Appropriations for FY2001: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies
Released: 2001-02-12T00:00:00

Most Recent Developments

President Clinton signed the FY2001 Department of Transportation (DOT) Appropriations Act( P.L. 106-346 ) into law on October 23, 2000. The House and Senate had approved the conferenceagreement ( H.Rept. 106-940 ) on October 6, 2000. The FY2001 Act provides $57.978 billion forDOT. This is an increase of more than 14% over enacted FY2000 funding. The FY2001 Act appearsto be in conformance with the requirements of both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21stCentury (TEA-21) and the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century(FAIR21). It also includes, in modified form, a Senate provision to strengthen state drunk driverblood alcohol standards to 0.08%. In addition, the enacted bill permits the Federal Motor CarrierSafety Administration (FMCSA) to collect and analyze public comments and data on its proposedhours of service rules, but prohibits FMCSA from taking final action during FY2001.

The FY2001 Act includes conference agreement provisions not found in either the Senate or House bills, such as, additional appropriations of $1.37 billion for miscellaneous highway projects,$600 million for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, and $55 million for the Appalachiandevelopment highway system. Also provided is $720 million for the Emergency Relief Federal AidHighway Program.

On December 21, 2000, President Clinton signed the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 ) which provided for a 0.22% government-wide rescission. The Act rescinded roughly$125 million from the DOT budget. The Act also included just over $20 million in additionaltransportation spending.

The Transportation Appropriations Framework

Transportation is function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. It is also consideredpart 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 DOTfunding is from federal Treasury general funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highwaytrust fund, the transit account of the highway trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, and theinland waterways trust fund. All of these accounts derive their respective funding from specificexcise and other taxes.

Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest component of DOT appropriations, and can account for 60% to 70% of total federal transportation spending in any given year. Mosthighway and the majority of transit programs are funded with contract authority derived by the linkto the highway trust fund. This is very significant from a budgeting standpoint. Contract authorityis tantamount to, but does not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at somefuture date. Under this arrangement, specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds are automaticallymade available at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated without appropriationslegislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays at some future date to cover theseobligations.

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 tospend for the largest programs under their control already exists and the mechanism to obligate fundsfor these programs is also in place.

Prior to the FY1999 DOT Appropriations Act, changes in spending in the annual transportation budget component had been achieved in the appropriations process by combining changes inbudget/contract authority and by placing limitations on obligations. The principal function of thelimitation on obligations is to control outlays in a manner that corresponds to congressional budgetagreements.

The authority to set a limitation on obligations for contract authority programs gave appropriators considerable leeway in allocating funds among the various federal transportationactivities in function 400, which includes agencies such as the Coast Guard and the Federal AviationAdministration. In addition, the inclusion of the highway and transit programs and their trust-fundgenerated revenue streams in the discretionary budget provided appropriators with additionalflexibility as part of the annual process by which available funds were allocated amongst the 13standing appropriations 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. TEA-21 amends the Balanced Budget andEmergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to create two new budget categories: highway and masstransit. TEA-21 further amends the budget process by creating a statutory level for the limitation onobligations in each fiscal year from FY1999 to FY2003.

In addition, TEA-21 provides a mechanism to adjust the amounts in the highway account (but not the transit account), to correspond with increased or decreased receipts in the highway-generatedrevenues. This Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) redistributes to the various states, forobligational TEA-21 highway programs, the trust fund revenues that are in excess of projectedreceipts. These additional revenues are allocated to the states using the formulas spelled out in thelaw. However, the FY2000 and FY2001 DOT requests proposed redirection of RABA funds fromhighway programs to other DOT initiatives. In the end, the FY2000 and FY2001 DOT appropriationsacts did not adopt the Administration's proposed redirection of RABA funds.

The net effect of the creation of these new budget categories is a predetermined minimum level of funding for core highway and transit programs, referred to in TEA-21 as a discretionary spendingguarantee. The highway and mass transit categories are separated from the rest of the discretionarybudget in a way that prevents the funds assigned to these categories to be used for any other purpose.These so called "firewalls" are viewed, in the TEA-21 context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levelsof funding for highway and transit programs. Additional funds above the firewall level can be madeavailable for highway 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 appropriationscommittees are precluded from their former role of setting an annual level of obligations. In addition,it appears that the Act precludes, at least in part, the House and Senate appropriations committeesfrom exercising what some Members view as their traditional option of changing spending levelsfor specific programs or projects. In the FY2000 Appropriations Act the appropriators took sometentative steps to regain some of their discretion over highway spending. The FY2000 Act called forthe redistribution of some funds among programs and added two significant spending projects. Inthe FY2001 Appropriations Act the appropriators have continued in this vain by adding $1.37 billionin "miscellaneous highway project funds" for a large number of earmarked projects. Further theFY2001 Act calls for a redirection of a limited amount of funding between programs and includessignificant additional funding for some TEA-21 programs.

As suggested earlier, the TEA-21 firewalls appear to diminish the flexibility of the committees on appropriations to meet the goals of the annual budget process, because the committees can onlyadjust the DOT agency or program budgets outside the firewalls. Hence, any reduction in spendingfor function 400 must be allocated to agencies or programs other than highways or transit. In the erabefore the budget surplus, i.e. last year, this raised special concern for supporters of the Coast Guardand Amtrak, which are the largest DOT functions without firewall protection. The existence of asignificant government budget surplus has diminished this concern, at least for the moment.

Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)

FAIR21 ( P.L. 106-181 , signed April 5, 2000) provides a so-called "guarantee" for FAA program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is significantly different from thatprovided by TEA-21. Instead of creating new budget categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests onadoption of two point-of-order rules for the House and the Senate. The first point-of-order preventsCongress from considering any legislation that does not spend all of the "total budget resources" asdefined by FAIR21 for aviation purposes. Total budget resources for purposes of the Act areessentially the revenues and interest accruing to the aviation trust fund. The second point-of-orderprevents any spending for FAA operations and maintenance (O&M) or Research, Engineering andDevelopment (RE&D), unless the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the Facilities andEquipment (F&E) portions of the FAA account are funded at their fully authorized levels.

Almost all observers view the FAIR21 guarantees as being somewhat weaker than those provided by TEA-21 for highway and transit programs. Congress can, and sometimes does, waivepoints-of-order during consideration of legislation. In addition, there is a sense that appropriatorsmight still have some latitude to make significant changes to FAA O&M funding, which isdependant on both trust fund and general fund contributions. For FY2001, however, nopoint-of-order waivers were considered.

Supporters of FAIR21 believe the Act requires significant new spending on aviation programs. And for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, this has been the case. Enactment of FAIR21means that transportation appropriators have total control over spending for only the Coast Guard,the Federal Railroad Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies.All of these agencies were concerned about their funding prospects. However, the FY2001 Actprovides increases for all major DOT agencies except for the FRA budget which is funded at roughly1% below its FY2000 enacted level.

Supporters of the Coast Guard are especially concerned about this new transportation appropriations environment. The Coast Guard is not funded by a trust fund and, hence, cannot claima user-fee base to support an argument for its own budget firewalls. The Coast Guard has a uniquestatus within the transportation budget category because of its wartime role in national defense. Itis not unusual for the Coast Guard to receive some funds from military appropriations during theannual appropriations process. It is possible that the Coast Guard will seek additional funding fromthe military side of the budget in the years ahead if additional funds from transportationappropriations do not become available. For FY2001, however, the existence of a significant budgetsurplus has abated these concerns.

Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2001

Key Policy Issues

With release of the Clinton Administration's FY2001 budget proposal onFebruary 7, 2000, the budget debate began in earnest. In proposing an overalltransportation spending level of nearly $55 billion, the Administration continued toemphasize its safety, research, environmental, infrastructure, and mobility prioritieswhich complement Vice President Gore's proposals concerning the Administration's"livability agenda." Additional issues arose during congressional consideration of theappropriations legislation. The FY2001 DOT appropriations debate was lesscontentious than last year's debate. It can be argued this is a direct result of a lessconstrained budgetary environment.

The FY2001 DOT appropriations bill that President Clinton sighed into law ( P.L. 106-346 ) on October 23, 2000, provided for total funding substantially aboveboth the President's request and FY2000 funding. The $57.978 billion provided forDOT for FY2001 is 14% above the FY2000 level and significantly higher than theAdministration's request for a 7.8% increase. (1) Nearlyall agencies got increases butthe big gainers were the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the FederalAviation Administration (FAA) which got 16% and 25% increases over FY2000levels, respectively.

The FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 ), which was signed by President Clinton on December 21, 2000, included both agovernment-wide rescission and some additional DOT spending. The rescission cutsthe FY2001 DOT budget by roughly $125 million. The Act also earmarked over $20million in additional spending. The FY2001 enacted totals in Table 3 at the end ofthis report and the FY2001 enacted columns in the charts are rescission adjustedfigures. Because President Bush's FY2002 budget submission, when released, willinclude the official rescission adjustments for FY2001, the adjusted figures in thisreport should be considered estimates.

The early course of the House and Senate appropriations bills was strongly influenced by the constraints of the budget caps that appropriators were workingunder. This environment continued through passage of the House and Senate versionsof H.R. 4475 . Once it was clear that legislation would be introduced toraise the spending caps enough to fund agencies not protected by funding guaranteesthe issues were few and were worked out in conference.

Conference Issues

The House and Senate-passed conference agreement on the FY2001 DOT appropriations resolved a number of policy issues that were reflected in differencesin House and Senate versions of H.R. 4475 .

The Senate version of H.R. 4475 included language that would penalize states that do not adopt and enforce a 0.08% blood alcohol concentration(BAC) law by reducing their funding under certain federal highway programs by 5%in FY2004 and then 10% in FY2005. The conference agreement includes penaltieson states for failure to adopt a 0.08 BAC law but phases them in at a rate of 2%annually over a four year period beginning in FY2004, to a maximum of 8%.

The Senate bill also included a provision that prohibits DOT from spending funds to consider, adopt, or enforce any proposed rule or proposed amendment to theexisting hours of service regulations that govern the driving and work hours ofcommercial drivers. Concomitantly, the conference agreement permits the FederalMotor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to collect and analyze publiccomments and data on its proposed hours of service rules, but prohibits FMCSAfrom taking final action during FY2001.

