Appropriations for FY2000: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Released: 2000-02-04T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

The President signed the Department of Transportation and Related AgenciesAct, 2000 ( P.L. 106-69 ), hereafter referred to as the FY2000 Act, on October 9,1999. The Act provided $50.2 billion for the Department of Transportation (DOT).However, the FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-113 ), mandatesa government wide rescission equal to 0.38% of discretionary budget authorityprovided (or obligation limits imposed) for all government departments.Approximately $179 million will be cut from the DOT funding levels provided for in P.L. 106-69 . The largest reductions are faced by the Federal HighwayAdministration (-$105.3 million), the Airport Improvement Program (-$54.4 million),the Federal Transit Administration (-$17.6 million), and the Coast Guard (-$1.6million). Even accounting for the rescission, the final funding level represents nearlya 6% increase over the appropriations level of the FY1999 Act.

The Transportation Appropriations Framework

Transportation is Function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. Itis also considered part of the discretionary budget. Funding for the DOT budget isderived from a number of sources. The majority of funding comes from dedicatedtransportation trust funds. The remainder of DOT funding is from Federal Treasurygeneral funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, thetransit account of the highway trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, and theinland waterways' trust fund. All of these accounts derive their respective fundingfrom specific excise and other taxes.

Together, highway and transit funding constitutes the largest component of DOT appropriations, and can account for 60% to 70% of total federal transportationspending in any given year. Most highway, and the majority of transit, programs arefunded with contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This isvery significant from a budgeting standpoint. Contract authority is tantamount to, butdoes not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at some futuredate. Under this arrangement, specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds areautomatically made available at the beginning of each fiscal year and may beobligated without appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to makeoutlays 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 oppositesituation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their controlalready exists and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs is also inplace.

Prior to the FY1999 Appropriations Act changes in spending in the annual transportation budget component had been achieved in the appropriations process bycombining changes in budget/contract authority and placing limitations onobligations. The principal function of the limitation on obligations is to controloutlays in a manner that corresponds to congressional budget agreements.

The authority to set a limitation on obligations for contract authority programs gave appropriators considerable leeway in allocating funds between the variousfederal transportation activities in function 400, which includes agencies such as theCoast Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, the inclusion ofthe highway and transit programs and their trust fund generated revenue streams inthe discretionary budget provided appropriators with additional flexibility as part ofthe annual process by which available funds were allocated amongst the 13 standingappropriations subcommittees in the House and the Senate.

Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA-21

TEA-21 changed this budgetary procedure in two ways. First, it created new budget categories and second, it set statutory limitations on obligations. The Actamends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to createtwo new budget categories: highway and mass transit. The Act further amends thebudget process by creating a statutory level for the limitation on obligations in eachfiscal year from FY1999 to FY2003. In addition, TEA-21 provides a mechanismto adjust these amounts in the highway account, but not the transit account, tocorrespond with increased or decreased receipts in the highway generated revenues(see revenue aligned budget authority - RABA- under key policy issues).

The net effect of the creation of these budget categories is a predetermined level of funding for core highway and transit programs, referred to in TEA-21 as adiscretionary spending guarantee. These categories are separated from the rest of thediscretionary budget in a way that prevents the use of funds assigned to thesecategories for any other purpose. These so called "firewalls" are viewed, in theTEA-21 context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levels of funding for highway andtransit programs. Additional funds above the firewall level can be made available forhighway and transit programs through the annual appropriations process.

TEA-21 changes the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs. The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting anannual level of obligations. In addition, it appears that the House appropriationscommittee is precluded, at least in part, from exercising what some Members viewas their traditional option of changing spending levels for any program or project.

The TEA-21 firewalls appear to diminish the flexibility of the committees on appropriations to meet the goals of the annual budget process, because they can onlyadjust the DOT agency/program budgets outside the firewalls. Hence, any reductionin spending for Function 400 must be allocated to these agencies/programs. This hasraised special concern for supporters of the FAA, the Coast Guard, and Amtrak,which are the largest DOT functions without firewall protection. See the key policyissues section for further amplification.

On June 15, 1999, the House completed action on H.R. 1000 , the Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR21). H.R. 1000 contains provisions that take the aviation trust fund off budget. Off budgetdiffers from firewalls and would give the trust fund status similar to the SocialSecurity trust fund as far as the annual budget debate is concerned. TheSenate-passed version of H.R. 1000 contains no changes in thebudgetary treatment of the aviation trust fund. A conference version of the bill failedto emerge from conference before the end of the first session of the 106th Congress. However, the conference remains open and action could occur in the second session.

The budget treatment of the aviation trust fund has become a particular issue in the 106th Congress. The aviation trust fund is expected to have large unobligatedbalances in the years ahead unless spending from the fund is increased or the fund'stax revenues are decreased. This situation, combined with the belief in some quartersthat protected spending within the TEA-21 firewalls constrains FAA spending in theannual appropriations process, has heightened interest in providing some sort ofbudgetary protection for aviation.

Supporters of the Coast Guard are also concerned about the new transportation appropriations environment. The Coast Guard is not funded by a trust fund, andhence cannot claim a user-fee base to support an argument for its own budgetfirewalls. The Coast Guard has a unique status within the transportation budgetcategory because of its wartime role in national defense. It is not unusual for theCoast Guard to receive some funds from military appropriations during the annualappropriations process. It is possible that the Coast Guard will seek additionalfunding from the military side of the budget in the years ahead if additional funds from transportation appropriations do not become available. Amtrak does not havea similar option.

Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2000

Key Policy Issues

The debate over FY2000 DOT appropriations included the major issues of: (1)allocating funds among competing DOT programs and (2) seeking a compromisebetween the concept of a unified budget versus specifically earmarked, "off budget"activities. Competition for funds stems from various transportation interests andfrom the modal administrations themselves. Monies have been allocated for adiverse array of purposes, for example, to pay for the expenses of the U.S. CoastGuard, to improve safety throughout the various modes of transportation, and to helpfinance various infrastructure needs. In the DOT and Related AgenciesAppropriations Act, monies are also provided to support the National TransportationSafety Board (NTSB), the Surface Transportation Board (STB), and several othertransportation-related independent agencies. (1)

The perennial question of priorities surrounds the appropriations process. Throughout its budget request, the DOT continues to emphasize several prioritiesincluding: safety, infrastructure, innovative financing, environmental enhancement,technology, and national security.

