Funding for Department of Transportation programs was contained in thePresident's budget submission, issued in February, 1998. For FY1999, the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total funding of $43.3 billion, a 1%increase over the FY1998 enacted level of $42.8 billion. Hearings on the budgetrequest were held in transportation subcommittees of the House and SenateAppropriations Committees. In a related development, many of DOT's surfacetransportation programs were recently reauthorized by the Transportation EquityAct for the 21st Century, generally referred to as TEA-21 ( P.L. 105-178 , June 9,1998). Both the House ( H.Con.Res. 284 ) and the Senate( S.Con.Res. 86 ) passed their respective versions of the budgetresolution and subsequently held a conference. H.Con.Res. 284 provided the following amounts of budget authority and outlays for FY1999: $44.3billion (BA) and $42.1 billion (BO). S.Con.Res. 86 provided for thefollowing amounts during the same period: $51.5 (BA) and $42.8 (BO). In a related development, on June 9, 1998, President Clinton signed the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA 21) into law ( P.L. 105-178 , H.R. 2400 ). The law provides authorization for appropriations forDOT's agencies and programs for fiscal years 1998 through 2003. TEA 21 affectsvirtually all of the Department's surface transportation agencies, ranging from theNational Highway Traffic Safety Administration to the Coast Guard. The impact ofits provisions have been addressed in other sections of this report. On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 2307 , Department of Transportation and Related AgenciesAppropriations Bill for 1999 ( S.Rept. 105-249 ). The report recommends$13,694,249,000 of new budget obligational authority for the Department ofTransportation. This amount represents approximately $340,000,000 more than theAdministration's request, and almost $1 billion more than the enacted amount forFY1998. In conjunction with $32,234,800,000 estimated obligation limitations(generated from trust funds), the total obligational authority is approximately $45.9billion. On July 24, with few substantive floor amendments, the Senate passed its version of the DOT appropriations for FY1999. One provision, relativelycontroversial between the Administration and Congress, however, was dropped fromthe legislation. That provision, which drew a veto warning from Administrationofficials, would have barred the use of federal funds to impose "project laboragreements" on highway and transit fund projects. A substitute amendment appearsto have served as a compromise, permitting passage. On July 22, 1998, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 4328 ( H.Rept. 105-648 ) The bill provides for a total of$46.9billion (new budget authoruty, guaranteed obligations contained in the TEA-21,limitation on obligations and exempt obligations) for FY1999. This amount is $4.8billion greater than FY1998 enacted levels, and $3.9 billion greater than theAdministration's FY1999 request. On July 30, 1998, the House passed H.R. 4328 , also with few substantive amendments. H.R. 4328 was referred to the Senate, whichamended the bill by inserting S. 2307 after the enacting clause. On September 17, 1998, the House and Senate passed H.J.Res. 128 , a continuing resolution to fund, until October 9, 1998, any government activitythat would have otherwise been funded by an annual appropriation. Following the enactment of five subsequent continuing resolutions, the House passed the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act,for Fiscal Year 1999 on October 19, 1998. On October 21, the Senate passed thesame measure. The conference agreement provided approximately $47 billion in FY1999 for federal transportation programs -- an amount 12% greater than the FY1998funding, 9% more than requested by the Administration, and about$150 million morethan that included in the House bill. The amount for some DOT programs (includingFederal Highways and Mass Transit) was virtually insured by funding "firewalls"that had been placed in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). For the complete legislative text of the Omnibus Act as it appears in the October 19, 1998 Congressional Record, Members and staff should see the followingInternet Web site: http://www.clerkweb.house.gov. Transportation budgeting uses a confusing lexicon (for those unfamiliar with theprocess) of budget authority and contract authority -- the latter, a form of budgetauthority. (1) Contract authority, provides obligationalauthority for the funding of trustfund financed programs, such as the federal-aid highway program. Prior to TEA-21,changes in spending in the annual transportation budget component had beenachieved in the appropriations process by combining changes in budget/contractauthority and placing limitations on obligations. The principal function of thelimitation on obligations is to control outlays in a manner that corresponds tocongressional budget agreements. Contract authority is tantamount to, but does not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at some future date. Under this arrangement, specifiedin Title 23 U.S.C., which TEA-21 amends, authorized funds are automatically madeavailable to the states at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligatedwithout appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays atsome future date to cover these obligations. As will be discussed, TEA-21 greatlylimits the role of the appropriations process in core highway and transit programsbecause the Act sets the limitation on obligations level for the period FY1999through FY2003. Highway and transit grant programs work on a reimbursable basis: states pay for projects up front and federal payments are made to them only when work iscompleted and vouchers are presented, perhaps months or even years after the projecthas begun. Work in progress is represented in the trust fund as obligated funds andalthough they are considered "used" and remain as commitments against the trustfund balances, they are not subtracted from balances. Trust fund balances, therefore,appear high in part because funds sufficient to cover actual and expected futurecommitments must remain available. Both the highway