In addition, the Senate bill included a provision that may not have been in conformance with FAIR21. It would have allowed FAA to transfer $120 million ofAirport Improvement Program (AIP) funds to the Operations and Maintenance(O&M) budget. This could have been interpreted as lowering AIP funding below the$3.2 billion level that, under FAIR21, had to be achieved to trigger a doubling of theprimary airport AIP formula entitlements. This could have caused a significant shiftof funds from the formula program and a relative increase in the monies available fordiscretionary grants. The conference agreement, however, did not include the transferprovision.

The House version of H.R. 4475 included language that would restrict DOT spending related to changing the corporate average fuel economy(CAFÃ) standards. The conference report also restricted any DOT move towardchanging the present standard, but allows for a new study of the standards by theNational Academy of Sciences.

Conference agreement general provisions (Title III) added significant additional appropriations not included in either the House or Senate-passed bills. Section 378of the conference report, described in the summary table as for "miscellaneoushighways," provides $1.37 billion for a listing of road projects earmarked withdesignated dollar amounts to be made available from the highway trust fund. Section326 makes available an additional $54.936 million from the highway trust fund forthe Appalachian development highway system. Section 379 provides an additional$600 million from general fund revenues for replacement of the Woodrow WilsonMemorial Bridge. Finally, the agreement provides $720 million from the trust fundfor the Emergency Relief Federal Aid Highway program.

In addition to earmarking additional funding in the text of H.R. 4475 , the conference agreement report language directs that specific dollar amountsbe made available for many projects in programs that are under the control of theFederal Highway Administration (FHWA). The Federal Lands Program, the BridgeDiscretionary Program, the Transportation and Community and System PreservationProgram, ferry boats and ferry terminals, intelligent transportation systems, and theNational Corridor Planning and Development Program were all earmarked to asignificant extent in the report language of the conference report.

The conference report directs that specific dollar amounts be provided for discretionary airport grants to airports named in the text of the report as high priorityprojects. Although, in the past, naming certain airports' projects as priorities was notunusual, specifying the dollar amounts is new.

Transit capital investment grants were, as usual, earmarked to a significant degree. The agreement also provides increased budget authority to fund a number ofprojects specified in the language of the bill.

Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) distribution was altered as well. H.R. 4475 redirects the RABA distribution of funds that would havegone to the allocated programs, to the core programs that distribute monies to thestates. For FY2001, although most of the RABA funds distribution was directed tothe states, some was set aside as follows: $156 million for specific projects, $18.5million for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, $25 million for Indian Roads,and $10 million for the commercial driver's license program.

Major Funding Trends

Table 2 shows Department of Transportation actual or enacted funding levels for FY1988 through FY2001. (2) Total DOT fundingmore than doubled from FY1988through FY2001.

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations: FY1988 to FY2001 (in millions of dollars)

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 rescissionsenacted at a later date for that fiscal year. "Enacted" figures for FY1999 and FY2000are taken from the conference report tables ( H.Rept. 106-355 ).

b Amounts include limitations on obligations, DOD transfers, and exemptobligations.

c The across-the-board rescission mandated for FY2000 required a reduction ofroughly $179 million from the DOT appropriations provided in P.L. 106-69 .

d FY2001 funding figure is taken from the budget tables in H.Rept. 106-940 andadjusted for the 0.22% rescission. Additional appropriations, transfers, andcarry-overs are, in part, based on information provided by DOT.

Coast Guard

http://www.uscg.mil/

The Coast Guard's increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrantinterdiction on the high seas and its aging fleet of water craft and aircraft are twoconcerns associated with its funding. The Administration requested $4.609 billionfor Coast Guard discretionary funds in FY2001. (3) Compared to the total $4.022 billionappropriated in FY2000, the FY2001 request represents a $586 million, or 15%increase. In approving FY2001 funds on May 16, 2000, the House AppropriationsCommittee ( H.Rept. 106-622 ) recommended a total of $4.617 billion, an amountapproved by the House on May 19, 2000. This amount was $7.9 million above thePresident's request. On June 14, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $4.359 ( S.Rept. 106-309 ), an amount approved by Senate on June 15.The conference recommended $4.519 billion, which is also the enacted funding. (4) InDecember 2000, the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-455 ) 0.22%government-wide rescission reduced Coast Guard funding to $4.511 billion. CoastGuard programs are authorized every 2 years; see CRS Report RS20117, CoastGuard FY2000 and FY2001 Authorization Issues , for discussion of currentcongressional consideration of authorization bills. For a more in depth discussion ofthe Coast Guard's budget, see CRS Report RS20600, Coast Guard: FY2001 BudgetIssues .

The Coast Guard budget request of $4.609 billion was proposed to enable the Coast Guard to continue its activities against drug smuggling and recapitalize aircraftand vessel fleets. Of this amount, $3.199 billion (a 15% increase compared toFY2000) would be allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide range of ships,boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. The House approved $3.192billion, $7 million less than requested; the Senate, $3.040 billion, $159 million lessthan requested. The conferees recommended $3.192 billion, which was reduced bythe government-wide rescission to $3.185 billion. Another major component of therequest would assign funds for acquisition, construction, and improvement purposes.For this component, the Administration sought $520 million, a 34% increasecompared to FY2000 funds. The House passed $515 million, $5.2 million less thanrequested; the Senate $407.8 million, $107 million less than the request. Theconference committee recommended $415.0 million. The government-widerescission reduced this to $414 million. The proposal sought, the House and Senateapproved, and the conferees recommended $17 million, roughly the current level, forCoast Guard activities for environmental compliance and restoration. For research,test, and evaluation, the plan requested, the Senate and the conferees approved $21.3million, $3 million more than FY2000 funds; the House had approved $19.7 million.For Coast Guard retirement, the budget sought, the House and Senate approved, andthe conferees recommended $778 million, $48 million more than the current level. (5) The Administration requested $73 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. The House and Senate approved$80.4 million, the amount recommended by the conference committees. Therescission reduced this amount to $80.2 million.

