $2.0 billion each year, the TSA’s budget request for FY2003 is
4 Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Transportation, Aviation
Security Costs, Transportation Security Administration, Testimony before the Senate
Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation, February
5, 2003, CC-2003-066.
5 President Bush announced on August 9, 2002 that he would not request the contingent
emergency funding included in the second FY2002 supplemental bill (P.L. 197-206); that
would cut $480 million from the TSA’s FY2002 supplemental appropriation. The President
subsequently increased the FY2003 request for TSA by $546 million (Budget Estimate #23,
September 3, 2002).

---

CRS-7
$5.3 billion. Revenue from fees will not come close to covering the TSA’s annual
budget.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $5.146 billion for TSA,
$200 million less than the Administration request. The Senate provided $5.346
billion in H.J.Res. 2, the amount requested by the Administration.
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating the
Department of Homeland Security. TSA is scheduled to be transferred from DOT
to this new department in March of 2002. The budget implications of this proposal
are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request represents 9% of the DOT’s total
budget request, and the portion of the TSA’s budget request that exceeds their
offsetting collections, $2.5 billion, is 12% of the discretionary portion ($20.7 billion)
of the DOT’s budget.
Amtrak Funding. Amtrak received a total of $1.1 billion in FY2002; as a
result, under the Continuing Resolutions, Amtrak is being funded at an annual level
of $1.0 billion, prorated daily.6 Amtrak has told Congress that it needs at least $1.2
billion in FY2003 to maintain operations. The Administration requested $521
million for Amtrak for FY2003, noting that this figure was a “placeholder” while the
Administration worked to finalize a plan to restructure passenger rail service. In the
midst of Amtrak’s quest for funds to make it through FY2002, the Administration
presented a set of principles for restructuring passenger rail service, including the end
of federal operating support and greater financial support from states, and announced
opposition to providing Amtrak more than $521 million in FY2003 unless significant
changes were made to Amtrak. The House Appropriations Committee recommended
$762 million for Amtrak, while requiring enhanced financial reporting from Amtrak;
the Senate provided $1.2 billion in H.J.Res. 2.
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.
6 Continuing Resolutions typically exclude previous year appropriations that were for
extraordinary one-time purposes; Amtrak received a $105 million supplemental
appropriation for increased security expenses in FY2002 in the wake of the September 11
attacks.

---

CRS-8
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 $7.3 billion in supplemental appropriations. FY2002
enacted figure and FY2003 proposed figure are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee
on 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

---

CRS-9
checked baggage at airports, and for hiring screeners and purchasing equipment to
meet these responsibilities. TSA also deploys Federal Security Managers at each
airport to oversee screening and deploys Federal Air Marshals for every flight
considered a “high security risk.” TSA is assigned the task of improving airport
perimeter-access security and acquires and deploys explosive-detection machines and
other equipment designed to detect chemical or biological weapons. 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.
TSA is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, passenger and
cargo. During a national emergency, TSA is to coordinate and oversee domestic
transportation for air, rail, maritime (including seaports), and other surface transport
modes and to coordinate threat assessments among appropriate federal, state, and
local agencies. The agency is to develop policies, strategies, and plans for dealing
with security threats, and to undertake R&D activities to enhance transportation
security.

---

CRS-10
Figure 1. Transportation Security Agency
In FY2002, TSA received a total of $5.8 billion, including transfers. For
FY2003, the first full year of funding for TSA, the Administration initially requested
$4.8 billion. The Administration submitted a budget amendment on September 3,
2002 raising TSA’s budget request by $546 million to an overall total of $5.346
billion. Approximately $2.0-2.4 billion of this amount will be offset with collections
from the fees authorized under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act
(ATSA). ATSA imposes a fee of up to $2.50 per passenger (limited to $5 per 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. There is a
dispute over the amount of this fee; the federal government estimates that the airlines
paid around $700 million in 2000 for screening services, but the airlines say they paid
only around $300 million.

---

CRS-11
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating a new federal
agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which are
scheduled to be transferred to this new agency is TSA. The budget implications of
this proposal are not clear; the TSA’s FY2003 budget request represents 9% of the
DOT’s total budget request; the portion of TSA’s budget request that exceeds their
offsetting collections, approximately $3 billion, is 13% of the appropriated portion
($22.1 billion) of the DOT’s budget.
The House Appropriations Committee, recommended $5.146 billion for TSA
and directed funds differently than the Administration requested. The House
Committee recommended maintaining a cap on TSA personnel at 45,000 in FY2003
rather than increasing it to 67,185 as TSA requested. The House Committee made
several recommendations for maintaining staff levels at 45,000: although federal law
requires screeners to be federal employees, it does not require exit lane monitors,
shoe and bin runners, queue coordinators, ticket checkers, and customer service
representatives to be federal employees; TSA could pay state and local governments
to provide law enforcement officers at airports instead of hiring its own; by extending
the baggage screening deadline beyond December 31, 2002, airports would have time
to deploy more EDS machines which require less personnel to man than the ETD
systems; TSA’s plans for part-time or seasonal employees would not be subject to the
cap on personnel. The House Committee separated TSA funding into four areas. It
recommended $4.4 billion for aviation security, $207 million for maritime and land
security, $130 million for research and development, and $454 million for support
services.
The Senate’s omnibus bill (H.J.Res. 2) would provide a total of $5.346 billion
for the TSA, the same as the President’s request. It includes $150 million for
research and development of technologies to secure seaports against terrorism.
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 $6.1 billion for Coast Guard funding in FY2003.7
Compared to the $5.2 billion appropriated in FY20028, the FY2003 request is $862
7 The Administration's budget request was scored as $5.9 billion because of $165 million
in offsetting collections from a navigational fee requested by the Administration. The House
Appropriations Committee and the Senate-passed bill both denied this new fee proposal,
bringing the Administration’s request to $6.1 billion.
8 The Coast Guard received FY2002 supplemental funds of $209.2 million in P.L. 107-117
and $255 million in P.L. 107-206 (the Coast Guard received $528 million in P.L. 107-206,
but over half was contingent emergency funding, which the President has said he will not
request, reducing the total to $255 million). These supplemental funds totaling $464.2
million are not included in the FY2002 figure. They bring the total Coast Guard FY2002
(continued...)