and transit accounts have substantial short- and long-term commitments. These include payments that will be made in the current fiscal yearas projects are completed and, to a much greater extent, outstanding obligations tobe made at some unspecified future date. Additionally, there are unobligatedamounts that are still dedicated to highway and transit projects, but have not beencommitted to specific projects. Two terms are associated with the distribution of contract authority funds to the states and to particular programs. The first of these, apportionments, refers to fundsdistributed to the states for formula driven programs. For example, all nationalhighway system (NHS) funds are apportioned to the states. Allocated funds, arefunds distributed on an administrative basis, typically to programs under directfederal control. For example, federal lands highway program monies are allocated;the allocation can be to another federal agency, to a state, to an Indian tribe, or tosome other governmental entity. These terms do not refer to the federal budgetprocess, but often provide a frame of reference for highway program recipients, whomay assume, albeit incorrectly, that a state apportionment is part of the federal budgetper se. For FY1999, the DOT requested total funding of $43.259 billion, about a 1.0% increase from the FY1998 enactment of level $42.828 billion. The Department'sFY1999 budget request was similar in many respects to the FY1998 appropriation. The agencies targeted for gains include (in descending order): the MaritimeAdministration (+35.3%); The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(+21.92%); Research and Special Programs Administration (+16%); FederalAviation Administration (+7.0%); Federal Railroad Administration (+2.6%); Officeof the Secretary (+2.4%); and the U.S. Coast Guard (+2%). Those whose budgetrequest were reduced for FY1999 included (in descending order): St. LawrenceSeaway Development Corporation (-100%); Federal Transit Administration(-1.38%). The budgets for the Office of the Inspector General and the SurfaceTransportation Board are set at the FY1998 level. This report analyzes the FY1999 budget request and final action from a numberof perspectives. First, funding proposals for several national transportation priorities,such as safety, national security, infrastructure needs, and technology development,are highlighted and selected policy issues associated with these are presented. Second, historical funding trends are analyzed. Third, highlights of the FY1999budget request for several key modal administrations, such as the Federal HighwayAdministration, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and the U.S. CoastGuard, are summarized. Table 1. Status of DOT Appropriations,FY1999 One of the major challenges facing appropriators continues to be the allocationof funds for the U.S. Department of Transportation among numerous competingnational interests. Competition for these funds stems from various transportationinterests, and from the modal administrations themselves seeking portions of the"transportation pie." Monies have been allocated for a diverse array of purposes, forexample, to pay for the expenses of the U.S. Coast Guard, to improve safety acrossthe transportation system, and to help finance various infrastructure needs. In theDOT and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, monies are also provided to supportthe National Transportation Safety Board, and the Surface Transportation Board(STB), and several other transportation-related agencies. (2) 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 newly enacted framework of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), signedinto law on June 9, 1998 ( P.L. 105-178 , H.R. 2400 ). The act, whichauthorizes appropriations for key transportation programs through the fiscal year2003, emphasizes certain programs and de-emphasizes others. The general sense ofCongress appears to be that, although transportation trust funds are not sacrosanct,proceeds from the gasoline tax must be targeted towards the maintenance of the vastU.S. highway and transit network, and not viewed as a source of revenue for thegeneral treasury. Although attempts to move highway and transit programs"off-budget" were unsuccessful, Congress did insert language within TEA-21toprotect specific funding by creating "fire walls" around programs. In addition tospending ceilings, the fire walls effectively create floors. The creation of thesedevices emerged as a point of contention between authorizers and appropriators. The Administration requested a total of approximately $30.0 billion for FY1999. This requested increase occurred in spite of the limitations placed on domesticdiscretionary spending by the Balanced Budget Act of 1997. Since manydiscretionary budget allocations were reduced, the increase in transportationinfrastructure spending is regarded as a strong policy statement on the part ofCongress and the Clinton Administration that infrastructure is a policy priority. In each of its budget submissions, the Clinton Administration has sought to emphasize its commitment to improving the nation's infrastructure. Increasedinfrastructure spending to enhance national productivity and competitiveness was a policy feature of both of the President's election campaigns. The Administration'sFY1999 budget request is predicated on a continuation of this policy at least in spirit. The Administration makes the case in its budget document that the FY1999 budget request would compliment the spending increases that have occurred earlierin this decade. (3) The Administration view is thattransportation infrastructurespending at the $30.0 billion level envisioned in its request would provide the highestlevel of infrastructure spending in DOT history. In addition, the Administration takesconsiderable credit for some improvements in transit capacity, airport capacity, and highway condition that have occurred in recent years. Finally, the Administrationcontends that it has accomplished all of these advances and provided for futureimprovements in a fiscally responsible manner. In reality the Administration's FY1999 request is very similar to the levels of funding provided in the FY1998 Act. This is very much the