Appropriations for FY2002: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies

CRS Report for Congress
Appropriations for FY2002:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Updated January 15, 2002
Robert S. Kirk and David Randall Peterman
Coordinators
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Subcommittees on
Transportation of the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations. It summarizes the
current legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
legislative activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and
related CRS products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at:
[http://www.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml ].

Appropriations for FY2002:
Transportation and Related Agencies
Summary
On December 18, 2001, the President Bush signed the FY2002 Department of
Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies conference agreement (H. Rept. 107-
308), appropriating a total of $59.588 billion for DOT, a 2.5% increase over the
FY2001 enacted level. The enacted bill provides $507 million more than the House-
passed version and $391 million less than the Senate-passed bill. At $32.895 billion,
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) will receive slightly less than in FY
2001. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will receive $734 million, $21
million less than in FY2001. The other major agencies all get increases. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) budget will increase roughly 6% to $13.295 billion;
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) budget will increase 8% to $6.747 billion;
and the Coast Guard will receive an increase of 12% to $5.031 billion. The Act also
includes $1.25 billion (to be offset by user fee collections) for the new Transportation
Security Administration (TSA).
The enacted conference agreement mandates significant safety and inspection
requirements be met by Mexico-domiciled trucks before DOT begins processing Mexican
applications for operating authority in the U.S. beyond the commercial zones along the
border. It does, however, include a number of modifications in response to
Administration concerns that the original Senate bill (as well as the House bill) violated
provisions of the North American Free Trade Association agreement (NAFTA).
The conference agreement created a controversy when the conferees redirected
and earmarked $997.6 million of Revenue Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) funds.
The RABA mechanism adjusts DOT program authorization and obligation levels to
reflect recent fuel tax revenues (by increasing or decreasing both the authorization and
the obligation limitation). For FY2002, this added $4.5 billion to DOT programs.
This redirection of RABA funds reduces the RABA portion of the states’ formula
funding by 10.7% from what they otherwise would have received. Authorizers see
this action as a usurpation of their authority, and some vowed to oppose this sort of
action in the future.
Congress responded to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, by passing
the 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (P.L.107-38). That Act provides
$40 billion, government-wide, to pay the costs of a variety of responses, including
“providing increased transportation security.” As of this writing, roughly $1.9 billion
of these emergency supplemental funds have been approved for transfer to DOT.

Key Policy Staff
Area of ExpertiseNameCRSDivisionTelephone
Airport Improvement ProgramBob Kirk,John FischerRSIRSI7-77697-7766
AmtrakRandy PetermanRSI7-3267
Aviation SafetyDuane ThompsonRSI7-7252
Federal Aviation AdministrationJohn FischerRSI7-7766
Federal Highway AdministrationBob KirkJohn FischerRSIRSI7-77697-7766
Federal Railroad AdministrationPaul RothbergRSI7-7771
Federal Transit AdministrationRandy PetermanRSI7-3267
Highway, Railroad, & Truck SafetyPaul RothbergRSI7-7012
Surface Transportation BoardJohn FischerRSI7-7766
Transportation Infrastructure PolicyJohn FischerRSI7-7766
Transportation SecurityJohn FrittelliRSI7-7033
U.S. Coast GuardMartin LeeRSI7-7260
Vehicular SafetyDuane ThompsonRSI7-7252
Division abbreviations: RSI = Resources, Science, and Industry Division.

Contents
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 21^st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21).......................3
Key Policy Issues................................................4
Issue Overview.............................................4
The Conference Agreement (H.Rept. 107-308; P.L. 107-87).......5
Transit Issues.......................................5
RABA Distribution and Congressional Earmarking...........6
NAFTA Implementation and the Mexican Trucking Issue......7
Antiterrorism Emergency Supplemental Appropriations...............8
Major Funding Trends........................................8
Transportation Security Administration...........................9
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......10
Coast Guard..............................................10
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.107-38).......12
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)..........................12
Railroad Safety and Research and Development................13
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D......................14
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.107-38).......15
Amtrak .................................................. 15
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......16
Amtrak Reform Council..................................16
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)........................16
The TEA21 Funding Framework...........................18
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs19
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......19
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)...........................20
FTA Program Structure and Funding........................20
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309).20
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307)...........21
Other Transit Programs..............................22
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......23
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)..........................23
Operations and Maintenance (O&M)........................23
Facilities and Equipment (F&E)............................23
Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D)..............24
Essential Air Service (EAS)...............................24
Grants-in-Aid for Airports................................25
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......25
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)..............26
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38).......26
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)...........27

Highway Traffic Safety Grants.............................28
NHTSA Program Responsibilities..........................28
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)..............30
Administrative and Research Expenses.......................30
Grants to States and Other Activities........................30
Mexican Trucking Provision...............................31
For Additional Reading..........................................34
CRS Products.............................................34
Selected World Wide Web Sites................................35
List of Figures
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations...........................11
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations................13
Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration...........................17
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations.................21
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations................24
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration................27
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Appropriations...29
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for FY2002..4
Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002..........................................9
Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs..32

Appropriations for FY2002: Transportation
and Related Agencies
Most Recent Developments
On December 18, 2001, President Bush signed the FY2002 Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies conference agreement (H. Rept. 107-308; P.L.
107-87) appropriating a total of $59.588 billion (a 2.5% increase above the FY2001
enacted level). The enacted bill provides $507 million more than in the House bill
and $391 million less than the Senate bill. At $32.895 billion, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) receives slightly less than in FY 2001. The Federal
Railroad Administration (FRA) is funded at $734 million, $21 million less than
enacted in FY2001. The other major agencies all get increases. The Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) budget increases roughly 6% to $13.295 billion; the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) budget increases 8% to $6.747 billion; and
the Coast Guard budget receives an increase of 12% to $5.031 billion.
The September 11, 2001, simultaneous hijacking of four airliners from three
different airports and the enormous loss of life that resulted from the terrorists’
suicide-bomber tactics had a quick impact on transportation appropriations.
Congress responded to the terrorist attacks by passing the 2001 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-38). The bill provides $40 billion to pay the
costs of a variety of responses including “providing increased transportation
security.” The funds may be transferred to any authorized federal activity to meet
the purposes of the act. As of this writing, roughly $1.9 billion has been approved
for transfer to the Department of Transportation (DOT). The length of availability
of these funds varies depending on the purpose of the 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.
In FY2002 trust funds accounted for well over two-thirds of total federal
transportation spending. Together, highway and transit funding constitute the largest
component of DOT appropriations. Most highway and 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; although appropriations are
required to make outlays at some future date to cover these obligations.
Where most federal programs require new budget authority as part of the annual
appropriations process, transportation appropriators are faced with the opposite
situation. That is, the authority to spend for the largest programs under their control
already exists, and the mechanism to obligate funds for these programs also is in
place.
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.
Changes in Transportation Appropriations
as a Result of TEA21
Beginning in 1999, TEA21 changed the transportation budgetary process 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.
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 from being used for any other
purpose. These so called “firewalls” are viewed, in the TEA21 context, as guaranteed
and/or minimum levels of funding. Additional funds above the firewall level can be
made available for highway and transit programs through the annual appropriations
process.
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 highway-generated revenues. This Revenue Aligned Budget Authority
(RABA) redistributes to the various states, for obligational TEA21 highway programs
(also known as core 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, FY2001, and FY2002 Administration
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 proposed redirection of RABA funds. In FY2002, however, the
Administration request is honored in part. More importantly, the FY2002 Act makes
major redistributions of RABA funding outside of the core programs. These
distributions will be discussed in the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
section of this report.
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 TEA21 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
continued in this vein by adding funds for large numbers of earmarked projects.
Further, the FY2001 Act called for redirection of a limited amount of funding
between programs and includes significant additional funding for some TEA21
programs. This trend continues, and even accelerates, in the FY2002 Act as
appropriators have made major redistributions of RABA funds and, in some instances,
have transferred RABA funds to agencies that would not be eligible for RABA
funding from TEA21.
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 and, as will be discussed in the
next section, most aviation programs.
Changes in Transportation Appropriations as a Result of
the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
for the 21^st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)
FAIR21 (P.L. 106-181, signed April 5, 2000) provides a so-called “guarantee”
for FAA program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is
significantly different from that provided by TEA21 to highway and transit programs.
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 rule
prevents Congress from considering any appropriations legislation for aviation
purposes that does not spend all of the “total budget resources.” As defined by
FAIR21, total budget resources are essentially the revenues and interest accruing to
the aviation trust fund. The second point-of-order prevents any spending for Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) operations and maintenance (O&M) or for 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 because 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 dependent on both trust-fund and
general-fund contributions. For FY2001 and FY2002, however, no point-of-order
waivers were considered.
Supporters of FAIR21 believe the Act requires significant new spending on
aviation programs. And, for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, this has been
the case. Enactment of FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have total
control over spending for only the Coast Guard; the Federal Railroad Administration
(FRA), which includes Amtrak; and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of these
agencies were concerned about their funding prospects. However, the FY2001 Act
provided budget increases for all major DOT agencies, except for the FRA budget.
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 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. In FY2001, however, the
existence of a significant budget surplus abated these concerns. For FY2002, national
security concerns have overridden the budgetary issues, and the agency will receive
a significant increase in funding.
Table 1. Status of Department of Transportation Appropriations for
FY2002
Subcommittee Conference
MarkupHouseHouseSenateSenateConf.Report ApprovalPublic
Report Passage Report Passage Report LawHouse Senate House Senate
H.R.S.H.Rept.S. Rept.H. Rept.P. L.
2299 1178107-108107-38107-308107-87
6-12-01 7-12-01 6-22-01 6-26-01 7-12-01 8-01-01 11-29-01 11-30-01 12-4-01 12-18-01
Key Policy Issues
Issue Overview
With release of the Bush Administration’s FY2002 budget proposal on April 9,
2001, the budget debate began in earnest. In proposing a Department of
Transportation (DOT) budget of roughly $59 billion the Administration was