Much of the appropriations process must take place within the framework created by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), signed intolaw on June 9, 1998 ( P.L. 105-178 , H.R. 2400 ). The Act authorizedappropriations for key surface transportation programs through fiscal year 2003. Thegeneral sense of Congress appears to be that, although transportation trust funds arenot sacrosanct, proceeds from the Federal fuels taxes must be targeted toward thecapital and recurring needs of the vast U.S. highway and transit network and notviewed as a source of general revenue. Although attempts to move highway andtransit programs off budget prior to the 106th Congress were unsuccessful, Congressdid insert language within TEA-21 to protect specific funding by creating firewallsaround selected programs. The firewalls effectively created minimum funding levelsfor the selected programs. However, their creation has caused a congressional debatebetween the authorizers and appropriators over who should exercise ultimateauthority for spending levels. Firewalls established by authorizing committeesguarantee minimum funding for selected programs, but in the process, are seen bysome as reducing the funding that might have been allocated to other (unprotected)programs. Thus, unprotected programs must compete for finite amounts, generallycapped by the budget resolution. A similar initiative is underway for airtransportation through H.R. 1000 , although it drops the firewallprovision while retaining off-budget provisions.

TEA-21 also contained a provision (Section 1105, Revenue Aligned Budget Authority -- RABA) that authorizes DOT to redistribute trust funds, in excess ofprojected receipts, to the various states for Title 23 highway programs. Accordingto RABA, the additional revenues are to be allocated to the states using the formulasspelled out in the law. However, the FY2000 DOT request proposed redirection ofthese funds from highway programs to other DOT initiatives, predominantlyenvironmental activities associated with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality(CMAQ) program and transit. In the end, the FY2000 DOT appropriations act ( P.L.106-69 ) disallowed the Administration's proposed redirection of RABA funds.

Major Funding Trends

Table 2 shows Department of Transportation actual funding levels for FY1988 through FY1998 and enacted funding for FY1999 and FY2000. The major portionof these funds are contract authority. (2)

Total DOT funding almost doubled fromFY1988 through FY2000 (enacted). Totals may not include some user feecollections; thus, program totals may vary from other figures cited in the text.

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations: FY1988 to FY2000 Enacted (in millions ofdollars)

a "Actual" amounts from FY1988 to FY1998 include funding levels initially enacted by Congress in the Department of Transportation and Related Agenciesappropriations bill as well as any supplemental appropriations and rescissionslegislation enacted at a later date for that fiscal year. "Enacted" figures forFY1999 and FY2000 were mostly taken from the conference report tables( H.Rept. 106-69 ).

b Amounts include obligations, limitations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.

c The across-the-board rescission mandated for FY2000 required a reduction ofroughly $179 million from the $50.174 billion provided in P.L. 106-69 . Thisreduces the FY2000 enacted level down to just under $50 billion.

Comparison of FY1999 and FY2000 Enacted Funding

On October 9, 1999, President Clinton signed the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2000 (hereafter referred to as the FY2000Act or the Act). With total funding of $50.174 billion, the Act provided for anoverall increase of roughly 6% over FY1999 enacted levels. Table 3 sets forth atabular comparison of the FY1999 and FY2000 funding levels for a selection ofagencies' funding. (3)

Table 3. Department of Transportation Appropriations (for selected agencies, in millions)

Government Wide Recission

The FY2000 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-113 ) mandates a rescission of an amount equal to 0.38% of discretionary budget authority provided(or obligation limits imposed) for FY2000 provided by any act for each department,agency, instrumentality, or entity of the federal government. This required that theamounts provided in the FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-69 ) be reducedby just over $179 million.

Although DOT had substantial discretion in how the cuts were distributed within the department, the legislation did establish some limitations. The languageof the rescission legislation limited the amount that could be cut from any activity,program, or project to 15% and exempts any military personnel accounts.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Bulletin no. 00-01 includes criteria for allocating the reduction. The criteria state that:

reductions should be taken from the least critical funding available to the agency;

reductions should be considered from enacted funding abovethe President's request;

wherever possible, no reductions should be taken that wouldrequire reductions-in-force;

agencies should make targeted recommendations rather than anacross-the-board funding cut.

Reductions could only be made from discretionary budget authority and obligation limitations.

The allocation of the reductions, pursuant to P.L. 106-113 , is set forth in Table 4 . In implementing the OMB criteria DOT included reductions to amounts earmarkedin the language of the FY2000 appropriations reports. (4)

Table 4. Department of Transportation Allocated Rescissions

Coast Guard

http://www.uscg.mil/

The Coast Guard appropriation is constrained, and its management challenged, by increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on the highseas as well as by its aging fleet of water craft and aircraft. The Administrationrequested $4.1 billion for Coast Guard discretionary funds in FY2000. Compared tothe total $4.5 billion appropriated in FY1999 (including emergency and supplementalappropriations), the FY2000 request would have been $358 million, or 8%, less thanall FY1999 funds. (5) In addition to these discretionaryfunds, there were mandatoryfunds of $64 million for State Boating Safety grants. In passing H.R. 2084 on June 23, the full House approved the committee-reported $4.0 billion andadopted no amendments affecting the committee recommendations for the CoastGuard. In passing H.R. 2084 , as amended, on September 16, 1999, theSenate approved the $4.0 billion amount. Conferees approved $4.0 billion includedin the final appropriations, P.L. 106-69 . Earlier, in emergency supplementaryappropriations legislation ( P.L. 106-31 ; H.R. 1141 ), Congressappropriated $200 million for the Coast Guard as emergency funding contingent onan official budget request being made. Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation couldbe interpreted as being $4.224 billion. Coast Guard programs are authorized everytwo years; see CRS Report RS20117, Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001Authorization Issues , for discussion of current congressional consideration ofauthorization bills.

According to preliminary OMB figures, the government wide rescission called for in P.L. 106-113 , the DOT will cut the Coast Guard's enacted budget by $1.6million with the acquisition, construction, and improvements account being cut byalmost $1.5 million; the environmental compliance and restoration account by$65,000; and the alteration of bridges account by $57,000.

