Marine Transportation
Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments Gao ID: GAO-02-1033 September 9, 2002As the world's leading trading nation, the United States depends on a vast marine transportation system. Ninety-five percent of overseas trade tonnage moves by water, and the cargo moving through the U.S. marine transportation system contributes hundreds of billions of dollars to the U.S. gross domestic product. As it does with the nation's highway and aviation systems, the federal government participates with hundreds of public and private entities in maintaining and improving the marine transportation system. During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, federal expenditures for the commercial marine transportation system averaged $3.9 billion per year. Funding for about 80 percent of these expenditures came from the U.S. Treasury's general fund. During this same period, federal agencies collected $1 billion each year from marine transportation system users. During the same three-year period, federal expenditures for aviation and highway transportation systems averaged $10 billion and $25 billion, respectively, each year. Unlike the funding approach for the marine transportation system, which relies extensively on tax revenue, the federal funding approach for aviation and highway relies almost exclusively on assessments on users of the transportation systems.
GAO-02-1033, Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-02-1033
entitled 'Marine Transportation: Federal Financing and a Framework for
Infrastructure Investments' which was released on September 09, 2002.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products‘ accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface Transportation and
Merchant Marine, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation,
U.S. Senate:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
September 2002:
Marine Transportation:
Federal Financing and a Framework for Infrastructure Investments:
Maritime Transportation:
GAO-02-1033:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Federal Funding for the Commercial Marine Transportation System:
Federal Funding for the Aviation and Highway Transportation Systems:
Systematic Framework Would Help Guide Decisions on Federal Investment
in the Marine Transportation System:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Description of Trust Funds Used to Support the Commercial
Marine, Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems:
Highway Trust Fund:
Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund:
Inland Waterways Trust Fund:
Appendix III: Amounts Expended by Federal Agencies on the Marine,
Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems:
Appendix IV: Amounts Collected by Federal Agencies on Users of
the Marine, Aviation, and Highway Systems:
Appendix V: Amount of Customs Duties Collected for
Commodities Transported on the Transportation Systems:
Appendix VI: The Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation
System and the National Advisory Council:
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Total Expenditures for the Commercial Marine Transportation
System by Source of Funds (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 2: Amounts and Type of Federal Expenditures for the Marine
Transportation System (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 3: Distribution of Amounts Collected from Marine Transportation
System Users (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 4: Total Expenditures for the Aviation and Highway Transportation
Systems by Source of Funds (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 5: Amounts and Type of Federal Expenditures for the Aviation and
Highway Transportation Systems (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 6: Distribution of Amounts Collected from Aviation and Highway
System Users (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Table 7: Examples of Potential Federal Funding Tools:
Table 8: Expenditures on the Marine, Aviation, and Highway
Transportation Systems for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001:
Table 9: Amounts of Assessments Collected on Users of the Marine,
Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems for Fiscal Years 1999
through 2001:
Table 10: Amount of Customs Duties Collected for Commodities
Transported on the Marine, Aviation, and Highway Transportation
Systems, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001:
Figures:
Figure 1: Comparison of Federal Expenditures and Assessments on Users
Specific to Each Transportation System (Average for Fiscal Years 1999-
2001):
Figure 2: Framework for Developing an Effective Federal Investment
Strategy:
Abbreviations:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
GAO: General Accounting Office:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
ICMTS: Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation
System:
MTS: Marine Transportation System:
NAC: Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
Letter:
September 9, 2002:
The Honorable John Breaux
Chairman, Subcommittee on Surface
Transportation and Merchant Marine
Committee on Commerce, Science,
and Transportation
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
As the world‘s leading trading nation, the United States depends on a
vast marine transportation system. Ninety-five percent of our overseas
trade tonnage moves by water, and the cargo moving through the U.S.
marine transportation system contributes hundreds of billions of
dollars to the U.S. gross domestic product. The marine transportation
system includes coastal ports and shipping channels; 25,000 miles of
navigable inland and coastal channels and waterways like the
Mississippi, St. Lawrence, and Columbia Snake rivers; and ports on the
Great Lakes and elsewhere. According to a congressionally mandated
report (1999 marine transportation system [MTS] report)[Footnote 1]
that assessed the capabilities and challenges of the system, critical
issues include modernizing aging locks and dams on inland waterways,
dredging waterways to new depths to accommodate larger ships, and
upgrading navigation systems for maximum safety and efficiency.
Additionally, new and far-reaching security challenges have emerged for
the system since the September 11 terrorist attacks.
As it does with the nation‘s highway and aviation systems, the federal
government participates with hundreds of public and private entities in
maintaining and improving the marine transportation system. Federal
funding has been directed primarily at ’waterside“ projects such as
maintaining channels, aiding navigation, and monitoring the entry of
ships into the nation‘s ports. ’Landside“ projects, such as terminals,
berths, piers, and systems for transferring goods from ships to trains
and trucks, have been funded mainly by state and local entities.
Federal funding for the system is derived from either general revenues
or a variety of user charges.
You asked us to analyze federal funding for the commercial marine
transportation system and compare it with federal funding for the
aviation and highway systems. As agreed with your office, this report
provides information on the amount of federal funds expended to support
the commercial marine transportation system and the amount of revenue
collected from federal assessments on the users of the system for
fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Similarly, this report provides
information on the amount of federal funds expended to support the
aviation and highway transportation systems and the amount of revenue
collected from federal assessments on the users of the transportation
systems for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001. As you requested, we
also are providing information on customs duties.[Footnote 2] In
addition, we agreed to use our work on this assignment, together with
past work in transportation and other issues, to present a framework
that the Congress could use to consider potential changes to the scope
or nature of future federal investments in the marine transportation
system.
We gathered information on expenditures and collections from 15 federal
agencies involved in supporting the commercial marine, aviation, and
highway transportation systems.[Footnote 3] We asked each agency to
identify the source of funding for expenditures and the accounts that
were credited with the collections based on categories we identified
for this purpose.[Footnote 4] We separated their expenditures into the
following categories: administrative services; physical services, such
as inspections and certifications; construction and maintenance; or
miscellaneous services. In addition, we obtained information on customs
duties collected on goods transported by each transportation system.
Although we had each agency validate the data provided, we did not
independently verify agency expenditures and collections. To provide a
framework for the Congress when considering a revised federal
investment role in the marine transportation system, we relied
extensively on the perspectives gained from our past work in
transportation and infrastructure systems and federal investment
strategy.[Footnote 5] Appendix I contains a more detailed description
of the scope and methodology of our work. We conducted our work from
January 2002 to September 2002 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, federal expenditures for the
commercial marine transportation system averaged $3.9 billion per year.
Funding for about 80 percent of these expenditures came from the U.S.
Treasury‘s general fund.[Footnote 6] During this same period, federal
agencies collected about $1 billion each year from marine
transportation system users. Most of these collections were credited to
trust fund accounts[Footnote 7] that, by law, are dedicated to
maritime-related activities such as improving inland waterways or
supporting harbor maintenance. In addition, customs duties levied on
commodities imported through the marine transportation system averaged
about $15.2 billion each year, most of which were deposited in the U.S.
Treasury‘s general fund.
During the same three-year period, federal expenditures for aviation
and highway transportation systems averaged $10 billion and $25
billion, respectively, each year. Unlike the funding approach for the
marine transportation system, which relies extensively on general tax
revenue, the federal funding approach for aviation and highway relies
almost exclusively on assessments on users of the transportation
systems. During this period, federal agencies collected an average of
$11 billion each year from users of the aviation transportation system
and an average of $34 billion each year from users of the highway
transportation system.[Footnote 8] As with the marine transportation
system, most of these collections were credited to trust fund accounts.
Figure 1 summarizes the expenditure and assessment comparisons across
the three transportation systems. In addition, customs duties for
commodities imported through the aviation and highway systems averaged
$3.7 billion and $928 million, respectively, per year.
Figure 1: Comparison of Federal Expenditures and Assessments on Users
Specific to Each Transportation System (Average for Fiscal Years 1999-
2001):
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by the agencies that expended
and/or collected funds.