proposing a roughly 1.5% increase over last years budget total.¹ The FY2001 budget,
however, included slightly less than $2.8 billion of what the Administration referred
to as “one time projects” that were added to the budget of the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA). If these are subtracted, the Administration’s FY2002
proposal could be seen as a 6.5% increase. The budget request was in conformance
with the basic outline of both the Transportation Equity Act for the 21^S^T Century
(TEA21; P.L. 105-178), which authorized spending on highways and transit, and the
aviation funding authorized in the Wendell Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act
of the 21^st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21; P.L. 106-181). Although there was consensus
on funding the larger programs at or above their guaranteed levels, there were still
number of other issues that arose during the debate.
The Conference Agreement (H.Rept. 107-308; P.L. 107-87). Three
months after the House and Senate had passed their versions of H.R. 2299, Congress
agreed to the conference report on the bill that resolved differences between the two
bills, not only on money and program matters, but also on the President’s objections
to provisions in the House and Senate bills concerning the implementation of the
North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) provisions on access of Mexican
commercial trucks to the U.S. market. President Bush signed P.L. 107-87 on
December 18, 2001.
P.L. 107-87 provides $59.6 billion for DOT, roughly $600 million more than the
President requested and $1.5 billion more than enacted for FY2001. Most DOT
agencies, however, are funded at or near the Administration’s request.
Compared to FY2001, the FY2002 DOT appropriations act (hereafter referred
to as the FY2002 Act) provides significant increases for most DOT agencies. The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) budget increases roughly 6% to $13.295
billion; the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) budget increases 8% to $6.747
billion; and the Coast Guard receives an increase of 12% to $5.031 billion. Two
agencies get slightly less than in FY2001: at $32.895 billion, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) receives slightly less than in FY 2001; the Federal Railroad
Administration (FRA) is funded at $734 million, $21 million less than enacted in
FY2001. The FY2002 Act also provides $1.25 billion (to be offset by newly
authorized user and airline fees) for the Transportation Security Administration,
recently created by the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71).
Transit Issues. The Administration’s budget request had proposed to convert
the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) Bus and Bus Facilities Program and Job
Access and Reverse Commute Program from discretionary to formula programs.
Both these programs have been subject to earmarking in the past. Formula programs

¹This report relies on figures from tables provided by the House Committee on
Appropriations. Because of differing treatment of offsets, rescissions, and the structure of
DOT appropriations bills, the totals will at times vary from those provided by the
Administration. The DOT appropriations bills do not fund the Maritime Administration, but
do fund some smaller entities that are not included in the DOT budget, i.e, the Architectural
and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board and the National Transportation Safety Board.

are generally not available for earmarking. Both the House and Senate rejected these
program changes.
The Administration also proposed to reduce the maximum federal share under
the FTA’s New Starts Program from 80% to 50%, beginning in FY2004. There are
always many more transit project proposals than funds to support them. Supporters
of this change see it as a way to fund more New Starts projects, and also argue that
a 50% local share would assure that only projects supported by a strong local
commitment would get funded. On the other hand, some argue that the reduced
federal share could skew the awards process to favor projects in wealthier urban areas
and make the provision of funding less needs based. The FY2002 Act directs FTA
not to sign any new full-funding grant agreements after September 30, 2002, that have
a maximum federal share higher than 60%.
RABA Distribution and Congressional Earmarking. When the FY2002
DOT budget debate began, there were a number of reasons to expect that the
treatment of RABA would be at issue. First, the Bush Administration’s budget
request proposed two RABA set-asides. One would have provided $56 million to
support construction of state and federal motor carrier inspection facilities along the
U.S.-Mexico border. A second set-aside, of $145 million, would have supported two
pilot programs that make up the Administration’s proposed New Freedom Initiative.
Of this amount, $45 million would have been used to promote innovative
transportation solutions for the disabled. The remaining $100 million would have
been used to fund competitive matching grants to promote access to alternative
transportation. Second, the Clinton Administration had previously proposed RABA
set-asides in its FY2000 and FY2001 budgets. Congress, however, did not adopt the
requested redirection of RABA funds during those years. Third, the FY2000 and
FY2001 DOT Appropriations Acts did make a modest change in the RABA
distribution. Both years’ Acts redirected the RABA funds from allocated (commonly
referred to as discretionary) programs, which are under the aegis of the FHWA, to
the core highway programs that are distributed to the states by formula. Some
observers thought this might happen again in FY2002. Finally, the large size of the
FY2002 RABA, $4.543 billion, increased the attractiveness for using these funds for
congressional initiatives or for earmarking.
The FY2002 Act sets aside $56.3 million of RABA funds for U.S.-Mexico
border infrastructure but no RABA funds are set aside for the President’s New
Freedom Initiative.
More controversial is FY2002 Act’s redirection of $423 million of the RABA
revenues that under TEA21 are added to the formula funds distributed to the states.
Instead, the $423 million is added to the $574 million of FY2002 RABA, that, under
TEA21, is distributed to the allocated (i.e. discretionary) programs. This made a total
of $997 million in RABA funding available for distribution to the FHWA’s allocated
programs. The conference report language, however, specifies the programs that are
to be funded and provides the dollar amounts for each. Only programs provided with
RABA set asides in the conference report receive any of the money; i.e., allocated
programs that are not given set asides get no RABA funding. Most notable of the
programs that lose their RABA funds under FY2002 Act is the High Priority Project

program. Among the programs benefitting from these additional funds are: Indian
Reservation Roads ($35.6 million); Public Lands Highways ($31.8 million and $45.1
million); Park Roads and Parkways ($21.3 million); ferry boats and ferry terminal
facilities ($25.6 million); the Corridors and Borders program ($352.3 million); the
Transportation and Community and System Preservation pilot program
($251.1million); the Interstate Maintenance Discretionary program ($76 million); the
Bridge Discretionary program ($62.5 million); and for border infrastructure
improvements ($56.3 million). Most of the money from these RABA set-asides is
earmarked in conference report H.Rept. 107-308.² Some members of Congress have
expressed dissatisfaction with the degree to which these set asides are in
nonconformance with TEA21.
Section 330 of the conference report also provides an appropriation of $144
million for surface transportation grants. The funds are earmarked in H.Rept. 107-
308. The extent of earmarking, especially of RABA funds, continues to be
controversial.
NAFTA Implementation and the Mexican Trucking Issue. The most
contentious debate during both House and Senate consideration of the DOT
appropriation involved the implementation of the North American Free Trade
Agreement (NAFTA) provisions regarding the operation of Mexican trucks
throughout the U.S. NAFTA provisions prescribe a phased-in implementation which
was to be completed by January 1, 2000. Citing safety concerns, the Clinton
Administration refused to allow Mexican trucks beyond the border commercial zones.
Mexico filed a complaint against the U.S. under NAFTA dispute resolution. Recently
the arbitration panel held against the U.S. The Bush Administration announced its
intention to implement the trucking access provisions of NAFTA by the end of 2001.
A provision added by amendment in the House to H.R. 2299, prohibited the use of
funds to process applications by Mexico-based trucking firms for authority to operate
beyond U.S. border municipalities and commercial zones. Taking a different
approach, the Senate bill included a series of safety requirements and preconditions
to be met before any funds appropriated can be used to review or process an
application by a Mexican motor carrier to operate trucks beyond the border
commercial zone. Among the requirements and preconditions required in the Senate
bill were: full on-site safety compliance review of Mexican motor carrier companies;
equipping all U.S.-Mexico border stations with weigh-in-motion systems; proof of
valid insurance with a U.S.-based insurance company; and requiring that Mexican
commercial motor vehicles may not cross at a border crossing unless an inspector is
on duty. After long and contentious debate, the Senate passed H.R. 2299 (as
amended) with virtually all of the Mexican trucking provisions intact.
The FY2002 ACT incorporates Senate provisions, some of which have been
modified, regarding processes and measures to promote the safety of cross-border
trucking between the United States and Mexico. The modifications were sufficient
to overcome Bush Administration concerns that the Senate-passed version of the bill
might violate NAFTA. The agreement provides for $25.866 million for salaries,

²The conference report also provides for the set-aside and transfer of $23.9 million to the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) per P.L. 106-159.