result of the BalancedBudget Act of 1997. The Administration request has now been somewhatsuperceded by passage of TEA-21. By signing this legislation the Administration hasagreed to a somewhat higher level of spending for surface transportation in FY1998then it had proposed earlier in the year. In addition, the Administration has agreedto much higher levels of spending in the period FY1999-FY2003. One of the principal provisions of TEA-21 is a change in the budget treatment of the highway and transit programs. This new legislation sets a limitation onobligations for program spending in each of the next 6 fiscal years and does so bycreating "fire walls" that prevent reductions in spending below agreed upon levels. This action deprives the House and Senate Appropriations Committees of theirtraditional authority to determine the absolute level of spending for these programs. Instead the committees now control spending of only a small portion of the highwayand transit programs. Over the last several years the Administration has attempted to find more funding for infrastructure by changing the way infrastructure was financed. Toaccomplish this objective in FY1999, the DOT proposed to continue supporting StateInfrastructure Banks (SIBs) at the $150 million level and to finance a newTransportation Infrastructure Credit Program at the $100 million level for FY1998. The SIB program combines federal/state/private funding to help finance a variety of transportation improvements, such as toll roads and intermodal terminals. Although the SIB program had been adopted by 10 states, with an additional 15expressing interest, the program was reduced to four states by language in TEA-21. Examples of innovative financing include a proposed new TransportationInfrastructure Credit Program intended to leverage federal dollars and encourageprivate sector investment in projects of national significance that may be too large toattract local capital. (4) The Administration also istrying to improve the efficiency offederal funds distribution. In dollar terms, however, the Administration's efforts topromote innovative financing represent a small portion of the total DOT budget. The Administration proposed to spend about $1.1 billion on transportation research, development and technology activities during FY1999. This amountrepresents about a 10% increase over the FY1998 level for those activities. Thesupport of research and technology activities is not a goal in and of itself, but itunderpins the other functions of the Department. For example, DOT seeks to applythe results of its research and development activities to improve safety, enhancemobility, further an intermodal transportation system, promote economic growth andtrade, and support national security. The three largest components of the FY1999Research, Development and Technology budget request are for: FHWA's program($582 million), FAA's program ($334 million), and NHTSA's program ($53 million). Increased investment in research and development continues to be a keytheme of the Clinton Administration and this emphasis has been reflected in theDepartment's budget during the last few years. It remains difficult to decide on theamount of funds for the numerous R&T activities at the Department, especially whenthese decisions are considered within the context of the other funding needs. DOT is involved in a variety of technology programs, including the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, the National Advanced Driving Simulator, and theAdvanced Technology Transit Bus. One of the largest R&T activities is the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) program. The FY1999 request for thismultifaceted activity that involves each of the surface transportation modes withinthe Department is $250 million. These funds would support a comprehensiveresearch and demonstration program and deployment initiative. That initiative isdesigned to stimulate investments in a variety of ITS technologies, such as trafficsurveillance, crash avoidance systems, and safety monitoring for commercial motorvehicles. The actual amount of FY1999 contract funds authorized for ITS is set inthe TEA-21 law. For FY1999, that act provides $95 million for research,development, operational tests and other activities considered to be part of the coredepartmental ITS program. TEA-21 also authorizes $105 million of contract fundsfor ITS integrated deployment projects. The overall highway obligation limitationwill reduce the amount of funds actually made available for those activities. P.L.105-277 provides a total of $200,000,000 to be available for implementation of thevarious ITS program specified in TEA-21. With an obligation limitation of 88.3percent for FY 1999, that amount is effectively reduced to $176.6 million. The Federal Railroad Administration requested that funding for the Next Generation of High Speed Rail Program be reduced from about $20 million inFY1998 to about $12.6 million in FY1999. The Senate Appropriations Committeerecommended $28,494,000 for this program. For FY1999, the Coast Guardrequested $18 million for research, development, testing and evaluation. Funds wererequested for technologies, materials, and human factors research to improve theCoast Guard's mission performance and delivery of services to the public. Safety continues to be claimed as the Department's highest priority. DOT's request for various transportation safety programs for FY1999 is $3.1 billion, an 11percent increase over the FY1998 level. Substantial increases are requested for thesafety activities of several modal administrations, including: the Federal AviationAdministration, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), andthe Federal Highway Administration. Each year debate continues over the perennialquestion regarding funds for safety relative to other functions of the DOT. DOT sought to promote public health and safety by working toward the elimination of transportation-related injuries, deaths, and property damage. Fundingwas requested to increase safety using a variety of approaches, including: rulemaking,compliance efforts, public education and outreach, and direct operations (such asvessel traffic services). In FY1999, some of the activities intended to