---

CRS-12
million, or 17%, more. Planned increases of $771 million for Coast Guard operating
expenses account for most of the proposed increase. In the 107th Congress, the House
Appropriations Committee recommended $6.1 billion. In the 108th Congress, Senate-
passed H.J.Res. 2 provides $6.1 billion. Coast Guard programs are usually authorized
every 2 years; authorization for FY2003 was included in the Maritime Transportation
Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-295). See CRS Report RS20924, Coast Guard
Legislation in the 107th Congress, for discussion of authorization bills. CRS Report
RS211125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations–Background and Issues
for Congress, and CRS Report RS21079, Maritime Security: Overview of Issues also
discuss related issues. CRS Report RS21303, Homeland Security: the Coast Guard’s
FY2003 Budget, also addresses Coast Guard funding.
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 $4.2 billion ($771
million, or 23%, more than FY2002) is for operation and maintenance of a wide
range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. The Senate and
House committees in the 107th Congress each recommended $4.3 billion.9 Senate-
passed H.J.Res. 2 included $4.3 billion also. 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. The Senate and
House committees had approved this amount. Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2 includes
$752 million. For complying with environmental regulations and cleaning up
contaminated Coast Guard sites, the budget seeks, and both committees had approved
$17 million, the amount also passed by the Senate. No funds were requested for
altering bridges, but the House Appropriations Committee recommended $17
million, and Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2 includes $17 million as well as $22 million
requested for research and development, about the same as approved by the House
Committee earlier. Other Coast Guard requested funding includes $62.1 million for
spill clean-up and initial damage assessment, available without further appropriation
from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund. The Senate and House actions recommended
$889.0 million for retired pay, a mandatory expense.
8 (...continued)
appropriation to $5.7 billion.
9 This figure includes $300 million for the Coast Guard in the FY2003 Department of
Defense appropriations bill, and $340 million in defense-related funding in the DOT
appropriations bill.

---

CRS-13
Figure 2. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
The chief issue for the Coast Guard is how it is handling its heightened security
responsibilities along with its many other responsibilities, such as search and rescue,
and enforcement of laws and treaties. The planned $771 million increase for
operating activities is to be allocated among Homeland Security and these traditional
activities. Another prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a
major planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas vessels and aircraft,
with a special emphasis on improving the Coast Guard’s capabilities on the high seas
or in deep waters. Only planning and analysis funds were included for FY1998
through FY2001. For FY2003, $500 million is requested, a $179 million (56%)
increase over FY2002 funding. The Senate Committee approved $480 million.
Actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period
beginning in FY2002. CRS Report 98-830, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater
System: Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the issues associated with
the program.
On November 19, 2002, President Bush signed legislation creating a new federal
agency, the Department of Homeland Security. Among the organizations which are
scheduled to be transferred to this proposed new agency is the Coast Guard. The
budget implications of this proposal are not clear; the Coast Guard’s FY2003 budget

---

CRS-14
request represents 11% of the DOT’s total budget request and 27% of the
appropriated portion ($22.1 billion) of the DOT’s budget.
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 $13.3 billion provided in
the FY2002 Appropriations Act. The vast majority of FAA funding is provided from
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund. In FY2002 a Treasury general-fund contribution
Figure 3. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
of $1.113 billion is provided for in the Act. The Administration is proposing a
general fund contribution of almost $3.3 billion for FY2003. Whereas the general
fund contribution for FY2002 was on the low side historically, the Administration
is now trying to return to a higher contribution level. Historically, a significant
portion of the agency’s budget has come from general-fund revenues, the rationale

---

CRS-15
being that the public at large realizes some benefit from aviation whether it uses the
system or not.10
The Omnibus Appropriations Act for FY2003, H.J.Res. 2, provides for the same
level of spending as that found in the Senate version of FY2003 transportation
appropriations. As passed by the Senate Committee on Appropriations there would
be a slight increase in spending over FY2002 levels to $13.6 billion. This is basically
in line with the Bush Administration’s FY2003 request. The Senate Committee also
accepts the Administration recommendation for a general fund contribution of $3.3
billion. There are a number of programmatic recommendations in the Senate bill that
differ from the Administration’s request, but these would not represent major
changes to FAA programs or operations. The bill also includes a significant number
of earmarks in various program categories.
The House Committee on Appropriations version of FY2003 appropriations also
supports a total spending level of nearly $13.6 billion for the FAA. Like its Senate
counterpart, the details of the bill differ in some ways from the Administration’s
request. The bill provides for a larger general fund contribution for operations
spending, $3.5 billion. The report accompanying the House bill enumerates a
growing concern about the long term health of the aviation trust fund. The events of
September 11 have reduced air travel with a concomitant reduction in trust fund
revenue collections. As a result, the bill instructs the FAA to reexamine its spending
priorities in light of what could become a significantly tighter budget environment.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). The Administration is proposing
an FY2003 funding level of $7.1 billion for this activity, compared to $6.9 billion in
FY2002.11 The Omnibus bill provides about $30 million less than the amount
proposed by the Administration. The Senate Committee had previously proposed a
funding level is $4 million more than the Administration request, whereas the House
provides for a reduction of $17 million from the request. Both the House and Senate
Committees contend that their recommendations are actually significant increases
over FY2002 spending because certain security functions found in the FY2002 FAA
budget have since been transferred to TSA. The majority of funding in this category
is for the salaries of FAA personnel engaged in air traffic control, certification, and
safety related activities.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). F&E received $2.9 billion in the FY2002
Act. The Administration would raise this amount to $3 billion in FY2003, a level
also adopted by the Senate Committee and shown in the Omnibus bill. The House
bill provides for a similar level of spending. F&E funding is used primarily for
capital investment in air traffic control, and safety. There are no significant new F&E
spending initiatives in the Administration proposal.
10 General fund appropriations have varied substantially, both in dollar terms and as a
percentage of FAA appropriations as a whole, from year to year. Over the last 12 years the
share has ranged from 0% to 47%. See table 1 in CRS Report RS20177, Airport and Airway
Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress, by John W. Fischer.
11 Including supplemental appropriations, total FY2002 O&M spending was $7.119 billion.

