APPROPRIATIONS FOR FY2001: DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED AGENCIES
CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2001:
Department of Transportation
and Related Agencies
Updated February 12, 2001
Robert S. Kirk
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
This report is a guide to the Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies
appropriations bill for FY2001. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the
Subcommittees on Transportation of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations.
It summarizes the current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, historic funding
levels (by agency and major programs), and requests for the upcoming fiscal year, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
Appropriations for FY2001: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies
President Clinton signed the FY2001 Department of Transportation (DOT)
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-346; H.Rept. 106-940) on October 23, 2000. The
agreement provides $57.978 billion for DOT. This is an increase of more than 14%
over the enacted FY2000 level. The Act provides increases for all major DOT
agencies except the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). On December 21, 2000,
President Clinton signed the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-
554). The Act provided for a government-wide rescission of 0.22%. This cut $125
million from the DOT budget for FY2001.
Both houses of Congress had passed somewhat different versions of the FY2001
appropriations bill (H.R. 4475). The House of Representatives version would have
provided total budgetary resources of $55.2 billion; the Senate version $54.7 billion.
The roughly $500 million difference was partly an outgrowth of the lower budget cap
that Senators had to work with. For the overall DOT budget, the Senate bill would
have represented a 9.5% increase over the FY2000 budget; the House bill a nearly
The FY2001 Act reflects the ongoing impact of the Transportation Equity Actst
for the 21 Century (TEA21). It raises highway funding by 16% and mass transit
funding by almost 8.5%. These spending levels meet or exceed TEA21's requirements.
The Administration had proposed increases of 5% for highways and roughly 9% for
The enacted version of H.R. 4475 appropriates additional funds not included in
either the House or Senate-passed versions, such as: $1.37 billion for miscellaneous
highway projects, $600 million for the Woodrow Wilson Memorial Bridge, roughly
$55 million for the Appalachian development highway system; and $720 million for
the Emergency Relief Federal Aid Highway Program.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21) (P.L. 106-181)has also had a major impact on the FAA’s funding for
FY2001. H.R. 4475, in conformance with FAIR21, provides for an increase in the
FAA’s total budget of roughly 25%.
The FY2001 Act includes language to strengthen state drunk driver blood
alcohol standards to 0.08% but phases in the highway funds reduction penalties more
gradually than in the Senate passed bill–at a rate of 2% annually beginning in FY2004
up to a maximum of 8%. It also permits the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) to collect and analyze public comments and data on its
proposed hours of service rules but prohibits FMCSA from taking final action during
Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRSDivisionTelephone
Airport Improvement ProgramBob Kirk,John FischerRSIRSI7-77697-7766
Amtrak RandyPeterman RSI 7-3267
Federal Aviation AdministrationJ. Glen MooreRSI7-7033
Federal Highway AdministrationJohn Fischer,Bob KirkRSIRSI7-77667-7769
Federal Railroad AdministrationPaul RothbergRSI7-7771
Federal Transit AdministrationRandyPetermanRSI7-3267
Highway and Truck SafetyPaul RothbergRSI7-7012
Surface Transportation BoardJohn FischerRSI7-7766
Transportation Infrastructure PolicyJohn FischerRSI7-7766
U.S. Coast GuardMartin LeeRSI7-7260
Technical Information Specialist,HusseinRSI7-2119
Management Assistant, TransportationClare BrigidiniRSI
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.
Most Recent Developments........................................1
The Transportation Appropriations Framework.........................1
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of TEA21........2
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of the Wendell H. Ford
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21 or
AIR21) ............................................... 3
Key Policy Issues................................................4
Major Funding Trends........................................7
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)..........................10
Railroad Safety and Technology............................12
High Speed Rail R&D and Magnetic Levitation Transportation Technology
Amtrak .................................................. 13
Amtrak Reform Council..................................14
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund................14
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)........................15
0.08% Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) Provision...........17
The TEA21 Funding Framework...........................18
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)...........................19
FTA Program Structure and Funding........................21
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)..........................22
The Enacted Conference Agreement.........................22
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)....................23
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)........................24
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)..........24
Grants-in-Aid for Airports............................24
Impact of FAIR21 on the FAA FY2001 Budget................25
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)..............26
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)...........27
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)..............29
Administrative and Research Expenses.......................30
Grants to States and Other Activities........................30
For Additional Reading..........................................33
CRS Issue Briefs...........................................33
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................34
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations............................8
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations................11
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration...........................15
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations.................20
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations................23
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration................27
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations...28
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2001..4
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2001..........................................7
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs..31
Appropriations for FY2001: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies
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 conference agreement (H.Rept. 106-940) on October 6,
2000. The FY2001 Act provides $57.978 billion for DOT. This is an increase of more
than 14% over enacted FY2000 funding. The FY2001 Act appears to be inst
conformance with the requirements of both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21
Century (TEA21) 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 driver blood alcohol standards to 0.08%. In addition, the
enacted bill permits the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to
collect and analyze public comments and data on its proposed hours 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 Appalachian development highway system. Also
provided is $720 million for the Emergency Relief Federal Aid Highway 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 additional transportation spending.
The Transportation Appropriations Framework
Transportation is function 400 in the annual unified congressional budget. It is
also considered part of the discretionary budget. Funding for the DOT budget is
derived from a number of sources. The majority of funding comes from dedicated
transportation trust funds. The remainder of DOT funding is from federal Treasury
general funds. The transportation trust funds include: the highway trust fund, the
transit account of the highway trust fund, the airport and airway trust fund, and the
inland waterways trust fund. All of these accounts derive their respective funding from
specific excise and other taxes.
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. Most highway and the majority of transit programs are
funded with contract authority derived by the link to the highway trust fund. This is
very significant from a budgeting standpoint. Contract authority is tantamount to, but
does not actually involve, entering into a contract to pay for a project at some future
date. Under this arrangement, specified in Title 23 U.S.C., authorized funds are
automatically made available at the beginning of each fiscal year and may be obligated
without appropriations legislation. Appropriations are required to make outlays at
some future date to cover these obligations.
Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual
appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite
situation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control
already exists and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs 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 in budget/contract authority and by placing limitations on
obligations. The principal function of the limitation on obligations is to control outlays
in a manner that corresponds to congressional budget agreements.
The authority to set a limitation on obligations for contract authority programs
gave appropriators considerable leeway in allocating funds among the various federal
transportation activities in function 400, which includes agencies such as the Coast
Guard and the Federal Aviation Administration. In addition, the inclusion of the
highway and transit programs and their trust-fund generated revenue streams in the
discretionary budget provided appropriators with additional flexibility as part of the
annual process by which available funds were allocated amongst the 13 standing
appropriations subcommittees in the House and the Senate.
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of
TEA21 changed this budgetary procedure in two ways. First, it created new
budget categories and second, it set statutory limitations on obligations. TEA21
amends the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to create
two new budget categories: highway and mass transit. TEA21 further amends the
budget process by creating a statutory level for the limitation on obligations in each
fiscal year from FY1999 to FY2003.
In addition, TEA21 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-generated revenues. This Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) redistributes to the various states, for obligational TEA21 highway
programs, the trust fund revenues that are in excess of projected receipts. These
additional revenues are allocated to the states using the formulas spelled out in the
law. However, the FY2000 and FY2001 DOT requests proposed redirection of
RABA funds from highway programs to other DOT initiatives. In the end, the
FY2000 and FY2001 DOT appropriations acts 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
TEA21 as a discretionary spending guarantee. The highway and mass transit
categories are separated from the rest of the discretionary budget 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 TEA21 context, as guaranteed and/or
minimum levels of funding for highway and transit programs. Additional funds above
the firewall level can be made available for highway and transit programs through the
annual appropriations process.