achieve theDepartment's safety goals include: requesting additional personnel for the FRA'sOffice of Safety, promoting public-private partnerships to demonstrate cost-effective,safety technologies, such as intelligent vehicles; and advancing research exploringcauses of, and countermeasures for, transportation incidents in all modes oftransportation. Spending for NHTSA's highway safety programs was intended to increase by 22%, from $333 million in FY1998 to $406 million in FY1999. Increased fundingfor grants and research to improve the protection of automobile occupants wasrequested: $31 million was proposed for the President's initiative to increase seat beltuse; and $10.2 million was proposed for safety systems research which supportsimprovements in vehicle structures and occupant protection. The 1998 Departmentof Transportation Appropriations Act provided $186,500,000 for obligations forhighway traffic safety grants, and $146,962,000 for operations and research, for atotal of $333,462,000 for NHTSA's activities. The conference bill ultimatelyprovided $159.4 million for NHTSA operations and research, and $361.4 milliontotal for all of NHTSA's activities. TEA-21 sets specify contract funding levels forthe various traffic safety grants administered by NHTSA. TEA-21 also sets anauthorization level for NHTSA Section 403 research program and for NHTSA'svarious motor vehicle-related activities, which together form much of the Operationsand Research account of NHTSA. Consequently, TEA-21 will likely have asubstantial impact on setting the overall NHTSA budget and appropriation duringFY1999 through FY2003. P.L. 105-277 provides $ 159,400,000 for NHTSA'soperations and research account and $2,000,000 for the National Driver Register, andlimits obligations for highway traffic safety grants to $200,000,000. The debate on the FY1999 budget request has focused partly on the Administration's funding priorities. Some Members, however, chose to focus theirinterests on other priorities, such as local needs for roads, transit and airports. Thedebate leading to passage of TEA-21 is indicative of these concerns. Passage of thislegislation has created new issues for the appropriations process. Primary amongthese is the new budgetary treatment of highway and transit spending. The TEA-21 limitation on obligations for these activities restricts the ability of the transportationappropriations committees ability to meet their 302(b) goals by requiring all that alladjustments in spending be made in other program categories. Finally, enactment of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has compelled DOT, along with other agencies, to reconcile their spending requests andprograms/projects with their more fundamental strategic and performance goals. Table 2 shows historical funding levels for FY1988 through FY1998 (actual and enacted) and FY1999 request for the Department of Transportation. Almost allof these funds are provided by new budget authority or a limitations on obligationsin the DOT appropriations act. (5) Total DOT funding increased approximately 66%from FY1988 through FY1998 (enacted). The following information from DOT shows actual, estimated, and requested appropriations, obligations limitations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligationssubject to the appropriations process (in millions of dollars). According to a DOTspokesperson, this information does not include user fee collections; consequently,program totals may vary from other figures cited in the text. Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations, Obligations, Limitations, DOD Transfers, and Exempt ObligationsSubject to the Appropriations Process (in millions of dollars) http://www.uscg.mil/ The Administration requested $4.1 billion for the Coast Guard in FY1999. This was up 2.2% over FY1998 and maintains the same trend since FY1996. The budgetrequest would have allowed the Coast Guard to continue its activities against drugsmuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets to meet the President'snational security goals. Of this amount, $2.8 billion would have been for operationand maintenance of a wide range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids tonavigation, including $309 million in defense-related funding. The Administration requested $67 million to train, support, and sustain a ready military Selected ReserveForce of 7,600 members for direct support to the Department of Defense and toprovide surge capacity for responses to emergencies such as clean-up operationsfollowing oil spills. Other Coast Guard requested funding included $61 million for spill clean-up and initial damage assessment, available without further appropriation from the OilSpill Liability Trust Fund. No funds were requested for boat safety grants becausethese would be funded from appropriations from the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. The Senate Appropriations Committee recommended $3.7 billion for the Coast Guard, 1.1% less than the budget request, but 0.9% more than enacted for FY1998. Of this amount, operating expenses would be funded at $2.8 billion, including $300million in national security activities scored against defense funding. Environmentalcompliance and restoration ($21 million), retired pay ($684 million), and reservetraining ($67 million) would be funded at the level of the request. Acquisition,construction and improvements would be decreased from the request (from $442.6million to $388.7 million) and research, development, test, and evaluation would bedecreased from $18.3 million to $17.5 million. The House passed an appropriation of $3.887 billion for the Coast Guard which is $29.4 million less than FY1998. Operating expenses were funded at $2.7 billionincluding $300 million in national security scored against defense spending. Thiswould also include $406 million for drug interdiction activities, which is an increaseof $33.8 million over the President's request. Increases in this area would be offsetby reductions in fisheries law enforcement and polar ice breaking. Acquisition,construction, and improvements were funded at $389 million and environmentalcompliance and restoration at $21 million. $684 million was appropriated for retiredpay and $69 million for