[End of figure]
With so many stakeholders involved in the marine transportation system
and so many potential demands for funding to maintain and enhance the
system, federal decision makers would clearly benefit by having a
systematic framework for making investment choices and for ensuring
that limited federal resources are used prudently. In examining federal
investment approaches across a broad stratum of national activities, we
have found that key components of a framework for evaluating federal
investments include (1) setting clear and measurable national goals for
the marine transportation system, including its relationship to other
transportation modes; (2) defining what the federal role should be
relative to other stakeholders; (3) determining which funding
approaches and related tools will maximize the federal return; and (4)
ensuring that a process is in place for evaluating performance
periodically so that goals, roles, and approaches can be reexamined and
modified as necessary.
Background:
The marine transportation system is a vital component of our nation‘s
economic growth and plays an important role in national defense.
According to the 1999 MTS Report, there is a growing gap between the
services that the current infrastructure can provide and the increasing
levels of demand being placed upon it. Furthermore, security issues
have emerged as a result of the September 11 terrorist
attacks.[Footnote 9] Given these changes, port stakeholders have
growing concerns about the level of effort needed to keep the system
functioning efficiently and are asking the federal government to
increase funding for the system.
Nation‘s Extensive Marine Transportation System Fills Many Roles:
The United States is the world‘s largest maritime trading nation,
accounting for 1 billion metric tons, or nearly 20 percent of the
world‘s oceanborne trade. Over 95 percent of the U.S. overseas trade
tonnage is shipped by sea. The marine transportation system, a system
of navigable waterways that connects oceans to rivers, lakes, and
canals, serves waterborne commerce through more than 300 public and
private ports. These ports serve as freight connectors between the
waterborne system and the nation‘s other transportation systems. In
addition to the ports and navigable waterways, the marine
transportation system also encompasses vessels, marine terminals,
intermodal connections, shipyards, locks, dams, and information
systems.
The marine transportation system plays an essential role in the
nation‘s economy and defense. For example, it moves import and export
cargo worth hundreds of billions of dollars, generating jobs, both
directly and indirectly, for Americans and our trading partners. The
system‘s inland waterways also support the movement of grain, petroleum
products, coal, paper products, and industrial chemicals. In addition
to its economic role, the marine transportation system plays an
important role in national defense by facilitating the movement of
military equipment and supplying troops deployed overseas. The nation‘s
marine transportation system also serves as an alternative
transportation mode to roads and provides recreational value through
boating, fishing, and cruises.
Federal, state, and local governments and private sector organizations
all participate in financing the marine transportation system. In
general, expenditures for the development and operation of the
waterside portion of the system (e.g., dredging channels, installing
navigational aids, monitoring vessel traffic, or operating locks and
dams) have been largely a public function, with participation at the
federal, state, and local government levels. Ports--usually state,
county, or local entities--and private commercial interests spend
billions of dollars in the landside portion of the system by updating
and modernizing their facilities. The source of the expenditures for
intermodal connections (rail, pipeline, or highway) can vary. For
example, rail and pipeline development are generally funded by the
private sector; funding for public roadways, on the other hand, comes
from the public sector.
One source of federal funding common to all three major transportation
systems--marine, aviation, and highway--is collections from
assessments on users of the system. These collections can include user
fees and excise taxes.[Footnote 10] Collections are deposited into the
U.S. Treasury‘s general fund and can be used for the general support of
federal activities or may be earmarked by law for specific purposes and
credited to a trust fund. Also, some collections are credited directly
to agency accounts for services provided by that agency such as
inspections or certifications. Trust funds that support the marine
transportation system include the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund and the
Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Trust funds that support the aviation and
highway transportation systems include the Airport and Airway Trust
Fund and the Highway Trust Fund. (See app. II for detailed information
concerning these trust funds.) The portion of collections from users of
these systems that are deposited into the U.S. Treasury‘s general fund
are not earmarked for a specified purpose and are used for the general
support of federal activities.
In addition to assessing fees and taxes to specifically support the
transportation systems, the federal government also assesses customs
duties on goods imported into the United States. All three
transportation systems ship goods that generate customs duties. Customs
duties are taxes on imported goods without regard to their mode of
transportation. The majority of customs duties are deposited into the
U.S. Treasury‘s general fund to be used for the general support of
federal activities.
Concerns Have Been Raised about the Adequacy of the System‘s
Infrastructure:
Given the role of the marine transportation system within the nation‘s
entire transportation system, some system stakeholders have raised
concerns about the system‘s ability to keep pace with the growing
levels of demands being placed upon it. This issue was discussed in
depth in the 1999 MTS Report that assessed the capabilities and
challenges of the nation‘s marine transportation system.[Footnote 11]
The report cited a growing gap between transportation demands and
shifting user requirements on one side and available transportation
infrastructure on the other side. According to the report, the
projected doubling of maritime trade by the year 2020 and the need for
the system to be responsive to users means that the infrastructure
would face challenges on several levels. The projected increase in
maritime trade will likely result in an increase in the overall demand
for the kinds of infrastructure improvements in which the federal
government has typically participated. For example, there are calls to
modernize aging structures such as key locks and dams in river
transportation systems. Changes in the shipping industry also have
increased the pressure to make capacity improvements, such as deeper
navigation channels to accommodate larger ships.
Since the issuance of the 1999 MTS Report, new and far reaching
security issues have emerged as a result of the September 11 terrorist
attacks. Many of the security improvements now planned or under way at
our nation‘s ports will require costly outlays for infrastructure,
technology, and personnel. Even before September 11, the Interagency
Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports[Footnote 12]
estimated that the cost of upgrading security infrastructure at U.S.
ports ranged from $10 million to $50 million per port. These estimates
could increase dramatically due to new post-September 11 security
requirements. For example, when the Congress recently made $92.3
million in federal funding available for port security as part of a
supplemental appropriations bill,[Footnote 13] the Transportation
Security Administration received grant applications totaling almost
$700 million.[Footnote 14]
In today‘s environment, with growing system demands and border security
concerns, some stakeholders have suggested a larger federal role in
funding the marine transportation system. Two examples illustrate the
mounting pressure for increased federal funding in this area. First,
for the last several years, the U.S. public port authorities have
advocated increased federal funding for dredging. Currently, funding
for such maintenance--which has totaled more than $700 million annually
since fiscal year 2000--is derived from a fee on passengers and
imported and domestic cargo loaded and unloaded in U.S. ports. Ports
and shippers would like to see funding for maintenance dredging come
from the general fund instead, and there was legislation introduced in
1999 to do so.[Footnote 15] Second, besides the growing pressures on
areas of traditional federal investment, ports are seeking substantial
federal assistance to enhance security in the aftermath of the events
of September 11. In other work we have conducted on port
security,[Footnote 16] port and private-sector officials have said that
they believe combating terrorism is the federal government‘s
responsibility, and that if additional security is needed, the federal
government should provide or pay for it.
Deciding on an appropriate federal role to address these concerns
requires, in part, a better understanding of the magnitude and nature
of federal revenues generated by and expenditures for the maritime
transportation system and how these revenues and expenditures compare
to other transportation modes. Also key is the establishment of a sound
investment framework to make certain that limited federal dollars are
applied in ways that, from a national perspective, provide the greatest
public benefit.
Federal Funding for the Commercial Marine Transportation System:
During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, federal expenditures for the
commercial marine transportation system averaged about $3.9 billion
each year, most of which was provided from general revenues. About 45
percent of this money was spent on construction and maintenance of
federally authorized projects. During this same period, almost $1
billion in revenue was collected each year by federal agencies from
users of the marine transportation system, and most of this money was
credited to trust fund accounts dedicated to financing the system. In
addition, customs duties on imported goods shipped through the system
during the same period averaged $15.2 billion each year. The majority
of the customs duties are deposited into the U.S. Treasury‘s general
fund.
General Revenues Account for More than Three-Fourths of the Federal
Expenditures for the Commercial Marine Transportation System:
Thirteen federal agencies[Footnote 17] spent an average of $3.9
billion[Footnote 18] annually for 3 years on the commercial marine
transportation system. (See app. III.) As shown in table 1, the
majority of federal funding spent by these agencies for the system came
from general revenues. On average, general revenues accounted for $3
billion, or 80 percent, of the total amount expended for the system.