expenses, and capital costs to implement these provisions. These funds are in
addition to funds provided in the appropriation for the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration (FMCSA) and the Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program
(MCSAP) that also are intended to enhance the ability of U.S. DOT and the states to
promote the safety of Mexican trucks and buses entering the United States. (See CRS
Report RL31028, North American Free Trade Agreement: Truck Safety
Considerations, by Paul Rothberg)
Antiterrorism Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
The September 11, 2001, simultaneous hijacking of four airliners from three
different airports and the enormous loss of life that resulted from the terrorists’
suicide-bomber tactics quickly had an impact on transportation appropriations.
Congress responded to the terrorist attacks by passing the 2001 Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-38), hereafter referred to as the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act. The bill provides $40 billion to pay the costs of
a variety of responses including “providing increased transportation security.” This
$40 billion was divided into three categories of availability: $10 billion was available
immediately for allocation; $10 billion was to be made available 15 days after
congressional notification; and the final $20 billion, which requires separate legislation
to appropriate the funds. The funds may be transferred to any authorized federal
activity to meet the purposes of the Act.
As of November 30, 2001, $640 million of the immediate and 15-day funds have
been allocated for transportation security purposes. Of the final $20 billion authorized,
the President requested $734 million be made available for transportation security
through appropriating legislation. The FY2002 Department of Defense (DOD)
appropriations bill (H.R. 3338; P.L. 107-117) was the vehicle for allocating funds
from the final $20 billion. The FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act allocated $1.296
billion for transportation projects and activities, mostly for security purposes. All
together, P.L. 107-38, provided $1.936 billion in emergency appropriations for
transportation. (For detail on the proposed allocation of the emergency supplemental
funding see: CRS Report RL31187. Terrorism Funding: Congressional Debate on
Emergency Supplemental Allocations, by Amy Belasco and Larry Nowels).
In this report, the agency totals, the agency funding charts, and table 3 at the end
of the report do not include these supplemental amounts. The emergency
supplemental appropriations are, however, discussed in the text where appropriate.
Major Funding Trends
Table 2 shows DOT actual or enacted funding levels for FY1988 through
FY2001. Total annual DOT funding more than doubled from FY1988 through
FY2001. The FY2002 enacted funding for DOT, at roughly $59.6 billion, continues
the upward trend in FY2002.

Table 2. Department of Transportation Appropriations:
FY1988 to FY2002
(in millions of dollars)
Fiscal Year ^aAppropriation ^b
FY1988 Actual25,779
FY1989 Actual27,362
FY1990 Actual29,722
FY1991 Actual32,776
FY1992 Actual36,184
FY1993 Actual36,681
FY1994 Actual40,359
FY1995 Actual38,878
FY1996 Actual37,378
FY1997 Actual40,349
FY1998 Actual 42,381
FY1999 Actual 48,067
FY2000 Enacted ^c50,683^c
FY2001 Enacted58,107^c
FY2002 Enacted59,588^c
^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.}^b
^{Amounts include limitations on obligations, DOD transfers, and exempt obligations.}^c
^F^{Y2001 and FY2002 enacted figures are drawn from budget tables provided by the House Committee on}
^{Appropriations.}
Transportation Security Administration
The Aviation and Transportation Security Act (P.L. 107-71), passed in the
aftermath of the September 11 attack, created a new agency in the DOT—the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA). This new agency will be headed by
an Under Secretary for Security who is appointed by the President and confirmed by
the Senate for a fixed five-year term. With respect to air transportation, the Under
Secretary assumes the civil aviation security functions of the FAA as promulgated
under 49 U.S.C. 449. TSA is responsible for hiring, training, testing, and developing
standards for security personnel who screen passengers and baggage and is also
responsible for day-to-day screening operations. The new security administration
also deploys Federal Security Managers at each airport to oversee screening and
deploys Federal Air Marshals for every flight with “high security risk.” TSA is
assigned the task of improving airport perimeter-access security and acquires and
deploys explosive-detection machines and other equipment designed to detect
chemical or biological weapons. The Act imposes various deadlines in the coming
year that the agency must meet in providing aviation security services.
TSA is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, passenger and
cargo. During a national emergency, TSA coordinates and oversees domestic
transportation for air, rail, maritime (including seaports), and other surface transport
modes and liaises threat assessments among appropriate federal, state, and local

agencies. The agency develops policies, strategies, and plans for dealing with security
threats, and undertakes R&D activities to enhance transportation security.
The FY2002 Act provides $1.25 billion in FY 2002 for the TSA. This
appropriation is to be offset with collections from the “security service fee” authorized
under the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). ATSA imposes a fee
of up to $2.50 per passenger (limited to $5 per one-way trip) to pay for civil aviation
security services. If this fee proves to be insufficient to pay for the cost of security
services, TSA may impose a fee on air carriers. The revenue collected from this air
carrier fee is limited to the amount air carriers paid in calender year 2000 for screening
services.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). An
allocation of $94.8 million in emergency funds made available in P.L. 107-38 is
designated for TSA in the FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L.107-117). $93.3
million is for security grants to national seaports and $1.5 million is for intelligence
and security activities.
Coast Guard
[http://www.uscg.mil/]
The Coast Guard appropriation is constrained, and its management challenged,
by increased responsibilities for drug and illegal immigrant interdiction on the high
seas as well as by its aging water craft and aircraft. The Administration requested
$5.056 billion for Coast Guard funding in FY2002. Compared to the $4.511 billion
appropriated in FY2001, the FY2002 request was $545.2 million, or 12%, more. The
House approved $4.966 billion (H.R. 2299; H.Rept. 107-108), $60 million less than
requested. In addition to these discretionary funds, there are mandatory funds of $64
million for State Boating Safety grants and $61.2 million from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.³ The Senate approved $5.102 billion (H.R. 2299; H.Rept. 107-108,⁴
amended by S. 1178, in the nature of a substitute). Conferees provided $5.03 billion,
which is the enacted amount. Coast Guard programs are usually authorized every 2^th
years; see CRS Report RS20924, Coast Guard Legislation in the 107 Congress, for
discussion of current congressional consideration of authorization bills. P.L. 107-20
(H.R.2216), an FY2001 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, increased
FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million.

³ The House Appropriations Committee does not count these funds in the Coast Guard
appropriations total. Some Administration sources do count these mandatory appropriations,
which lifts the Coast Guard total to $5.181 billion for FY2002.
⁴The Senate Committee on Appropriations total includes $48.5 million from the Oil Spill
Liability Trust fund but does not include $64 million in mandatory boating safety grants. This
lifts the S. 1178 total to $5.166 billion. The total also reflects an $8.7 million rescission of
prior years’ budget authority. The total FY2002 program level for the Coast Guard is $5.75
billion.

The FY2002 budget request was intended to allow the Coast Guard to continue
its activities against drug smuggling and to recapitalize aircraft and vessel fleets. The
requested $3.38 billion ($197.8 million, or 6%, more than FY2001) was for operation
Figure 1. U.S. Coast Guard Appropriations
and maintenance of a wide range of ships, boats, aircraft, shore units, and aids to
navigation. The $3.38 billion included $340.3 million in defense-related funding. The
House approved $3.38 billion for operation and maintenance; the Senate approved
$3.428 billion; and, the conferees $3.38 billion, which is the enacted amount. Another
major component of the request was for additional funds for acquisition, construction,
and improvement. The Administration sought $659.3 million, $245.2 million, or 59%,
more than current year funding. The House approved $600 million, $59.3 million less
than requested. The Senate approved $669.3 billion, while the conferees approved
$636.4 million. For complying with environmental regulations and cleaning up
contaminated Coast Guard sites, the budget sought and the conferees approved $16.9
million, the same as current year funding. The $15.5 million requested and approved
for altering bridges would be the same as current year funding. The $20.2 million
approved for research and development is slightly less than current year funding and
than the amount requested. The allocation for retirement pay will be $876.3 million,
or 13% greater than FY2001. The Administration requested and the conferees
approved $83.2 million to train, support, and sustain a ready military Selected Reserve
Force of 8,000 members for direct support to the Department of Defense. Other
Coast Guard requested funding included $50 million for spill clean-up and initial

damage assessment, available without further appropriation from the Oil Spill Liability
Trust Fund.
A prominent issue has been the Coast Guard’s management of a major planned
replacement of aging and outmoded high seas vessels and aircraft, with a special
emphasis on improving the Coast Guard’s capabilities on the high seas or in deep
waters. Only planning and analysis funds were included for FY1998 through FY2001.
Key dates include July 2001, when industry teams were to submit their design and
construction proposals; and the second quarter of FY2002, when the Coast Guard
will award the contracts to begin the replacement program. For FY2002, $338 million
was requested. The FY2002 Act provides $320 million. Actual purchases of nearly
$10 billion are anticipated over a 20-year period beginning in FY2002. The language
of the enacted FY2002 appropriations bill includes provision for a penalty rescission
of $100,000 per day for each day after the initial submission of the FY2003 budget
request that the Coast Guard capital investment plan has not been submitted to
Congress. CRS Report 98-830, Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System:
Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the issues associated with the
program.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.107-38).Under
provisions of P.L. 107-38, the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States, the Coast
Guard received $18 million in immediate funds for the costs of New York City harbor
patrols and the recall of Coast Guard reservists. The FY2002 DOD Appropriations
Act, allocates an additional $209.15 million of funds authorized in P. L. 107-38 to the
Coast Guard. The funds are available until September 30, 2003. They are distributed
as follows: $110 million for Reserve activation; $33.507 for restoration of FY2002
reductions; $41.293 million for anti-terrorism activities; $2.5 million for
chemical/biological strike teams; and $21.85 million for National Defense
Authorization Act entitlements. These supplemental amounts are not included in the
totals for the Coast Guard’s FY2002 annual appropriations totals in this report..
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA)
[http://www.fra.dot.gov]
The FY2002 Act provides $733.6 million in funding for the FRA. This is
slightly less than the $744 million provided in FY2001. The Act provides $521
million for Amtrak, which is the same amount as provided in FY2001. Core safety and
operations receive $111 million, a $9 million increase over the FY2001 level.
The Act eliminates funding for Rhode Island rail development and for a
comparable program in West Virginia that was contained in the FY2001 Act. Alaska,
however, will receive $20 million for Alaska Railroad rehabilitation, which is the same
level of funding it received last year. Funding for the ongoing Pennsylvania Station
relocation project in New York City is maintained at the $20 million level. Spending
for next generation high-speed rail development is increased to $32.3 million, $7
million more than was provided in FY2001.