A prominent issue has been the Coast Guard's management of a major planned replacement of aging and outmoded high seas' vessels and aircraft. Only planningand analysis funds of about $45 million were requested for this in the FY2001request; actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year periodbeginning in FY2002. During hearings before the Coast Guard's authorizing andappropriating subcommittees in 1999, the General Accounting Office (GAO)criticized the Coast Guard's handling of this vital replacement program. CRS Report 98-830F, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues forCongress , discusses the issues associated with the program. In approving FY2000funds in P.L. 106-69 , Congress specified that the Coast Guard submit acomprehensive capital investment plan with its FY2001 budget justification, a datenot met by the Coast Guard. The House FY2001 bill included language requiring acapital investment plan covering 2002-2006 to be submitted with the FY2002 budgetand specifies a rescission of $100,000 per day if the due date is not met. Theconferees included this bill language except for the rescission provision. TheSenate-passed bill would have withheld FY2001 planning funds until the study wascompleted.

Another issue involved the Coast Guard's planned use of user fees. The FY2001 budget anticipates using roughly $95 million from new user fees for recapitalizationof vessels, information management, and Coast Guard shore infrastructure not partof the deepwater replacement effort. The Administration has proposed legislation toauthorize user fees for commercial cargo vessels and cruise ships; it anticipatescollecting $212 million in FY2001 and $636 million annually when the fee systemis fully operational. Past proposals for user fees for traditional Coast Guard services,such as buoy placement and vessel traffic regulation, have been controversial. Somehave argued that these services should be funded from general funds because of theirwidespread benefits; others think that user fees should be assigned in instances wherethe beneficiaries can be clearly identified. In passing FY2000 appropriations in P.L.106-69 ( H.R. 2084 ), Congress included bill language prohibiting theCoast Guard from using any FY2000 funds "to plan, finalize, or implement anyregulation that would promulgate new user fees . . . ." The FY2001 House andSenate-passed FY2001 bills, and the conference recommendation continue thisprohibition.

Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)

http://www.fra.dot.gov

For FRA the FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-346 ) provides $725.6 million. The House bill had provided $689 million; the Senate bill $705 million. TheHouse, Senate, and enacted versions of H.R. 4475 included roughly$521 million for Amtrak. All three versions rejected the Administration's request for$468 million in RABA funding for its expanded Intercity Passenger Service fund.

The FRA FY2001 budget also includes a $20 million FY2000 advance appropriation and a $10 million transfer from the Department of Defense ( P.L.106-259 ). This raised the total for FRA to $756.6 million. The government-wide0.22% rescission, in the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 )reduced the total to $755 million.

During the debate in the House, two significant provisions allowing the use of Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) or SurfaceTransportation Program (STP) funds for intercity rail passenger vehicles andfacilities; and increasing the federal share for the elimination of rail-highway crossinghazards from 90% to 100% were eliminated on points-of-order. (6) In the Senate, thefloor debate included discussion of an amendment that would have allowed states touse federal-aid highway funds for intercity passenger rail (see discussion at the endof the FRA section).

For FY2001, the Administration had requested $1.179 billion for FRA; roughlya 60% increase over the FY2000 enacted level. (7) Theincrease reflected the impact ofa new DOT initiative: the Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Program.

The most notable reduction is a $50 million cut for Amtrak. Amtrak issues are discussed in a following section.

Railroad Safety and Technology.The FRA is the primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety.In the FY2000 budget, the Administration requested $95.5 million for the railroadsafety program and other administrative and operating activities related to FRA staffand programs. Most of those funds were used to pay for salaries as well as associatedtravel and training expenses for field and headquarters staff and for informationsystems monitoring the safety performance of the industry. (8) The FY2000 DOTAppropriations Act, P. L. 106-69, provides $94.3 million for those expenses. ForFY2001, the Administration requested $103.2 million for those expenses. In H.R. 4475 , the House specified $102.5 million for FRA's safety andoperations activities. The Senate in its version of H.R. 4475 specified$99.4 million. The enacted conference agreement provides $101.7 million for safetyand operations. The government-wide rescission reduced this amount to $101.5million.

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 specified in existing federal railroad safety law andfunds provided by annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held sincethen, those deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorizecontinued funding for FRA's regulatory and safety compliance activities or changeany of the existing authorities used by that agency to promote railroad safety. Areauthorization statute changing the scope and nature of FRA's safety activitieswould most likely affect budgets after FY2001.