TEA21 changes the role of the House and Senate appropriations and budget
committees in determining annual spending levels for highway and transit programs.
The appropriations committees are precluded from their former role of setting an
annual level of obligations. In addition, it appears that the Act precludes, at least in
part, the House and Senate appropriations committees from exercising what some
Members view as their traditional option of changing spending levels for specific
programs or projects. In the FY2000 Appropriations Act the appropriators took some
tentative steps to regain some of their discretion over highway spending. The FY2000
Act called for the redistribution of some funds among programs and added two
significant spending projects. In the FY2001 Appropriations Act the appropriators
have continued in this vain by adding $1.37 billion in “miscellaneous highway project
funds” for a large number of earmarked projects. Further the FY2001 Act calls for a
redirection of a limited amount of funding between programs and includes significant
additional funding for some TEA21 programs.
As suggested earlier, the TEA21 firewalls appear to diminish the flexibility of the
committees on appropriations to meet the goals of the annual budget process, because
the committees can only adjust the DOT agency or program budgets outside the
firewalls. Hence, any reduction in spending for function 400 must be allocated to
agencies or programs other than highways or transit. In the era before the budget
surplus, i.e. last year, this raised special concern for supporters of the Coast Guard
and Amtrak, which are the largest DOT functions without firewall protection. The
existence of a significant 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
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 that provided by TEA21. Instead of creating new budget
categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two point-of-order rules for
the House and the Senate. The first point-of-order prevents Congress from
considering any legislation that does not spend all of the “total budget resources” as
defined by FAIR21 for aviation purposes. Total budget resources for purposes of the
Act are essentially the revenues and interest accruing to the aviation trust fund. The
second point-of-order prevents any spending for FAA operations and maintenance
(O&M) or Research, Engineering and Development (RE&D), unless the Airport
Improvement Program (AIP) and the Facilities and Equipment (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 TEA21 for highway and transit programs. Congress can, and
sometimes does, waive points-of-order during consideration of legislation. In addition,
there is a sense that appropriators might still have some latitude to make significant
changes to FAA O&M funding, which is dependant on both trust fund and general
fund contributions. For FY2001, however, no point-of-order waivers were
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 FAIR21 means 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 Act provides
increases for all major DOT agencies except for the FRA budget which is funded at
roughly 1% 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 claim a user-fee base to support an argument for its own
budget firewalls. The Coast Guard has a unique status within the transportation
budget category because of its wartime role in national defense. It is not unusual for
the Coast Guard to receive some funds from military appropriations during the annual
appropriations process. It is possible that the Coast Guard will seek additional funding
from the military side of the budget in the years ahead if additional funds from
transportation appropriations do not become available. For FY2001, however, the
existence of a significant budget surplus has abated these concerns.
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for
Report Passage Report Passage Report LawHouse Senate House Senate
H.R. H.Rept. S.Rept. H.Rept. P.L.
4475S. 2720106-622106-309106-940 106-346
5-8-00 6-13-00 5-17-00 5-19-00 6-14-00 6-15-00 10-5-00 10-6-00 10-6-00 10-23-00
Key Policy Issues
With release of the Clinton Administration’s FY2001 budget proposal on
February 7, 2000, the budget debate began in earnest. In proposing an overall
transportation spending level of nearly $55 billion, the Administration continued to
emphasize its safety, research, environmental, infrastructure, and mobility priorities
which complement Vice President Gore’s proposals concerning the Administration’s
“livability agenda.” Additional issues arose during congressional consideration of the
appropriations legislation. The FY2001 DOT appropriations debate was less
contentious than last year’s debate. It can be argued this is a direct result of a less
constrained 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 above both
the President’s request and FY2000 funding. The $57.978 billion provided for DOT
for FY2001 is 14% above the FY2000 level and significantly higher than the
Administration’s request for a 7.8% increase.1 Nearly all agencies got increases but
the big gainers were the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) which got 16% and 25% increases over FY2000
The FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554), which was signed
by President Clinton on December 21, 2000, included both a government-wide
rescission and some additional DOT spending. The rescission cuts the FY2001 DOT
budget by roughly $125 million. The Act also earmarked over $20 million in
additional spending. The FY2001 enacted totals in Table 3 at the end of this report
and the FY2001 enacted columns in the charts are rescission adjusted figures.
Because President Bush’s FY2002 budget submission, when released, will include the
official rescission adjustments for FY2001, the adjusted figures in this report 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 working
under. This environment continued through passage of the House and Senate versions
of H.R. 4475. Once it was clear that legislation would be introduced to raise the
spending caps enough to fund agencies not protected by funding guarantees the issues
were few and were worked out in conference.
The House and Senate-passed conference agreement on the FY2001 DOT
appropriations resolved a number of policy issues that were reflected in differences
in 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 penalties on 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 the
1This percentage was calculated using House Appropriations Committee figures which ignore
the new user fees proposed in the Clinton Administration’s FY2001 budget proposal.
existing hours of service regulations that govern the driving and work hours of
commercial drivers. Concomitantly, the conference agreement permits the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) to collect and analyze public
comments and data on its proposed hours of service rules, but prohibits FMCSA from
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 of
Airport 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 the
primary airport AIP formula entitlements. This could have caused a significant shift
of funds from the formula program and a relative increase in the monies available for
discretionary grants. The conference agreement, however, did not include the transfer
The House version of H.R. 4475 included language that would restrict DOT
spending related to changing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFÉ) standards.
The conference report also restricted any DOT move toward changing the present
standard, but allows for a new study of the standards by the National Academy of
Conference agreement general provisions (Title III) added significant additional
appropriations not included in either the House or Senate-passed bills. Section 378
of the conference report, described in the summary table as for “miscellaneous
highways,” provides $1.37 billion for a listing of road projects earmarked with
designated dollar amounts to be made available from the highway trust fund. Section
326 makes available an additional $54.936 million from the highway trust fund for the
Appalachian development highway system. Section 379 provides an additional $600
million from general fund revenues for replacement of the Woodrow Wilson Memorial
Bridge. Finally, the agreement provides $720 million from the trust fund for 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 amounts be made
available for many projects in programs that are under the control of the Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA). The Federal Lands Program, the Bridge
Discretionary Program, the Transportation and Community and System Preservation
Program, ferry boats and ferry terminals, intelligent transportation systems, and the
National Corridor Planning and Development Program were all earmarked to a
significant 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 priority
projects. Although, in the past, naming certain airports’ projects as priorities was not
unusual, 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 of
projects 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 have gone to the
allocated programs, to the core programs that distribute monies to the states. For
FY2001, although most of the RABA funds distribution was directed to the states,
some was set aside as follows: $156 million for specific projects, $18.5 million 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 funding more than doubled from FY1988
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2001
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year aAppropriation b
FY1998 Actual 42,381
FY1999 Enacted 47,224
a “Actual” amounts from FY1988 to FY1998 include funding levels initially enacted by Congress
in the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations bill as well as any
supplemental appropriations and rescissions enacted at a later date for that fiscal year. “Enacted”
figures for FY1999 and FY2000 are taken from the conference report tables (H.Rept. 106-355). b
Amounts include limitations on obligations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.c
The across-the-board rescission mandated for FY2000 required a reduction of roughly $179 million
from the DOT appropriations provided in P.L. 106-69.
2Starting in the early 1990s, about $300 million of the funds shown in Table 2 were
transferred from the DOD appropriations budget to DOT. These monies are used to support
Coast Guard activities.
d FY2001 funding figure is taken from the budget tables in H.Rept. 106-940 and adjusted for the
0.22% rescission. Additional appropriations, transfers, and carry-overs are, in part, based on
information provided by DOT.