Although most of the debate involving the FRA budget centers on Amtrak, Next
Generation High-Speed Rail, and agency safety activities (which receive more detailed
treatment following this section), also likely to be discussed is the issue of how states
might obtain additional funds for high speed rail initiatives.
Railroad Safety and Research and Development. The FRA is the
primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. The Bush
Administration proposed $111.4 million for FRA’s safety program and related
administrative and operating activities. Most of those funds are used to pay for
Figure 2. Federal Railroad Administration Appropriations
salaries, as well as associated travel and training expenses for field and headquarters
staff, and for information systems monitoring the safety performance of the rail
industry.⁵ The Administration’s request for FY2002 represents a nearly 10% increase
above the $101.7 million provided in the FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act (P. L.

⁵Those 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.

106-346) for those expenses. The FY2002 Act provides $110.9 million for railroad
safety.
The request for FRA’s safety and research and development programs included
a proposal to impose a rail-user fee on the industry. The collected funds would have
offset costs of safety-related activities, raising an estimated $55 million that would
have been credited to a special fund in the U.S. Treasury while general funds
appropriated for the programs would have been reduced by similar amounts.
Industry, in the past, has objected to such a proposal, maintaining that it already pays
its share of taxes and that it invests heavily in safety. Both the House and Senate bills
denied the Administration’s request to collect user fees to help fund FRA safety and
R&D activities.
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 program
continues using the authorities specified in existing federal railroad safety law and
funds provided by annual appropriations. Although hearings have been held since
then, the deliberations have not resulted in a consensus to enact a law to authorize
continued funding for FRA’s regulatory and safety compliance activities or change
any of the existing authorities used by FRA to promote railroad safety. A
reauthorization statute changing the scope and nature of FRA’s safety activities would
most likely affect budgets after FY2002.
The adequacy and effectiveness of FRA’s grade-crossing safety activities
continue to be of particular interest. Relevant safety issues include: How effectively
is FRA helping the states deal with the grade-crossing safety challenge? Is FRA’s
FY2002 budget adequate to deal with that challenge? Congressional reaction to these
questions had a bearing on the railroad safety budget for FY2001. In its FY2002
budget, FRA requested funding to strengthen its grade-crossing safety program and
associated public education activities.
To improve its safety regulations and industry practices, the FRA conducts
research and development (R&D) on an array of topics, including: fatigue of railroad
employees, technologies to control train movements, and track dynamics. In the
reports accompanying the House and Senate transportation appropriation bills and in
the annual conference report, the appropriations committees historically have
allocated FRA’s R&D funds among various research categories pertaining to safety.
The FY2001 DOT appropriations act (P.L. 106-346), provided $25.3 million for the
FY2001 R&D program. For FY2002, FRA requested $28.3 million for railroad R&D
activities. The FY2002 Act provides $29 million.
Next Generation High-Speed Rail R&D. In FY2001, $25.1 million was
made available for the Next Generation High-Speed Rail Program. The FRA
requested $25.1 million to continue this program in FY2002; the FY2002 Act
provided $32.3 million, a 29% increase over the FY2001 level. This included $3
million for study and design of a high-speed rail corridor in Florida, supporting that
State’s constitutional mandate to develop high-speed rail service.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L.107-38). The
FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117; H. Rept. 107-
350) provides $6 million authorized under P.L. 107-38 to FRA for safety and
operations. The funding is for additional expenses related to: overtime and the hiring
of police and security officers; increased inspections of rail infrastructure; additional
security personnel; additional inspector travel; and other security measures.
Amtrak
[http://www.amtrak.com]
The FY2002 authorization for Amtrak is $955 million. President Bush’s
FY2002 budget request for Amtrak was $521.5 million, the same as in FY2001 (the
government-wide rescission for FY2001 reduced Amtrak’s funding to just over $520
million). The President’s budget, however, would allow Amtrak to use their entire
appropriation immediately, rather than being given 40% in the first year and 60% in
the second year, as in previous years’ appropriations. This would give Amtrak a total
of $833 million for FY2002 ($521.5 million appropriated for FY2002, plus $312
million carried over from FY2001). The FY2002 Act provides $521.5 million; it is
silent on the accelerated funding arrangement, though both the House and Senate bills
approved it.
After September 11, Amtrak increased security at its main passenger terminals
and along its tracks. Demand for Amtrak’s services skyrocketed during the time that
commercial air travel was suspended. Even after air travel was restored, many
travelers preferred not to fly, increasing demand for Amtrak’s services. At the same
time, however, after September 11 many people preferred not to travel at all, with the
result that eventually Amtrak’s overall passenger load was down slightly. The
increased spending on security and decreased passenger demand exacerbated
Amtrak’s revenue shortfall.
The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134) prohibits
the appropriation of federal operating grant funds for Amtrak after FY2002 (Section
201). However, the Congress has appropriated only capital grant funds to Amtrak
for several years now, with the understanding that those funds may also be used for
operating expenses. The Act also requires that if the Amtrak Reform Council
determines that Amtrak will not be able to operate without federal operating grant
funds after FY2002, it shall notify the President and Amtrak’s authorizing
committees. The Council will then have 90 days to submit to the Congress an action
plan for a restructured national intercity passenger system (P.L 105-134, Section
204). At the same time, Amtrak will have 90 days to submit a liquidation plan to the
Congress. The Amtrak Reform Council, on November 9, 2001, formally declared
that Amtrak would need operating assistance after FY2002. Consequently, a plan for
restructured national passenger rail service, and an Amtrak liquidation plan, are due
to the Congress by February 7, 2002. The FY 2002 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117), however, prohibits the use fo appropriated funds
or Amtrak revenues to develop the action plan for Amtrak liquidation.

In addition to operating assistance, the DOT Inspector General (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. In February 2001,
Amtrak released a FY2001-2005 capital improvements plan which calls for $973
million in capital spending each year to maintain its current level of service and an
additional $584 million each year to expand its level of service. The combined total
is $1.56 billion each year. In its long-range plan (FY2006-2020), Amtrak foresees a
capital investment need of $1.52 billion each year for maintenance and expansion of
service.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). The
FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (H.R. 3338; H.R. Rept. 107-
350), provided $100 million, authorized by P.L. 107-38, for post-September
11security work on Amtrak rail tunnels in New York City. The funds remain
available until expended.
Amtrak Reform Council. [http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov] Amtrak
Reform Council (hereafter referred to as the Council) funding is presented within the
FRA budget request, although the Council is an independent federal commission. The
budget request for the Council is $785,000 in FY2002 compared to $748,000 enacted
in FY2001. The FY2002 Act provided $225,000; perhaps the Congress felt that the
Council’s work would be finished after submission of its national passenger rail
restructuring plan in February 2002.
The Council was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 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. If, as the Council concluded, Amtrak requires federal operating grant funds
after FY2002, then federal law requires the Council to submit an Amtrak
reorganization plan to the Congress and requires Amtrak to submit to Congress an
Amtrak liquidation plan. The Council made this finding on November 7, 2002; these
plans are due to the Congress by February 7, 2002.
The Council submitted its second annual report to Congress in March 2001. In
it, the Council recommended that the Congress should provide stable and adequate
funding for the capital needs of passenger rail operations, and that Amtrak’s multiple
roles (as a quasi-government agency, maintainer of rail infrastructure, and provider
of commercial passenger service) be separated. The Council suggested several
possible structures for this new arrangement of responsibilities
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
[http://www.fhwa.dot.gov]
The FY2002 Act approves $32.895 billion in total funding for FHWA. This
represents an increase of $1.22 billion over the FY2001 enacted level. The obligation
limitation, which supports most of the federal-aid highway program, is set at $31.799
and is significantly more than the $29.661 billion provided in FY2001. Funding for

exempt programs (emergency relief and a portion of minimum guarantee funding) is
set at $995 million, down slightly from FY2001's $1.069 billion. There are some
distortions in the comparisons between FY2002 and FY2001 because of $2.759
billion in earmarked projects and additional Emergency Relief funding from sources
outside the highway trust fund added in FY2001. Setting that aside, the FY2002 Act
still represents a significant increase over core program spending in the FY2001 Act.
The most controversial element of the FY2002 Act is the redirection and
earmarking of just under $1 billion in RABA funds from the way they would have
been distributed by TEA21. To accomplish this redistribution, the Act removes nearly
half a billion dollars from core program redistribution to the states. Additional monies
are derived by zero funding a number of programs that would have been eligible for
RABA funding from TEA21. The Act directs that these funds be distributed to
specific discretionary programs under the control of the appropriations process. For
example, the Corridor and Border (CORBOR) program gets over $352 million in
RABA funding, in addition to its $140 million annual authorization. These funds are
then earmarked to 124 specific projects. The provision of RABA funds to programs
outside FHWA (to the Motor Carrier Safety Administration) is also somewhat
controversial.
As a result of these actions, the states lose significant amounts of core program
funding that they expected as part of the RABA distribution process. In addition, the
Act eliminates RABA funding for programs such as the High Priority Projects that are