Table 1: Total Expenditures for the Commercial Marine Transportation
System by Source of Funds (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Dollars in millions.
Source of funds: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999: $41; 2000: $49;
2001:
$51; Average: $47.
Source of funds: Trust fund accounts; 1999: 426; 2000: 853; 2001: 825;
Average: 701.
Source of funds: General revenues; 1999: 3,250; 2000: 2,994; 2001:
3,117;
Average: 3,120.
Source of funds: Total marine transportation system; 1999: $3,717;
2000:
$3,896; 2001: $3,993; Average: $3,868.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that expended funds.
[End of table]
To provide a perspective on the uses for which federal expenditures
were applied, we analyzed the type of service or activity for which
each expenditure was directed. We used four categories: administrative
processing and associated services (e.g., processing documents or
issuing permits), physical services (e.g., inspections or
certifications), construction and maintenance projects (e.g.,
dredging, constructing or maintaining locks and dams, or operating and
maintaining aids to navigation), and miscellaneous services. As shown
in table 2, the average amount expended for construction and
maintenance projects represented $1.7 billion, or 45 percent, of the
total amount expended annually for the system, with physical services
accounting for about $1.5 billion, or 38 percent.
Table 2: Amounts and Type of Federal Expenditures for the Marine
Transportation System (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Dollars in millions.
Type of service or activity: Administrative; 1999: $497; 2000: $564;
2001:
$605; Average: $555.
Type of service or activity: Physical services; 1999: 1,429; 2000:
1,486;
2001: 1,496; Average: 1,471.
Type of service or activity: Construction and maintenance; 1999: 1,696;
2000:
1,747; 2001: 1,794; Average: 1,746.
Type of service or activity: Miscellaneous; 1999: 95; 2000: 99; 2001:
98;
Average: 97.
Type of service or activity: Total marine transportation system; 1999:
$3,717;
2000: $3,896; 2001: $3,993; Average: $3,869.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that expended funds.
[End of table]
Most of the Revenue Collected from System Users was Credited to Trust
Fund Accounts:
Eleven different federal agencies collected an average of nearly $1
billion each year from users of the commercial marine transportation
system to help finance federal expenditures to support the
system.[Footnote 19] (See app. IV.) As shown in table 3, an average of
$830 million, or 85 percent, of the assessment amounts collected from
users was credited to trust funds to be appropriated to agencies for
designated services, with the remaining amount credited to agency
accounts as reimbursement for the services provided or deposited in the
general fund for the general support of federal activities.
Table 3: Distribution of Amounts Collected from Marine Transportation
System Users (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Dollars in millions.
Fund type: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999: $41; 2000: $51; 2001:
$54;
Average: $49.
Fund type: Trust fund accounts; 1999: 741; 2000: 857; 2001: 891;
Average:
830.
Fund type: General fund; 1999: 93; 2000: 97; 2001: 99; Average: 96.
Fund type: Total marine transportation system; 1999: $875; 2000:
$1,005;
2001: $1,044; Average: $975.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that collected the
assessments.
[End of table]
The collections shown in table 3 do not include amounts from customs
duties levied on the goods carried through the marine transportation
system. The Customs Service estimates that duties on commodities
entering the United States by the system for fiscal years 1999, 2000,
and 2001 were about $14.3 billion, $15.6 billion, and $15.6 billion,
respectively. (See app. V.) Most of the customs duties are deposited
into the general fund for the general support of federal activities,
with the largest exception being that approximately 30 percent of the
gross receipts from customs duties were designated for agricultural and
food programs.
Federal Funding for the Aviation and Highway Transportation Systems:
During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, federal expenditures averaged
$10 billion each year for the aviation system and $25 billion each year
for the highway system. Unlike the funding approach used for the
commercial marine transportation system, which relies heavily on
general tax revenue, the aviation and highway transportation systems
were primarily funded by collections from users of the systems that are
accounted for in trust funds. During this same period, most of the
revenue collected by federal agencies for the aviation and highway
transportation systems were credited to trust fund accounts. Customs
duties on imported goods carried by these systems averaged $3.7 billion
each year for the aviation transportation system and $928 million for
the highway transportation system. Most of these customs duties were
deposited into the U.S. Treasury‘s general fund.
Assessments on Users Are the Primary Source of Funding for the Aviation
and Highway Transportation Systems:
Six federal agencies[Footnote 20] were involved in spending the $10
billion annually on the aviation transportation system and five federal
agencies[Footnote 21] were involved in expending the $25 billion
annually on the highway transportation system. (See app. III.) Whereas
the primary source of funding for the marine transportation system is
general tax revenues, the vast majority of federal funding invested in
both the aviation and highway systems came from assessments on users of
the systems that are accounted for in trust fund accounts, as shown in
table 4. During the three-year period, assessments on system users were
the funding source for about 88 percent of the amount spent on the
aviation system and over 99 percent of the amount spent on the highway
system.
Table 4: Total Expenditures for the Aviation and Highway Transportation
Systems by Source of Funds (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Dollars in millions.
Aviation transportation system:
Fund type: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999: Aviation transportation
system: $238; 2000: $258; 2001: $267; Average: $254.
Fund type: Trust fund accounts; 1999: Aviation transportation system:
8,172; 2000: 9,180; 2001: 9,696; Average: 9,016.
Fund type: General revenues; 1999: Aviation transportation system: 969;
2000: 1,007; 2001: 1,070; Average: 1,015.
Fund type: Total aviation system; 1999: Aviation transportation system:
$9,379; 2000: $10,445; 2001: $11,033; Average: $10,285.
Highway transportation system:
Fund type: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999: Aviation transportation
system: $24; 2000: $24; 2001: $22; Average: $23.
Fund type: Trust fund accounts; 1999: Aviation transportation system:
22,706; 2000: 25,007; 2001: 27,209; Average: 24,974.
Fund type: General revenues; 1999: Aviation transportation system: 90;
2000: 68; 2001: 116; Average: 91.
Fund type: Total highway system; 1999: Aviation transportation system:
$22,820; 2000: $25,099; 2001: $27,347; Average: $25,088.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that expended funds.
[End of table]
As we did for maritime funds, we analyzed the type of service or
activity for which each expenditure was directed, using the same four
categories of administrative processing and associated services,
physical services, construction and maintenance projects, and
miscellaneous services. As shown in table 5, the average amount
expended for construction and maintenance projects represented about
$7.2 billion, or 70 percent, of the total amount expended for the
aviation system and about $25 billion, or nearly 100 percent, of the
total amount expended for the highway system. The Federal Aviation
Administration and the Federal Highway Administration distributed most
of the funds expended for construction and maintenance projects for
these systems.
Table 5: Amounts and Type of Federal Expenditures for the Aviation and
Highway Transportation Systems (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Aviation transportation system:
Dollars in millions:
Aviation transportation system:
Type of service or activity: Administrative; 1999: $423; 2000: $437;
2001: $472; Average: $444.
Type of service or activity: Physical services; 1999: 2,466; 2000:
2,543; 2001: 3,059; Average: 2,689.
Type of service or activity: Construction and maintenance; 1999:
6,490; 2000: 7,465; 2001: 7,502; Average: 7,152.
Type of service or activity: Miscellaneous; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 0; Average: 0.
Type of service or activity: Total aviation system; 1999: $9,379;
2000: $10,445; 2001: $11,033; Average:
$10,285.
Highway transportation system:
Type of service or activity: Administrative; 1999: $41;
2000: $34; 2001: $37; Average: $37.
Type of service or activity: Physical services; 1999: 79; 2000:
65; 2001: 110; Average: 84.
Type of service or activity: Construction and maintenance; 1999:
22,700; 2000: 25,000; 2001: 27,200; Average:
24,967.
Type of service or activity: Miscellaneous; 1999: 0; 2000: 0;
2001: 0; Average: 0.
Type of service or activity: Total highway system; 1999: $22,820;
2000: $25,099; 2001: $27,347; Average: $25,088.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that expended funds.