The Coast Guard’s increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant
interdiction on the high seas and its aging fleet of water craft and aircraft are two
concerns associated with its funding. The Administration requested $4.609 billion for
Coast Guard discretionary funds in FY2001.3 Compared to the total $4.022 billion
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
appropriated in FY2000, the FY2001 request represents a $586 million, or 15%
3 The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee’s figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees. Because
of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001 request will
differ from those in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the House Appropriations
Committee budget tables. The appropriations committee adjusted total for the Coast Guard
request is $4.609 billion.
increase. In approving FY2001 funds on May 16, 2000, the House Appropriations
Committee (H.Rept. 106-622 ) recommended a total of $4.617 billion, an amount
approved by the House on May 19, 2000. This amount was $7.9 million above the
President’s request. On June 14, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee
recommended $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 In
December 2000, the FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-455) 0.22%
government-wide rescission reduced Coast Guard funding to $4.511 billion. Coast
Guard programs are authorized every 2 years; see CRS Report RS20117, Coast
Guard FY2000 and FY2001 Authorization Issues, for discussion of current
congressional consideration of authorization bills. For a more in depth discussion of
the Coast Guard’s budget, see CRS Report RS20600, Coast Guard: FY2001 Budget
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 aircraft
and vessel fleets. Of this amount, $3.199 billion (a 15% increase compared to
FY2000) would be allocated to operation and maintenance of a wide range of ships,
boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to navigation. The House approved $3.192
billion, $7 million less than requested; the Senate, $3.040 billion, $159 million less
than requested. The conferees recommended $3.192 billion, which was reduced by
the government-wide rescission to $3.185 billion. Another major component of the
request would assign funds for acquisition, construction, and improvement purposes.
For this component, the Administration sought $520 million, a 34% increase
compared to FY2000 funds. The House passed $515 million, $5.2 million less than
requested; the Senate $407.8 million, $107 million less than the request. The
conference committee recommended $415.0 million. The government-wide rescission
reduced this to $414 million. The proposal sought, the House and Senate approved,
and the conferees recommended $17 million, roughly the current level, for Coast
Guard activities for environmental compliance and restoration. For research, test, and
evaluation, the plan requested, the Senate and the conferees approved $21.3 million,
$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, and the
conferees recommended $778 million, $48 million more than the current level.5 The
Administration requested $73 million to train, support, and sustain a ready military
Selected Reserve Force of 7,600 members for direct support to the Department of
Defense and to provide surge capacity for responses to emergencies such as cleanup
operations following oil spills. The House and Senate approved $80.4 million, the
amount recommended by the conference committees. The rescission 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 planning and
analysis funds of about $45 million were requested for this in the FY2001 request;
actual purchases of nearly $10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning
in FY2002. During hearings before the Coast Guard’s authorizing and appropriating
4The figures enacted in P.L. 106-346 are the same as the conference recommended ones.
5The $778 for Coast Guard retirement was not subject to the government-wide rescission.
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 for Congress, discusses
the issues associated with the program. In approving FY2000 funds in P.L. 106-69,
Congress specified that the Coast Guard submit a comprehensive capital investment
plan with its FY2001 budget justification, a date not met by the Coast Guard. The
House FY2001 bill included language requiring a capital investment plan covering
2002-2006 to be submitted with the FY2002 budget and specifies a rescission of
$100,000 per day if the due date is not met. The conferees included this bill language
except for the rescission provision. The Senate-passed bill would have withheld
FY2001 planning funds until the study was completed.
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 recapitalization
of vessels, information management, and Coast Guard shore infrastructure not part
of the deepwater replacement effort. The Administration has proposed legislation to
authorize user fees for commercial cargo vessels and cruise ships; it anticipates
collecting $212 million in FY2001 and $636 million annually when the fee system is
fully operational. Past proposals for user fees for traditional Coast Guard services,
such as buoy placement and vessel traffic regulation, have been controversial. Some
have argued that these services should be funded from general funds because of their
widespread benefits; others think that user fees should be assigned in instances where
the beneficiaries can be clearly identified. In passing FY2000 appropriations in P.L.
106-69 (H.R. 2084), Congress included bill language prohibiting the Coast Guard
from using any FY2000 funds “to plan, finalize, or implement any regulation that
would promulgate new user fees . . . .” The FY2001 House and Senate-passed
FY2001 bills, and the conference recommendation continue this prohibition.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
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. The
House, 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-
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 Surface
Transportation Program (STP) funds for intercity rail passenger vehicles and facilities;
and increasing the federal share for the elimination of rail-highway crossing hazards
from 90% to 100% were eliminated on points-of-order.6 In the Senate, the floor
debate included discussion of an amendment that would have allowed states to use
federal-aid highway funds for intercity passenger rail (see discussion at the end of the
For FY2001, the Administration had requested $1.179 billion for FRA; roughly
a 60% increase over the FY2000 enacted level.7 The increase reflected the impact of
a new DOT initiative: the Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Program.
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
6Although the 100% matching share provision was eliminated from H.R.4475, it was included
in the FY2000 emergency supplemental spending provisions included in the Military
Construction Appropriations Act, 2001 (P.L. 106-246).
7The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees. Because
of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001 request will
differ from the figures in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the House
Appropriations Committee budget tables. The Appropriations Committee total for the
Administration’s FRA request is $1.056 billion.
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 railroad safety program and other administrative and
operating activities related to FRA staff and programs. Most of those funds were used
to pay for salaries as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and
headquarters staff and for information systems monitoring the safety performance of
the industry.8 The FY2000 DOT Appropriations Act, P. L. 106-69, provides $94.3
million for those expenses. For FY2001, the Administration requested $103.2 million
for those expenses. In H.R. 4475, the House specified $102.5 million for FRA’s safety
and operations activities. The Senate in its version of H.R. 4475 specified $99.4
million. The enacted conference agreement provides $101.7 million for safety and
operations. The government-wide rescission reduced this amount to $101.5 million.
The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994 and funding
authority for that program expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs
continue using the authorities specified in existing federal railroad safety law and
funds provided by annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held since
then, those deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorize
continued funding for FRA’s regulatory and safety compliance activities or change
any of the existing authorities used by that agency to promote railroad safety. A
reauthorization statute changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would
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 a
truck 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 grade
crossing safety challenge? Is FRA’s FY2001 budget adequate to deal with that
challenge? Congressional reaction to those questions had a bearing on the railroad
safety budget for FY2001. In its FY2001 budget, FRA requested additional funding
to 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 reports
accompanying the House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in the
annual conference report, the appropriations committees historically have allocated
the railroad R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety. For
8Those funds also are used to conduct a variety of initiatives, including the Safety Assurance
and Compliance Program (SACP), the Railroad Safety Advisory Committee (RSAC), and
field inspections. SACP involves numerous partnerships forged by railroad management, FRA
personnel, and labor to improve safety and compliance with federal railroad safety regulations.
RSAC uses a consensus-based process involving hundreds of experts who work together to
formulate recommendations on new or revised safety regulations for FRA’s consideration.
FY2000, the FRA requested $21.8 million for railroad R&D. The conference
agreement on P. L. 106-69 specifies $22.5 million for the FY2000 R&D program. For
FY2001, FRA requested $26.8 million for railroad R&D activities. In H.R.4475, the
House approved $26.3 million for railroad R&D. The Senate allocated $24.7 million
for railroad R&D. The enacted conference agreement specifies $25.3 million for
High Speed Rail R&D and Magnetic Levitation Transportation
Technology Deployment Program. In FY2000, $27.1 million was made
available for the Next Generation High Speed Rail Program. The FRA 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. The Senate appropriated $24.9 million
for that activity. The enacted conference agreement specifies $25.1 million for that
program. TEA21 authorizes $20 million of contract authority in FY2000 to support
the Magnetic Levitation (maglev) Transportation Technology Deployment Program.
For FY2001, TEA21 provides $25 million of contract authority for continuation of
the maglev program.