---

CRS-16
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 TSA budget and the fact that this activity got a
$50 million supplemental appropriation in FY2002. Here again the Omnibus bill
adopts the Senate proposal for FY2003, which is the same as the Administration’s,
although the Senate is recommending a different distribution of funding to various
projects. The House bill provides an additional $14 million over the Senate level,
almost all of which is dedicated to increased funding for research into reducing the
environmental impacts of aviation.
Essential Air Service (EAS). The EAS program is operated through the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), and receives its funding from
designated user fees collected from overflights of United States territory by foreign
aircraft. EAS has an annual authorized funding level of $50 million. The EAS
program received $63 million in the FY2002 appropriations bill plus $50 million in
emergency supplemental appropriations, available through FY2003.
For FY2003, the Bush Administration predicts that overflight user fees will
generate only $30 million. It therefore asked that $83 million in Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) funding be provided from the airport and airway trust
fund to bring EAS up to $113 million. The Omnibus bill, which is the same as the
Senate Committee bill, recommends slightly more funding for EAS, $115 million,
but rejects the Administration’s funding sources. The Senate believes that all
existing points receiving EAS can continue to be funded without tapping into the AIP
program. The House sets the total funding level at $100 million. It too rejects the use
of AIP funds for EAS. The House, however, suggests that F&E funds could be used
to make up any shortfall in program funding, and also suggests that the EAS program
has unused funds that will allow the FY2003 program to operate at essentially the
same level as it did in FY2002.
The FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act also provided $20 million for the
somewhat related Small Community Air Service Development Pilot Program
(SCASD). The President’s budget proposal requests no funds for SCASD. The
Senate bill provides $20 million for this program for FY2003, as did the House
Appropriations Committee.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program provides
grants for airport development and planning. The Bush Administration 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
Administration’s request includes a rescission of $302 million of previous year AIP
contract authority. The request is in conformance with the FAIR21 funding
guarantees for AIP.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations recommended $3.4 billion for AIP (S.
2808; S.Rept. 107-224). The recommendation agreed with the budget request of $81

---

CRS-17
million for administration and airport technology research but rejected the proposal
to transfer $83 million from AIP to EAS. The Committee also rejected the request
for rescission of AIP contract authority. The report language “place named” 229
airports and directs that priority for discretionary grants be given to applications for
projects at these airports. On October 7, 2002, the House Committee on
Appropriations also recommended $3.4 billion for AIP (H.R. 5559; H.Rept. 107-
722). The Committee recommended $62.8 million for administration but no funding
for airport technology research under the obligation limitation. Instead, the
Committee recommended that $7.5 million for this purpose be provided under the
F&E budget. The House Committee on Appropriations also rejected the use of AIP
funds for EAS. H.Rept. 107-722 report language place named 210 airports and
directed the FAA to give priority to grant applications for projects at these airports.
The Senate-passed H.J.Res. 2 included the text of the Senate-reported bill on
January 23, 2003. The House disagreed to Senate-passed bill and agreed to
conference. The main conference issue is resolution of the differences in the lists of
airports “place named” in the House and Senate reports.
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 of the agency. For
FY2003 the President requested $24.1 billion for FHWA. This represents a decrease
of $9 billion, or 27%, from the FY2002 appropriation of $33.1 billion. The
obligation limitation, which supports most of the FAHP, is set at $23.2 billion and
is significantly less than the $31.8 billion provided in FY2002. Funding for exempt
programs (emergency relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) 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 (TEA-21)
(P.L. 105-178). As detailed below, the steep decline in spending is a result of TEA-
21 provisions that link federal highway program spending with the revenues that flow
into the highway account of the Highway Trust Fund–the revenue aligned budget
authority (RABA). The impact of a negative RABA adjustment dominated the early
stages of the highway budget debate.
The Senate Committee on Appropriations took a different approach and
recommended a total FY2003 program level of $32.9 billion, roughly the same as the
FY2002 level. The FY2003 limitation on obligations was set at $31.8 billion,
virtually the same as FY2002 and $8.6 billion above the President’s budget request.
In effect, the Committee recommendation would not only eliminate the $4.369
billion negative FY2003 RABA, but would also provide amounts roughly equal to
the FY2002 RABA bonus of $4.543 billion to raise the FY2003 obligation limitation
to the FY2002 level. The Report language of the bill (S.Rept. 107-224) heavily
earmarked many of the allocated programs (defined below, also commonly referred
to as the discretionary programs).

