For FY1999, the U.S.Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total funding of $43.3 billion, a 1%increase over the FY1998 enacted level of $42.8 billion. Both the House ( H.Con.Res. The impact ofits provisions have been addressed in other sections of this report. On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported out S. 2307 , Department of Transportation and Related AgenciesAppropriations Bill for 1999 ( S.Rept. 105-249 ). On July 24, with few substantive floor amendments, the Senate passed its version of the DOT appropriations for FY1999. That provision, which drew a veto warning from Administrationofficials, would have barred the use of federal funds to impose "project laboragreements" on highway and transit fund projects. On July 22, 1998, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 4328 ( H.Rept. 105-648 ) The bill provides for a total of$46.9billion (new budget authoruty, guaranteed obligations contained in the TEA-21,limitation on obligations and exempt obligations) for FY1999. This amount is $4.8billion greater than FY1998 enacted levels, and $3.9 billion greater than theAdministration's FY1999 request. 4328 was referred to the Senate, whichamended the bill by inserting S. 2307 after the enacting clause. The conference agreement provided approximately $47 billion in FY1999 for federal transportation programs -- an amount 12% greater than the FY1998funding, 9% more than requested by the Administration, and about$150 million morethan that included in the House bill. The amount for some DOT programs (includingFederal Highways and Mass Transit) was virtually insured by funding "firewalls"that had been placed in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). The Department'sFY1999 budget request was similar in many respects to the FY1998 appropriation. First, funding proposals for several national transportation priorities,such as safety, national security, infrastructure needs, and technology development,are highlighted and selected policy issues associated with these are presented. Throughout its budget request, the DOT continues to emphasize several prioritiesincluding: safety, infrastructure, innovative financing, environmental enhancement,technology, and national security. 105-178 , H.R. Surface Transportation Infrastructure Policy

The Administration requested a total of approximately $30.0 billion for FY1999. In reality the Administration's FY1999 request is very similar to the levels of funding provided in the FY1998 Act. Other Factors

The debate on the FY1999 budget request has focused partly on the Administration's funding priorities. This was a total of $1.6 billion when coupled with the $1.1 billion Amtrak will receive inFY1999 without further legislative action as a result of the Taxpayer Relief Act of1997 ( P.L. 105-134 ), is given additional responsibility by the report language ofthe Senate Appropriations Committee for FY1999. The House and Senate transit proposals recommended the same fundinglevels for FY1999, $5.39 billion, an increase of $549 million over FY1998. CRS Issue Brief IB97029.
For FY1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) requested total funding of approximately $43 billion, a 1% increase over the FY1998 enacted level of $39 billion. The FY1999budget request for the DOT was similar in many respects to the FY1998 appropriation.
There are many "macro" issues or factors that are influencing the debate over the Administration's FY1999 budget request. Some of them have been carried over from the previousfiscal year. Complicating the budget process had been the delay associated with reauthorizing manyof the Department's programs.
The recently concluded reauthorization of surface transportation programs will dramatically effect the FY1999 appropriations process. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century ( P.L.105-178 , TEA-21) provides for an increase in spending at a level above that contemplated in theAdministration budget request. In addition, the new legislation provides a new budget environmentfor highway and transit programs that limits the ability of the appropriations process to alter spendingfor these activities.
In its FY1999 request, the Administration reiterated that safety is its highest priority, followed by technology development, environmental enhancement, infrastructure needs, and innovativefinancing. The budget proposal included requests of: $3.1 billion for direct safety funding; $30.0billion for infrastructure investments; $1.1 billion for transportation research and development(R&D); and $0.6 billion for Amtrak (See CRS Issue Brief 97030).
On July 15, 1998, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2307 ( S.Rept. 105-249 ). The committee recommended total funding of approximately $47 billion forFY1999. S. 2307 was passed by the Senate on July 24, 1998. Few amendments weremade, excepting one controversial proposal to bar the use of federal funds to impose "project laboragreements" on highway and transit fund projects. A compromise substitute was offered.
The House Appropriations Committee reported its own bill ( H.R. 4328 , H.Rept. 105-648 ) which would have provided a total of $46.9 billion, an amount $4.8 billion greater thanFY1998 and $3.9 billion greater than the amount requested by the Administration. The committeevoiced its objections to the impact of TEA-21 legislation, whose "firewalls" significantly limited itslatitude in funding. According to the report, "These 'firewalls' make it virtually impossible for theAppropriations Committee to make downward adjustments to those funding levels in the annualappropriations process over the next 5 years."
By July 31, both the House and Senate had passed their respective bills; the House bill was referred to the Senate; the Senate substituted its own language; and the House requested a conferenceon the substitute amendment. See the "Most Recent Developments" section of this report for thelatest legislative action.
Key Policy Staff
Division abbreviations: E = Economics; STM = Science, Technology, and Medicine.