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 the
Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 for such things as new equipment and improved
signaling and track. Amtrak borrowed some of that $1.1 billion to cover operating
expenses. The Administration proposal, House, Senate, and enacted versions of H.R.
4475 all provided $521 million for Amtrak for FY2001. The government-wide
rescission for FY2001 reduced Amtrak’s funding to just over $520 million.
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 request
of Congress, have evaluated Amtrak operations and outlook, and have reported to
Congress that they are not optimistic that Amtrak will be able to operate without
federal financial operating assistance after FY2002. In 1997, Congress created an
independent national commission, the Amtrak Reform Council, and assigned it several
tasks regarding Amtrak and the future of intercity rail passenger service. The Council
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 most of its
transportation system have expanded in an unprecedented manner, Amtrak’s ridership
has remained virtually unchanged . . . . The most notable accomplishment of 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 report contains
suggestions for Amtrak. The report also contains issues the Council intends to study
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 $4
billion 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, and
New York City, the most heavily traveled Amtrak route. Beyond this amount, the
DOT IG estimates that Amtrak will have additional, continuing requirements for
federal funding for new equipment and improvements to signaling and track for the
Amtrak Reform Council. Amtrak Reform Council (hereafter referred to as
the Council) funding is presented within the budget request, although the Council is
an independent federal commission. The budget authority for the Council was
$750,000 in FY2000 compared to $450,000 in FY1999. The Administration
requested $1 million for FY2001. The House-passed bill provided $450,000; the
Senate-passed bill $495,000. The conference agreement recommended $750,000 for
the Council in FY2001 and this became the enacted figure.
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 federal
operating assistance after September 30, 2002. Congress added other duties later. If
the Council concludes that Amtrak will require federal operating assistance after
September 30, 2002, then federal law requires the Council to submit to Congress an
Amtrak reorganization plan; requires Amtrak to submit to Congress an Amtrak
liquidation plan; and states that legislative action will be taken by the Senate.
Expanded Intercity Rail Passenger Service Fund. The Administration’s
budget proposal requested the establishment of a new grant program to aid Amtrak
and intercity rail passenger service, to be funded at $468 million in FY2001. The
money was to come from RABA funds associated with the highway trust fund. The
projects funded would have required a 100% state match; a positive financial
contribution to Amtrak; public benefits in excess of public costs and would have to
be located on a current or potential intercity rail corridor. Funds were to go toward
the acquisition of equipment, construction of infrastructure improvements (including
acquisition of right-of-way), and planning and design. Funds were to be used only for
capital as defined by Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP), thus
excluding them from use for maintenance of equipment or track. The House and
Senate-passed bills, as well as the conference agreement, provided no funding for
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 national
highway system program, the surface transportation program, and the congestion
mitigation and air quality improvement program) to pay for capital improvements for
intercity passenger rail service. The argument for this amendment was that the
individual states were the best judges of their most urgent transportation needs and
should be given the flexibility to spend their available transportation funds as they see
fit. The arguments against this amendment were that since the repair and maintenance
needs of the nation’s highway system are great, none of the money for that purpose
should be used for anything else; and also that expanding the spending criteria to
include things other than highways would constitute legislating in an appropriations
bill. The amendment failed on a point-of-order objection that the amendment was
legislating in an appropriations bill; the objection was upheld by a 52-46 vote.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
The FY2001 Appropriations Act provides FHWA with budgetary resources of
$33.452 billion. The government-wide rescission mandated in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) along with some additional appropriations and the
carry-over of some unobligated exempt obligations created a new total of $33.425
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration
billion. Even accounting for these adjustments the final enacted funding is
dramatically above the level provided in FY2000, an increase of approximately $4.6
billion 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 versions of the
appropriations bill. Almost all of the additional funding in the Act comes from the
addition of earmarked highway projects outside the core TEA21 programs. The
largest components of this increase include: $1.37 billion in earmarked “miscellaneous
highway” project funds, an additional $720 million for the emergency relief program,
an additional $55 million for the Appalachian development highway system, 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 additional
spending proposals in the bill tend to distract from the fact that core FHWA spending
also receives a significant increase as a result of the availability of additional RABA
monies. As a result, the FY2001 limitation on obligations rises to almost $29.7 billion,
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 the
House-passed version of the bill, also $30.7 billion. Both House and Senate bills
provided funding at levels slightly above the $30.6 billion level found in the
Administration proposal. Programmatically, the House and Senate bills closely
tracked the Administration proposals, which are in turn governed by the provisions
of TEA21. The limitation on obligation funding level in both bills was an identical
$29.7 billion. The House and Senate bills essentially ignored an Administration
request to redistribute a portion of FY2001 revenue aligned budget authority (RABA)
The FHWA portion of the appropriations bill drew little comment during floor
consideration of this legislation in the House, the Senate, or during consideration of
the conference report. There was little by way of controversy surrounding the FHWA
budget; the possible exception was some early concern over the level of earmarking
for the Federal Lands Highway Program and the Transportation and Community and
System Preservation Pilot Program. Reports accompanying both the Senate and
House bills detailed specific, and in some cases different, project earmarks for both
of 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 over
5% from the FY2000 level. The obligational limitation, which supports most of the
federal-aid highway program, was set at $29.319 billion; funding for exempt programs
(emergency relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) was set at just over
$1 billion. All of the core FHWA funding programs received considerable increases
in the context of the program framework established by TEA21 (described later in this
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 RABA
funds would have been transferred within DOT agencies for mostly non-highway
activities. In addition, the Administration was proposing that specific programs within
FHWA’s jurisdiction receive—for example, funding for Indian reservation roads and
highway tax fuel evasion projects—receive designated distributions of RABA funds.
The proposal to change the distribution of RABA would have increased these
programs to levels beyond those provided by TEA21. The proposal to change the
distribution of RABA funds is a controversial one. The Administration made a similar
redistribution proposal in FY2000 that was ultimately ignored by Congress. The
Administration proposal for FY2001 is of a different nature than last year’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 discussed
above. The net effect of this proposal was to potentially exceed the obligational
limitation detailed in TEA21. In other words, the Administration spending proposal
appeared to exceed TEA21 authorized levels for some programs. Hence, either new
authorizing legislation, with concomitant increases in contract authority, would have
been needed to accommodate the new funding levels (an unlikely prospect at the
moment) or some existing programs would have seen spending reductions to
accommodate the increased spending for favored initiatives. Both of these scenarios
were unpopular with highway interest groups and with those Members who do not
want to see the TEA21 framework changed.
In FY2001, as discussed earlier, the FHWA was provided with $33.425 billion
(rescission adjusted) in total budgetary resources. The FY2001 Appropriations Act
continues the dramatic growth in FHWA funding that resulted from passage of
TEA21 in 1998 and now from the availability of a budget surplus. By way of
comparison, FHWA funding for FY2001 is at a level of almost $15 billion more than
was available in FY1995.