[End of table]
Most Revenue Collected from System Users Was Credited to Trust Fund
Accounts:
Five federal agencies collected an average $11 billion from the
aviation transportation system[Footnote 22] while four federal agencies
collected an average $34 billion on the highway transportation
system.[Footnote 23] (See app. IV.) As with the marine transportation
system, the vast majority of the assessment amounts collected on the
aviation and highway transportation systems was credited to trust funds
to be appropriated to agencies for designated services, as shown in
table 6. The remaining amounts were credited to agency accounts as
reimbursement for the services they provided or deposited into the U.S.
Treasury‘s general fund for the general support of federal activities.
On average, about 94 percent of the $11.1 billion collected annually
for the aviation system and nearly 100 percent of the $33.7 billion
collected annually for the highway system were credited to trust fund
accounts.
Table 6: Distribution of Amounts Collected from Aviation and Highway
System Users (Fiscal Years 1999-2001):
Dollars in millions.
Aviation transportation system:
Fund type: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999:
$236; 2000: $255; 2001: $265; Average: $252.
Fund type: Trust fund accounts; 1999: 11,663;
2000: 9,860; 2001: 9,581; Average: 10,368.
Fund type: General fund; 1999: 421; 2000: 437;
2001: 466; Average: 441.
Fund type: Total aviation system; 1999: $12,320;
2000: $10,552; 2001: $10,312; Average: $11,061.
Highway transportation system:
Fund type: Reimbursable agency accounts; 1999:
$24; 2000: $24; 2001: $22; Average: $23.
Fund type: Trust fund accounts; 1999: 32,255;
2000: 35,134; 2001: 33,683; Average: 33,691.
Fund type: General fund; 1999: 1; 2000: 2; 2001:
2; Average: 2.
Fund type: Total highway system; 1999: $32,280;
2000: $35,160; 2001: $33,707; Average: $33,716.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that collected the
assessments.
[End of table]
The Customs Service reported that duties on commodities entering the
United States by the aviation transportation system for fiscal years
1999, 2000, and 2001 were about $3.6 billion, $4.1 billion, and $3.4
billion, respectively. For the same period, customs duty collections
for the highway system were about $1.2 billion, $880 million, and $735
million. (See app. V.) Most of these customs duties were credited to
the general fund for the general support of federal activities.
Systematic Framework Would Help Guide Decisions on Federal Investment
in the Marine Transportation System:
A systematic framework with several key components would be helpful in
considering potential changes in the scope or nature of federal funding
for the marine transportation system. Substantial new investments in
the maritime infrastructure by federal, state, and local governments
and by the private sector may be required because of an aging
infrastructure, changes in the shipping industry, and increased
concerns about security. Pressure on the federal government to bear a
significant portion of these new investment costs is evident. These
growing and varied demands for increased federal investments in the
marine transportation system heighten the need for a clear
understanding about the federal government‘s purpose and role in
providing funding for the system and for a sound investment approach to
guide federal participation. In examining federal investment approaches
across many national activities, we have found that issues such as
these are best addressed through a systematic framework. As shown in
figure 2, this framework has the following four components that
potentially could be applied to all transportation systems:
* Set national goals for the system. These goals, which would establish
what federal participation in the system is designed to accomplish,
should be specific and measurable.
* Define clearly what the federal role should be relative to other
stakeholders. This step is important to help ensure that federal
participation supplements and enhances participation by others, rather
than simply replacing their participation.
* Determine which funding tools and other approaches, such as
alternatives to investment in new infrastructure, will maximize the
impact of any federal investment. This step can help expand the
capacity to leverage funding resources and promote shared
responsibilities.
* Ensure that a process is in place for evaluating performance
periodically so that defined goals, roles, and approaches can be
reexamined and modified, as necessary.
Figure 2: Framework for Developing an Effective Federal Investment
Strategy:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Establishing National Goals to Guide Federal Participation:
The first component of a framework for evaluating federal investments
is establishing a set of clearly defined national goals that can serve
as a basis for guiding federal participation. Such goals can help chart
a clear direction, establish priorities among competing issues, specify
the desired results, and lay the foundation for such other decisions as
determining how assistance will be provided.
At the federal level, measuring results for federal programs has been a
longstanding objective of the Congress. The Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993[Footnote 24] has become the primary legislative
framework through which agencies are required to set strategic and
annual goals that are based on national goals, measure performance, and
report on the degree to which goals are met and on what actions are
needed to achieve or modify goals that have not been met. These goals
need to be measurable in order to identify and provide accountability
for the amount of public benefits to be attained. Stating goals in
measurable terms makes it easier to assess the success or failure of
government support and ultimately, to hold system stakeholders
accountable for the outcomes. Establishing clear goals and performance
measures for the marine transportation system is critical to ensuring
both a successful and a fiscally responsible effort.
Meaningful goal-setting for the marine transportation system requires
an in-depth understanding of the relationship of the system to other
transportation modes. Transportation experts highlight the need to view
the system in the context of the entire transportation system in
addressing congestion, mobility, and other challenges and ultimately
investment decisions. For example, congestion challenges often occur
where modes connect or should connect, such as ports where freight is
transferred from one mode to another. The connections require
coordination of more than one mode of transportation and cooperation
among multiple transportation providers and planners. While decision
makers recognize the importance of intermodal planning, the goals for
the system need to reflect this broader perspective. A systemwide
approach to transportation planning and funding, as opposed to focus on
a single mode or type of travel, could improve focus on outcomes
related to customer or community needs.
Meaningful goal-setting also requires a comprehensive understanding of
the scope and extent of issues and priorities facing the marine
transportation system. However, there are clear signs that certain key
issues and priorities are not yet understood well enough to establish
meaningful goals for the system. For example, a comprehensive analysis
of the issues and problems facing the maritime transportation system
has not yet been accomplished.[Footnote 25] In setting goals for
investment decisions, leading organizations usually perform
comprehensive needs assessments to obtain a clear understanding of the
extent and scope of their issues, problems, and needs and ultimately to
identify resources needed. These assessments should be results-oriented
in that they determine what is needed to obtain specific outcomes
rather than what is needed to maintain or expand existing capital
stock.[Footnote 26] Developing such information is important for
ensuring that goals are framed in an adequate context. The call by many
ports for federal assistance in dredging channels or harbors to 50 feet
is an example. Dredging to 50 feet allows a port to accommodate the
largest of the container ships currently being constructed and placed
in service. However, developing the capacity to serve such ships is no
guarantee that companies with such ships will actually choose to use
the port. Every port‘s desire to be competitive by having a 50-foot
channel could thus lead to a situation in which the nation as a whole
has an overcapacity for accommodating larger ships. The result, at
least for the excess capacity, would signal an inefficient use of
federal resources that might have been put to better use in other ways.
Proper economic analysis for the justification of such a project,
however, may minimize the likelihood of such excess capacity.
Defining the Federal Role Relative to Other Stakeholders:
The second component of the framework involves defining the federal
role relative to other stakeholders. The federal government is only one
of many stakeholders in the marine transportation system.[Footnote 27]
While these various stakeholders may all be able to share a general
vision of the system, they are likely to diverge in the priorities and
emphasis they place on specific goals. For example, the federal
government, with its national point of view, is in a much different
position than a local port intensely involved in head-to-head
competition with other ports for the business of shipping companies or
other businesses. For a port, its own infrastructure is paramount,
while the federal government‘s perspective is focused on the national
and broader public interest.
Past patterns of participation are a tacit acknowledgement of these
differences in roles. Traditionally, federal participation has been
directed mainly at projects related to ’waterside“ issues, such as
keeping navigation channels open by dredging or icebreaking; improving
systems of locks and dams; maintaining navigational aids such as
lighthouses or radio systems; and monitoring the movement of ships in
and out of the nation‘s coastal waters. Federal participation has
generally not extended to ’landside“ projects related to a port‘s
capabilities, such as building terminals or piers and purchasing cranes
or other equipment to unload cargoes.[Footnote 28]
Since there are so many stakeholders involved with the marine
transportation system, achieving national goals for the system hinge on
the ability of the federal government to forge effective partnerships
with nonfederal entities. Decision makers have to balance national
goals with the unique needs and interests of all nonfederal
stakeholders in order to leverage the resources and capabilities that
reside within state and local governments and the private sector.