---

CRS-18
The House Committee on Appropriations recommended a total program level
of $28.7 billion for FY2003. This is $4.2 billion less than the FY2002 enacted level
but $4.6 billion more than the President’s budget request. In effect, the House
Committee recommended elimination of the $4.369 negative FY2003 RABA but,
unlike the Senate Committee recommendation, did not compensate for the FY2002
RABA bonus and raise the total program funding to the FY2002 level. The report
language of the bill (H.Rept. 107-722) heavily earmarked the FHWA discretionary
programs.
Figure 4. Federal Highway Administration
On January 23, 2003 the Senate passed H.J.Res. 2, the Omnibus Appropriations
Act. As amended the bill included the text of the Senate reported Transportation
Appropriations bill. On January29, 2003 the House disagreed to the Senate and
agreed to conference. The main conference issues for FHWA are the $4.1 billion
difference in the limitation on obligations between the House and Senate as well as
differences in the earmarking of Federal-Aid Highway discretionary programs.
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

---

CRS-19
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 TEA-21 requires that federal highway obligational authority be adjusted
accordingly. In simple terms this means that the RABA adjustment for FY2003 is
a negative $4.37 billion. Core highway program obligational authority for FY2003
would, therefore, be cut from the TEA-21 guaranteed level of $27.7 billion to
approximately $23.2 billion. This $4.4 billion reduction in guaranteed spending,
combined with the FY2002 RABA $4.5 billion addition to the TEA-21 guaranteed
spending, results in an $8.6 billion reduction from the FY2002 level.
This was an unexpected and unwelcome development for state and local
governments whose long-term transportation improvement plans (TIPs) are largely
predicated on continued growth in the federal contribution to highway program
funding. The RABA situation was equally unwelcome among those interests that
build roads or associated transportation infrastructure and those who support
continued highway improvements.
Hearings on this issue were held in both the House and the Senate during the
107th Congress. The FY2002 supplemental appropriations act (H.R. 4775; P.L. 107-
206) provides for a restoration of RABA funding for FY2003 to $28.9 billion. As
pointed out earlier, the Senate-passed bill has gone even further and increased
funding to a level comparable with that obtained in FY2002, $31.8 billion (obligation
limitation). The House Committee passed appropriations bill, sets spending at the
$27.7 billion level, but some Members of the House have made it clear that they
support the higher level contained in the Senate bill (H.J.Res. 2). All of the above
actions make it clear that the RABA reduction calculated at the beginning of the year
will not stand. An ongoing House-Senate conference will decide the final level of
funding for the highway program.
The TEA-21 Funding Framework. TEA-21 created the largest surface
transportation program in U.S. history. For the most part, however, it did not create
new programs. Rather, it continued most of the highway and transit programs that
originated in its immediate predecessor legislation, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240). Programmatically,
TEA-21 can be viewed as a refinement and update of the ISTEA process. There are
a few new funding initiatives in TEA-21, such as a Border Infrastructure Program,
but the vast majority of funding is reserved for continuing programs.
There are several groupings of highway programs within the highway firewall.
Most of the funding is reserved for the major federal aid highway programs, which
can be thought of as the core programs. These programs are: National Highway
System (NHS), Interstate Maintenance (IM), Surface Transportation Program (STP),
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation (BRR), and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment
on an annual basis by formula and are not subject to program-by-program
appropriation.
There is a second category of highway funding within the firewalls. This so
called “exempt” category consists of two elements: an additional annual

---

CRS-20
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.
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. The House Appropriations Committee
recommendation for FHWA RD&T in FY2003 is $462.5 million. The Senate bill
provides an FY2003 obligation limitation of $462.5 million, consistent with the
contract authority specified in TEA-21.
RD&T funds are used primarily to advance and deploy technologies intended
to improve highway pavements, structures, roadway safety, highway policies, and
intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The ITS deployment program provides funds
for states and local governments to use advanced communication and information
systems to improve the management and safety of their surface transportation
systems, primarily highway and transit systems.
An issue associated with the ITS deployment program is the earmarking of
funds. During the last few years, the appropriators have earmarked a substantial
portion of the incentive funds intended to accelerate ITS deployment. This practice
was continued in the FY2002 DOT Appropriations Act, and in both the House
Appropriations Committee bill and the Senate-passed bill for FY2003. Some
Members and proponents of ITS would prefer to have the deployment funds
competitively awarded. TEA-21, however, also specifies several projects which are
to receive some of the ITS deployment funds.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
[http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/]
The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.12 This agency became operational on January 1, 2000, and
12 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-21
assumed the responsibilities and personnel of DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier
Safety.13 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 FY2003 Administration request for the FMCSA is $367.5 million; this
figure was recommended by the House Appropriations Committee and approved by
the Senate.14 The appropriation for FY2002 was $354.3 million, including funds
contained in the supplemental appropriations measure. The FMCSA appropriation
consists of three primary components: FMCSA operations and administrative
expenses, assistance to states for the conduct of truck and bus safety programs, and
the border enforcement program.
Administrative and Research Expenses. The DOT FY2003 budget
request for FMCSA administrative and operations expenses is $117.5 million,
including funds for research and technology (R&T). The House Appropriations
Committee recommended this level; the Senate-passed bill approved this level. The
FY2003 DOT 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. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended and the Senate approved this level. A limitation on obligations of
$205.9 million for the National Motor Carrier Safety Program (NMCSP) was
provided in FY2002. These funds, are used primarily to pay for the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP), a grant program that helps the states enforce
truck and bus safety regulations. MCSAP grants cover, typically, up to 80% of the
costs of a state’s truck and bus safety program. Some 10,000 state and local public-
utility and law-enforcement officers conduct more than 2.1 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.
12 (...continued)
FMCSA.
13 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.
14 This amount includes $3 million that is obtained from FHWA’s limitation on
administrative expenses and made available for FMCSA’s administrative expenses.