Figure 3. Federal Highway Administration

operated by the states outside the core program. The redistribution of these funds
has raised concerns, among the states and amongst several leaders of House and
Senate transportation authorizing committees, that the Act disregards the guidance
of TEA21. These same Members have indicated that they might attempt to undo
some of the Act’s earmarking, but no specific mechanism has yet been identified to
accomplish this.
The Act, as mentioned in the RABA discussion above, continues a trend of
earmarking an ever larger share of FHWA’s non-core formula programs. Some
discretionary activities, i.e., the Transportation and Community and System
Preservation Pilot Program, are now completely earmarked. The growth in
earmarking is controversial. Opponents of earmarking contend that this process
negates the intent of authorizing legislation, in this case TEA21, that seeks to make
some of these funds available on a competitive basis. Appropriators, however, believe
that they should have a role in determining when and where funds are spent. Further,
they believe they are simply responding to the desires of Members of Congress who
have filed large numbers of earmarking requests with the Committee.
The Administration’s FY2002 proposal requested that a portion of the $4.543
billion in RABA funds be set aside for designated new projects: $145 million for a
New Freedom Initiative intended to increase mobility for Americans with disabilities,
and $56 million for Federal motor carrier inspection facility construction at the U.S.-
Mexico border. The FY2002 Act provides funding for border inspection facilities at
a level in excess of the Administration request, but provides no funding for the New
Freedom Initiative.
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 (BRR), and Congestion Mitigation and Air
Quality Improvement (CMAQ). All of these programs are subject to apportionment
on an annual basis by formula and are not subject to program-by-program
appropriation.
There is a second category of highway funding within the firewalls. This so
called “exempt” category consists of two elements: an additional annual authorization
of minimum guarantee funding ($639 million per fiscal year) and emergency relief
($100 million per fiscal year). These funds are not subject to the annual limitation on
obligations.

A further set of programs, which are also within the firewall, are known as the
“allocated” programs. These programs are under the direct control of FHWA or other
governmental entities. These programs include: the Federal Lands Highway Program,
High Priority Projects (former demonstration project category), Appalachian
Development Highway System roads (formerly ineligible for trust fund contract
authority), the National Corridor Planning and Border Infrastructure Program, and
several other small programs.
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 Revenue Aligned Budget Authority was employed beginning
in FY2000.
FHWA Research, Development, and Technology (RD&T) Programs.
The Administration proposed increased funding for various RD&T activities from
$437.2 million in FY2001 to $528.7 million in FY 2002. The FY2002 Act provides
for an obligation limitation of $447.5 million, consistent with the contract authority
specified in TEA21. 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, are in FHWA’s Surface Transportation R&D and
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) programs. 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.
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 intended to accelerate ITS deployment. This practice
was continued in the FY2002 Act. Some Members and proponents of ITS would
prefer to have the deployment funds competitively awarded. TEA21, however, also
specifies several projects which are to receive some of the ITS deployment funds.
During debate in the Senate, a provision was inserted in the Senate bill requiring that
funds set aside for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) be dedicated “to the
achievement of the goals and purposes set forth in the Intelligent Transportation
Systems Act of 1998.”
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). The
FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117; H. Rept. 107-
350) provides $175 million (from the Highway Trust Fund), to be obligated from
amounts provided in P.L. 107-38, to FHWA. Of this amount, $100 million is for the
expansion of interstate ferry service “necessitated by the attacks of September 11^th,”
between New York and New Jersey, and $75 million is for FHWA’s Emergency
Relief Program. An additional $10 million for the repair and reconstruction of non-

federal-aid highways that were destroyed by the collapse of the World Trade Center
buildings is provided under the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
[http://www.fta.dot.gov/]
President Bush’s FY2002 budget proposal for FTA was $6.75 billion, essentially
the TEA21 guaranteed level; the FY2002 Act provided this amount. This is an 8%
increase above FTA’s FY2001 appropriation of $6.26 billion.⁶
The transit appropriations shown in Figure 4 illustrate the significant increase
in FTA funding from FY1999 to FY2002 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 FY2001.⁷ The $6.75 billion passed for FY2002 continues the
impact of TEA21 on transit spending.
FTA Program Structure and Funding. There are two major transit
programs: the Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program and the Urbanized Area
Formula Grants Program. There are also several smaller formula and planning and
research programs.
Capital Investment Grants and Loans Program (Section 5309). This
program (formerly known as Section 3) has three components: new transit starts,
fixed guide way modernization, and bus and bus facilities. For FY2002, the
Administration proposed funding this program at $2.841 billion, up from $2.695
billion⁸ in FY2001; the FY2002 Act provides $2.891 billion,⁹ a 5% increase over
FY2001. These funds are allocated among these three components on a 40-40-20
basis, respectively; funds for the fixed guide way component are distributed by
formula, while funds for the other components are distributed on a discretionary basis
by FTA or earmarked by Congress. For FY2002 and FY2003, the Administration
proposed to shift the bus and bus facilities component ($568 million in FY2002, plus
$50 million transferred from the Clean Fuels formula program) to a formula based on
population and population density factors. The conference report is silent on this
proposal; in FY2002, as in FY2001, virtually all the money in this component was
earmarked by Congress. In fact, the $568 million allocated to the bus and bus
facilities program was increased by $50 million transferred from the Clean Fuels
formula program (as in FY2001). In addition, $1.7 million in unobligated bus facilities

⁶These figures for FTA do not include any projections to account for possible flexible funding
transfers from FHWA to FTA. In FY2000 such transfers amounted to $1.647 billion. The
Bush Administration budget assumes that flex-funding transfers between FHWA and FTA
will continue.
⁷Pursuant to the government-wide 0.22% rescission at the end of the 1^s^t Session, FTA
programs were cut by $17.6 million from the level provided in the FY2000 Act.
⁸This figure includes $50 million transferred from the Clean Fuels formula program and a $1
million rescission.
⁹This figure includes $50 million transferred from the Clean Fuels formula program.

funds from previous appropriations acts is included for a total of $619.7 million in
FY2002 funding.
The Bush Administration also proposed that, beginning in FY2004, the federal
matching share for “new starts” under the Capital Investment Grants and Loans
Program (Section 5309) be reduced to a maximum of 50% from the current maximum
Figure 4. Federal Transit Administration Appropriations
of 80%. The rationale for this change was that there are more applicants for “new
starts” funding than there are funds available, so reducing the federal share would
spread the available funding to more projects. Critics countered that raising the local
share requirement would increase the difficulties for those cities and states which have
fewer fiscal resources to draw on for their local share and which thus need more help.
The FY2002 Act provides that after FY2002 FTA is not to sign any new full funding
grant agreements that have a maximum federal share greater than 60%.
Urbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5307). The program
(formerly known as Section 9) provides for capital and, in some cases, operating
needs for urbanized areas (population 50,000 or more). These activities include bus
and bus-related purchases and maintenance facilities, fixed guide way modernization,
new systems, planning, and operating assistance. For FY2002, the Administration
proposed $3.22 billion (the TEA21 guaranteed amount), an increase over the $2.94