reserve training. Research, development, test and evaluationwould receive $12 million. The conference agreed to an appropriation of $3.9 billion for the Coast Guard, which is $21.0 million less than FY 1998. Operating expenses were funded at theHouse level of $2.7 billion of which $300 million shall be available fordefense-related activities This is $15.4 million less for operating expenses than FY1998. However, the Secretary may transfer funds from the Federal AviationAdministration "Operations" account, not to exceed $71.7 million, for druginterdiction activities. Acquisition, construction, and improvements is funded at$395.5 million, of which $20 million shall be derived from the Oil Spill LiabilityTrust Fund. There was no disagreement between the Houses over eitherenvironmental compliance and restoration or retired pay. The House-approved levelsof $69 million were appropriated for reserve training and $12 million for research,development, test, and evaluation. Alteration of bridges received $14 million and nofunds were appropriated for boat safety. The Administration requested $751 million for the Federal Railroad Administration for FY1999, compared to a FY1997 actual obligation of $1.1 billion,and an FY1998 enactment of $937 million. The most notable reduction, $172million from the FY1998 amount, was the lower request for funding Amtrak (CRSIssue Brief 97030) and the Northeast Corridor. The Northeast Corridor is the railroute from Boston to Washington, DC. The House Appropriations Committeerecommended $729.3 million for FRA for FY1999, including $609.2 million forAmtrak. The Senate recommended $707 million, including $555 million for Amtrak. Congress appropriated $749.8 million to FRA for FY1999, including $609.2 millionfor Amtrak, and allowed Amtrak to decide how much of its appropriation will beused to upgrade the Northeast Corridor. http://www.amtrak.com Amtrak (see CRS Issue Brief 97030) receives its funding as part of the FRA account. The Administration requested that FY1999 funding for Amtrak come fromthe Federal Highway Trust Fund, rather than from the general fund as in past years. The Administration requested $621 million for capital grants to Amtrak, of which notless than $200 million would have been for the Northeast Corridor, and $12 millionfor Penn Station in New York City. The Administration requested no funding foroperating grants for Amtrak for FY1999, proposing that sufficient operating fundscould come from capital grants. The House recommended $609.2 million for Amtrak for FY1999, plus $2 million for a third freight track in Rhode Island to give Amtrak a separate line fromfreight, and $15.3 million for "next generation high speed rail" that would removegrade crossings on rail passenger routes and provide other funding that benefits railpassengers. The Senate recommended $555 million for Amtrak for FY1999. This was a total of $1.6 billion when coupled with the $1.1 billion Amtrak will receive inFY1999 without further legislative action as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act of1997 ( P.L. 105-34 ). The committee bill ( S. 2307 ) included language toallow the capital funds provided in the bill to be spent under the same definition ofcapital expenses that currently pertains to federal capital funds provided for othertransportation modes. This use of capital funds for capital expenses could come to$400 million during FY1999, according to the committee report ( S.Rept. 105-249 ,pp. 120-121). The committee recommended that $200 million of the $555 millionbe used for upgrading the Northeast Corridor. The New York Pennsylvania Stationis to get $40 million as a result of the TEA-21 highway reauthorization legislation( P.L. 105-178 ). Congress appropriated $609.2 million to Amtrak for FY1999, andallowed Amtrak to decide how much of that will be used to upgrade the NortheastCorridor. The Committee report rejected the proposal to allow Amtrak to use capitalgrants for equipment maintenance in the same way federal transit funds can be used,but the report set no specific limit on the amount of federal capital grants that Amtrakcan use for equipment maintenance during FY1999. The funds are to come from thegeneral fund, as in past years, rather than from the Highway Trust Fund, as proposedby the Administration. Congress appropriated no funds for the Penn Stationredevelopment in New York City. Congress appropriated $20.5 million for "nextgeneration high speed rail" and $5 million for the Rhode Island freight rail project. Amtrak Reform Council. The Amtrak Reform Council, established by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Actof 1997 ( P.L. 105-134 ), is given additional responsibility by the report language ofthe Senate Appropriations Committee for FY1999. The Council is directed to helpAmtrak reach its financial goals and decrease reliance on federal aid by identifyingwhich Amtrak routes are candidates for closure or realignment, and the Council isdirected to report this information to Congress annually (p. 25). The Council isprohibited by the committee report language from using any of the Council'sappropriation to pay for outside consultant services, since, the report states, themembers of the Council were selected because of their technical qualifications,professional standing, and demonstrated expertise in areas related to the needs of theCouncil (p. 24). Congress appropriated $450,000 to the Amtrak Reform Council forFY1999. The conference report is silent on the above issues that are addressed in theSenate committee report. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ The highway section of the FY1999 Appropriations Act provides an obligation limitation of $25.5 billion for highway program activities. This is an increase of over$4.0 billion over the FY1998 Act and is consistent with the levels authorized by theTransportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). An additional $1.2 billionin exempt obligations is provided by the Act. (6) The FY1999 Act provides for a few modest changes in the highway program, but generally follows the program guidance provided in TEA-21. One importantprovision in the Act is a clarification of TEA-21's distribution of high priority projectfunds. The Act gives the states considerable leeway in their treatment of these fundsand allows the states to set overall priorities without having to treat each high priorityproject as a separate pot of money. Finally, the Act provides no funding in thetransportation section for the Appalachian highway program. The Act also provides some highway funding in the emergency supplemental portion of the omnibus act. These provisions provide an additional $100 million forAlabama and Massachusetts that had been promised to these states during theTEA-21 conference. Further highway funding from this section is provided for WestVirginia and Arkansas. Some of these funds are for the Appalachian highwayprogram. The total level enacted for FY1999 is well above what had been proposed by the Clinton Administration, $23.5 billion, with a limitation on obligations of $21.5billion is identical to the FY1998 level. As mentioned above, TEA-21, and its accompanying technical corrections, establish an FY1999 limitation on obligations for all highway activities, includingsafety, of approximately $25.5 billion. The limitation on obligations could not bechanged by the appropriations process and the Act provided specific unamenablefunding levels for all major highway programs. Appropriators's had the ability tomake specific decisions about a number of smaller highway and highway safetyprograms. The Senate Committee on Appropriations bill set core spending at the TEA-21 limitation on obligation level. Total FHWA spending was just over $27.0 billion. The committee did make a number of recommendations about spending for particularactivities. For example, FHWA operating expenses were increased over the FY1998level, but not to same degree as proposed by the Administration. The committee alsomade a number of recommendations about the ITS program aimed primarily atincreasing spending for actual ITS projects, as opposed to ITS promotion. Finally,spending for the Appalachian highway system was set at $200.0 million. This is$100.0 million less than the FY1998 level and below the spending level that couldbe supported by TEA-21. The House Committee on Appropriations also respected the TEA-21 fire walls for core highway spending. Total funding for FHWA was set at $26.7 billion, whichis somewhat below the Senate level. Much of this difference can be accounted forby the committee's decision to zero out funding for the Appalachian highway systemand a new transportation infrastructure credit program that had received $80.0million in the Senate bill. http://www.fta.dot.gov/ The FY1999 Act provided a total of $5.39 billion for the FTA. This exceeded FY1998 funding by $549.0 million, an increase of more than 11%. Almost all FTAprograms, with the significant exception of the operating assistance program,received funding increases. Operating assistance funding was eliminated underformula grants by TEA-21. However, preventive maintenance previously eligible forfunding from operating assistance is now an eligible use under an expanded capitalgrants program. Several transit programs have been controversial almost since their inception, especially the operating assistance program. Recent Administrations, beginning withthe Reagan Administration, have proposed reductions and/or outright elimination ofthese programs. Transit tends to be supported on a local basis, with the majority ofsupport coming from urban areas. Support for sometimes competing highwayprograms is seen as having a much broader base, especially because of the absenceof transit systems in rural areas. Transit programs have continued largely, due tostrong congressional support from Members representing urban areas. For FY1999, the Clinton Administration proposed a slight decrease in total FTA funding over FY1998 levels, $4.78 billion. Essentially, the Administration's proposalwould have consolidated most of the existing programs into a $3.6 billion formulaprogram. The Administration's proposal would have consolidated the discretionarybus and bus related program and fixed guideway modernization program into theformula grants program All funding for this program would have come from thetransit account of the Federal Highway Trust Fund. Only the fixed guidewaymodernization formulas would have been retained as a separate component of theconsolidated program. The new starts programs, renamed the Major CapitalInvestment Program, would have continued to allocate discretionary funds for fixedguideway systems. New start funds would have been increased to $876.0 millionover the FY1998 level of $800.0 million. The Clinton Administration proposed onenew initiative for access to jobs and training, which was included in therecently-passed TEA-21. The full Senate and House Appropriations Committees passed their versions of the FY1999 Transportation Appropriations Act, respectively on July 14, and July 22,1998. The House and Senate transit proposals recommended the same fundinglevels for FY1999, $5.39 billion, an increase of $549 million over FY1998. Thesefunding levels were enacted into law on October 21, 1998, under the OmnibusAppropriations Act of 1999 ( H.R. 4328 , P.L.105-277 ). The Majorcapital investment program was increased to $2.3 billion from the FY1998 level of$2.0 billion, an increase of 12.8%. This included $902.8 million each for new startsand fixed guideway modernization and $451.4 million bus/bus facility for FY1999.The formula grant program was set at $2.85 billion, or $350 million over the FY1998level of $2.5 billion, an increase of 14%. This included $2.5 billion for urbanize areagrants, $50 million for clean fuel vehicle grants, $67 million for elderly and disabledgrants, $188 million for nonurbanized area grants, $2 million for rural transportationgrants, and $4.8 million for the Alaska railroad for FY1999. Other funding included$75 million to the new access to jobs/reverse commute program, $98 million forplanning and research, $6 million for university centers, $54 million for the FederalTransit Administration, and $50 million the Washington Metropolitan TransitAuthority. http://www.faa.gov/ P.L. 105-277 appropriates $9.6 billion for the FAA in FY 1999, up 5% from the $9.1 billion provided in Fiscal 1998. The appropriation is about $85 million morethan the amount recommended by the House, but $300 million