Future partnering among key maritime stakeholders may take on a
different form as transportation planners begin focusing across
transportation modes in making investment decisions instead of making
investment decisions for each mode separately. Transportation experts
with whom we talked said that current transportation planning
institutions, such as state transportation departments and metropolitan
planning organizations,[Footnote 29] may not have sufficient expertise
or authority to effectively identify and implement improvements across
modes. They suggested that transportation planning by all entities
should focus more closely on regional issues and highlighted the
importance of cooperation and coordination among modal agencies at the
federal, state, and local levels, between public and private
transportation providers, and between transportation planning
organizations and other government and community agencies to address
transportation issues.
The Alameda Corridor Program in the Los Angeles area provides an
example of how effective partnering allowed the capabilities of the
various stakeholders to be more fully utilized. Called the Alameda
Corridor because of the street it parallels, the program created a 20-
mile, $2.4 billion railroad express line connecting the ports of Los
Angeles and Long Beach to the transcontinental rail network east of
downtown Los Angeles. The express line eliminates approximately 200
street-level railroad crossings, relieving congestion and improving
freight mobility for cargo. This project made substantial use of local
stakeholders‘ ability to raise funds. While the federal government
participated in the cost, its share was about 20 percent of the total.
In addition, about 80 percent of the federal assistance is in the form
of a loan rather than a grant.
Making careful decisions about these roles is important in order to
match capabilities and resources with appropriate goals. This is
important for federal assistance because other stakeholders may want to
emphasize other priorities and use federal funds in ways that may not
match federal goals. This can happen in two main ways.
* Other stakeholders may seek to transfer a previously local function
to the federal arena. For example, in the area of port security, there
is a significant funding need at the local level for overtime pay for
police and security guards. Given the degree of need, if more federal
funding were made available, local interests might push to apply
federal funding in this way, thereby transferring a previously local
function to the federal arena. In moving toward federal coverage of
basic public services, the Congress and federal officials would be
substantially expanding the federal role.
* Other stakeholders may also seek to use federal funds to reduce their
traditional levels of commitment. Federal decision makers need to guard
against this tendency--where federal support reduces or supplants
private, state, or local funding. One aim of providing federal
assistance has been to promote or supplement expenditures that would
not otherwise occur--or at a level deemed necessary--without federal
funding. Otherwise, federal funding is largely substituting for funding
that would otherwise have been provided by private or other public
investors.[Footnote 30]
Developing Funding Tools and Other Approaches That Maximize the Return
on the Federal Investment:
The third component of a framework for evaluating federal investments
involves a careful choice of the approaches and funding tools that
would best leverage federal funds in meeting identified goals. A well-
designed funding approach can help encourage investment by other
stakeholders and maximize the application of limited federal dollars.
In addition, the federal government has other tools available besides
those that relate specifically to making funding available such as
demand management, technology improvements, and different operational
approaches.
An important step in selecting the appropriate approach is to
effectively harness the financial capabilities of local, state, and
private stakeholders. The Alameda Corridor Program is an apt example.
In this program, state and local stakeholders had both a financial
incentive to relieve congestion and the commitment and ability to bring
financial resources to bear. Some other ports may not have the same
level of financial incentives or capabilities to undertake projects
largely on their own. For example, in studying the extent to which
Florida ports were able to implement a set of security requirements
imposed by the state, we found that some ports were able to draw on
more financial resources than others, based on such factors as size,
economic climate, and funding base.[Footnote 31] While such information
would be valuable in crafting federal assistance, it currently is
largely unavailable. Relatively little is known about the extent of
state, local, and private sector funding resources across the country.
The federal government has a variety of funding tools potentially
available for use, ranging from outright grants to loan guarantees, as
shown in table 7. Through cost sharing and other arrangements, the
federal government can use these approaches to help ensure that federal
funds supplement--and not supplant--funds from other stakeholders. For
example, an effective use of funding tools, with appropriate nonfederal
matches and incentives, can be valuable in implementing a national
strategy to support federal port investments, without putting the
government in the position of choosing winners or losers.
Table 7: Examples of Potential Federal Funding Tools:
Approach: Grants; Description: Grants are usually cash payments made by
the federal government to a beneficiary organization, government, or
individual. It is a tool with the primary objective to stimulate or
support spending by the recipient for a nationally important activity
for which they otherwise would have spent less. There are different
types of grants (e.g., categorical and block) and specific design
elements, such as matching requirements and reporting requirements,
that affect the targeting of grant funds, the supplanting of own-source
funds, and the balance between accountability and flexibility. Grants
may also be contingent on various matching requirements.
Approach: Direct loans; Description: Loans occur when the federal
government lends money directly to borrowers. After making the loans,
the government then services the loan (i.e., collects scheduled
repayments from the borrowers) and forecloses or otherwise attempts to
collect on the loan if a borrower cannot make scheduled payments. Loans
may also be contingent on various matching requirements. An example is
the U.S. Department of Education‘s Direct Student Loan program.
Approach: Loan guarantees; Description: Loan guarantees occur when the
federal government guarantees a loan that a private lender, such as a
commercial bank or mortgage lender, makes to a borrower. The government
enters into a contractual agreement to make full or partial payment to
the lender in case the borrower defaults on the guaranteed loan. The
private lender originates the loan, secures the government guarantee,
and services the loan according to government regulations. Loan
guarantees may also be contingent on various matching requirements. An
example is the U.S. Maritime Administration‘s Title XI program.
Approach: Tax expenditures; Description: Tax expenditures are the
result of specific provisions in the federal tax law that allow
corporations or individuals to defer, reduce, or eliminate a portion of
their tax obligation. This tool allows the federal government to pursue
its objectives, not by spending tax dollars it collects, but rather by
allowing corporations or individuals to keep and spend dollars they
would otherwise owe the government. An example is the home mortgage
interest deduction.
Approach: User fees; Description: User fees are charges to users for
goods or services provided by, or activities regulated by, the federal
government. User fees generally apply to activities that provide
benefits to identifiable recipients and are normally related to the
cost of the goods or services provided. They may be paid into the
general fund or, under specific statutory authority, may be made
available to an agency carrying out the activity. An example is a fee
for entering a national park. User fees may also be collected through a
tax such as an excise tax. Since these collections result from the
government‘s sovereign powers, the proceeds are generally recorded as
budget receipts, not as offsetting collections. An example is the
federal gasoline tax.
Source: The Tools of Government: A Guide to the New Governance, Lester
M. Salamon, ed., Oxford University Press, (London: 2002).
[End of table]
Federal approaches can take other forms besides those that relate
specifically to making funding available. These tools allow increased
output without making major capital investments. Examples include the
following:
* Demand management. Demand management is designed to reduce travel at
the most congested times and on the most congested routes. One demand
management strategy involves requiring users to pay more to use
congested parts of the system during such periods, with the idea that
the charge will provide an incentive for some users to shift their use
to a less congested time or to less congested routes or transportation
modes. On inland waterways, for example, congestion pricing for locks-
-that is, charging a toll during congested periods to reflect the
additional cost of delay that a vessel imposes on other vessels--might
be a way to space out demand on the system. Economists generally
believe that such surcharges or tolls enhance economic efficiency by
making operators take into account the external costs they impose on
others in deciding when, where, and how to travel.
* Technology improvements. Instead of making extensive modifications to
infrastructure such as locks and dams, it may be possible to apply
federal investments to technology that makes the existing system more
efficient. For example, technological improvements may be able to help
barges on the inland waterways navigate locks in inclement weather,
thereby reducing delays on the inland waterway system.
* Different operational approaches. Enhancing capacity of existing
infrastructure through increased maintenance and rehabilitation is an
important supplement to, and sometimes a substitute for, building new
infrastructure. Similarly, different operating arrangements may also be
able to produce efficiencies. For example, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers is investigating the possibility of automating the operation
of locks and dams on the inland waterways to reduce congestion at
bottlenecks.
Examining Outcomes to Determine the Effectiveness of Investments:
The final component of a framework for developing a federal investment
strategy is evaluating results and incorporating lessons learned into
the decision-making process. Evaluating the effectiveness of existing
or proposed federal investment programs could provide decision makers
with valuable information for determining whether intended benefits
have been achieved and whether goals, responsibilities, and approaches
should be modified. Such evaluations are also useful for better
ensuring accountability and providing incentives for achieving results.