billion provided in FY2001. These funds are apportioned on a formula based, in part,
on population (areas with populations over 1,000,000 receive two-thirds of the
funding; urbanized areas with populations under 1,000,000 receive the remaining one-
third) and transit service data. The FY2002 Act provides $3.0 billion. This is less
than the guaranteed amount; the difference appears to have gone to oversight ($17
million) and transportation for the Paralympiad for the Disabled ($5 million).
With the enactment of TEA21, operating assistance funding was eliminated for
urbanized areas with populations over 200,000. However, preventive maintenance,
generally considered an operating expense, is now eligible for funding as a capital
expense. Urbanized areas under 200,000 population, and non-urbanized areas
(Section 5311), can use formula funds for either capital or operating purposes.
Other Transit Programs. There are several smaller formula grants programs
(with FY2002 Administration funding requests and final funding figures):
!Non-Urbanized Areas Formula Program (Section 5311), which provides
capital and operating needs for non-urbanized areas (areas with populations
under 50,000)–$225 million requested for FY2002–the Act provides $223
million;
!Grants for Elderly and Individuals with Disabilities (Section 5310)–$85 million
requested for FY2002–$85 million provided by the Act;
!Clean Fuels (Section 5308)–$50 million requested for FY2002–$50 million
provided by the Act (but transferred to the Bus and Bus Facilities Capital
Grants program); and
!Rural Transportation Accessibility Incentive Program (Section 3038), also
known as the over-the-road bus accessibility program–$6.95 million requested
for FY2002–$6.95 million provided by the Act.
In the House, the provision that would transfer the $50 million of Clean Fuels formula
funds to the Bus Discretionary component of the Capital Investment Grants and Loan
Program, where it would have been available for earmarking, was defeated on a point-
of-order; in the Senate, a similar provision was removed by floor amendment. But the
conferees re-inserted the provision.
Slightly less than 90% of the FY2002 formula grants funding is for the Urbanized
Area Formula Program, and just over 6% is for the Non-Urbanized Area Formula
Program (less than 50,000 population). The remaining 4% is split between the other
programs.
TEA21 authorized a new discretionary Job Access and Reverse Commute grant
program. This program provides funding for transportation projects that assist welfare
recipients and low-income persons to find and get to work in suburban areas. The
Administration proposed that this program be funded at $125 million in FY2002, up
from $100 million in FY2001. The Administration also proposed to convert this
program to a formula basis in FY2002. In recent years, much of the funding for this
program has been earmarked by the Congress. The FY2002 Act provides $125
million, but is silent on the conversion proposal.

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). An
immediate allocation $10 million was provided under the Act for Washington
Metropolitan Area Transit Authority for increased security. An additional $23.5
million for FTA formula grants and $100 million for FTA capital grants, authorized
for under P.L. 107-38, has been provided for in the FY2002 Department of Defense
Appropriations Act (H.R. 3338; H. Rept. 107-350). The $23.5 million in formula
grants are for replacement of destroyed buses and transit kiosks, for technical aid for
transit agencies to develop security and emergency response plan, for detection of
chemical or biological agents, and for security training for transit operators. The $100
million in capital investment grants for repair of the New York City transit systems
damaged by the September 11 attack.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)
[http://www.faa.gov/]
The FAA is provided with total budgetary resources of $12.978 billion for
FY2002. This represents a significant increase over the FY2001 enacted level of
$12.074 billion (after rescission).
The vast majority of FAA funding is provided from the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund. In FY2002 a Treasury general-fund contribution of $1.113 billion is provided
for in the Act. This is significantly less than the $2.13 billion provided by the
Treasury general funds in FY2001. Historically, a significant portion of the agency’s
budget has come from general-fund revenues, the rationale being that the public at¹⁰
large realizes some benefit from aviation whether it uses the system or not. The Act
increases funding for all FAA activities. There are few significant new policy
initiatives, excluding the transfer of all FAA security functions to the new
Transportation Security Administration (although funding for existing security
activities is shown in the FAA portion of the Act). Rather the bills focus on continued
safety and infrastructure upgrades.
Operations and Maintenance (O&M). FY2002 funding of $6.886 billion
is included in the Act, an increase of $341 million over the FY2001 level. The
majority of funding in this category is for the salaries of FAA personnel engaged in
air traffic control, certification, and safety related activities. The O&M budget
dedicates much of the increase in funding to mandatory pay raises and some new
hiring.
Facilities and Equipment (F&E). F&E receives $2.9 billion in the FY2002
Act. This is the same amount requested by the Bush Administration and represents
an increase of 10% over the FY2001 level. F&E funding is used primarily for capital
investment in air traffic control, safety, and security. There are no significant new
F&E spending initiatives in the Administration proposal.

¹⁰General fund appropriations have varied substantially, both in dollar terms and as a
percentage of FAA appropriations as a whole, from year to year. Over the last 12 years the
share has ranged from 0% to 47%. See table 1, in CRS Report RS20177, Airport and Airway
Trust Fund Issues in the 106^th Congress, by John W. Fischer.

Research, Engineering, and Development (RE&D). The FY2002 Act
provides $195 million for RE&D, a small increase over the FY2001 enacted level of
$187 million. The funding level provided by the Act is well below the $249 million
authorized for this activity by FAIR21.
Essential Air Service (EAS). The EAS program is operated through the
Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST), and receives its funding from
designated user fees collected from overflights of United States territory by foreign
Figure 5. Federal Aviation Administration Appropriations
aircraft. EAS has an annual authorized funding level of $50 million. For FY2002, the
Bush Administration predicts that overflight user fees will generate only $40 million.
It, therefore, asked that $10 million in AIP funding be provided from the airport and
airway trust fund to make the program whole. The EAS program received $52
million in FY2001.
A more controversial proposal in the Administration budget would have
significantly affected participation in the EAS program. At present, 78 communities
outside of Alaska receive EAS subsidized service. The Administration proposed that
18 communities lose their subsidy payments in order to compensate for higher costs
involved with providing service at the remaining EAS communities. The proposal
would have accomplished this adjustment by changing some of the distance
restrictions (driving distance to alternate airports) in the existing program.

The House agreed with the Administration that funding for the current program
was inadequate, but chose to provide an additional $13 million for the program to
preclude any loss of EAS service. The House Committee also provided $10 million
in funding for the somewhat related Small Community Air Service Development
Pilot Program (SCASD). This program, created by FAIR21 to increase service to
small and rural communities, was not funded in FY2001. The $10 million for the
program was to be derived from the AIP small airports fund. This proposal, however,
was struck from the bill during House consideration on a point-of-order.
The Senate bill provides EAS with $50 million from overflight user fees. If
collections do not reach this level, the FAA Administrator is given the authority to
transfer up to $10 million to the program from the AIP program. The Senate
accepted the Administration’s proposed eligibility requirements for participation in the
program, and provided no additional funding to retain eligibility for the 18
communities that would lose service. The Senate bill also provided $20 million to
fund the SCASD and funds it from within the FAA budget.
The FY2002 Act provides $63 million for EAS. Of this $13 million is in new
appropriations and $50 million is from overflight fees. Any shortfall in revenue is to
be funded from unobligated balances of the F&E account. The Act also provides $20
million for SCASD.
An additional $50 million for EAS, available through FY2003, is provided in the
FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act from funds provided for in the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-71)
Grants-in-Aid for Airports. The Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
provides grants for airport development and planning. The FY2002 Act provides $3.3
billion for AIP. This is a 3% increase over the FY2001 enacted level. The request is
in conformance with the FAIR21 funding guarantees for AIP. The Act does not
include a House proposal to use $10 million of AIP contract authority for EAS. It
does, however provide $20 million for SCASD. The FY2002 Act provides for a
rescission of $301.7 million of previous year budget authority. This rescission should
have no programmatic impact on the AIP funding available for FY2002 .
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). Under
provisions of the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38) a total
of $1.145 billion is made available to FAA, for security purposes. The President
requested immediate and 15-day-wait allocations of roughly $611.5 million for FAA
(in FY2001 and FY2002). Of this amount the operations budget allocations total
$434 million for increased airport security and for sky marshals as well as another $40
million for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority (MWAA) for
compensation to MWAA and concessionaires for the federal closure of Ronald
Reagan Washington National Airport. The FAA has also received $50 million for the
Aviation Insurance Revolving Fund to support war risk insurance for air carriers. The
Facilities and Equipment (F&E) account has received $87.5 million for accelerated
purchase of security equipment.

The FY2002 DOD appropriations act (P.L. 107-117; H. Rept. 107-350)
provides FAA with $533.5 million, $125 million more than requested, from funds
provided in the emergency appropriations bill (P.L. 107-38) that required further
legislative action prior to transfer to DOT. According to provisions of the FY2002
DOD Appropriations Act, FAA operations receives $200 million, including: $100
million for cockpit door modifications; $65 million for sky marshals; $20 million for
security experts; and $15 million for training facilities. These operations funds are
available through FY2003. The DOD Act provides $108.5 million, available through
FY2004, for F&E, for explosive detection systems. For R,E,&D the Act provides
$50 million, available through FY2003: $25 million for proof of concept
demonstrations of secure security information systems and the remainder of the funds
for projects that involve potential new security concepts and technologies. AIP
receives $175 million, to remain available until expended, for reimbursement to
airports for direct costs associated with additional or revised security requirements
since the September 11^t^h attacks. Most of these funds are to be available until
expended. In addition, $50 million, available until expended, is added to the budget
of the Office of the Secretary of DOT for the Essential Air Service program. This lifts
the total supplemental appropriations for aviation purposes under P.L. 107-38 to
$1.195 billion.
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)
For FY2002, RSPA requested a budget of $110 million (including $12 million
to be offset by a proposed user fee) compared to an appropriation of $80.5 million in
FY2001. The FY2002 Act provides $95.7 million. Most of RSPA’s budget is
allocated to activities that promote transportation safety. For its pipeline
transportation safety program, RSPA proposed $53.8 million in FY2002, an increase
of $6.7 million over FY2001. The Act provides $58.3 million for pipeline safety in
FY2002. For its hazardous materials transportation safety program, the agency
requested $21.2 million, an increase of $2.4 million over FY2001. The enacted
conference agreement provides $21.2 million in FY2002 for hazardous materials
transportation safety.
Currently, much of the cost of RSPA’s pipeline safety program is paid for by a
fee that is imposed on the regulated industry. However, only the cost of the
emergency grant program administered by RSPA’s hazardous materials safety
program is offset by a registration fee paid for by specified regulated companies. The
Bush Administration proposed to offset additional costs of both the pipeline and
hazardous materials safety programs by imposing increased user fees on industry. In
the past, the hazardous materials (hazmat) industry has objected to user fees to pay
the basic costs of RSPA’s hazmat regulatory and enforcement program. Likewise, the
pipeline industry has been willing to pay only what it considers to be a reasonable
increase in the fees imposed to support RSPA’s pipeline safety program. Neither the
House nor the Senate Committee on Appropriations agreed with the request to begin
funding the hazmat safety program from user fees.
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38). The
President requested $6 million for the DOT Crisis Management Center as authorized