less than the Senatemark and $150 million less than the Administration's request. Division C -- OtherMatters, provides for the reauthorization of the FAA for a period of 6 months. (7) Airport Improvement Program (AIP) spending is limited to half the annualauthorization level, which could affect approved airport construction work. Separate provisions in Division C give DOT the authority to intervene earlier in airlineconsolidation proposals and halt DOT rulemaking on airline competition until atleast the middle of 1999. Operations. FAA's Operations account is funded at $5.563 billion, which is $25 million less than theAdministration's request. The conference assumed, however, that $17 million of theOperations account will instead be provided in the Facilities and Equipment account,making the net reduction in this account $8 million. This account funds air trafficservices, aviation regulation and safety certification, and aviation security activities. Facilities and Equipment. This account is funded at $2.0 billion (including $100 million from the supplementalappropriations title), which is $130 million below the budget request. Funds fromthis account provide for the modernization of air traffic control and other facilities. The Act fully funds the Administration's $168 million request for several programscollectively described by the FAA as the Free Flight Phase I program. (8) It alsoincludes $100 million (in Title II of the Supplemental Appropriation) requested bythe Administration for explosive detection devices. However, the FAA is prohibitedfrom obligating funds for explosive detection systems until 30 days after theAdministrator certifies to Congress that the major air carriers agree to fund operationand maintenance of the systems in FY 1999 and substantially increase their use of themachines. Programs to address the Year 2000 computer problem are funded in the Act at $25 million, $14 million below the Administration request. Additional funds,however, are provided on a government wide basis as a result of Title III of theEmergency Supplemental Appropriations section of the Omnibus bill. An unspecified amount is likely to be available for FAA FY2K activities. Research, Engineering, & Development. This account is funded at $150 million, which is$140 million less than the budget request. Most of the reduction is the result ofCongress denying $90 million in direct funding and approximately $45 million inindirect funding for the Flight 2000 program. (9) Thedecision to not fund this programwas based on a determination that the FAA was not yet ready to begin "such anambitious and expensive undertaking, had not decided on the sites for the project,and had not achieved industry consensus." (10) Fullfunding is provided for aircraftsafety technology, including $15 million for aging aircraft research. Also in thisaccount is $41.7 million for explosives and weapons detection research, which is$2.2 million more than the request. Grants-in-Aid for Airports. Airport grants are limited to $1.95 billion, which is $250 million above thePresident's request. Only $975 million of the limit is available, however, until anFAA reauthorization bill is enacted in the next Congress. The FAA is directed togive priority consideration to grant applications for projects listed in the House andSenate bill reports and in the conference agreement. Airport Improvement Program(AIP) contract authority for the first six months of FY 1999 (a total of $1.205 billion)is included in the Act. Peanut-Free Buffer Zone. The Act prohibits the FAA from providing a peanut-free buffer zone or any otherpeanut-restricted area, or from restricting the distribution of peanuts, until 90 daysafter the agency has conducted a study that shows that some passengers may suffersevere reactions from the mere smell of peanuts (sec. 372). http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/ The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration was established as a separate organizational entity in the Department of Transportation in March 1970. The agency's responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards forautomotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source fordrivers, identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging stategovernments to enact laws and implement programs to reduce drunk driving, andencourage the use of safety devices. For FY1999, the agency requested an appropriation of $406 million, up from $333 million enacted for FY1998. Of the total, about $233 million (a 25% increaseand this year expressed as an "obligation limitation") will be devoted to HighwayTraffic Safety Grants. Although the appropriation for the NHTSA represents a smallportion of the total DOT budget, successful implementation of its programs could beinstrumental in saving a significant percentage of the $150 billion lost to highwaydeaths, injuries, and property damage annually. One of the agency's programs to encourage the use of seat belts has been bolstered by the recent presidential seat belt initiative. Also, NHTSA has encouragedthe establishment of a uniform 0.08 blood alcohol concentration (BAC) level. Senateand House reauthorization proposals took significantly different approaches forconvincing the states to enact 0.08 BAC levels. The Senate ( S. 1173 )recommended a more stringent approach by reducing the basic allocations andapportionments (for construction projects) to the states. The House, however,recommended a safety grant program to induce states to adopt 0.08. The Houseprevailed in conference. The Senate Committee on Appropriations, in its report on S. 2307 , acknowledged a number of NHTSA initiatives, including the (state) alcohol incentiveprogram mentioned above. Other programs included increased seat belt use, sideimpact standards, and other occupant protection programs. Although air bags are notspecifically mentioned in the committee's report, it does encourage continuing workto develop an appropriate child crash dummy to better assess the effectiveness ofcrash protection devices, which would include air bags. In conference, Congress provided a total funding for NHTSA of $361.4 million, an amount $28 million greater than the FY1998 enactment, but $44.5 million less than that requested