The Coast Guard budget request of $4.126 billion was proposed to enable the Coast Guard to continue its activities against drug smuggling and recapitalize aircraftand vessel fleets. Of this amount, $2.941 billion (a 4% decrease compared toFY1999) would have been allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide rangeof ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation, including $334 millionin defense-related funding. The Senate passed $2.772 billion; the House passed$2.791 billion; and the conference agreed to $2.781 billion of which $300 millionshall be available for defense-related activities. Another major component of therequest would have assigned funds for acquisition, construction, and improvement. For this function, the Administration sought $350 million, a 44% decrease fromFY1999, compared to total FY1999 funds. (6) Senate-passed H.R. 2084 would have funded this at $370.4 million and the House-passed version at $410million. The conference agreed to $389.3 million of which $20 million would bederived from the oil spill liability trust fund. For research during FY2000, the agencyrequested $22 million, an 83% increase over the current fiscal year. TheSenate-passed bill would have funded this at $17 million; the House-approved billat $21 million. P.L. 106-69 provides $19 million, with $3.5 million to come from theoil spill liability trust fund. The Senate approved $730.3 million for Coast Guardretirement; the full House approved $721 million, level with the current estimate. The conference agreed to $730.3 million. The Administration requested and both theHouse and Senate recommended $72 million to train, support, and sustain a readymilitary Selected Reserve Force of 7,600 members for direct support to theDepartment of Defense and to provide surge capacity for responses to emergenciessuch as cleanup operations following oil spills.

A prominent issue was the Coast Guard's management of a major planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas' vessels and aircraft. Only planningand analysis funds were included for this in the FY2000 request; actual purchases ofnearly $10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. AtHouse Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearings on February 11, 1999,and at the Transportation Subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committeehearing, March 16, 1999, the General Accounting Office criticized the Coast Guard'shandling of this vital replacement program. CRS Report 98-830 F, Coast GuardIntegrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress , discusses theissues associated with the program. In reporting S. 1143 , the SenateAppropriations Committee included several provisions in the bill language relatingto these needs. These include a requirement that funds from aircraft sales be creditedto the Deepwater Replacement Project Revolving Fund (created by a provision in S. 1143 ) for new aircraft purchases. The Senate approved bill alsopermits the Commandant of the Coast Guard to dispose of specified Coast Guardfacilities. As specified in H.R. 2084 , as amended by S. 1143 , proceeds from the sale of these facilities would be deposited into theDeepwater Replacement Project Revolving Fund. In H.R. 2084 , theHouse also included bill language providing for the crediting of sales of disposedproperty to this appropriation account. It also specifies that the Coast Guard mustsubmit a comprehensive capital investment plan with its FY2001 budget justification. These provisions were included in P.L. 106-69 .

Another issue involved the Coast Guard's planned use of user fees. The budgetanticipated using $41 million from new user fees for recapitalization of vessels,information management, and Coast Guard shore infrastructure not part of thedeepwater replacement effort. The Administration proposed legislation to authorizeuser fees for commercial cargo vessels and cruise ships; it anticipated collecting $41million in FY2000 and $165 million annually when fully operational. Proposals foruser fees for traditional Coast Guard services such as buoy placement and vesseltraffic regulation have been controversial. Some argued that these services shouldbe funded from general funds because of their widespread benefits; others argue thatuser fees should be assigned in instances where the beneficiaries can be clearlyidentified. In passing H.R. 2084 , the Senate included bill languageprohibiting the Coast Guard from using any FY2000 funds "to plan, finalize, orimplement any regulation that would promulgate new user fees..." The House alsoincluded similar language in passing H.R. 2084 , which was retained inthe enacted legislation, P.L. 106-69 .

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

http://www.fra.dot.gov

For FY2000, the Administration requested a total of $678 million in total budget authority for the FRA. (7) This was down from the$778 million for FY1999, and fromthe $743 million actual figure for FY1998. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 recommended $750 million and the House-passed version recommended $719 million. The enacted legislation provided for $735 million.

Pursuant to the government wide rescission, DOT cut $179,000 from the FY2000 enacted level. The largest reduction was allocated to the Next GenerationHigh Speed Rail Program (-$103,000). Rhode Island rail development (-$38,000)and Alaska railroad rehabilitation (-$38,000) were also reduced.

The most notable reduction from the FY1999 amount was the $38 million cut for Amtrak. Amtrak issues are discussed in a separate section below.

Railroad Safety and Technology. The FRA is the primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. In P.L. 105-277 , Congress appropriated about $77.3 million in FY1999 to fund theexpenses associated with FRA's Office of Safety and the expenses of associatedoffices within FRA. In the FY2000 budget, the Administration requested about$95.5 million for the railroad safety program and associated offices. Most of thosefunds were to pay for salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses forfield and headquarters staff and for information systems monitoring the safetyperformance of the industry. (8) The Senate-passedversion of H.R. 2084 recommended $91.8 million and the House-passed version recommended $94.4million for those activities. The conference agreement accompanying P.L. 106-69 specifies $94.3 million.

The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994 and fundingauthority for that program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA's safety programscontinue using the authorities already specified in federal railroad safety law andfunds appropriated annually. Subcommittees of the Senate Commerce, Science, andTransportation Committee and the House Transportation and InfrastructureCommittee held extensive hearings during the 105th Congress on various railroadsafety issues. Those deliberations did not result in a consensus to enact a law thatwould have authorized continued funding for the regulatory and safety complianceactivities conducted by the FRA or change any of the existing authorities used by thatagency to promote railroad safety. Any reauthorization statute enacted during the106th Congress could change the scope and nature of FRA's safety activities but that new safety law would most likely only affect budgets after FY2000.

Especially after the March 1999 crash between an Amtrak train and a truck in Bourbonnais, IL, which resulted in 11 deaths and more than 110 injuries, the 106thCongress is paying particular attention to railroad-grade crossing safety. Relevantissues include: Are FRA's grade crossing activities adequate and effective? How isFRA helping the states deal with that safety challenge? Is FRA's FY2000 budgetadequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional reaction to the answers of thosequestions appears to have had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2000. The conference agreement increased funding for Operation Life Saver to $950,000and provided support for a national public service campaign to increase awarenessto crossing safety and trespass prevention.