by P.L. 107-38, that require separate legislation for appropriation. The request was
addressed in the FY2002 DOD Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117). The Act provides
for $2.5 million, available until expended, for costs related to the crisis management
center.
Figure 6. Research and Special Programs Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/]
For FY2002, the Administration requested a total of $419 million for NHTSA,
a 4% increase above the Agency’s FY2001 enacted funding of roughly $403 million.
The FY2002 Act provides total NHTSA funding (both general funds and contract
liquidation authority) of approximately $425 million.
Operations and Research (O&R). The Administration requested $196
million, a 2.6% increase over the $191 million enacted for FY2001. The FY2002 Act
provides a total of $201.8 million for O&R. The conference report language noted
that the “Safety Performance” initiative (within O&R) was being provided an
additional $7.9 million to expedite key motor vehicle safety standards including

TREAD activities and several other backlogged regulatory items.¹¹ The conference
report also noted that, “NHTSA is directed to submit a notification letter to the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations if there is a reasonable likelihood
that the agency will not meet any deadlines specified in the TREAD Act. In addition,
NHTSA shall submit a strategic implementation plan to both the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations with the submission of the fiscal year 2003 budget that
specifies timetables, milestones, and the research necessary to implement each
provision of TREAD, as well as the amounts provided to these activities in fiscal
years 2001 and 2002.”¹²
Highway Traffic Safety Grants. The Administration requested, and the
FY2002 Act provides, $223 million, a 5% increase over the enacted level of $213
million for FY2001. This $223 million is to be distributed as follows: $160 million for
State and Community Highway Safety Grants; $38 million for Alcohol-Impaired
Driving Countermeasures Incentive Grants; $15 million for Occupant Protection
Incentive Grants; and $10 million for State Highway Safety Data Grants.
NHTSA Program Responsibilities. The National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration’s responsibilities include establishing minimum safety standards for
automotive equipment, serving as a clearing house and information source for drivers,
identifying and studying emerging safety problems, and encouraging state
governments to enact laws and implement programs (through safety grants) to reduce
drunk driving and to encourage the use of occupant protection devices. The Bush
Administration has continued a long-standing DOT priority that, “Improving
transportation safety is the number one Federal Government transportation objective.”
NHTSA plays a key role in implementing this objective.
In its policy statements, the Department of Transportation, through NHTSA, has
targeted specific program activities that have potential for reducing highway deaths
and injuries. Included among these are programs to: reduce drunk and drugged
driving; reduce the incidence of aggressive driving and “road rage”; aid in the
development of “smart air bags” that will continue to provide protection to occupants,
while reducing risk associated with the bags themselves; enhance infant and child
safety in vehicle crashes; and explore transportation options and safety programs for
an aging population.
Last year, following investigations into the failure of Firestone tires and
associated rollover fatalities, Congress added additional responsibilities to NHTSA
through enactment of the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and¹³

Documentation (TREAD) Act, P.L. 106-414.
¹¹Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act,
P.L. 106-414.
¹²Making Appropriations for the Department of Transportation and Related Agencies for the
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes, Conference Report to
Accompany H.R. 2299, House of Representatives, Report 107-308, p. 96.
¹³For additional information, see CRS Report RL30710, Firestone Tire Recall: NHTSA,
(continued...)

These new responsibilities for NHTSA include: establishing a dynamic rollover
test for light duty vehicles; updating the tire safety and labeling standards; improving
the safety of child restraints; and establishing a child restraint safety rating consumer
information program.
In its report, the conference committee approved of NHTSA’s safety initiatives,
but expressed its disappointment with the Agency’s inability to increase the use of
seatbelts up to the Presidential directive of 85% by 2000. The conferees directed the
Agency to refocus its program to achieve meaningful results by engaging in two
Figure 7. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Appropriations
additional initiatives. First, NHTSA is to provide a report to the House and Senate
Committee on Appropriations describing its plans to accelerate progress in raising
seat belt use. The report is due by February 1, 2002. Second, NHTSA shall contract
with the national Academy of Sciences to conduct a study on the benefit and
acceptability of technologies that may enhance seat belt usage in passenger vehicles,
as well as any legislative or regulatory actions that may be necessary to enable
installation of devices, as proposed by the House.

¹³ (...continued)
Industry, and Congressional Responses, Paul F. Rothberg, Gwenell Bass, and Duane
Thompson.

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA)
The FMCSA was created by the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act of 1999
(MCSIA), P.L. 106-159.¹⁴ This agency became operational on January 1, 2000, and
assumed the responsibilities and personnel of DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety.¹⁵
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 FY2002 request for the FMCSA was $343.8 million,
the appropriation for FY2001 was $268.6 million. The Administration’s request
would have represented an increase of 28%. The FY2002 Act provides a net total of
$335.1 million for the FMCSA account.
The appropriation for the FMCSA consists of two components: funds primarily
used for FMCSA’s administrative expenses and funds primarily used to assist states
to conduct truck and bus safety programs.
Administrative and Research Expenses. The FY2002 budget request for
FMCSA administrative and operations expenses was $139 million, including funds for
research and technology (R&T). The FY2002 Act provides $110 million; the FY2001
comparable appropriation was $92.2 million. The Act also provides that from
FHWA’s limitation on administrative expenses $4.0 million shall be available for
motor carrier safety research and $0.8 million shall be available for the motor carrier
crash data improvement program. The R&D program seeks to improve truck and bus
safety regulations and associated safety and compliance activities conducted by both
federal and state enforcement officers.
Grants to States and Other Activities. These 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 to cover, typically, up to 80% of the costs of a state truck and bus safety
program. Under the program, the agency partners with some 7,000 state and local
public-utility and law-enforcement officers to annually conduct more than 2.1 million
inspections of trucks and buses 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. The FY2002 Bush Administration budget requested a
limitation for these activities of $204.8 million. The FY2002 Act provides a limitation
on obligations of $205.9 million for these activities. Of this total, $23.9 million is

¹⁴During various hearings held in the first session of the 106^th Congress, a number of
organizations, including DOT’s Inspector General, the General Accounting Office, and many
industry associations raised a variety of concerns regarding the effectiveness of the federal
truck and bus safety program. In response to these concerns, Congress created the FMCSA.
¹⁵DOT’s Office of Motor Carrier Safety, which operated from October 9 through December
31, 1999, replaced the Office of Motor Carriers of the Federal Highway Administration of the
DOT.

derived from the RABA. Of this amount, $18 million is to be spent on additional
safety grants to the border states and most of the balance for improvements to
commercial drivers’ licensing programs. The FY2001 DOT appropriations act
included a limitation on obligation of $177 million for the “National Motor Carrier
Safety Program.”
Mexican Trucking Provision. During floor consideration of H.R. 2299, the
House approved an amendment that provided that “none of the funds in this Act may
be used to process applications by Mexico-domiciled motor carriers for conditional
or permanent authority to operate beyond the United States municipalities and
commercial zones adjacent to the United States-Mexico border.” The FY2002
Senate-passed bill differed significantly from this provision and would require that
various inspection, infrastructure, and administrative conditions be met before any
Mexican carriers receive operating authority to go beyond the border zones. The
requirements included on-site audits of Mexican motor carriers, proof of insurance,
and safety inspector staffing provisions. The Senate bill included $103.2 million for
border safety inspection activities, facilities, and staffing. During floor debate, some
of these preconditions were vigorously opposed by supporters of the Bush
Administration who view such provisions as discriminatory toward Mexico and as a
violation of the NAFTA.
The conference agreement on the FY2002 appropriation primarily incorporates
Senate provisions, some of which have been modified, regarding processes and
measures to promote the safety of cross-border trucking between the United States
and Mexico. The enacted conference agreement provides for $25.866 million for
salaries, expenses, and capital costs to implement these provisions, see Section 350
of the Act. These funds are in addition to funds provided in the appropriation for the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), including funds for the
Motor Carrier Safety Assistance Program (MCSAP) that also are intended to enhance
the ability of U.S. DOT and the states to promote the safety of Mexican trucks and
buses entering the United States. The FY2002 Act also provides $56.3 million for
border infrastructure improvements from RABA funds and $12 million for Texas
border inspection facilities construction.