Leading organizations that we have studied have stressed the importance
of developing performance measures and linking investment decisions and
their expected outcomes to overall strategic goals and
objectives.[Footnote 32] Hypothetically, for example, one goal for the
marine transportation system might be to increase throughput (that is,
the volume of cargo) that can be transported through a particular lock
and dam system on the nation‘s inland waterways. A performance measure
to gauge the results of an investment for this goal might be the
increased capacity (such as number of barges per hour) that results
from this investment and the economic benefits associated with that
increase. Assessing progress in achieving this goal is, therefore,
dependent on carrying out analyses of accurate and complete outcome
data.
Concluding Observations:
There are substantial differences in the federal approach for
supporting the commercial marine transportation system and the
approaches for supporting air and highway transportation. Compared to
these two other transportation modes, the federal approach for marine
transportation funding relies more extensively on general revenues and
less extensively on users of the system. These differences
notwithstanding, there is growing awareness of, and agreement about,
the need to view various transportation modes from an integrated
standpoint, particularly for the purposes of developing and
implementing a federal investment strategy and alternative funding
approaches. Also, an intermodal perspective appears especially
important as the nation reacts to the increased security needs for
transportation networks and as it plans for better, more efficient
transportation for the future. In such an effort, the framework of
goals, roles, tools, and evaluation can be particularly helpful--not
only for marine transportation funding, but for other modes as well.
Agency Comments:
We validated the data in our report on assessment collections and
expenditures with officials from the 15 federal agencies currently
levying assessments on users of the systems and expending funds to
support the systems. In addition, we provided a draft of this report to
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Transportation
for review and comment. The officials generally agreed with the facts
presented in this report. We made technical changes to the report, as
appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 10 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of the report
to the Honorable Norman Y. Mineta, Secretary of Transportation; Admiral
Thomas H. Collins, Commandant of the Coast Guard; Captain William G.
Schubert, Administrator, Maritime Administration; the Honorable Albert
S. Jacquez, Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development
Corporation; the Honorable Michael K. Powell, Chairman, Federal
Communications Commission; the Honorable Donald H. Rumsfeld, Secretary
of Defense; the Honorable John Ashcroft, Attorney General; the
Honorable Thomas E. White, Secretary of the Army; Lieutenant General
Robert B. Flowers, Commander and Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers; the Honorable Harold J. Creel, Jr., Chairman, Federal
Maritime Commission; the Honorable Donald L. Evans, Secretary of
Commerce; the Honorable Paul H. O‘Neill, Secretary of the Treasury; the
Honorable Robert C. Bonner, Commissioner of Customs; the Honorable
Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner of Internal Revenue; the Honorable
Monte R. Belger, Acting Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration;
the Honorable Mary E. Peters, Administrator, Federal Highway
Administration; the Honorable Ann M. Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture;
the Honorable Tommy G. Thompson, Secretary of Health and Human
Services; the Honorable Julie Louise Gerberding, Director, Centers for
Disease Control; the Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Director, Office of
Management and Budget; and Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr.,
Administrator, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We also
will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the
report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://
www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
heckerj@gao.gov at (202)512-2834 or Randall Williamson at
williamsonr@gao.gov at (206)287-4860. GAO contacts and acknowledgments
are listed in appendix VII.
Sincerely yours,
JayEtta Z. Hecker
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
Signed by JayEtta Z. Hecker:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To determine the amount of federal expenditures to support the
commercial marine,[Footnote 33] aviation, and highway transportation
systems and the amount of collections from federal assessments on the
users of these systems for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, we
reviewed prior GAO reports and other relevant documents, and
interviewed officials from the Office of Management and Budget and
various industry representatives. On the basis of this determination,
we contacted 15 federal agencies and asked them to provide information
on the expenditures and collections specific to the transportation
systems. We relied on each agency to identify expenditures and
collections related to activities that support the transportation
systems.
For the purposes of this report, expenditures are outlays to pay
federal obligations identified by the agency for each fiscal year to
support these systems, but may include payments for obligations
incurred in previous fiscal years. Assessment collections are fees and
taxes paid by users of a system that were identified by the agencies
and may include revenues credited to federal funds, offsetting
collections, and offsetting revenue.
For each expenditure, we requested information on the nature of the
expenditure (e.g., administrative processing, physical services,
construction and maintenance projects, and miscellaneous services),
source of funds for the expenditure (general revenues, trust fund, and
reimbursement from agency account), and the amount expended for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001. Expenditures for enhanced port security,
derived from the Department of Defense Supplemental Budget
Appropriations for fiscal year 2002, were not included in our review.
For each assessment, we requested information on the nature of the
assessment (fee or tax), a description of the assessment, the type of
fund the receives the collection (general fund, trust fund, and
reimbursement to agency account), and the amount collected for fiscal
years 1999, 2000, and 2001. In addition to the assessment revenue
collected that is specific to the transportation systems, we also
received data from the U.S. Customs Service on the amount of duty
collected on commodities imported by the transportation modes. The U.S.
Customs Service provided estimates, developed by the U.S. Census
Bureau, on the percent of collections that were attributable to water,
sea, and land transportation modes. We applied these percentages to the
total customs duties collected for fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001
provided by the U.S. Customs Service to compute the amount of total
customs duties collected by the marine, aviation, and highway
transportation systems each year.
We performed limited reasonableness tests on the data (comparing the
data to the actual trust fund outlays contained in the budget of the
U.S. government for fiscal years 2001, 2002, and 2003) and found that
the data were reliable enough for our uses in this report. Although we
had each agency validate the data provided, we did not verify agency
expenditures and collections.
To identify initial considerations that could help the Congress in
addressing whether to change the scope or nature of federal investments
in the marine transportation system, we conducted a review of prior GAO
reports and other relevant studies to identify managerial best
practices in establishing strategic plans and federal investment
approaches. We also interviewed U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
Department of Transportation (DOT) officials to obtain information on
the current state of the commercial marine transportation system, the
ability of the system to keep pace with growing demand, and activities
that are under way to assess the condition and capacity of the
infrastructure. We conducted our work from January 2002 to September
2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Description of Trust Funds Used to Support the Commercial
Marine, Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems:
Transportation-related federal trust funds include the Highway Trust
Fund, Airport and Airways Trust Fund, Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund,
and Inland Waterways Trust Fund. The trust fund collections come from
user charges (such as fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, registration and
licensing fees, and air passenger ticket taxes), which are deposited in
the U.S. Treasury‘s general fund for subsequent transfer to the trust
fund accounts. Also, interest earned through fund balances is generally
added back to these funds.
Highway Trust Fund:
The Highway Trust Fund was established by the Highway Revenue Act of
1956 (Pub. L. No. 84-627). Highway Trust Fund revenues are derived from
various excise taxes on highway users (e.g., motor fuel, motor
vehicles, tires, and parts and accessories for trucks and buses) and
interest earned on balances. The excise tax on gasoline is the most
important source of the trust fund‘s revenues. The excise tax rate on
gasoline has changed five times since 1985 and is currently 18.4 cents
per gallon.
The money paid into the fund is earmarked primarily for the Federal-aid
Highway program, which is apportioned to states for planning,
construction, and improving the nation‘s highway system, roads, and
bridges. Effective April 1983, the Highway Revenue Act of 1982 (Pub. L.
No. 97-424) created the Mass Transit Account within the Highway Trust
Fund. Currently, 2.86 cents per gallon of the federal excise tax on
gasoline sales is set aside for the Mass Transit Account that will be
used for transit capital projects.
A small portion (0.1 cents per gallon) of the federal excise tax on
gasoline has been assigned to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
Trust Fund until April 1, 2005.