To support its safety program, the FRA conducts research and development (R&D) on a diverse array of topics, including: fatigue of railroad employees,technologies to better control train movements (positive train control), track research, and grade crossing safety. For FY2000, the FRA requested $21.8 million forrailroad R&D compared to $22.4 million appropriated in FY1999. TheSenate-passed version appropriates $22.4 million and the House-passed versionappropriates $21.3 million for railroad R&D. The conference agreement on P. L.106-69 specifies $22.5 million. In the reports accompanying each of thetransportation appropriation bills and the conference report, the appropriationscommittees historically have allocated the railroad R&D funds among variousresearch categories pertaining to safety.

High Speed Rail and Maglev. For FY2000, FRA requested $12 million of appropriated funds and $10 million of RABAfunds to continue the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. In FY1999 $20.5million was appropriated for that program. TEA-21 also authorizes $20 million ofcontract funds in FY2000 to support the Magnetic Levitation (Maglev)Transportation Technology Deployment Program. The Administration did not requestliquidating authority to use those funds, but instead proposed to use $20 million ofRABA funds to support research to reduce the costs of maglev systems. In FY1999TEA-21 authorized $15 million of contract funds to conduct the maglev program. For FY2000, the Senate rejected the Administration's request to use RABAformaglev, and instead recommended the $20 million of contract funds authorized inTEA-21 for maglev. The House also rejected the Administration's request formaglev, and left intact the funding provided in TEA-21 for maglev. The enactedlegislation, P.L. 106-69 , specifies $27.2 million for the Next Generation Program. Asmentioned earlier, the Next Generation Program was reduced by $103,000 pursuantto the government wide rescission mandated by P.L. 106-113 .

Amtrak

http://www.amtrak.com

The FY1999 budget authority for Amtrak was $609 million compared to $594 million in FY1998. These figures do not include an estimated $1.1 billion in fundsavailable to Amtrak each year in FY1998 and FY1999 from the Taxpayer Relief Actof 1997. The Administration requested $571 million for FY2000, as did both theSenate and House-passed versions of H.R. 2084 . The enactedlegislation ( P.L. 106-69 ) also provides $571 million.

Amtrak's financial condition remains weak. The Administration requests a change in legislation allowing Amtrak to use "capital" grants for routine maintenanceof equipment and facilities such as track. Amtrak testified before Congress in March1999 that without this change in legislation, Amtrak might not make it throughFY1999, the current fiscal year, on a cash basis. Amtrak typically borrows moneyfrom a private-sector line-of-credit near the end of each fiscal year to bridge the gapbetween its operating loss and federal financial assistance. Amtrak typically repaysthe loan early in each new fiscal year.

Federal operating aid to Amtrak is prohibited after FY2002 (49 U.S.C. 24101 (a) (1999)). The DOT Inspector General (IG), at the request of Congress, hasevaluated Amtrak operations and outlook, and concluded that Amtrak probably willcontinue to require federal financial operating assistance after FY2002.

In addition to the funding already discussed, the DOT IG estimates that over the next several years, Amtrak will require $2.7 billion to $4 billion in federal funds fornew equipment and improvements to signaling and track. Some of these funds wouldbe used to upgrade track between Washington, DC, and New York City. Beyond thisamount, the DOT IG estimates that Amtrak will have additional, continuingrequirements for such federal funding for the foreseeable future.

Amtrak Reform Council. Amtrak Reform Council funding is presented within the Federal Railroad Administrationbudget request. The budget authority for the council was $450,000 in FY1999compared to $50,000 in FY1998. The Administration requested $750,000 forFY2000. The Senate recommended $950,000 to be available through September 30,2001, and the House recommended $450,000 to be available through December 30,2001. The enacted legislation ( P.L. 106-69 ) provides $750,000 for the AmtrakReform Council and requires that each annual report of the council to Congressinclude the identification of Amtrak routes which are candidates for closure orrealignment.

The council was created in FY1998 to perform an independent assessment of Amtrak's labor agreements, Amtrak's progress in increasing employee productivity,and Amtrak's ability to operate without federal operating assistance after September30, 2002. If the council concludes, anytime after December 2, 1999, that Amtrak willrequire federal operating assistance after September 30, 2002, then federal lawrequires the council to submit to Congress an Amtrak reorganization plan; requiresAmtrak to submit to Congress an Amtrak liquidation plan; and requires legislativeaction by the Senate.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov

The FY2000 Act provides the FHWA with $28.9 billion in total budgetary resources. This is a $2.1 billion increase over the FY1999 level. The FY2000 Actcontinues the dramatic growth in FHWA funding that has resulted from passage ofthe Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( P.L. 105-178 ) (TEA-21) in 1998. By way of further comparison, funding for FY2000 will be over $10 billion morethan was available in FY1995.

The FY2000 Act funding was reduced by just over $105 million pursuant to the government wide rescission ( P.L. 106-113 ).

The FY2000 Act largely follows the provisions of TEA-21 in terms of overall funding distribution (a discussion of the TEA-21 program structure follows thissection). There are a number of provisions in the Act, however, that waiver from theformula guidance found in TEA-21. The principal change is in the distribution ofRevenue Enhanced Budget Authority (RABA) funds for programs under the directcontrol of the FHWA (these are the so called "allocated" funds and include programssuch as the federal lands highway program and the highway beautification program). The effect of the Act's provisions is to transfer a significant portion of the RABAfunds designated for the allocated funds to core highway programs (surfacetransportation program, national highway system program, etc.) for distribution to the states on a formula basis. The other major change in the Act is a significant increasein the number of specific projects and funding levels detailed in the legislation. Thisearmarking is a common feature in other parts of the transportation appropriationsAct, but has been absent from the highway section of the act for several years.