Table 3. Budgetary Resources of Selected Agencies and Selected Programs^a
(in millions of dollars—totals may not add)
Final FY2002 House- Senate- Conf. FY2002
AgencyFY2001^bRequest PassedPassed ReportEnacted
Enacted H.R. 2299H.R. 2299
FHWA 33,42532,51832,66633,20932,89532,895
(Limitation on Obligations)29,59731,56331,71731,91931,79931,799
(Exempt Obligations)1,069995995955955955
Additional funds (trust fund)^g2,160–––––
Addnl. funds (general fund)^g599––^g350^g200^g200
NHTSA. 403 419 419 427 425 425
FRA 755^j 707 684 755 734 734
Amtrak (total)520521521521521521
Amtrak Reform Council0.7480.7850.4500.4200.2250.225
FTA 6,253 6,747 6,747 6,847 6,747 6,747
Formula Grants (general658718718718718718
fund)
Formula Grants (trust fund)2,6252,8742,8742,8742,8742,874
Capital Invest. (general fund)538568568668568568
Capital Invest. (trust fund)2,1522,2732,2732,2732,2732,273
FAA^c 12,563^c 13,288^c 13,276^c 13,346 13,295 13,295
Operations (trust fund &6,5306,8866,8706,9166,8866,886
general fund)
Facilities & Equipment2,6512,9142,9142,9142,8992,899
(F&E) (trust fund)
Grant-in-aid Airports (AID)^c3,195^c3,300^c3,300^c3,300^c3,300^c3,300
(trust fund) (limit. on oblig.)
Research, Engineering &187188191196195195
Development (RE&D) (trust
fund)
TSA1,2501,250
USCG^d 4,511 5,056 4,996 5,102 5,031 5,031
Operating Expenses3,1853,3833,3833,4283,3823,382
Acquisition, Construction, &415659600669636636
Improvements
St. Lawrence Seaway131313131313
OIG485351535151
RSPA^e 81^e 84^e 85 101 96 96
OST 87 87 99 95 105 105
Essential Air Srvc (trust fund)525063506363
STB^f 17 18 19 18 18 18
NTSB ⁱ636466706868
FMCSA 269 344 298 302 335 335
Budgetary Resources^h
Grand Total (estimated)58,10758,97159,08159,97859,58859,588

^for^FY2002^do^not^reflect^supplemental^{appropriations}^authorized^under^P.L.^107-38.^{Unless otherwise noted, figures in Table 3 were taken from}
^{Because of differing treatment of offsets, the inclusion of the NTSB and Architectural}
^Barriers^Compliance^Board,^and^the^exclusion^of^the^Maritime^{Administration,}^the^totals^will^not^always^match^the^{Administration’s}^totals.
^within^this^table^may^differ^slightly^from^thoseⁱⁿ^the^text^due^to^supplemental^{appropriations,}^rescissions,^and^other^funding^actions.^Columns^may
^additional^{appropriations}^and^{the government-wide 0.22% rescission provided for in the FY2001 Consolidated}
^Act^(P.L.^106-554).^{For FHWA the rescission totals $71.34 million, additional appropriations total $15.1 million, and an additional $29 million}
^obligations^is^carried^over^as^unobligated^FY2000^exempt^obligations.^{For NHTSA the rescission is $0.89 million. For FRA the rescission is $1.64}
^{post-rescission}^total^of^$755^million^for^FRA^includes^{$20 million in advance appropriations for Pennsylvania Station (in New York City) and}
^transferred^from^DOD^(P.L.^106-259)^to^realign^track^at^Elmendorf^Air^Force^Base^and^Fort^Richardson.^{For FTA the rescission is $13.8 million.}
^P.L.^106-554^{provided an additional}
^for³^transit^project^{s. For FAA the rescission was $27.7 million. P.L. 106-554 also provided an additional $2.5 million for the Airport}
^Program.^{The conference report funding for FAA operations is reduced by a $14 million transfer to the Essential Air Service Program. For the}
^Guard^the^rescission^was^$8.23^million.^{The $778 million for retired pay appears to be exempt from the rescission. The rescission for the St.}
^Seaway^is^$30,000.^{The rescission for the Office of the Inspector General is $110,000. For RSPA the rescission is $180,000. For the STB the}
^is^$40,000.^{For the Office of the Secretary the rescission is $190,000. For FMCSA the rescission is $590,000. For the NTSB the rescission is}
^DOT^{Appropriations}^Act^(P.L.^106-346)^provides^for^a^rescission^of^$579^million^of^FY2000^AID^contract^authority.^The^FY2002^request
^an^AID^previous^year^rescission^of^$331^million,^the^House^bill^(H.R.^2299),^{as well as the Senate reported bill, provides for a rescission}^of^$302
^{The FY2002 Act rescinds $301.7 million. These rescissions have no impact on the budgetary resources available for FAA programs for FY2001 and}
^but^are^subtracted^from^the^grand^totals^because^they^are^significantⁱⁿ^relation^to^the^overall^budget^cap^for^the^{transportation}^function.^{The FY2001}
^an^additional^$2.5^million^for^AID^from^P.L.^106-554.^{The FAA total, in the FY2000 Senate-passed bill, also includes $20 million for the Small}
^figures^are^budget^authority.^{The figures do not include the annual $64 million in mandatary funding for boat safety grants. The FY2002 figure in}
^$3^millionⁱⁿ^the^pip^{eline safety reserve and $13 million in the emergency preparedness reserve are also available to RSPA. The Bush}
^request^proposes^to^finance^$12^million^of^this^program^by^hazardous^materials^registration^feesⁱⁿ^FY2002.^{The total also does not reflect $14}
^includes,^from^the^highway^trust^fund,^$720^million^for^the^Emergency^Relief^Program^,^$1.37^billionⁱⁿ^additional^{“miscellaneous}^highway”
^highway^system.^An^additional^$600
^The
^{Senate-reported}^bill^includes^an^additional^$350^million^for^the^Appalachian^Development^Highway^Program,^although^{the conference report reduced}
^and^related^agencies^{appropriation}^does^not^fund^the^Maritime^{Administration}^(MARAD)^or^the^Federal^Maritime^Commission^(FMC),^and^their
^{The Administration budgets}
^budgets;^they^are^includedⁱⁿ^this^total^{because their budgets}
ⁱⁿ^the^DOT^{Appropriations}^bills.^{The rescission of unobligated previous years contract authority have been subtracted from this total. Because}
^no^impact^on^the^budgetary^resources^available^for^FY2001^and^FY2002,^the^total^resources^available^for^these^years^could^be^seen^as^$58.478^billion
^enacted,^$59.349^billion^for^FY200^{2 requested, $59.424 billion for House passed bill for FY2002, $60,262 for the Senate Appropriations Committee}
^{the emergency supplemental appropriations act provided $19.7 to cover expenses connected with the Egypt Air 990 and Alaska Air 261}

For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106^th Congress,
by John W. Fischer.
CRS Issue Brief IB10026. Airport Improvement Program, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RL30659. Amtrak: Overview and Options, by David Randall Peterman.
CRS Issue Brief IB90122. Automobile and Light Truck Fuel Economy: Is CAFÉ Up
to Standards?, by Rob Bamberger.
CRS Report RS20469. Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Policies, by William
Lipford and Glennon J. Harrison.
CRS Report RS20600. Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001 authorization issues, by
Martin R. Lee.
CRS Report RS20790. The Coordinated Border Infrastructure Program: Issues for
Congress, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report RS20841. Environmental streamlining provisions in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st century: status of implementation, by David Michael
Bearden.
CRS Report RL30915. Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration: Status and
Challenges, by Paul F. Rothberg and Hussein Hassan.
CRS Report 98-890 STM. Federal Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation
Equity Act for the 21^st Century: Analysis and Oversight Issues, by Paul F.
Rothberg and Anthony J. Solury.
CRS Issue Brief IB10030. Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization
Issues, by Paul F. Rothberg and John Williamson.
CRS Report RL31027. High-Speed Rail: Development and Investment Issues in the

107^th Congress, by David Randall Peterman and Steven Maguire.

CRS Report RL31028. North American Free Trade Agreement: Truck Safety
Considerations, by Paul Rothberg.
CRS Report RL31150. Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of
the September 11 Attack, by Robert S. Kirk.
CRS Report 98-749 E. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (TEA21)
and the Federal Budget, by John W. Fischer.

CRS Report 98-646 ENR. Transportation Equity Act for the 21^st Century (P.L.

105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions, by David M.

Bearden.
CRS Issue Brief IB10032. Transportation Issues in the 107^th Congress, coordinated
by Glennon J. Harrison.
Selected World Wide Web Sites
Department of Transportation Budget in Brief F2002
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/FY02BiB1.pdf]
Department of Transportation, Chief Financial Officer
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/budget/]
House Appropriations Committee
[http://www.house.gov/appropriations]
Interactive Budget Web Site
[http://ibert.org/civix.html]
Maritime Administration
[http://www.marad.dot.gov/]
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (budget & planning)
[http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/nhtsa/whatis/planning/perf-plans/gpra-96.pln.html]
Office of Management and Budget
[http://www.gpo.gov/usbudget/fy1998/fy1998_srch.html]
Senate Appropriations Committee
[http://www.senate.gov/committees/committee_de tail.cfm?COMMITTEE_ID=405]