Airport and Airway Trust Fund:
The Airport and Airway Revenue Act of 1970 (Pub. L. No. 91-258) created
the Airport and Airway Trust Fund to provide a stable source of funding
to finance investments in the airport and airway system and, to the
extent funds were available, cover the operating costs of the airway
system. The Act provided for the deposit (through the general fund) of
aviation excise taxes into the trust fund. Since its establishment,
various changes have been made to the rate structure supporting the
trust fund. The most recent changes were centered in the Taxpayer
Relief Act of 1997 (Pub. L. No. 105-:
34), effective October 1, 1997, which, among other things, extended
aviation taxes for 10 years (through September 30, 2007) and converted
the 10 percent ad valorem tax on domestic passenger tickets to a
combination ad valorem/flight segment tax over 3 years. The trust fund
currently receives the vast majority of its funding from a 7.5 percent
tax on domestic passenger tickets and a $3 flight segment tax.
Additional funding is obtained from taxes on aviation fuels, cargo
waybills, and international departures and arrivals.
The trust fund finances 100 percent of FAA‘s capital investment
programs (Facilities and Equipment; Airport Improvement Program; and
Research, Engineering, and Development). Within certain limits set by
Congress, some of the remaining money is used to cover operation and
maintenance expenses of the FAA. The portion of the FAA‘s operation and
maintenance expenses not paid from the trust fund revenues are financed
by general funds of the Treasury. While held by the Treasury, trust
fund monies are invested and interest earned is deposited into the
trust fund. Amounts are withdrawn from the trust fund as it is needed
and transferred into each FAA appropriation to cover necessary outlays.
Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund:
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund was established in accordance with
the Harbor Maintenance Revenue Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-662), as
amended. Revenues for this fund are derived from receipts from a 0.125
percent ad valorem user fee imposed on commercial users of specified
U.S. ports, Saint Lawrence Seaway tolls, and investment interest. On
March 31, 1998, as per the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the tax on
exports was terminated. The tax continues to be levied on passengers
and imported and domestic cargo.
The Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund is used to finance up to 100 percent
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers‘ harbor operation and maintenance
cost, including the cost associated with Great Lakes navigation
projects. In addition, the trust fund fully finances the operation and
maintenance of the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation.
Payments from the trust fund are also authorized for the federal share
of construction costs for dredged material disposal facilities and the
expenses incurred by agencies related to administration of the harbor
maintenance tax.
Inland Waterways Trust Fund:
The Inland Waterways Trust Fund was authorized by the Inland Waterways
Revenue Act of 1978 (Pub. L. No. 95-502), as amended by the Water
Resources Development Act of 1986 (Pub. L. No. 99-662). The trust fund
has been in effect since fiscal year 1981. The sources for the fund are
taxes imposed on fuel for vessels engaged in commercial waterway
transportation and investment interest. From this tax of 24.3 cents per
gallon, 4.3 cents goes for deficit reduction and a statutory maximum of
20 cents goes to the trust fund. The funds are earmarked for financing
one half of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers‘ construction and
rehabilitation costs of specified inland waterway projects.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Amounts Expended by Federal Agencies on the Marine,
Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems:
Thirteen different federal agencies spent federal funds on the
commercial marine transportation system. On average, the agencies spent
over $3.8 billion annually. During the same period, six federal
agencies spent an average of over $10.3 billion annually on the
aviation transportation system and five federal agencies spent an
average of over $25 billion annually on the highway transportation
system.
Table 8: Expenditures on the Marine, Aviation, and Highway
Transportation Systems for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001A:
Dollars in millions.
Marine transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $30.5; 1999: $35.7; 2001: $44.1.
Army Corps of Engineers; DOD; 1999: 1,788.6; 1999: 1,845.3; 2001:
1,888.8.
Federal agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; HHS; 1999:
1.5; 1999: 1.9; 2001: 1.9.
Federal agency: Coast Guard; DOT; 1999: 1,193.6; 1999: 1,245.4; 2001:
1,239.4.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury; 1999: 484.2; 1999: 538.4;
2001: 577.2.
Federal Communications Commission; 1999: [B]; 1999: [B]; 2001: .1.
Federal Maritime Commission; 1999: .2; 1999: .1; 2001: .1.
Federal agency: Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration; USDA; 1999: 1.3; 1999: 1.3; 2001: 1.2.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999:
1.2; 1999: 1.5; 2001: 1.6.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury; 1999: .1; 1999:
.1; 2001: .1.
Federal agency: Maritime Administration; DOT; 1999: 95.0; 1999: 98.5;
2001: 98.4.
Federal agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Commerce; 1999: 109.4; 1999: 115.7; 2001: 126.7.
Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation; DOT; 1999: 11.2; 1999:
12.0; 2001: 13.0.
Total marine transportation system; 1999: $3,716.8; 1999: $3,895.9;
2001: $3,992.6.
Aviation transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $123.1; 1999: $144.0; 2001: $178.2.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury; 1999: 769.1; 1999: 821.6;
2001: 861.4.
Federal agency: Federal Aviation Administration; DOT; 1999: 8,055.0;
1999: 9,043.0; 2001: 9,525.0.
Federal agency: Federal Communications Commission; 1999: b; 1999:
b; 2001: b.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999:
431.1; 1999: 435.8; 2001: 467.5.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury; 1999: .6; 1999:
.7; 2001: .7.
Federal agency: Total aviation transportation system; 1999: $9,378.9;
1999: $10,445.1; 2001: $11,032.8.
Highway transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $7.7; 1999: $8.9; 2001: $10.8.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury; 1999: 106.6; 1999: 84.4;
2001: 130.1.
Federal agency: Federal Highway Administration; DOT; 1999: 22,700.0;
1999: 25,000.0; 2001: 27,200.0.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999:
1.1; 1999: .1; 2001: 1.5.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury; 1999: 4.6; 1999:
4.6; 2001: 4.5.
Federal agency: Total highway transportation system; 1999: $22,820.0;
1999: $25,098.0; 2001: $27,346.9.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
[A] The table does not include expenditures that could not be broken
out by transportation system. These expenditures amounted to $7.3
million in fiscal year 1999, $6.3 million in fiscal year 2000, and $6.2
million in fiscal year 2001. The table also does not include
expenditures from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
Expenditures from this trust fund amounted to $72.5 million in fiscal
year 1999, $70 million in fiscal year 2000, and $72.1 million in fiscal
year 2001. Most of this funding is distributed to states to implement
their leaking underground storage tank programs.
[B] Less than $50,000.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that expended funds.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Amounts Collected by Federal Agencies on Users of the
Marine, Aviation, and Highway Systems:
Eleven different federal agencies levy assessments on the users of the
commercial marine transportation system. On average, the agencies
collected nearly $1 billion annually. During the same period, five
federal agencies collected an average of almost $11.1 billion annually
from users of the aviation transportation system and four federal
agencies collected an average of almost $33.7 billion annually from
users of the highway transportation system.
Table 9: Amounts of Assessments Collected on Users of the Marine,
Aviation, and Highway Transportation Systems for Fiscal Years 1999
through 2001A:
Dollars in millions.
Marine transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $34.2; 2000: $46.2; 2001: $50.3.
Federal agency: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; HHS; 1999:
1.4; 2000: 1.9; 2001: 1.9.
Federal agency: Coast Guard; DOT; 1999: 19.3; 2000: 21.4; 2001: 23.5.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury[C]; 1999: 642.5; 2000: 773.7;
2001: 812.1.
Federal Communications Commission; 1999: .1; 2000: .1; 2001: .3.
Federal Maritime Commission; 1999: .2; 2000: .1; 2001: .1.
Federal agency: Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards
Administration;
USDA; 1999: 1.6; 2000: 1.5; 2001: 1.6.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999: 1.2;
2000: 1.5; 2001: 1.6.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury[B]; 1999: 105.0;
2000: 97.3; 2001: 93.5.
Federal agency: Maritime Administration; DOT; 1999: 35.7; 2000: 26.7;
2001: 24.6.
Federal agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration;
Commerce; 1999: 34.1; 2000: 34.7; 2001: 34.5.
Federal agency: Total marine transportation system; 1999: $875.3; 2000:
$1,005.1; 2001: $1,044.0.
Aviation transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $138.2; 2000: $186.4; 2001: $203.5.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury[C]; 1999: 231.9; 2000: 251.6;
2001: 260.1.