The adequacy and effectiveness of FRA's grade-crossing activities continue to be of interest, especially after the March 1999 crash between an Amtrak train and atruck in Bourbonnais, IL., which resulted in 11 deaths and more than 110 injuries.Relevant safety issues include: How is FRA helping the states deal with the gradecrossing safety challenge? Is FRA's FY2001 budget adequate to deal with thatchallenge? Congressional reaction to those questions had a bearing on the railroadsafety budget for FY2001. In its FY2001 budget, FRA requested additional fundingto strengthen its grade crossing program and associated public education activities.The FY 2001 Act specifies $1.025 million for these activities.

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 control train movements, and track dynamics. In the reportsaccompanying the House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in theannual conference report, the appropriations committees historically have allocatedthe railroad R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety. ForFY2000, the FRA requested $21.8 million for railroad R&D. The conferenceagreement on P.L. 106-69 specifies $22.5 million for the FY2000 R&D program. ForFY2001, FRA requested $26.8 million for railroad R&D activities. In H.R. 4475 , the House approved $26.3 million for railroad R&D. TheSenate allocated $24.7 million for railroad R&D. The enacted conference agreementspecifies $25.3 million for railroad R&D.

High Speed Rail R&D and Magnetic LevitationTransportation Technology Deployment Program. In FY2000, $27.1million was made available for the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. TheFRA requested $22 million to continue this program in FY2001. In H.R. 4475 , the House appropriated $22 million for FRA's high speed rail program. TheSenate appropriated $24.9 million for that activity. The enacted conferenceagreement specifies $25.1 million for that program. TEA-21 authorizes $20 millionof contract authority in FY2000 to support the Magnetic Levitation (maglev)Transportation Technology Deployment Program. For FY2001, TEA-21 provides$25 million of contract authority for continuation of the maglev program.

Amtrak

http://www.amtrak.com

The FY2000 budget authority for Amtrak was $571 million compared to $609 million in FY1999. Amtrak also had about $1.1 billion available in FY1999 from theTaxpayer Relief Act of 1997 for such things as new equipment and improvedsignaling and track. Amtrak borrowed some of that $1.1 billion to cover operatingexpenses. The Administration proposal, House, Senate, and enacted versions of H.R. 4475 all provided $521 million for Amtrak for FY2001. Thegovernment-wide rescission for FY2001 reduced Amtrak's funding to just over $520million.

Federal financial operating assistance to Amtrak is prohibited after FY2002 (49 U.S.C. 24101 (a) (1999)). GAO and the DOT Inspector General (IG), at the requestof Congress, have evaluated Amtrak operations and outlook, and have reported toCongress that they are not optimistic that Amtrak will be able to operate withoutfederal financial operating assistance after FY2002. In 1997, Congress created anindependent national commission, the Amtrak Reform Council, and assigned itseveral tasks regarding Amtrak and the future of intercity rail passenger service. TheCouncil submitted its first annual report to Congress in January 2000. In that report,the Council stated that "During the decade when the American economy and mostof its transportation system have expanded in an unprecedented manner, Amtrak'sridership has remained virtually unchanged . . . . The most notable accomplishmentof intercity rail passenger service since 1970 is that it has simply managed to survive,albeit as a declining percentage of the total transportation market." The reportcontains suggestions for Amtrak. The report also contains issues the Council intendsto study during 2000.

In addition to federal financial operating assistance to Amtrak, the DOT IG estimates that over the next several years, Amtrak will require $2.7 billion to $4billion in federal funds for new equipment and improvements to signaling and track.Some of these funds would be used to upgrade track between Washington, DC, andNew York City, the most heavily traveled Amtrak route. Beyond this amount, theDOT IG estimates that Amtrak will have additional, continuing requirements forfederal funding for new equipment and improvements to signaling and track for theforeseeable future.

Amtrak Reform Council. AmtrakReform Council (hereafter referred to as the Council) funding is presented within thebudget request, although the Council is an independent federal commission. Thebudget authority for the Council was $750,000 in FY2000 compared to $450,000 inFY1999. The Administration requested $1 million for FY2001. The House-passedbill provided $450,000; the Senate-passed bill $495,000. The conference agreementrecommended $750,000 for the Council in FY2001 and this became the enactedfigure.

The Council was created in 1997 to perform an independent assessment of Amtrak's labor agreements, Amtrak's progress in increasing employee productivity,and (any time after December 2, 1999) Amtrak's ability to operate without federaloperating assistance after September 30, 2002. Congress added other duties later. Ifthe Council concludes that Amtrak will require federal operating assistance afterSeptember 30, 2002, then federal law requires the Council to submit to Congress anAmtrak reorganization plan; requires Amtrak to submit to Congress an Amtrakliquidation plan; and states that legislative action will be taken by the Senate.

Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger ServiceFund. The Administration's budget proposal requested theestablishment of a new grant program to aid Amtrak and intercity rail passengerservice, to be funded at $468 million in FY2001. The money was to come fromRABA funds associated with the highway trust fund. The projects funded would haverequired a 100% state match; a positive financial contribution to Amtrak; publicbenefits in excess of public costs and would have to be located on a current orpotential intercity rail corridor. Funds were to go toward the acquisition ofequipment, construction of infrastructure improvements (including acquisition ofright-of-way), and planning and design. Funds were to be used only for capital asdefined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), thus excluding themfrom use for maintenance of equipment or track. The House and Senate-passed bills,as well as the conference agreement, provided no funding for FY2001.