The FY2001 Act largely followed the provisions of TEA21 in terms of overall
funding distribution (a discussion of the TEA21 program structure follows this
section), with the exception of the additional funding provided outside the core
programs. The principal change in the FY2000 Act was in the distribution of RABA
funds for programs under the direct control of the FHWA. These changes were
continued in FY2001. These so called “allocated” funds go to programs such as the
Federal Lands Highway Program and the Highway Beautification Program. The effect
of the FY2000 Act’s provisions was to transfer a significant portion of the RABA
funds designated for the allocated funds to core highway programs (surface
transportation program, national highway system program, etc.) for distribution to the
states on a formula basis. The other major change in the FY2000 Act was a significant
increase in the number of specific projects and funding levels detailed in the
legislation. This trend continued in the FY2001 Act. This earmarking is a common
feature in other parts of the transportation appropriations Act, but had been absent
from the highway section of the Act for several years.
passed version of H.R. 4475 included a provision that would have reduced the
amount of highway trust funds that a 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 a motor vehicle at or above a 0.08% BAC.9 No
similar provision was included in the House bill. Those supporting the Senate
approach often assert that the incentive specified 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 a 0.08 BAC law, has not proven sufficient to
encourage many additional states to implement the 0.08% BAC limit and that stronger
measures are needed. Those against the approach specified in the Senate bill typically
maintain that each state should determine its own traffic safety laws without federal
9 Under the Senate provision, the DOT Secretary would be required beginning in FY 2004 to
withhold 5% of certain federal aid highway funds for any state that has not yet adopted and
enforced a 0.08 BAC law. Beginning in FY 2005, that amount increases to 10%. Under the
Senate bill, the withheld funds would be reapportioned to a state if it adopts and enforces a
pressure or dictates. Some also contend that the weight of evidence documenting the
effectiveness of a 0.08 BAC law needs to be strengthened before the federal
government imposes a financial penalty on states for not enacting and enforcing such
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 detailed
in section 163(a) of title 23, United States Code) would have 2% of specified portions
of their federal aid highway funding withheld beginning in FY2004, 4% withheld in
FY2005, 6% withheld in FY2006, and 8% withheld in FY2007. The Act provides that
if within four years from the date that a state’s apportionment is reduced, the
Secretary determines that the state has adopted and is enforcing a 0.08 BAC statute,
the apportionment of such state shall be increased by an amount equal to the
reduction. Otherwise the funds withheld would lapse.
The TEA21 Funding Framework. TEA21 created the largest surface
transportation program in U.S. history. For the most part, however, it did not create
new programs. Rather, it continued most of the highway and transit programs that
originated in its immediate predecessor legislation, the Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA, P.L. 102-240). Programmatically,
TEA21 can be viewed as a refinement and update of the ISTEA process. There are
a few new funding initiatives in TEA21, such as a Border Infrastructure Program, but
the vast majority of funding is reserved for continuing programs.
There are several groupings of highway programs within the highway firewall.
Most of the funding is reserved for the major federal aid highway programs, which
can be thought of as the core programs. These programs are: National Highway
System (NHS), Interstate Maintenance (IM), Surface Transportation Program (STP),
Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment on an
annual basis by formula and are not subject to program-by-program appropriation.
There is a second category of highway funding within the firewalls. This so
called “exempt” category consists of two elements: an additional annual authorization
of minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) and emergency relief
($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to the annual limitation on
A further set of programs, which are also within the firewall, are known as the
“allocated” programs. These programs are under the direct control of FHWA or other
governmental entities. These programs include: the Federal Lands Highway Program,
High Priority Projects (former demonstration project category), Appalachian
Development Highway System roads (formerly ineligible for trust fund contract
authority), the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program, and
several other small programs.
As discussed earlier, TEA21 provides a link between the highway generated
revenues that flow into the highway account and highway spending. The Act requires
that the Secretary of Transportation make an annual evaluation of revenues into the
highway account during the previous fiscal year vis-a-vis spending authorized within
the highway firewall for the new fiscal year. If revenues go up, program spending is
increased. Conversely, spending can go down if revenues go down. TEA21 specifies
a 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 for various RD&T activities from $437.2
million in FY2000 to $658.8 million in FY 2001. RD&T funds are used primarily to
advance and deploy technologies intended to improve highway pavements, structures,
roadway safety, highway policies, and intelligent transportation systems (ITS). The
largest requested increases, in dollar amounts, were in FHWA’s Surface
Transportation R&D and the Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs.
More specifically, FHWA requested increased funding for its surface transportation
R&D program from $98 million in FY2000 to $138 million in FY2001. The
Administration also requested $238 million for ITS deployment, which is $120 million
above the amount of contract authority specified in TEA21. The ITS deployment
program provides funds for states and local governments to use advanced
communication and information systems to improve the management and safety of
their surface transportation systems. The source of the proposed additional funding
was to be new contract authority that would be added to the contract authority
already authorized under TEA21. Because a legislative change to Title V of TEA21
would have been required to add this additional contract authority, it was uncertain
whether the additional funding requested by FHWA for RD&T would be provided.
The House and Senate passed bills and the conference agreement specified $437.2
million, including $98 million for 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 substantial
portion of the incentive funds used to accelerate ITS deployment. For example,
FY2000 and FY2001 DOT Appropriations Acts, Congress earmarked the deployment
account by specifying which cities or states would receive those funds and the
amounts to be obligated. TEA21 also specifies several projects which are to receive
some of the ITS deployment funds. Some Members and proponents of ITS would
prefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
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 the TEA21
guaranteed level. The three versions of the bill agree on all major funding categories.
This funding level compares with an FY2000 appropriation of almost $5.8 billion.
10In addition to the funds authorized in TEA21, Section 378 of the Act provides $50 million
for the ITS infrastructure program. The 0.22% government-wide rescission under P.L. 106-
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 at
nearly the same $6.3 billion level as the House, Senate, and conference agreement.
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
The only difference being the Administration’s proposed use of $75 million from
RABA mostly for the job access and reverse commute program. Congress has
rejected 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 TEA21
in 1998. As Figure 4 shows, transit funding under TEA21 reached its highest funding
level to date in FY2001.11 The $ 6.3 billion (an 8.4% increase over FY2000) provided
for in the FY2001 Act, continues the impact of TEA21 on transit spending.
Within the general provisions of the conference report is increased authorized
funding related to contingent commitments to incur obligations for transit projects in
Chicago, Minneapolis, and the Dulles corridor project, among others.
11 Pursuant to the government wide 0.38% rescission at the end of the 1st Session, FTA programs were cut by
$17.6 million from the level provided in the FY2000 Act.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit
programs: the Major Capital Investment Program and the Urbanized Area Formula
Program. There are also several 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 guide
way modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2001, the Clinton
Administration proposed funding of this program at $2.65 billion. This is slightly
higher than the FY2000 level of $2.5 billion. These funds are allocated on a
discretionary basis by FTA or earmarked by Congress. The Senate-passed bill also
provided 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 million of formula
funds monies to the Capital Investment Programs). The government-wide 0.22%
rescission reduced the Capital Investment Program by $5.8 million to $2.695 billion.
The Administration FY2001 budget proposes that 12 new rail transit starts be
considered for full funding grant agreements. Rail transit project selection is always
a controversial exercise because there are more potential projects listed in TEA21
than can be funded within the transit guaranteed funding level. The Senate report
(S.Rept. 106-309) language expresses the opinion that DOT should reassess its
request for the 12 new projects given the number of projects deemed eligible for
funding under TEA21. 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, operating needs.
These activities include bus and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed
guide way modernization, new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For
FY2001, the Administration requested $3.45 billion, a slight increase over the $3.05
provided in FY2000. These funds are apportioned on a formula process based, in part,
on population and transit service data. Both the House and enacted versions of H.R.
4475 all provided $3.295 billion for the Section 5307 program for FY2001. The
Senate version provided for $3.345 billion.12 The government-wide rescission
reduced this formula grant program by $7.25 million 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), grants
for elderly and individuals with disabilities, clean fuels, and over-the-road bus
accessibility. Slightly less than 90% of the Administration’s FY2001 Section 5307
proposal is for urbanized areas (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receive
two-thirds of the funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive
the remaining one-third) and just over 6% of this is designated for nonurbanized
12The House and enacted versions of H.R. 4475 provided for the transfer of $50 million of
formula funds to the Capital Investment Grant Program to increase the bus and bus facility
TEA21 authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant
program. This program provides transportation assistance for welfare recipients and
low income persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The Administration
proposed that this program be funded at a level of $150 million in FY2001, with $50
million coming from redistributed RABA funds. The House and Senate bills both
rejected the use of $50 million in redistributed RABA funds, and provide $100 million
for the program, as does the enacted conference agreement.