The earmarking and the RABA reallocation, are the most contentious featuresof the FY2000 Act and were opposed by the leadership of the House Transportationand Infrastructure Committee which viewed these changes as constituting legislating(i.e. authorizing) in an appropriations act. Opposition in the House, however, wasinsufficient to defeat the Conference Report on final passage.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 (formerly S. 1143 ) honored the TEA-21-created program structure and spending guaranteeprovisions and provided a small additional increase in spending over the ClintonAdministration proposal. The legislation as reported included total budgetaryresources for FHWA of just under $29 billion. Almost all of the programmaticchanges proposed in the bill affected research programs and intelligent transportationsystems (ITS) programs that will be discussed later in this section. The majordifference between the Senate Act and the Clinton proposal was in the treatment ofRABA funding. The Senate Act distributes RABA funds of $1.46 billion on thebasis of TEA-21 formulas, thereby rejecting the Administration's attempt to use thesefunds for non-highway activities. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 differs from the House version in that it narrows the scope of RABAdistribution to certain of the core highway programs instead of allocated programs,thereby excluding a number of smaller previously mentioned programs. During floordebate, this provision was challenged on a point of order as violating the Senate ruleagainst legislating in an appropriations bill. The point of order failed.

H.R. 2084 as passed by the House also honored the TEA-21 guarantee levels. Federal aid highway funds and RABA funds are identical to theSenate levels. Total budgetary resources available to FHWA were slightly lower inthe House-passed version. The House bill also rejected the Clinton AdministrationRABA redistribution proposal.

The FY2000 budget proposal submitted by the Clinton Administration requested FHWA funding at the TEA-21 firewall level, $27.3 billion. In addition, a RABAdistribution of $1.46 billion in additional highway funding was forecast. TheAdministration chose to make the very controversial suggestion that the RABAdistribution be reprogrammed to a number of transportation programs outside thehighway program firewall. These changes were designed to complement VicePresident Gore's proposals concerning the Administration's "livability agenda." Forexample, the Administration proposed $250 million in additional funding forhighway research activities, which are outside the highway firewall. RABA fundingwould also have been used for highway safety, transit, and rail related activities. TheAdministration proposal failed to gain congressional support and, as detailed above,was not seriously considered as part of the FY2000 appropriations process.

The TEA-21 Funding Framework. TEA-21 created the largest surface transportation program in U.S. history. For themost part, however, it did not create new programs. Rather, it continued most of thehighway 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 ofthe ISTEA process. There are a few new funding initiatives in the Act, such as aborder infrastructure program, but the vast majority of funding is reserved forcontinuing 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, whichcan be thought of as the core programs. These programs are: national highway system(NHS), interstate maintenance (IM), surface transportation program (STP), bridgereplacement and rehabilitation, and congestion mitigation and air qualityimprovement (CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment on anannual 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 authorizationof minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) and emergency relief($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to the annual limitationon 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 othergovernmental entities. These programs include: the federal lands highway program,high priority projects (former demonstration project category), Appalachian roads(formerly ineligible for trust fund contract authority), most minimum guaranteefunds, the national corridor planning and border infrastructure program, and severalother small programs.

TEA-21 provides a link between the highway generated revenues that flow into the highway account and highway spending. The Act requires that the Secretary ofTransportation make an annual evaluation of revenues into the highway accountduring the previous fiscal year vis-a-vis spending authorized within the highwayfirewall for the new fiscal year. If revenues go up, program spending is increased. Conversely, spending can go down if revenues go down. The Act specifies a formulato determine the direction and amount of highway funding adjustment. Thismechanism, known as the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA), is employedbeginning in FY2000.

FHWA Research, Development, and Technology Programs. For FY2000, the FHWA requested $641 million tosupport its research, development, and technology-related (RD&T) activities; this isan increase of $268 million over the FY1999 estimate of $373 million. The requestconsisted of $370 million to conduct RD&T related to FHWA's traditional highwayprograms and $271 million to support the National Intelligent TransportationSystems (ITS) program.

An important issue associated both with the traditional highway component and, particularly, with the ITS deployment program component of the RD&T program, is the earmarking of funds. The appropriators, historically, have designated asubstantial portion of the incentive funds used to accelerate ITS deployment. Forexample, in FY1999 the appropriators earmarked the entire deployment account byspecifying which cities or states would receive those funds and the amounts to beobligated. (9) Both the House AppropriationsCommittee and the Senate Committee onAppropriations again earmarked the entire ITS deployment program in their FY2000recommendations. The conference agreement accompanying P.L. 106-69 earmarkedalmost all of the deployment account. Many Members and proponents of ITS wouldprefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded.

The FY2000 budget request poses other issues regarding highway RD&T programs, but one is of particular note. This issue pertains to the use of RABAfunds. As previously stated, the Administration has been seeking the flexibility toallocate those monies according to its priorities instead of the distribution specifiedin TEA-21. The Administration proposed allocating $250 million of the RABAfunds to supplement both components of the RD&T program. If highway RD&Tprograms had received only their proportional share of the RABA funds now allowedunder TEA-21, the funding for those activities could have been increased up to about5% (plus any increase now specified in TEA-21 for FY2000), instead of the 72%increase proposed by DOT. (10) This would haveupset the agreements forged inTEA-21 regarding how the RABA funds would be distributed. The Senate and theHouse did not accept the Administration's proposal to use RABA funds to increaseRD&T activities by 72%.

Motor Carrier Safety Operations. In FY2000 FHWA requested approximately $55.4 million for the motor carrier safety(MCS) program that is managed by the newly established Office of Motor Carrierand Highway Safety. In an amended request, FHWA asked for an additional $5.8million for that program. The requested funds are used primarily to pay for thesalaries and expenses of some 630 staff who conduct audits or reviews of motorcarriers, write and revise the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, and conductmany other activities intended to improve commercial motor vehicle safety. InFY1999, $53.4 million was appropriated for those functions. For FY2000, the Senatespecified about $57.4 million for motor carrier safety operations, and the Houseappropriated about $70.5 million for that function. The conference agreementspecified the amount recommended by the House.

Various congressional committees have recently conducted hearings on the truck and bus safety program administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation(DOT). Two of the key issues that were discussed include: How effectively is thecurrent program being conducted? Is a new administrative structure needed toimprove its implementation? The debate on the future administrative structure of thefederal truck and bus safety program appears to have affected the FY2000 DOTAppropriations Act. P.L. 106-69 prohibits the use of any funds to carry out certainmotor carrier safety functions and operations by the FHWA, and would transfer thosefunds to any DOT entity other than the FHWA to carry out those activities. OnOctober 9, 1999, FHWA's motor carrier safety functions were transferred to a newlyestablished entity, the Office of Motor Carrier Safety, outside of FHWA but stillwithin the DOT.