In the Senate, an amendment was offered from the floor to allow states to use their apportionments from the highway trust fund (specifically, from the nationalhighway system program, the surface transportation program, and the congestionmitigation and air quality improvement program) to pay for capital improvements forintercity passenger rail service. The argument for this amendment was that theindividual states were the best judges of their most urgent transportation needs andshould be given the flexibility to spend their available transportation funds as theysee fit. The arguments against this amendment were that since the repair andmaintenance needs of the nation's highway system are great, none of the money forthat purpose should be used for anything else; and also that expanding the spendingcriteria to include things other than highways would constitute legislating in anappropriations bill. The amendment failed on a point-of-order objection that theamendment was legislating in an appropriations bill; the objection was upheld by a52-46 vote.

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov

The FY2001 Appropriations Act provides FHWA with budgetary resources of$33.452 billion. The government-wide rescission mandated in the ConsolidatedAppropriations Act ( P.L. 106-554 ) along with some additional appropriations and thecarry-over of some unobligated exempt obligations created a new total of $33.425billion. Even accounting for these adjustments the final enacted funding isdramatically above the level provided in FY2000, an increase of approximately $4.6billion or roughly 16%. The FHWA component of the final act is, in fact,dramatically larger than the amounts provided in either the House or Senate versionsof the appropriations bill. Almost all of the additional funding in the Act comes fromthe addition of earmarked highway projects outside the core TEA-21 programs. Thelargest components of this increase include: $1.37 billion in earmarked"miscellaneous highway" project funds, an additional $720 million for the emergencyrelief program, an additional $55 million for the Appalachian development highwaysystem, and $600 million for the reconstruction of the Woodrow Wilson Bridge.

With the exception of funding provided for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge, all additional spending for FY2001 comes from the highway trust fund. The additionalspending proposals in the bill tend to distract from the fact that core FHWA spendingalso receives a significant increase as a result of the availability of additional RABAmonies. As a result, the FY2001 limitation on obligations rises to almost $29.7billion, an increase of almost $2 billion from the FY2000 level.

The Senate-passed version of the FY2001 appropriations bill provided FHWA with total budgetary resources of $30.7 billion, comparable to those found in theHouse-passed version of the bill, also $30.7 billion. Both House and Senate billsprovided funding at levels slightly above the $30.6 billion level found in theAdministration proposal. Programmatically, the House and Senate bills closelytracked the Administration proposals, which are in turn governed by the provisionsof TEA-21. The limitation on obligation funding level in both bills was an identical$29.7 billion. The House and Senate bills essentially ignored an Administrationrequest to redistribute a portion of FY2001 revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)funds.

The FHWA portion of the appropriations bill drew little comment during floor consideration of this legislation in the House, the Senate, or during consideration ofthe conference report. There was little by way of controversy surrounding the FHWAbudget; the possible exception was some early concern over the level of earmarkingfor the Federal Lands Highway Program and the Transportation and Community andSystem Preservation Pilot Program. Reports accompanying both the Senate andHouse bills detailed specific, and in some cases different, project earmarks for bothof these programs.

The Administration was proposing a total FHWA budget of $30.358 billion for FY2001. In terms of the total FHWA budget, this represented an increase of just over5% from the FY2000 level. The obligational limitation, which supports most of thefederal-aid highway program, was set at $29.319 billion; funding for exemptprograms (emergency relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) was set atjust over $1 billion. All of the core FHWA funding programs received considerableincreases in the context of the program framework established by TEA-21 (describedlater in this section).

The Administration was also proposing that only $2.31 billion of the available RABA be assigned to highway programs. This meant that $741 million of RABAfunds would have been transferred within DOT agencies for mostly non-highwayactivities. In addition, the Administration was proposing that specific programswithin FHWA's jurisdiction receive -- for example, funding for Indian reservationroads and highway tax fuel evasion projects -- receive designated distributions ofRABA funds. The proposal to change the distribution of RABA would haveincreased these programs to levels beyond those provided by TEA-21. The proposalto change the distribution of RABA funds is a controversial one. The Administrationmade a similar redistribution proposal in FY2000 that was ultimately ignored byCongress. The Administration proposal for FY2001 is of a different nature than lastyear's request in that it does not provide a major shift of RABA funds to transit.

A final issue likely to have arisen as a result of the Administration proposal was the use of contract authority to fund a number of the proposed increases discussedabove. The net effect of this proposal was to potentially exceed the obligationallimitation detailed in TEA-21. In other words, the Administration spending proposalappeared to exceed TEA-21 authorized levels for some programs. Hence, either newauthorizing legislation, with concomitant increases in contract authority, would havebeen needed to accommodate the new funding levels (an unlikely prospect at themoment) or some existing programs would have seen spending reductions toaccommodate the increased spending for favored initiatives. Both of these scenarioswere unpopular with highway interest groups and with those Members who do notwant to see the TEA-21 framework changed.

In FY2001, as discussed earlier, the FHWA was provided with $33.425 billion (rescission adjusted) in total budgetary resources. The FY2001 Appropriations Actcontinues the dramatic growth in FHWA funding that resulted from passage ofTEA-21 in 1998 and now from the availability of a budget surplus. By way ofcomparison, FHWA funding for FY2001 is at a level of almost $15 billion more thanwas available in FY1995.