With the enactment of TEA21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas (UZAs) with 200,000 or more population. However, preventive
maintenance, previously eligible for funding from operating assistance, is now eligible
under an expanded capital grants formula program. Urbanized areas under 200,000
population, including rural areas (under 50,000 population), can use all of the 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 mentioned
in the report language.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
The Enacted Conference Agreement. The FY2001 DOT conference
agreement (P.L. 106-346; H.Rept. 106-940) that was signed by the President on
October 23, 2000, funds the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) at $12.588
billion, which is roughly $2.5 billion, or about 25% more than for FY 2000. A total
of $3.2 billion is provided for the airport improvement program (AIP). This is a
substantial increase over the $1.9 billion provided last year. The FY2001
Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) government-wide 0.22% rescission
cut the overall FAA budget by $27.7 million to a final adjusted total of $12.549
billion. Approximately $10.459 billion, or 83% of FAA’s total budget, will be derived
from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, with the remainder coming from general
revenues. The Administration had proposed full funding from the trust fund.
Historically, a significant portion of the agency’s budget has come from general-fund
revenues, the rationale being that the public at large realizes some benefit from
aviation whether it uses the system or not.13
The conference committee rejected Administration calls for a semiprivate air
traffic control system supported by fees on airlines but still under the jurisdiction of
the federal government. The Administration wanted Congress to replace the current
excise tax on airline passengers with a system in which the actual commercial users
of air traffic control services pay, based on the cost of those services. The FAA would
have used existing authority to create a performance-based organization for air traffic
13General fund appropriations have varied substantially, both in dollar terms and as a
percentage of FAA appropriations as a whole, from year to year. Over the last 12 years the
share has ranged from 0% to 47%. See table 1, in CRS Report RS20177, Airport and Airwayth
Trust Fund Issues in the 106 Congress, by John W. Fischer.
control services headed by a chief operating officer. The proposal has been offered
before and has been consistently rejected by Congress. The conference report
specifically prohibits the FAA from implementing any new aviation user fees not14
authorized by law.
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). Primarily for salaries, the $6.5 billion
appropriated for operations is about 10.9% more than last year’s appropriation and
will cover mandatory cost increases and additional staffing. The increase includes
funding for additional field maintenance staff and funds to maintain traffic control and
navigation equipment now being delivered as part of the modernization of the air
traffic control system. It also provides for additional staff for air carrier and aircraft
certification and safety surveillance, and additional staff to inspect hazardous goods
shipments and monitor the performance of airport security measures. The conference
report directs the FAA to submit a comprehensive strategic plan for civil aviation
security, as proposed by the Senate. It also directs the agency to submit a final report
on the extension of the contract tower program, but it does not require a time-line for
14The Administration’s proposal was outlined by FAA Administrator Jane Garvey in
testimony before the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee
on Aviation, Mar. 1, 2000. [http://www.faa.gov/apa/testimony/2000/301tejg.htm].
expanding the program as called for in the Senate report. The government-wide
rescission reduced the O&M budget by $14.4 million. Another $14 million was
transferred to support the Essential Air Service Program. Thus the adjusted total for
O&M appears to be $6.516 billion.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). The $2.7 billion provided for F&E equals
the amount authorized by Public Law 106-81. It represents an increase of
approximately $0.5 billion (or 28%) more than the FY 2000 level, and $160 million
more than the Administration’s request. The government-wide rescission cut the
overall F&E budget by $5.8 million. The funds in this account will be used to
improve and modernize the national air space system infrastructure. The account
includes $100 million for the acquisition and deployment of explosive detection
systems at airports, $117 million for terminal automation, $38 million to continue the
Safe Flight and Free Flight phase-one programs, and $110 million for the local-area
and wide-area augmentation systems. Also included in this account:
!$145 million to replace air traffic control towers and other terminal facilities
at approximately 50 airports named in the conference report.
!$85 million for new and upgraded instrument landing systems at some 30
airports named in the report.
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D). The FY2001 Act
provides $187 million for RE&D, which is $3 million more than the administration
request. The amount provided is approximately 19% above last year’s appropriation.
It includes $33 million for continued research on aging aircraft structures, $54 million
for explosive detection and other security research, and $24 million for aviation
medicine and human factors research. The government-wide rescission cut $410,000
from the overall RE&D budget.
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
provides grants for airport development and planning. The President’s FY2001
budget proposed AIP spending of $1.95 billion. This is the same level enacted in the
FY2000 appropriations bill (P.L. 106-69). However, for FY2000 AIP funding was
reduced by $54.4 million as part of the 0.38% across-the-board rescission required
by P.L. 106-118.
FAIR21 (P.L. 106-181), which reauthorized AIP, was signed into law by the
President on April 5, 2000. For FY2001, FAIR21 authorizes $3.2 billion for AIP, a
FAIR21 includes so-called funding “guarantee” language that supporters believe will
assure AIP funding at the fully authorized level. The House-passed FY2001
appropriations bill, H.R. 4475, conformed with the FAIR21 guarantee of $3.2 billion
for AIP in FY2001. The conformance of the Senate version was questioned because
of a provision that allowed for $120 million of the $3.2 billion of AIP contract
authority to be made available for “air traffic services to maintain aviation safety.” The
enacted version of H.R. 4475 provides $3.2 billion for AIP.
If the Senate proposal to transfer AIP contract authority to O&M had been
included in the enacted legislation, there could have been programmatic ramifications
for the distribution of AIP grants. Provisions in FAIR21, to adjust for the much larger
amounts of money to be distributed, doubled the amount determined by formula for
primary airports. However, FAIR21 requires an AIP funding trigger level of $3.2
billion be met before the formula amounts can be doubled. If the $3.2 billion had been
cut by the $120 million transfer, this could have caused a significant shift of monies
away from formula program grants and a relative increase in the monies available for
discretionary grants. The conference agreement (H.Rept. 106-940) dropped the
transfer provision and it is not an issue in the enacted bill.
The FY2001 Consolidated Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-554) included a 0.22%
government-wide rescission which again brought AIP funding under the $3.2 billion
trigger level. Section 1125 of the Act, however, removed the $3.2 billion
requirement. The bill also earmarked an additional $2.5 million for airport grants.
The final FY2001 funding level for AIP was $3.195 billion.
Although neither the House report (H.Rept. 106-622) nor the Senate report
(S.Rept. 106-309) earmark specific amounts of AIP discretionary funding to
individual airports, both bills “place-name” a large number of airports and direct the
FAA to consider project grant applications at these airports as priority projects.
Traditionally appropriations bills have not added specific dollar earmarks to place-
named airports. The conference report language for FY2001, however, breaks with
this tradition and lists both airport names and dollar amounts, and directs DOT to
provide not less than the funding levels mentioned in the report.
The House and Senate-passed FY2001 appropriations bills, as well and the
enacted conference agreement, include a rescission of $579 million in FY2000
contract authority made available in FAIR21. This rescission will have no
programmatic impact on the AIP funding available for FY2001 .
Impact of FAIR21 on the FAA FY2001 Budget. The recently enacted FAA
reauthorization act, the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the
21st Century (FAIR21, P.L. 106-181), has had a significant impact on the DOT budget
and appropriations debate for FY2001. This is because the so-called funding
“guarantees” and point-of-order enforcement provisions in the Act made it more
difficult than in previous years for appropriators to fund the FAA below the
authorized level. Funding at the fully authorized level of $12.7 billion would exceed
the Administration’s request by $1.5 billion (13% higher) and would be $2.7 billion
(over 25% higher) above the FY2000 enacted level.