In addition to the funds used to conduct FHWA's motor carrier safety program,the FHWA budget request included $105 million of contract funds authorized byTEA-21 to support the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) andvarious information systems used to promote truck and bus safety, and an amendedrequest of another $50 million to fund additional MCSAP activities and other safetyinitiatives. MCSAP provides grants to the states to implement inspection and reviewprograms affecting both interstate and intrastate commercial vehicle operations. InFY1999 $100 million was made available for MCSAP and related informationsystems. The House-passed H.R. 2084 appropriates $105 million forthose activities. The Senate-passed version appropriates $155 million. The Act, P.L.106-69 , specifies $105 million.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

http://www.fta.dot.gov/

The Clinton Administration proposed $6.1 billion for transit in FY2000. This would have been an increase of almost $700 million, or 14%, over the FY1999 levelof $5.4 billion. However, TEA-21 authorized $6.8 billion for FY2000, of which, $5.8billion was guaranteed under the so-called firewall provisions. The additional amountof $291 million over the guaranteed level of $5.8 billion under the Administration'sproposal for transit would have come from highway gasoline tax revenues derivedfrom the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority Act (RABA) funds designated byTEA-21 for highway programs. The reallocation of RABA funds to transit wasopposed by highway proponents. The American Public Transit Association (APTA)also opposed the Administration's use of RABA funds for transit purposes. APTAbelieved that the additional funds proposed by the Administration over theguaranteed funding level could be found within the discretionary budget category. However, APTA wanted transit to be funded at the full TEA-21 authorization levelof $6.8 billion for FY2000.

The Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 (originally introduced in the Senate as S. 1143 ) provided FTA with total budgetary resources of$5.8 billion. In doing so the Senate complied with the TEA-21 budgetary firewalls. The Senate bill provided no additional transit funding over this amount and rejectedthe Clinton Administration proposals for the redistribution of RABA funds. Duringconsideration in the Senate, a deadlock occurred over a provision that the would havelimited a state's total transit funding to 12.5% of total formula grant transit funding.The provision was controversial not only because it entailed changing the grantdistribution formula enacted in TEA-21 but also because all of the reductions wouldhave come out of the projected distribution of transit funds to the two states, NewYork and California. After a vote to invoke cloture failed, the provision waswithdrawn in the face of the certainty of a filibuster by the delegations from NewYork and California and opposition from those who were against changing any ofTEA-21's provisions in general.

The FY2000 Act provides a total of $5.8 billion for FTA. This exceeded FY1999 funding by $407 million, an increase of more than 7.6%. Almost all FTAprograms received funding increases. The transit appropriation figures belowillustrate the significant increase in funding from FY1999 to FY2000 following theenactment of TEA-21. As shown in Figure 4 , transit funding under TEA-21 reachedits highest funding level to date with a request of $5.8 billion in FY2000, althoughthis was below the Clinton Administration proposal of $6.1 billion.

Pursuant to the government wide rescission, DOT cut $17.6 million from the level provided for in the FY2000 Act. Capital investment grants absorbed most of thereduction.

There are two major transit programs: the Major Capital Investment Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Program. There are also several smaller formulaand planning and research programs.

The Major Capital Investment Program (Section 5309 -- formerly known as Section 3) is comprised of three major components: new transit starts, fixed guideway modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2000, the ClintonAdministration had proposed a level of $2.5 billion. Section 5309, under P.L.106-69 , received $2.5 billion in FY2000, compared to $2.3 billion in FY1999, anincrease of 8.4%. These funds are allocated on a discretionary basis by FTA orearmarked by Congress.

The Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307 -- formerly known as Section 9) provides for the everyday basic urbanized area capital and operating needs. These activities include bus and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities,fixed guide way modernization, new systems, planning, and operating assistance. ForFY2000, the Administration had requested $3.3 billion, an increase over the $2.8billion enacted for FY1999. Under the FY2000 Act, section 5307 received $3.05billion, an increase of 8.9% over FY1999. These funds are apportioned on acomplicated formula process based, in part, on population and transit service data.

There are also several smaller formula and planning and research programs that received increased funding in FY2000 over FY1999 funding levels. These programsinclude the Nonurbanized Area Formula Program, the Elderly and Persons withDisabilities Program, and several transit planning and research programs.

TEA-21 authorized a new Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program to purchase clean fuel vehicles in urbanized areas. Urbanized areas over 1,000,000 populationwill receive two-thirds of the funding, with the remaining third to urbanized areaswith populations under 1,000,000. FY1999 was the first year these funds ($100million) were appropriated. The FY2000 request was also for $100 million. P.L.106-69 provides $100 million for FY2000.

TEA-21 also authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Grant Program. This program is designed to help welfare recipients and low incomepersons with transportation assistance to suburban areas to find work. This would provide funds for projects using transit for individuals needing job training, childcare, and for other purposes. The program's initial funding level was $75 million forFY1999. The FY2000 funding request was for $150 million. However, for FY2000, P.L. 106-69 retains the previous year's funding level of $75 million.

With the enactment of TEA-21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for urbanized areas (UZAs) with 200,000 or more population. However, preventivemaintenance, previously eligible for funding from operating assistance, is nowallowable under an expanded capital grants formula program. Urbanized areas under200,000 population, including rural areas (under 50,000 population), can use all ofthe formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

http://www.faa.gov/

For FY2000, the Administration proposed to fund the entire FAA with a combination of current excise taxes and new user fees, and to establish aPerformance-based Organization (PBO) for air traffic services. (11) The funding levelfor the FAA would have been increased from $9.75 billion to $10.13 billion, or byabout 4% over the FY1999 level. The budget request emphasized two major areas:(1) safety initiatives to reduce the fatal accident rate on U.S. commercial carriers 80%by 2007; and (2) the upgrading of air traffic control automation to allow efficienciesthrough flights that are more direct.