by the Administration for FY1999. The conference bill gives theagency $159.4 million for Operations and Research. This represents an amount$12.4 million above its FY1998 amount, but less than half of its requested $25million increase for this program. It also permits additional obligations (from theHighway Trust Fund) of $13.5 million ($200 million total) for Highway SafetyGrants versus the $33 million requested; and provides $2 million for the NationalDriver Register, although no funding for this program was requested by theAdministration. Table 3. Total Budgetary Resources of SelectedAgencies/Offices (in millions of dollars) Sources : * Figures for enacted FY1998, and requested FY1999 were taken from S.Rept. 105-249 , various pages. **Surface Transportation Board estimated offsetting collections for FY1999. Note : Numbers within this table may differ slightly from those in the text due tosupplemental appropriations,rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not add due to rounding. CRS Issue Brief IB97030. Amtrak and the 105th Congress , by Stephen J Thompson. CRS Issue Brief IB97029. Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions for FY1997 , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-749(pdf) E, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) and the Federal Budget , by [author name scrubbed], September 4, 1998. CRS Report 98-593E. Airport Improvement Program: Airport Finance Issues for Congress , by [author name scrubbed] CRS Report 96-67E. The Surface Transportation Board (STB): An Overview and Selected Public Policy Issues , by Stephen J Thompson. CRS Report 96-901. Automobile Air Bags: New Issues/New Research , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-271. Federal Traffic Safety Programs and Grants: Issues and Options for Reauthorization , by [author name scrubbed] and Brad A. Trullinger. CRS Report 97-516E. ISTEA Reauthorization: Highwway Related Legislative Proposals in the 105th Congress, 1st Session , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 98-221E. ISTEA Reauthorization: Highwway Related Legislative Proposals in the 105th Congress, 2nd Session , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 96-803. Reauthorization of the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program: Options to Promote Flexibility and Performance , by Paul F.Rothberg, et al. CRS Report 98-63E. Transportation Trust Funds: Budgetary Treatment , by [author name scrubbed]. CRS Report 97-691. Intelligent Transportation Systems Program: Importance, Status, and Options for Reauthorization , by Paul Rothberg, Frederick W.Ducca, and Brad A. Trullinger. CRS Report 97-951. Traffic Safety Provisions in Various Highway Reauthorization Bills , by [author name scrubbed]. Department of Transportation Site http://www.dot.gov/ Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/ House Appropriations Committee http://www.house.gov/appropriations Maritime Administration (financial reports) http://marad.dot.gov/ National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning) http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html Office of Management and Budget http://www.access.gpo.gov/omb/omb003.html Senate Appropriations Committee http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/ 

Summary: For FY1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total funding of approximately $43 billion, a 1% increase over the FY1998 enacted level of $39 billion. The FY1999budget request for the DOT was similar in many respects to the FY1998 appropriation. There are many "macro" issues or factors that are influencing the debate over the Administration's FY1999 budget request. Some of them have been carried over from the previousfiscal year. Complicating the budget process had been the delay associated with reauthorizing manyof the Department's programs. The recently concluded reauthorization of surface transportation programs will dramatically effect the FY1999 appropriations process. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( P.L.105-178 , TEA-21) provides for an increase in spending at a level above that contemplated in theAdministration budget request. In addition, the new legislation provides a new budget environmentfor highway and transit programs that limits the ability of the appropriations process to alter spendingfor these activities. In its FY1999 request, the Administration reiterated that safety is its highest priority, followed by technology development, environmental enhancement, infrastructure needs, and innovativefinancing. The budget proposal included requests of: $3.1 billion for direct safety funding; $30.0billion for infrastructure investments; $1.1 billion for transportation research and development(R&D); and $0.6 billion for Amtrak (See CRS Issue Brief 97030). On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2307 ( S.Rept. 105-249 ). The committee recommended total funding of approximately $47 billion forFY1999. S. 2307 was passed by the Senate on July 24, 1998. Few amendments weremade, excepting one controversial proposal to bar the use of federal funds to impose "project laboragreements" on highway and transit fund projects. A compromise substitute was offered. The House Appropriations Committee reported its own bill ( H.R. 4328 , H.Rept. 105-648 ) which would have provided a total of $46.9 billion, an amount $4.8 billion greater thanFY1998 and $3.9 billion greater than the amount requested by the Administration. The committeevoiced its objections to the impact of TEA-21 legislation, whose "firewalls" significantly limited itslatitude in funding. According to the report, "These 'firewalls' make it virtually impossible for theAppropriations Committee to make downward adjustments to those funding levels in the annualappropriations process over the next 5 years." By July 31, both the House and Senate had passed their respective bills; the House bill was referred to the Senate; the Senate substituted its own language; and the House requested a conferenceon the substitute amendment. See the "Most Recent Developments" section of this report for thelatest legislative action. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: E = Economics; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.