The FY2001 Act largely followed the provisions of TEA-21 in terms of overall funding distribution (a discussion of the TEA-21 program structure follows thissection), with the exception of the additional funding provided outside the coreprograms. The principal change in the FY2000 Act was in the distribution of RABAfunds for programs under the direct control of the FHWA. These changes werecontinued in FY2001. These so called "allocated" funds go to programs such as theFederal Lands Highway Program and the Highway Beautification Program. Theeffect of the FY2000 Act's provisions was to transfer a significant portion of theRABA funds designated for the allocated funds to core highway programs (surfacetransportation program, national highway system program, etc.) for distribution to thestates on a formula basis. The other major change in the FY2000 Act was asignificant increase in the number of specific projects and funding levels detailed inthe legislation. This trend continued in the FY2001 Act. This earmarking is acommon feature in other parts of the transportation appropriations Act, but had beenabsent from the highway section of the Act for several years.

0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)Provision. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4475 included a provision that would have reduced the amount of highway trust funds thata state received if it did not adopt and enforce a "0.08% blood alcohol concentration"( 0.08 BAC) per se law. Such a statute makes it illegal (by definition) to operate amotor vehicle at or above a 0.08% BAC. (9) No similarprovision was included in theHouse bill. Those supporting the Senate approach often assert that the incentivespecified in TEA-21 (see section 163 (a) of chapter 1 of title 23of the U.S. Code),which provides additional federal aid funds to those states that enact and enforce a0.08 BAC law, has not proven sufficient to encourage many additional states toimplement the 0.08% BAC limit and that stronger measures are needed. Thoseagainst the approach specified in the Senate bill typically maintain that each stateshould determine its own traffic safety laws without federal pressure or dictates.Some also contend that the weight of evidence documenting the effectiveness of a0.08 BAC law needs to be strengthened before the federal government imposes afinancial penalty on states for not enacting and enforcing such a measure.

The FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act modifies the Senate provision and provides that states that fail to adopt and enforce the 0.08 BAC standard (as detailedin section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code) would have 2% of specifiedportions of their federal aid highway funding withheld beginning in FY2004, 4%withheld in FY2005, 6% withheld in FY2006, and 8% withheld in FY2007. The Actprovides that if within four years from the date that a state's apportionment isreduced, the Secretary determines that the state has adopted and is enforcing a 0.08BAC statute, the apportionment of such state shall be increased by an amount equalto the reduction. Otherwise the funds withheld would lapse.

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 TEA-21, 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 HighwaySystem (NHS), Interstate Maintenance (IM), Surface Transportation Program (STP),Bridge Replacement 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 annualauthorization of minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) andemergency relief ($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to theannual 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 othergovernmental entities. These programs include: the Federal Lands Highway Program,High Priority Projects (former demonstration project category), AppalachianDevelopment Highway System roads (formerly ineligible for trust fund contractauthority), the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program, andseveral other small programs.

As discussed earlier, TEA-21 provides a link between the highway generated revenues that flow into the highway account and highway spending. The Act requiresthat the Secretary of Transportation make an annual evaluation of revenues into thehighway account during the previous fiscal year vis-a-vis spending authorized withinthe highway firewall for the new fiscal year. If revenues go up, program spending isincreased. Conversely, spending can go down if revenues go down. TEA-21 specifiesa formula to determine the direction and amount of highway funding adjustment.Known as RABA, this mechanism was employed beginning in FY2000.

FHWA Research, Development, and Technology(RD&T) Programs. The FHWA proposed increasing funding forvarious RD&T activities from $437.2 million in FY2000 to $658.8 million in FY2001. RD&T funds are used primarily to advance and deploy technologies intendedto improve highway pavements, structures, roadway safety, highway policies, andintelligent transportation systems (ITS). The largest requested increases, in dollaramounts, were in FHWA's Surface Transportation R&D and the IntelligentTransportation Systems (ITS) programs. More specifically, FHWA requestedincreased funding for its surface transportation R&D program from $98 million inFY2000 to $138 million in FY2001. The Administration also requested $238 millionfor ITS deployment, which is $120 million above the amount of contract authorityspecified in TEA-21. The ITS deployment program provides funds for states andlocal governments to use advanced communication and information systems toimprove the management and safety of their surface transportation systems. Thesource of the proposed additional funding was to be new contract authority thatwould be added to the contract authority already authorized under TEA-21. Becausea legislative change to Title V of TEA-21 would have been required to add thisadditional contract authority, it was uncertain whether the additional fundingrequested by FHWA for RD&T would be provided. The House and Senate passedbills and the conference agreement specified $437.2 million, including $98 millionfor surface transportation research program and $118 million for ITS deployment. (10)

An issue associated with the ITS deployment program is the earmarking of funds. During the last few years, the appropriators have designated a substantialportion of the incentive funds used to accelerate ITS deployment. For example,FY2000 and FY2001 DOT Appropriations Acts, Congress earmarked the deploymentaccount by specifying which cities or states would receive those funds and theamounts to be obligated. TEA-21 also specifies several projects which are to receivesome of the ITS deployment funds. Some Members and proponents of ITS wouldprefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded.