---

CRS-22
Border Enforcement. The Administration’s FMCSA request also includes
$60 million for border enforcement intended to enhance the ability of U.S. DOT and
the states to promote the safety of Mexican trucks and buses entering the United
States. The House Appropriations Committee recommended and the Senate
approved this level.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
In H.J.Res. 2, the Senate provided virtually across-the-board increases beyond
the amounts requested by the Administration for NHTSA programs. For FY2003,
the Senate provided budget authority for NHTSA of $440 million, approximately $15
million (3.5%) above the $425 million requested by the Administration and about
4% above the FY2002 enacted level of $423 million. The House Committee on
Appropriations recommended total NHTSA funding of $433 million (comprised of
approximately $205.5 million for Operations & Research and $228 million for
Highway Traffic Safety Grants), about $7 million less than the Senate, and
approximately $8 million above the Administration’s request (see Table 3).
Table 3. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
FY2003 Budget
($ millions)
Program
FY2002
Administration
House
Senate Passed
Level
Request
Recommendation
(H.J. Res. 2)
Operations &
$200
$200
$205
$215
Research (O&R)
Highway Traffic
$223
$225
$225
$225
Safety Grants
Total
$423
$425
$430
$440
NHTSA Program Responsibilities. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for
automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for
drivers, identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state
governments to enact laws and implement programs (through safety grants) to reduce
drunk driving and to encourage the use of occupant protection devices. The Bush
Administration has continued a long-standing DOT priority that, “Improving
transportation safety is the number one Federal Government transportation
objective.” NHTSA plays a key role in implementing this objective.
In its policy statements, the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has
targeted specific program activities that have potential for reducing highway deaths
and injuries. Included among these are programs to: reduce drunk and drugged
driving; reduce the incidence of aggressive driving and “road rage”; aid in the
development of “smart air bags” that will continue to provide protection to
occupants, while reducing risk associated with the bags themselves; enhance infant

---

CRS-23
and child safety in vehicle crashes; and explore transportation options and safety
programs for an aging population.
In addition, NHTSA, in its program highlights, has emphasized its intent to
comply with the legislative requirement of the Transportation Recall Enhancement,
Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414). The TREAD Act
requires NHTSA to undertake more than a dozen rulemaking actions within the next
two years in the areas of tire safety standards, rollover propensity, and improving
child safety.
Figure 5. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Appropriations
In its report, the Senate expressed its disappointment that NHTSA had not met
its mandated deadline (under Section 13(h) of the TREAD Act,) to produce a study
on the use and effectiveness of automobile booster seats for children. That report
was due November 1, 2001. The Committee urged NHTSA to issue the results of the
booster seat study without delay. Moreover, the Committee expressed concern that
a previously established safety goal had not been achieved and that the agency
adjusted that goal downward. NHTSA had lowered its target of an 87 percent
national seat belt usage rate in 2002 to a target of 78 percent in 2003.

---

CRS-24
In its report, the House Committee on Appropriations expressed its awareness
of “extensive dissatisfaction and a significant drop in morale following the
reorganization” of NHTSA during fiscal year 2002. It indicated that temporary
dissatisfaction can be expected when programs and responsibilities are altered, but
that if a resulting decline in program effectiveness continues into fiscal year 2003, the
Administrator should be prepared to address the negative results of this
reorganization during the fiscal year 2004 hearing cycle.
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. 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 is called a placeholder while the
Administration works on a proposal for a new structure for intercity passenger rail,
involving a partnership between the Federal Government, the States, and the private
sector. Core safety and operations 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 authorized. Spending for
next generation high-speed rail development is reduced to $23 million, $9 million
less than was provided in FY2002.
The Senate provided $1.4 billion in funding for the FRA, which is $711 million
more than the President’s budget request. Most of the $711 million difference is for
Amtrak. The Senate provided $1.2 billion for Amtrak versus the President’s request
of $521 million. The Senate also provided more funding than the President requested
for Next Generation High-Speed Rail ($30 million versus the President’s request of
$23 million) and for the Alaska Railroad rehabilitation ($25 million versus the
President’s request for zero funding). The Senate provided $118 million in FY2003
for core safety and operations and $20 million for the Pennsylvania Station relocation
project in New York City, agreeing with the President’s request.
The House Appropriations Committee recommended $937.6 million for the
FRA. The House Committee recommended $763 million for Amtrak which is $438
million less than the Senate and $242 million more than the President’s request. In
addition to Amtrak, the other categories of funding with major differences between
the House and Senate versions are for the Alaska Railroad rehabilitation and the
Pennsylvania Station relocation project in New York City. The House Committee
recommended zero funding for both of these programs while the Senate provided $25
million and $20 million respectively. The House Committee’s funding
recommendations for next generation high speed rail and for safety and operations
are similar to the Senate’s figures.