P.L. 106-69 , the FY2000 DOT appropriations bill, was signed by the President on October 9, 1999; the bill provides a total of $10.081 billion for the FAA. This isa $327 million increase over FY1999 funding levels, although it is slightly less, by$50 million, than the amount requested by the Administration. The FAA'sOperations and Research accounts both receive increases over the FY1999 levels (however, these increases are $139 million and $17 million, respectively, lower thanthe Administration requested). The Airport Improvement Program is funded at thesame level as FY1999 (however, $350 million above the Administration request). (12) The Facilities and Equipment budget is reduced by $12 million from the FY1999level (however, $244 million below the Administration request).

Although the amount of funding for FAA is within $50 million of the requestedfunding, the Administration expressed concerns about the lower than requested levelsfor operations, research, and facilities and equipment.

For the first time, assuming no general fund supplementals, the FAA will be funded entirely from the aviation trust fund with no contribution from the generalfund. Historically, a substantial portion of the FAA's budget has come from generalfund revenues rather than the aviation trust fund, the rational being that the public atlarge realizes some benefit from the aviation system whether it uses the system ornot.

In related developments, the FAA reauthorization legislation, H.R. 1000 , failed to emerge from conference before the end of the first session of the 106thCongress. The conferees were unable to agree on the treatment of the aviation trustfund, the general fund share, and the cap on the passenger facility charge (PFC). Although most FAA programs and activities can operate without authorization, theAirport Improvement Program cannot, and has been in abeyance since October 1,1999. However, conference remains open and action may occur in the secondsession.

Operations. The Act includes $5.900 billion for FAA operations, an increase of $334 million (6%) above theFY1999 level, but $139 million (2.3%) below the Administration's request. Theincrease will be used in part to fund 100 additional field maintenance technicians andto bring on-line and maintain air traffic control and aeronautical navigationequipment now being delivered as part of the modernization of the air traffic controlsystem. The operations budget also includes $668 million for aviation regulation andcertification, and $145 million for civil aviation security.

In a statement released following the signing of the Act, the Administration said thatthe reduction in the operations account will slow hiring for safety and securitypositions and postpone implementation of needed efficiency and managementimprovements. (13)

Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The $2.075 billion for the F&E account is $10 million less than last year'sappropriation, and $244 million, or 10.5% less than the request. This account is theprincipal means for modernizing and improving air traffic control and airwayfacilities. It also finances major capital investments required by other agencyprograms, experimental research and development facilities, and other improvementsto enhance the safety and capacity of the airspace system. Concerned that the FAAhas not adequately justified the Wide Area Augmentation System, which will be usedin conjunction with a satellite-based navigation system, the Act zeros out theAdministration's request of $108.1 million for this program. The Local AreaAugmentation System request of $4 million was also zeroed. Other cuts in thisaccount reflect a general concern with the agency's poor record with respect to themodernization of the air traffic control system, and its failing to evidence a strongcommitment to mission focus, accountability, coordination , or adaptability. TheAdministration said that the reductions in the F&E account will constrain funding forthe modernization of the air traffic control system, including needed modernizationand improvement of the Global Positioning System. Furthermore, it said thereductions may increase air travel delays and ill-position the FAA to meet thegrowing challenges of the future. (14)

Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D). The Act provides $156.495 million in the RE&D account,which is $6 million more than last year but $17 million, or 10%, less than the request. Although programs were trimmed across the board, $5 million was added to theaging aircraft program request to continue and expand research activities at theNational Institute for Aviation Research.

Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides grants for airport development andplanning. The FY2000 Act provides the program with a limitation on obligations of$1.95 billion for AIP. This amount is the same as was available in FY1999. TheAdministration requested $1.6 billion. (15) Asmentioned earlier, pursuant to thegovernment wide rescission, DOT reduced the AIP's budget by $54.4 million belowthe level provided for in the FY2000 Act.

Because no FAA reauthorization bill that would authorize AIP for FY2000 has passed, the AIP has been in abeyance since October 1, 1999. Although existingprojects may continue, no new projects may be funded.

Passenger Rights. During floor debate in the Senate on H.R. 2084 , airline passenger consumerprotection issues emerged in the form of a number of amendments to the bill. In theappropriations Act ( P.L. 106-69 ), this resulted in language requiring the Office of theInspector General report on a number of issues: first, to investigate whether domesticand foreign air carriers are engaging in "unfair or deceptive practices" and "unfairmethods of competition" (pursuant to 49 U.S. C. section 41712), when they selltickets on flights that are already over booked or offer different low fares throughdifferent media (for example, different lowest fares via telephone or internet);second, the OIG is required to report, not later than June 15, 2000, on the extent thatbarriers exist to consumer access to comparative price and service information fromindependent sources (such as travel agents) on the purchase of airline tickets; third,the OIG is required to report on the extent to which air carriers deny travel to airlineconsumers with non-refundable tickets from one carrier to another. In anotherprovision, the FY2000 Act also expresses the sense of the Senate that the penalty forinvoluntary "bumping" of passengers should be doubled. The Senate version of theFAA reauthorization bill ( H.R. 1000 ) also includes a number ofconsumer protection provisions.

Research and Special Programs Administration

For FY2000, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) requested $85.8 million in budget authority, compared to $71.7 million which wasappropriated in FY1999, to conduct a variety of safety and technology programs. Forpipeline safety, RSPA requested $38 million, an increase of $3.6 million overFY1999; and for hazardous materials transportation safety, the agency sought $18.2million, an increase of $2.1 million over FY1999. RSPA estimates that 80% of itsbudget is allocated for activities seeking to promote transportation safety. TheFY2000 budget seeks to enhance RSPA's efforts to prevent damage to gas and liquidpipelines by outside forces (e.g., by a construction crew) and to increase grants tosupport state efforts to reduce environmental damage from pipeline spills. RSPAalso seeks to increase its staff supporting the hazardous materials (hazmat)transportation safety program and to increase funding provided for hazmat trainingand planning assistance provided to emergency responder and local planningcommittees.

For FY2000, the Senate-passed version of H.R. 2084 recommendedtotal budgetary resources for RSPA of $76.656 million, including $16.960 millionfor the hazardous materials transportation safety program and $36.104 for thepipeline safety program. The House-passed version recommended $82.953 millionin new budget authority for RSPA, including $17.813 million for hazardous materialstransportation safety program and $36.092 million for pipeline safety. Theconference agreement accompanying P.L. 106-69 provides $67.7 million for RSPA,but does not set a limit on obligations for the emergency preparedness grant programfor hazmat training and planning. The agreement specifies $36.9 million for thepipeline safety program and $17.7 million for the hazardous materials transportationsafety program.