The funding guarantee enforcement provisions require that all annual aviation
trust fund revenues be spent on aviation and that the AIP and F&E accounts must be
fully funded at the authorized level before any legislation to fund the O&M or RE&D
accounts can be considered. This arrangement provides the capital portions of the
FAA budget, AIP and F&E, with procedural protection from reductions during the
appropriations process. However, by implication, it leaves the O&M and RE&D
budgets more at risk from reductions which might otherwise have been made agency
wide. The assumption by supporters of FAIR21 is that, because the O&M account is
mostly for salaries for air traffic controllers and other safety-related personnel, it is a
difficult target for “budget hawks” to cut.
FAIR21 authorizes the O&M budget at $6.592 billion, the same as the
Administration’s request. AIP is authorized at $3.2 billion, F&E at $2.657 billion, and
RE&D at $237 million. The levels for these three accounts are all significantly higher
than the amounts requested by the Administration.
Aviation trust fund revenues alone will not sustain the level of funding called for
by FAIR21. For FY 2001, trust fund revenues are projected to be $10.6 billion. AIP
and F&E must be fully funded first, at $5.9 billion. This leaves $4.7 billion of the
year’s trust fund revenues to fund FAA’s O&M and RE&D accounts. This balance
is roughly $2.1 billion below both the Administration request and the FAIR21 level
of approximately $6.8 billion for those accounts. The $2.1 billion difference could be
dealt with by: providing funding from the general fund; cutting from the unprotected
budget accounts, O&M and RE&D; drawing down unexpended trust fund balances;
or a combination of the three. For 2001, the enacted version of H.R. 4475 provides
$2.1 billion in general fund revenues for O&M.
The FAA’s FY2000 budget relied solely on aviation trust fund revenues. FAIR21
clearly assumes that general fund revenues will be appropriated. For FY2001, the
Administration had again proposed funding FAA entirely from the aviation trust fund
with the aid of a proposed new user fee. Some members of the House and Senate
would also prefer to make the FAA’s budget self-sustaining.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
For FY2001, RSPA requested $85.1 million in budget authority, compared to
an appropriation of $67.7 million in FY2000. Most of RSPA’s budget is allocated to
activities seeking to promote transportation safety. For pipeline safety, RSPA was
seeking $47.1 million, an increase of $10.2 million over FY2000; and for hazardous
materials transportation safety, the agency requested $18.8 million, an increase of
$1.1 million over FY2000. In H.R. 4475, the House appropriated $76.8 million for
RSPA, including $18.8 million for the hazardous materials transportation program,
and $40.1 million for the pipeline safety program. The Senate appropriated $75.2
million for RSPA, including $18.6 million for the hazardous materials transportation
program, and $43.1 million for the pipeline safety program. The enacted conference
agreement specifies $80.6 million for RSPA, including $18.8 million for hazardous
materials transportation safety program; and $47.0 million total for the FY2001
pipeline safety program, including an appropriation of $36.6 million from the pipeline
safety fund, $7.5 million from the oil spill liability trust fund, and $3 million from the
reserve in the pipeline safety fund. The 0.22% government-wide rescission reduced
RSPA’s overall funding by $180,000.15
15The Administration’s budget includes a number of offsets to adjust for proposed but
unauthorized user fees that would require authorizing legislation outside the jurisdiction of the
appropriations committees. The House Appropriations Committee figures on the
Administration’s budget request factor out the impact of these non-existent user fees. Because
of this difference, the figures in the textual discussion of the President’s FY2001 request will
differ from the figures in the tables and charts of this report that rely on the House
Appropriations Committee budget tables. The appropriations committee tables put the
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
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 for
automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for drivers,
identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state
governments to enact laws and implement programs (through safety grants) to reduce
drunk driving and to encourage the use of safety devices. Once again, the
Administration has emphasized that, “Improving transportation safety is the number
one Federal Government transportation objective.” NHTSA plays a key role in
implementing this objective.
Administration’s RSPA request at $85 million. Of the Administration’s $99 million figure,
$14 million is linked to a legislative proposal for a user fee to finance hazardous materials
safety activity that requires authorizing legislation. Under current law, the emergency
preparedness grants are funded by permanent appropriations.
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
In its policy statements, the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has
targeted specific program activities that have potential for reducing highway deaths
and injuries. Included among these are programs to: reduce drunk and drugged
driving; reduce the incidence of aggressive driving and “road rage”; aid in the
development of “smart air bags” that will continue to provide protection to occupants,
while reducing risk associated with the bags themselves; reduce the likelihood of child
automobile trunk entrapment; enhance infant and child safety in vehicle crashes; and
explore transportation options and safety programs for an aging population. In their
respective appropriations committee reports, the House and Senate have suggested
that they also share a concern for these NHTSA initiatives.
The enacted conference agreement (P.L. 106-346) provided total NHTSA
funding of $404 million for FY2001. Although this is a nearly 10% increase over the
FY2000 funding, it is significantly lower than the Administration request of $499
million. The $404 million is $9 million greater than the amount proposed in the House
and Senate-passed versions of H.R. 4475. The additional funding is allocated to the
Office of Safety Defects (within the operations and research function), and other tire-
related initiatives in the wake of the recent Firestone recall. The 0.22% government-
wide rescission reduced NHTSA’s overall funding by $0.89 million to roughly $403
The conference report language contains some restrictions on the use of funds.
NHTSA is restricted from using FY2001 funding for the following items:
!planning, finalizing, or implementing any rulemaking that would add
requirements pertaining to tire grading standards that are not related to safety
!purchasing vehicles to conduct new car assessment program crash testing at
a price exceeding the suggested retail price (waiver possible under extenuating
!preparing, prescribing or promulgating corporate average fuel economy
(CAFÉ) standards for automobiles that differ from those previously enacted.
More specific program areas and their recommended amounts include the
!Operations and Research: Administration request, $286 million total; House-
passed legislation provides $182 million; Senate-passed legislation, $182
million; enacted, $191million.
!Highway Traffic Safety Grants (highway trust fund): Administration request,
$213 million (obligation limitation) total. House-passed legislation (no change
from requested amount), $213 million distributed to the following programs:
$155 million for State and Community Highway Safety Grants; $36 million for
Alcohol-Impaired Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants; $13 million for
Occupant Protection Incentive Grants; and $9 million for State Highway
Safety Data Grants. The Senate-passed legislation also provides $213 million
for the Traffic Safety Grants initiative, using the same general breakdown, by
program. The enacted conference agreement recommended similar funding of
$213 million and made no changes in the specific program amounts.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.16 This agency became operational on January 1, 2000, and
assumed the responsibilities and personnel of DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety.17
FMCSA issues and enforces the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, which
govern the operation and maintenance of interstate commercial truck and bus
operations and specify requirements for commercial drivers. FMCSA also administers
several grants and programs to help states conduct their truck and bus safety
activities. Most of the funds used to conduct FMCSA activities are derived from the
Federal Highway Trust Fund. The FY2001 request for the FMCSA was $279.2
million. The House and Senate bills as well as the conference committee provided
16During various hearings held in the first session of the 106th Congress, a variety of
organizations, including DOT’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and many
industry associations raised numerous concerns regarding the effectiveness of the federal truck
and bus safety program. In response to these concerns, Congress created the FMCSA.
17DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety, which operated from October 9 through December
31, 1999, replaced the Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration of the
$269.2 million. The enacted conference agreement also provided $10 million from
RABA funds to pay for improvements to the commercial drivers licensing program.
The 0.22% government-wide rescission cut the FMCSA budget by $0.59 million.
The appropriation for the FMCSA consists of two components: funds primarily
used for administrative expenses and funds primarily used to assist state programs.