---

CRS-25
Although most of the debate involving the FRA budget centers on Amtrak,
agency safety activities (which receive more detailed treatment following this
section) and Next Generation High-Speed Rail, as well as how states might obtain
additional funds for high-speed rail initiatives, are also issues.
Railroad Safety and Research and Development. The FRA is the
primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. The Bush
Administration proposed $118.2 million in FY2003 for FRA’s safety program and
related administrative and operating activities. Most of the funds are used to pay for
salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and headquarters
staff and to pay for information systems monitoring the safety performance of the
rail industry.15 Increased railroad traffic volume and density (train and passenger
miles 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 represented 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
FY2003 House Appropriations Committee recommendation is $117.4 million; the
Senate approved $118.3 million.
15 Those funds also are used to conduct a variety of initiatives, including the Safety
Assurance and Compliance Program (SACP), the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee
(RSAC), and field inspections. SACP involves numerous partnerships forged by railroad
management, FRA personnel, and labor to improve safety and compliance with federal
railroad safety regulations. RSAC uses a consensus-based process involving hundreds of
experts who work together to formulate recommendations on new or revised safety
regulations for FRA’s consideration.

---

CRS-26
Figure 6. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
The railroad safety statute was last reauthorized in 1994. Funding authority for
the program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety program continues using the
authorities specified in existing federal railroad safety law and funds provided by
annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held since 1994, the
deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorize continued
funding for FRA’s regulatory and safety compliance activities or change any of the
existing authorities used by FRA to promote railroad safety. A reauthorization statute
changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would most likely affect
budgets after FY2003.
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.

---

CRS-27
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 House
Appropriations Committee recommends $27.3 million. An appropriation of $29.3
million was approved for FY 2003 by the Senate.
The request for FRA’s safety and research and development programs includes
a proposal to impose a user fee on the industry. The collected funds would offset
costs of safety-related activities, raising an estimated $59 million that would be
credited to the general fund in the U.S. Treasury; general funds appropriated for the
programs would be reduced by similar amounts. Industry, in the past, has objected
to such proposals, maintaining the industry already pays its share of taxes and invests
heavily in safety. The House Appropriations Committee and the Senate denied the
Administration’s proposal to collect this user fee.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D. In FY2002, $32.3 million was
made available for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The FRA
requested $23.2 million to continue this program in FY2003. The House
Appropriations Committee recommended $30.45 billion, $7.25 billion over the
Administration request; the Senate provided $30.0 million in H.J.Res. 2.
Amtrak
[http://www.amtrak.com]
The President’s FY2003 budget request for Amtrak was $521.5 million, the
same as in FY2002. The President’s budget noted that this was just a placeholder
figure until a new paradigm for passenger rail service was developed. In June 2002
the Administration presented its principles for Amtrak reform, and announced it
would not support additional funding for Amtrak (over the $521.5 million) unless
accompanied by significant reform to Amtrak. Amtrak had said as early as February
2002 that it would need at least $1.2 billion in FY2003. The House Appropriations
Committee recommended $762 million for Amtrak, while requiring better financial
reporting from Amtrak and limiting the amount of operating support for long-
distance trains to $150 million, $50 million less than Amtrak says is required to
maintain the current level of long-distance service. The Senate provided $1.2 billion
in H.J.Res. 2. Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002; Congress is
likely to consider Amtrak reauthorization during the first session of the 108th
Congress.

---

CRS-28
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
President Bush’s FY2003 budget request for FTA is $7.226 billion, essentially
the TEA-21 guaranteed level. This is a 7% increase above FTA’s FY2002
appropriation of $6.747 billion.16 The House Appropriations Committee
recommended $7.226 billion, the amount requested. The Senate provided $7.226 in
H.J.Res. 2.
The transit appropriations shown in Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase
in FTA funding from FY1999 to FY2002 that occurred following the enactment of
TEA-21 in 1998.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit
programs: the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program and the Urbanized Area
Formula Grants Program. There are also several smaller formula and planning and
research programs. In FTA’s Formula Grants Program, 86% of the FY2003 funding
is for the Urbanized Area Formula Program, and 6% is for the Non-Urbanized Area
Formula Program (less than 50,000 population). The remaining 8% is split between
the other programs.
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309). This
program (formerly known as Section 3) has three components: new transit starts,
fixed guideway modernization, and bus & bus facilities. The Administration 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. The House Appropriations Committee recommended $3.036 billion;
the Senate provided $3.036 billion in H.J.Res. 2.
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 TEA-21 guaranteed amount), a 1% increase over the $3.26
billion provided in FY2001. These funds are apportioned on a formula based, in part,
on population (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receive two-thirds of the
funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive the remaining
one-third) and transit service data. The House Appropriations Committee
recommended the requested amount; the Senate provided the requested amount.
16 These figures for FTA do not include any projections to account for possible flexible
funding transfers from FHWA to FTA. In FY2001 such transfers amounted to $1.23 billion.
The Bush Administration budget assumes that flex-funding transfers between FHWA and
FTA will continue.

---

CRS-29
Figure 7. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
With the enactment of TEA-21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. However, preventive maintenance,
generally considered an operating expense, is now eligible for funding as a capital
expense. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population, and non-urbanized areas
(Section 5311), can use formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.
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.

---

CRS-30
All of these proposed amounts were agreed to by the House Appropriation
Committee and provided by the Senate. 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. This
request was not supported.
Job Access and Reverse Commute Program. TEA-21 authorized a new
discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program. This program
provides funding for transportation projects that assist welfare recipients and 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. The House
Appropriations Committee agreed to this request; the Senate provided this amount.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
[http://www.rspa.dot.gov]
For FY2003, RSPA requests a budget of $102.5 million17 (of which about 70%
is offset by user fees) compared to an appropriation of $96 million in FY2002. Most
of RSPA’s budget is allocated to activities that promote transportation safety. For
its pipeline transportation safety program, RSPA 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. The House Committee recommendation is $99.6 million and
provides $58.7 million for pipeline safety and $23.0 million for hazardous materials
safety. For FY2003, the Senate approved $107.8 million for RSPA, including $63.9
million for pipeline safety and $23.1 million for hazardous materials safety.
17 The Administration’s FY2003 request totals $124.5 million, but includes $14.3 million
in permanent appropriations, $6 million in proposed fees, and approximately $2 million in
retirement contributions that are not included in the FY2003 request amount used by the
House Appropriations Committee, which is the amount used in Figure 6.