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/

For FY2000, the NHTSA requested an appropriation of $406 million, up from $361 million enacted for FY1999. The requested increase included $125 millionderived from the Revenue Aligned Budget Authority. The $125 million of RABAfunds constituted about 30% of the agency's overall budget request of $406 million.

The Administration proposed using RABA funds to pay for all of NHTSA's motor vehicle safety activities, which include defect investigations, the auto-safetyhotline, and various consumer information programs on the crash worthiness of newvehicles. Last year, the appropriations committees funded the entire NHTSA accountusing highway trust fund monies.

H.R. 2084

H.R. 2084

H.Rept. 106-355

P.L. 106-69

The Senate Appropriations Committee expressed dismay at the Administration's proposal to use RABA funds for Operations and Research. The Committee hasrecommended that $72 million of contract authority (from TEA-21) be combinedwith $89.4 million authorized under sections 30104 and 32102 of title 49 U.S.C. andchapter 303 of title 49 R.S.C. for FY2000, bringing the total to $161.4 million foroperations and research activities. This amount is about $38 million less than the$199.5 million requested by the Administration.

Likewise, the Administration's suggestion that a substantial portion of NHTSA's programs be funded from RABA was not well received by the HouseAppropriations Committee. In its report, the committee states that, "Such budgetgimmickery does not indicate a sincere commitment to safety. Further, by submittingthis request to Congress, the department is shortchanging safety by not continuing areliable funding source for safety programs."

One of the agency's programs to encourage the use of seat belts has been bolstered by the recent presidential seat belt initiative. Although the "Buckle UpAmerica" program began in FY1999, it continues to be an important component ofthe agency's entire safety agenda. In addition, the agency is focusing its research andregulatory efforts on "smart air bags" and other lifesaving technologies. The SenateAppropriations Committee, in S.Rept. 106-55 accompanying S. 1143 ,expressed its concern over additional safety issues, including the emerging issue of tragedies of children becoming locked in auto trunks. The committee directs NHTSAto prepare a report determining the frequency of these incidents and to recommendstrategies to reduce such incidents. Although the trunk lid study deadline is March31, 2000, there is no funding earmarked to prepare the report.

Incentive Funds for 0.08 BAC Laws. Section 163 of Title 23, U.S.C., provides contract authorityof $80 million for FY2000 to provide incentive grants to those states that adopt andenforce a law that makes it illegal per se (by definition) to operate a motor vehiclewith a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above 0.08%. (16) TEA-21 provides$80 million of contract authority for the Section 163 program for FY2000, comparedto $65 million in FY1999. Currently 16 states qualify to receive those monies. Those funds do not require a separate appropriation and are protected within thefirewall for federal aid highway programs established by TEA-21. Although theapportioned funds may be obligated for any program authorized under Title 23,U.S.C., states are using most of those funds for behavioral-oriented traffic safetyactivities, rather than for highway infrastructure projects. In general, states supportincentive programs that encourage them to adopt specified laws rather than"disincentive" programs that take away or transfer a portion of their federal aidmonies if they do not enact those laws.

Table 5. Total Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies andSelectedPrograms (in millions of dollars--totals may not add)

Sources :

a Unless otherwise noted, figures for FY1999 enacted, and FY2000 requested were takenfrom H.Rept. 105-825 , H.Rept. 106-355 , the Budget of the United States, fiscal year 2000, and the FY2000 Budget in Brief andjustifications. Department of Transportation figures include adjusted figures that may not match the conferencereport or Budget of the United States figures. The columns pertaining to the Senate, House, and Conferencefunding levels For FY2000 have been taken from the table at the end of H.Rept. 106-355 . OMB figuresprovided by the House Committee on Appropriations were used to calculate the final funding levels.

b Includes $105 million to account for motor carrier safety grants obligation limitation.

c Figures for the Coast Guard were taken from H.Rept. 106-355 . In general, the Coast Guard total budgetaryresources includes substantial funding from the Department of Defense and from emergency supplementalappropriations. For more detail, see CRS Report No. RL30246, Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000Budget . For FY2000, Congress appropriated an additional $200 million as emergency funding contingent on an officialbudget request being made. Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation could be interpreted as being $4.224 billion.

d This figure for the Office of the Inspector General includes $9 million transferred from the FTA administrativecategory.

e Includes Surface Transportation Board estimated offsetting collections for FY1999 and estimated collections forFY2000.

f Budget reductions pursuant to the government wide rescission ( P.L. 106-113 ) that were too small to be reflectedin the Final FY2000 column in Table 5 are as follows: Federal Railroad Administration,$-179,000; TransitPlanning and Research, -$243,000; Coast Guard alteration of bridges, -$57,000; and environmental complianceand restoration, -$65,000; Saint Laurence Seaway, -$46,000; OIG, -$170,000; STB, -$58,000; and Office ofthe Secretary, -$28,000.

Note : Numbers within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations,rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding or exclusion of smaller programline-items.

Maritime Administration (MARAD) funding, and funding for the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC), are contained in CRS Report RL30209 , Appropriations for FY2000: Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary,andRelated Agencies , coordinated by [author name scrubbed].

For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 106th Congress , coordinatedby Glen Moore.

CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues , by [author name scrubbed] and Anthony J. Solury.

CRS Reports

CRS Report 98-749(pdf) . The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Federal Budget , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30096. Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Legislation in the 106th Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS20176. Surface Transportation Board Reauthorization and the 106th Congress , by Stephen Thompson.

CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress ,by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-593. Airport Improvement Program: Airport Finance Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30068. Automobile Air Bags: Current Issues Associated With New Technology , by [author name scrubbed] and John R. Justus.

CRS Report 98-890. Federal Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Analysis and Oversight Issues , by [author name scrubbed] andAnthony J. Solury.

CRS Report 98-63. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report 98-646. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( P.L. 105-178 ): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions , by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RL30246(pdf) . Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget , by Martin Lee.

Selected World Wide Web Sites

Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/

House Appropriations Committee http://www.house.gov/appropriations

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.access.gpo.gov/omb/omb003.html

Senate Appropriations Committee http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_detail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405