Administrative and Research Expenses. The FY2001 budget request for
FMCSA administrative expenses and operations was $92.2 million, including funds
for research and development (R&D). The FY2000 comparable appropriation was
$76.9 million. During FY2001, the appropriation request for the motor carrier
research program, which is intended to improve the truck and bus safety regulations
and associated safety and compliance activities conducted by both federal and state
enforcement officers, was $9.6 million. The FY2000 appropriation was $6.4 million.18
In H.R. 4475, the House specified $92.2 million for the administrative expenses and
operations for the FMCSA, including $8.7 million for research. The Senate-passed
version of H.R. 4475 included $92.2 million for those expenses of the FMCSA,
including $9.85 million for research. The enacted conference agreement specified
$92.2 million for administrative expenses and operations, including $9.85 million for
Grants to States and Other Activities. The enacted conference agreement
includes a limitation on obligation of $177 million for the “National Motor Carrier
Safety Program” as proposed by both the House and Senate passed bills. Those funds
are used primarily to pay for the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP),
a grant program that helps the states enforce their truck and bus safety regulations.
The MCSAP provides grants typically to cover up to 80% s of the costs of a state
truck and bus safety program. Under the program, the Agency partners with some
9000 state and local public utility and law enforcement officers that conduct more
than 2.2 million roadside inspections at the roadside. Some funds provided under this
sub-account are also used to pay for information systems and analysis as well as other
state compliance activities.
Hours-of-Service Provision. On May 2, 2000, the FMCSA issued in the
Federal Register a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the hours of
service (HOS) regulations that govern the maximum hours of duty status and
minimum number of off-duty hours for commercial truck and bus drivers. FMCSA
seeks to improve and revise those regulations with the goal of reducing the number
of fatigue-related truck and bus crashes. The Senate-passed version of H.R. 4475
prohibited the Department from spending funds to consider, adopt or enforce any
proposed rule or proposed amendment to the existing hours of service regulation that
governs the driving and work hours of commercial drivers. The House-passed bill did
not include such a provision. The enacted conference agreement prohibits the use of
funds during FY 2001 to issue a final rule in this area, but allows the FMCSA to
continue working on this rulemaking.
18The FY2000 appropriation for motor carrier research was subject to an obligation limitation,
the FY 2001 appropriation is not.
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programsa
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)
Final FY2000bFY2001House PassedSenate PassedConferenceFY2001Enacted
Enacted Request Report(adjusted)R
28,802 30,358 30,701 30,701 33,452 33,425
27,701 29,319 29,662 29,662 29,662 29,597
1,207 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,040 1,069
– – – – i2,150 i2,160
– – – – i600 i599
. 368 499 395 395 404 403
571 521 521 521 521 520
0.75 1 0.450 0.495 0.750 0.748
5,785 6,321 6,271 6,271 6,271 6,261
620 669 659 669 659 658
2,478 2,676 2,636 2,676 2,636 2,630
490 529 539 529 539 538
1,967 2,117 2,157 2,117 2,157 2,152
c 10,02711,22212,585c 12,390c12,574c12,549
1,8961,950c 3,200c 3,200c3,200c3,195
156 184 184 183 187 187
4,022 4,609 4,617 4,359 4,519 4,511
2,781 3,199 3,192 3,039 3,192 3,185
389 520 515 408 415 414
68 g85 77 75 g81 g81
(Budg Auth)57j 5363596363
105 279 269 269 269 269
h 50,683 54,630 55,239 54,786 57,978 57,914
otherwise noted, figures in Table 3 were taken from tables provided to CRS by the House Committee on Appropriations. Numbers within
may differ slightly from those in the text due to supplemental appropriations, rescissions, and other funding actions. Columns may not
budget reductions pursuant to the government wide rescission (P.L. 106-113) that were too small to be reflected in the FY2000 column
Table 3 are as follows: Federal Railroad Administration, $-179,000; Transit Planning and Research, -$243,000; Coast Guard alteration of
-$57,000; and environmental compliance and restoration, -$65,000; Saint Laurence Seaway, -$46,000; OIG, -$170,000; STB, -$58,000;
Senate-passed FY2001 bill includes provision for a transfer from AIP to Operations of $120 million “if necessary to maintain aviation safety.”
Senate, House, and conference bills for FY2001 also provide for a rescission of $579 million of FY2000 AIP contract authority. The FY2000
and Equipment appropriation included a rescission of $30 million of FY1998 budget authority. These rescissions have no impact on the
for FAA programs for FY2001 and are not subtracted from the FAA totals. They are , However, factored into the
totals for DOT. The supplemental appropriations act of 2001 (P.L. 106-246) added $75 million to the FY2000 O&M budget. The FAA
budget was reduced by a $14 million transfer to the Essential Air Service program and this is reflected in the conference and adjusted
In general, the Coast Guard total budgetary resources includes substantial funding from the Department of Defense and from emergency
appropriations. For more detail, see CRS report RL30246, Coast Guard: Analysis of the FY2000 Budget. For FY2000, an additional
million was made available as contingent emergency funding on an official budget request being made. Thus, the total FY2000 appropriation
FY2001 $3 million in the pipeline safety reserve and $13 million in the emergency preparedness reserve is also available to RSPA. $5 million
offsetting collections from a Clinton Administration proposed fee to finance hazardous materials transportation safety activities along with
DOT and related agencies appropriations does not fund the Maritime Administration (MARAD) or the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC)
their budgets are therefore not included in this report. They receive funding from the Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bills. The grand
for FY2001 subtract the $579 million rescission of FY2000 budget authority. This has, however, no effect on the FY2001 budgetary
figure includes, from the highway trust fund, $720 million for the Emergency Relief Program , $1.37 billion in additional “miscellaneous
project funds, $5 million for Muscle Shoals, Alabama, and an additional $55 million for the Appalachian development highway system.
Administration proposed that an additional $10 million be raised from user fees. P.L. 106-246, the emergency supplemental appropriations
The figures in this column have been adjusted to reflect both the additional appropriations and the government-wide 0.22% rescission provided
Act (P.L. 106-554). For FHWA the rescission totals $71.34 million, additional appropriations
exempt obligations carried over as unobligated FY2000 exempt obligations. For NHTSA the
FRA the rescission is $1.64 million. The post-recission total of $755 million for FRA includes $20 million in
for Pennsylvania Station and $10 million transferred from DOD (P.L. 106-259) to realign track at Elmendorf Air Force
rescission is $13.8 million. The conference report transferred $50 million FTA formula grants to the
For FAA the rescission was $27.7 million. P.L. 106-554 also provided an additional $2.5 million for the
Improvement Program. The conference report funding for FAA operations is reduced by a $14 million transfer to the Essential Air Service
For the U.S. Coast Guard the rescission was $8.23 million. The $778 million for retired pay appears to be exempt from the rescission.
rescission for the St. Lawrence Seaway is $30,000. The rescission for the Office of the Inspector general is $110,000. For RSPA the rescission
$180,000. For the STB the rescission is $40,000. For the Office of the Secretary the rescission is $190,000. For FMCSA the rescission is
For the NTSB the rescission is $138,600. Because the official rescission amounts will be included in the Bush Administration budget
Table 3 should be considered estimates until then.
For Additional Reading
CRS Issue Briefs
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress, coordinated
by Glennon J. Harrison.
CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization
Issues, by Paul F. Rothberg and Anthony J. Solury.
CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÉ Up
to Standards?, by Rob Bamberger.
CRS Report 98-749 E. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)
and the Federal Budget, by John W. Fischer.
CRS Report RL30096. Airport Improvement Program Reauthorization Legislationth
in the 106 Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
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 John W. Fischer.
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.
CRS Report 98-646 ENR. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (P.L.
CRS Report RL30246. 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 David Randall Peterman.
CRS Report RS20469. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies, by William
Lipford and Glennon J. Harrison.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget Site
Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer
House Appropriations Committee
Interactive Budget Web Site
Maritime Administration (financial reports)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)
Office of Management and Budget
Senate Appropriations Committee