---

CRS-31
Figure 8. Research and Special Programs Administration
Currently, much of the cost of RSPA’s pipeline safety program is paid for by a
fee that is imposed on the regulated industry. For RSPA’s hazardous materials safety
program, conversely, only the cost of the emergency grant program is offset by a
registration fee paid by specified regulated companies. The Bush Administration
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.

---

CRS-32
Table 4. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and
Selected Programs
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)
Final
House
FY2003
Senate
Conf.
FY2003
Agency
FY2002
Com-
Request
Passed
Report Enacted
Enacted a
mittee
OST
105
141
181
182
--
--
Essential Air Serviceb
--
--
(trust fund)
63
113
100
115
TSAc
1,250
5,346
5,146
5,346
--
--
USCGd
5,031
6,058
6,061
6,099
--
--
Operating Expenses
3,382
4,153
4,305
4,318
--
--
Acquisition,
--
--
Construction, &
Improvements 636
725
725
752
FAAe
13,295
13,582
13,599
13,552
--
--
Operations (trust fund &
--
--
general fund)
6,886
7,077
7,060
7,047
Facilities & Equipment
--
--
(F&E) (trust fund)
2,899
2,981
2,981
2,981
Grant-in-aid Airports
--
--
(AIP) (trust fund) (limit.
on oblig.)
3,300
3,400
3,400
3,400
Research, Engineering
--
--
& Development (trust
fund)
195
124
138
124
FHWAf
33,306
24,098
28,695
32,893
--
--
(Limitation on
--
--
Obligations)
31,799
23,205
27,653
31,800
(Exempt Obligations)
955
893
893
893
--
--
Additional funds (trust
--
--
fund)
–
–
55
Addnl. fundsg (general
--
--
fund)
200
–
100
200
FMCSA
335
367
367
307
--
--
NHTSA
425
425
430
440
--
--
FRAh
734
711
958
1,423
--
--
Amtrak
521i
521
762
1,200
--
--
FTA
6,747
7,226
7,226
7,226
--
--
Formula Grants (general
--
--
fund)
718
768
768
768
Formula Grants (trust
--
--
fund)
2,874
3,071
3,071
3,071
Capital Invest. (general
--
--
fund)
568
607
607
607
Capital Invest. (trust
--
--
fund)
2,273
2,429
2,429
2,429

---

CRS-33
Final
House
FY2003
Senate
Conf.
FY2003
Agency
FY2002
Com-
Request
Passed
Report Enacted
Enacted a
mittee
St. Lawrence
--
--
Seaway
Development
Corp.
13
14
15
13
RSPAj
96
108
100
108
--
--
OIG
51
57
57
57
--
--
STB
18
18
18
18
--
--
NTSB
68
70
71
72
--
--
Budgetary Resources
Grand Total
--
--
(estimated)k
59,588
56,010
60,054
65,055
Note: Figures in Table 3 were taken from tables in the House Committee on Appropriations report,
except for the Senate numbers which were taken from tables in the Senate Committee on
Appropriations report on H.J.Res. 2 published in the Congressional Record for January 15, 2003,
S761-S765, and incorporating amendments made to H.J.Res. 2 on the Senate floor. Because of
differing treatment of offsets, the inclusion of the NTSB and Architectural and Transportation Barriers
Compliance Board, and the exclusion of the Maritime Administration, the totals will not always match
the Administration’s totals. The figures within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due
to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to
rounding or exclusion of smaller program line-items.
a The figures for FY2002 do not reflect supplemental appropriations authorized under P.L. 107-38 and
P.L. 107-206.
b The total FY2002 funding, including supplementals, was $113 million.
c TSA’s total FY2002 funding, including supplementals, transfers and offsetting collections, was $5.8
billion. The FY2003 figure includes estimated offsetting collections of $2.65 billion. TSA’s
FY2003 request was increased by $546 million and its estimate of offsetting collections was
reduced by $124 million on September 3, 2002.
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 is 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.
iAmtrak’t total FY2002 funding was $1.1 billion, including supplemental and carryover appropriations.
J 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.
K 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-34
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-35
ITS: Intelligent Transportation Systems (FHWA)
MCSAP: Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (FMCSA)
New Starts: part of the FTA’s Capital Grants and Loans Program which funds new
fixed-guideway systems or extensions to existing systems
NHS: National Highway System; also a program within FHWA
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NMCSA: National Motor Carrier Safety Administration
O&M: Operations and Maintenance program (FAA)
OIG: Office of the Inspector General of the DOT
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation
RABA: Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority
RD&T: Research, Development and Technology program (FHWA)
RE&D: Research, Engineering and Development program (FAA)
RSPA: Research and Special Projects Administration
SCASD: Small Community Air Service Development program (FAA)
STB: Surface Transportation Board
STP: Surface Transportation Program (FHWA)
TCSP: Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program (FHWA)
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L. 105-178), the current
highway and transit authorizing legislation
TIFIA: Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act program (FHWA)
TSA: Transportation Security Administration

---

CRS-36
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 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 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 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.