Federal Transit Administration (FTA)

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

The House and Senate-passed FY2001 appropriations bills ( H.R. 4475 ) as well as the enacted conference agreement ( H.Rept. 106-940 ; P.L. 106-346 )all included $6.3 billion in total budgetary resources for FTA. This is essentially theTEA-21 guaranteed level. The three versions of the bill agree on all major fundingcategories. This funding level compares with an FY2000 appropriation of almost$5.8 billion. The FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act's 0.22%government-wide rescission reduced FTA funding by just under $14 million.

For FY2001, the Administration proposal would have funded FTA programs atnearly the same $6.3 billion level as the House, Senate, and conference agreement.The only difference being the Administration's proposed use of $75 million fromRABA mostly for the job access and reverse commute program. Congress hasrejected the Administration's proposed use of some RABA funding for transit.

The transit appropriations shown in Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase in funding for FY1999 to FY2001 that occurred following the enactment of TEA-21in 1998. As Figure 4 shows, transit funding under TEA-21 reached its highestfunding level to date in FY2001. (11) The $ 6.3billion (an 8.4% increase over FY2000)provided for in the FY2001 Act, continues the impact of TEA-21 on transit spending.

Within the general provisions of the conference report is increased authorized funding related to contingent commitments to incur obligations for transit projectsin Chicago, Minneapolis, and the Dulles corridor project, among others.

FTA Program Structure andFunding. There are two major transit programs: the Major CapitalInvestment Program and the Urbanized Area Formula Program. There are alsoseveral smaller formula and planning and research programs.

The Major Capital Investment Program (Section 5309 -- formerly known as Section 3) is comprised of three major components: new transit starts, fixed guideway modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2001, the ClintonAdministration proposed funding of this program at $2.65 billion. This is slightlyhigher than the FY2000 level of $2.5 billion. These funds are allocated on adiscretionary basis by FTA or earmarked by Congress. The Senate-passed bill alsoprovided for $2.65. The House bill, as well as H.R. 4475 enacted,provided $2.7 billion for the program for FY2001 (these bills transferred $50 millionof formula funds monies to the Capital Investment Programs). The government-wide0.22% rescission reduced the Capital Investment Program by $5.8 million to $2.695billion.

The Administration FY2001 budget proposes that 12 new rail transit starts be considered for full funding grant agreements. Rail transit project selection is alwaysa controversial exercise because there are more potential projects listed in TEA-21than can be funded within the transit guaranteed funding level. The Senate report( S.Rept. 106-309 ) language expresses the opinion that DOT should reassess itsrequest for the 12 new projects given the number of projects deemed eligible forfunding under TEA-21. The House, Senate, and enacted versions of H.R. 4475 all provided $1.058 billion for new starts.

The Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307 -- formerly known as Section 9) provides for the urbanized area capital and, in some cases, operatingneeds. These activities include bus and bus-related purchases and maintenancefacilities, fixed guide way modernization, new systems, planning, and operatingassistance. For FY2001, the Administration requested $3.45 billion, a slight increaseover the $3.05 provided in FY2000. These funds are apportioned on a formulaprocess based, in part, on population and transit service data. Both the House andenacted versions of H.R. 4475 all provided $3.295 billion for theSection 5307 program for FY2001. The Senate version provided for $3.345 billion. (12) The government-wide rescission reduced this formula grant program by $7.25million to $3.287 billion.

Section 5307 contains several specific formula set asides: urbanized areas (areas with populations of 50,000 or more), nonurbanized areas (less than 50,000), grantsfor elderly and individuals with disabilities, clean fuels, and over-the-road busaccessibility. Slightly less than 90% of the Administration's FY2001 Section 5307proposal is for urbanized areas (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receivetwo-thirds of the funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receivethe remaining one-third) and just over 6% of this is designated for nonurbanizedareas.

TEA-21 authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant program. This program provides transportation assistance for welfare recipients andlow income persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administrationproposed that this program be funded at a level of $150 million in FY2001, with $50million coming from redistributed RABA funds. The House and Senate bills bothrejected the use of $50 million in redistributed RABA funds, and provide $100million for the program, as does the enacted conference agreement.

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 noweligible 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.

The conference agreement includes significant earmarking of capital investment grants in the bill language. For bus and bus facilities, specific amounts are mentionedin the report language.

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

http://www.faa.gov/

<strong> For Additional Reading

CRS Issue Briefs

CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress , coordinatedby [author name scrubbed].

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

CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÃ Up to Standards? , by Rob Bamberger.

CRS Reports

CRS Report 98-749(pdf) E. 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 98-890 STM. Federal Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Analysis and Oversight Issues , by Paul F.Rothberg and Anthony J. Solury.

CRS Report 98-63E. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment , by John W.Fischer.

CRS Report 98-646 ENR. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( P.L. 105-178 ): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions , by David M.Bearden.

CRS Report RL30246(pdf) . Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget , by Martin Lee. CRS Report RS20600. Coast Guard: FY2001 Budget Issues, by Martin Lee.CRS Report RL30659. Amtrak: Overview and Options, by [author name scrubbed].

CRS Report RS20469. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies , by WilliamLipford and [author name scrubbed].

Selected World Wide Web Sites

http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/

http://www.house.gov/appropriations

http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html

http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html

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