---

CRS-37
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget in Brief FY2003
[http://www.dot.gov/bib/bibindex.html]
Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/]
House Appropriations Committee
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Interactive Budget Web Site
[http://ibert.org/civix.html]
Maritime Administration
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html]
Office of Management and Budget
[http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html]
Senate Appropriations Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]

---

CRS-38
Appendix 1: The Transportation Appropriations
Framework
Transportation is function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. It is
also considered part of the discretionary budget. Funding for the DOT budget is
derived from a number of sources. The majority of funding comes from dedicated
transportation trust funds. The remainder of DOT funding is from federal Treasury
general funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, which
contains two accounts, the highway trust account and the transit account; the airport
and airway trust fund; and the inland waterways trust fund. All of these accounts
derive their respective funding from specific excise and other taxes.
In FY2002 trust funds accounted for well over two-thirds of total federal
transportation spending. Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest
component of DOT appropriations. Most highway and transit programs are funded
with contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This is very
significant from a budgeting standpoint. Contract authority is tantamount to, but
does not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at some future
date. Under this arrangement, specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds are
automatically made available at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be
obligated without appropriations legislation; although appropriations are required to
make outlays at some future date to cover these obligations.
Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual
appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite
situation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control
already exists, and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs also is in
place.
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the
relationships between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget.
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) (P.L. 105-178) linked
annual spending for highway programs directly to revenue collections for the
highway trust fund. In addition, core highway and mass transit program funding was
given special status in the discretionary portion of the federal budget by virtue of the
creation of two new budget categories. The Act thereby created a virtual “firewall”
around highway and transit spending programs. The funding guarantees were set up
in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered as part of the annual
budget/appropriations process. Additional highway funds can be provided annually
by a mechanism called “Revenue Aligned Budget Authority” (RABA); RABA funds
accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased trust fund revenues. For FY2003,
however, it now appears that the RABA adjustment, if it had been left intact during
the appropriations process, would have led to a significant and unexpected drop in
the availability of highway obligational funding.
TEA-21 changed the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.

---

CRS-39
The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an
annual level of obligations. These were established by TEA-21 and are adjusted by
an annual RABA computation. In addition, it appears that TEA-21 precludes, at
least in part, the House and Senate appropriations committees from exercising what
some Members view as their once traditional option of changing spending levels for
specific core programs or projects. In the FY2000 appropriations act, the
appropriators took some tentative steps to regain some of their discretion over
highway spending. The FY2000 Act called for the redistribution of some funds
among programs and added two significant spending projects. In the FY2001
appropriations act, the appropriators continued in this vein by adding funds for large
numbers of earmarked projects. Further, the FY2001 Act called for redirection of a
limited amount of funding between programs and includes significant additional
funding for some TEA-21 programs. This trend continued, and even accelerated, in
the FY2002 Act as appropriators made major redistributions of RABA funds and, in
some instances, transferred RABA funds to agencies that are not eligible for RABA
funding under TEA-21.
Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called “guarantee” for Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation
spending, however, is significantly different from that provided by TEA-21. Instead
of creating new budget categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two
point-of-order rules for the House and the Senate. Supporters of FAIR21 believe the
new law requires significant new spending on aviation programs; and, for at least the
FY2001 and FY2002 appropriations cycles, spending grew significantly. Most
observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being somewhat weaker than
those provided by TEA-21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive points-of-
order during consideration of legislation.
Enactment of TEA-21 and FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have
total control over spending only for the TSA, the Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad
Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of
these agencies are concerned about their funding prospects in any year where it is
believed that there is a constrained budgetary environment.

---

CRS-40
Appendix 2: Transportation Budget Terminology
Transportation budgeting uses a confusing lexicon (for those unfamiliar with the
process) of budget authority and contract authority—the latter, a form of budget
authority. Contract authority provides obligational authority for the funding of trust
fund-financed programs, such as the federal-aid highway program. Prior to TEA-21,
changes in spending in the annual transportation budget component had been
achieved in the appropriations process by combining changes in budget/contract
authority and placing limitations on obligations. The principal function of the
limitation on obligations is to control outlays in a manner that corresponds to
congressional budget agreements.
Contract authority is tantamount to, but does not actually involve, entering into
a contract to pay for a project at some future date. Under this arrangement, specified
in Title 23 U.S.C., which TEA-21 amended, authorized funds are automatically made
available to the states at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated
without appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays at
some future date to cover these obligations. TEA-21 greatly limited the role of the
appropriations process in core highway and transit programs because the Act
enumerated the limitation on obligations level for the period FY1999 through
FY2003 in the Statute.
Highway and transit grant programs work on a reimbursable basis: states pay
for projects up front and federal payments are made to them only when work is
completed and vouchers are presented, months or even years after the project has
begun. Work in progress is represented in the trust fund as obligated funds and
although they are considered “used” and remain as commitments against the trust
fund balances, they are not subtracted from balances. Trust fund balances,
therefore, appear high in part because funds sufficient to cover actual and expected
future commitments must remain available.
Both the highway and transit accounts have substantial short- and long-term
commitments. These include payments that will be made in the current fiscal year
as projects are completed and, to a much greater extent, outstanding obligations to
be made at some unspecified future date. Additionally, there are unobligated
amounts that are still dedicated to highway and transit projects, but have not been
committed to specific projects.
Two terms are associated with the distribution of contract authority funds to the
states and to particular programs. The first of these, apportionments, refers to funds
distributed to the states for formula driven programs. For example, all national
highway system (NHS) funds are apportioned to the states. Allocated funds, are
funds distributed on an administrative basis, typically to programs under direct
federal control. For example, federal lands highway program monies are allocated;
the allocation can be to another federal agency, to a state, to an Indian tribe, or to
some other governmental entity. These terms do not refer to the federal budget
process, but often provide a frame of reference for highway program recipients, who
may assume, albeit incorrectly, that a state apportionment is part of the federal budget
per se.

---