Federal agency: Federal Communications Commission; 1999: .1; 2000: .1;
2001: .1.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999:
421.4; 2000: 436.5; 2001: 465.9.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury[B]; 1999: 11,528.2;
2000: 9,677.0; 2001: 9,382.5.
Federal agency: Total aviation transportation system; 1999: $12,319.8;
2000: $10,551.6; 2001: $10,312.1.
Highway transportation system:
Federal agency: Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service; USDA;
1999: $8.5; 2000:
11.1; 2001: $12.2.
Federal agency: Customs Service; Treasury[C]; 1999: 21.9; 2000: 22.1;
2001: 20.4.
Federal agency: Immigration and Naturalization Service; DOJ; 1999: 1.1;
2000: 1.6; 2001: 2.4.
Federal agency: Internal Revenue Service; Treasury[B]; 1999: 32,248.3;
2000: 35,125.1; 2001: 33,672.7.
Federal agency: Total highway transportation system.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
[A] The table does not include assessments that could not be broken out
by transportation system. These assessments amounted to $934.9 million
in fiscal year 1999, $980.9 million in fiscal year 2000, and $959.1
million in fiscal year 2001.
[B] The IRS collections for the marine transportation system are
designated for the Inland Waterways Trust Fund. Collections for the
aviation transportation system are designated for Airport and Airways
Trust Fund. Collections for the highway transportation system are
designed for the Highway Account of the Highway Trust Fund.
[C] These amounts exclude customs duties. A portion of the collections
for the marine transportation system is designated for the Harbor
Maintenance Trust Fund.
Source: GAO analysis of data provided by agencies that collected the
assessments.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: Amount of Customs Duties Collected for Commodities
Transported on the Transportation Systems:
Unlike the fees and taxes on users that are earmarked to support the
transportation systems, customs duties are not an assessment on the
system; rather, duties are assessed on imported goods transported by
the systems. The majority of customs duties collected are deposited in
the U.S. Treasury‘s general fund for the general support of federal
activities.[Footnote 34] On average, the Customs Service reported $19.8
billion collected annually for commodities imported by the
transportation modes, with nearly 80 percent collected from the marine
transportation system.
Table 10: Amount of Customs Duties Collected for Commodities
Transported on the Marine, Aviation, and Highway Transportation
Systems, Fiscal Years 1999 through 2001:
Dollars in millions.
Transportation system: Marine; 1999: Amount: $14,310; 2000: Amount:
$15,624; 2000: Percent: 76; 2001: Amount: $15,637; 2001: Percent: 79;
Average amount: $15,190.
Transportation system: Aviation; [Empty]; 1999: Amount: 3,577; 1999:
Percent: 75: 19; 2000: Amount: 4,053; 2000: Percent: 20; 2001: Amount:
3,371; 2001: Percent: 17; Average amount: 3,667.
Transportation system: Highway[A]; 1999: Amount: 1,168; 1999: Percent:
75: 6; 2000: Amount: 880; 2000: Percent: 4; 2001: Amount:
735; 2001: Percent: 4; Average amount: 928.
Transportation system: Total custom duties collected; 1999: Amount:
$19,055; 1999: Percent: 75: [Empty]; 2000: Amount: $20,557; 2000:
Percent: [Empty]; 2001: Amount: $19,743; 2001: Percent: [Empty];
Average amount: $19,785.
Note: Figures are nominal and have not been adjusted for inflation.
[A] Includes amounts collected by rail.
Source: GAO computations based on data provided by the U.S. Customs
Service.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: The Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation
System and the National Advisory Council:
In January 2000, the Secretary of Transportation chartered the
establishment of the Marine Transportation System National Advisory
Council (NAC), a nonfederal body, whose purpose is to advise the
Secretary of Transportation on marine transportation system issues. An
Interagency Committee on the Marine Transportation System (ICMTS) was
established by a memorandum of understanding among the Departments of
Transportation, Defense, Commerce, Interior, Agriculture, Treasury,
and the Environmental Protection Agency. The charter of the ICMTS is to
facilitate implementation of the recommendations in the 1999 MTS Report
to the Congress and to identify, evaluate, develop, and promote
implementation of federal policies and make recommendations concerning
resource utilization to ensure effective public funding decisions,
support services, and management of the marine transportation system.
In May 2001, the NAC recommended that the ICMTS conduct a thorough
needs-based assessment of each federal and nonfederal component mode of
the marine transportation system documenting (1) the prerequisites
necessary to enable the system in its entirety to meet projected
traffic demands in a manner consistent with the vision statement, (2)
the impact on nonmarine transportation modes should future
infrastructure disruption/failure occur at critical points in the
marine transportation system, and (3) an appraisal of the funding
required to ensure the transportation system meets the goals of the
vision statement. ICMTS officials report that the Chamber of Commerce
currently has an effort under way to compile existing studies on
infrastructure needs of North American ports. In addition, the ICMTS is
seeking contract support for a comprehensive analysis assessing the
future needs and funding of the marine transportation system.
[End of section]
Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
JayEtta Z. Hecker (202) 512-2834
Randall B. Williamson (206) 287-4860:
Acknowledgments:
In addition to those individuals named above, Christine E. Bonham, Jack
J. Burriesci, Jay R. Cherlow, Thomas E. Collis, David K. Hooper,
Elizabeth C. McNally, Sara Ann W. Moessbauer, Timmy R. Schindler,
Albert E. Schmidt, and Stanley G. Stenerson made key contributions to
this report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. Department of Transportation, An Assessment of the U.S. Marine
Transportation System: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.:
September 1999).
[2] Unlike assessments on users of a transportation system, customs
duties are not related to the use of the transportation system; rather,
customs duties are taxes on imported goods without regard to their mode
of transportation. Some customs duties are earmarked for specific
purposes. Under Section 612 of Title 7 of the United States Code
(U.S.C.), 30 percent of the gross receipts from customs duties are
designated for agricultural and food programs. Pursuant to 16 U.S.C
3912, all duties on guns and ammunitions are credited to the Migratory
Bird Conservation Fund and pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 9504, duties on
fishing tackle and yachts and pleasure craft are credited to the Sports
Fish Restoration Account of the Aquatic Resources Trust Fund. In
addition, tariffs from wood and certain wood products are credited to
the Reforestation Trust Fund up to a total of $30 million (16 U.S.C.
1606a).
[3] For the purposes of this report, collections represent revenues
obtained from the users of each system. The collections may include
revenues credited to federal funds, offsetting collections, or
offsetting revenue. Expenditures are outlays, which represent spending
made to pay federal obligations. The expenditures may include outlays
for obligations incurred in the current fiscal year or in previous
fiscal years.
[4] Assessments on users of transportation systems can be used for the
general support of federal activities or may be earmarked by law for
specific purposes and credited to trust funds. Also, some collections
are credited directly to agency accounts for services provided.
Expenditures can be made from general fund accounts, trust fund
accounts, and agency accounts.
[5] U.S. General Accounting Office, Intercity Passenger Rail: Congress
Faces Critical Decisions in Developing a National Policy, GAO-02-522T
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002); U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S.
Infrastructure: Funding Trends and Opportunities to Improve Investment
Decisions, GAO/RCED/AIMD-00-35 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 7, 2000); U.S.
General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Leading Practices in
Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December
1998); U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Budget: Choosing Public
Investment Programs, GAO/AIMD-93-25 (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1993);
and U.S. General Accounting Office, Commercial Aviation: A Framework
for Considering Federal Financing Assistance, GAO-01-1163T
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2001).
[6] The general fund means the accounts for receipts not earmarked by
law for a specific purpose, such as taxes, customs duties,
miscellaneous receipts, the proceeds of general borrowing, and the
expenditures of these monies.
[7] A federal trust fund is an accounting mechanisms used to link
earmarked receipts with the expenditures of those receipts. It is
designated in law as a ’trust“ fund.
[8] For fiscal years 1999 through 2001, collections for the aviation
and highway transportation systems generally exceeded expenditures each
year. Expenditures are made to liquidate current or prior years‘
obligations. Surplus funds were retained in the trust fund to be
appropriated in future years.
[9] U.S. General Accounting Office, Port Security: Nation Faces
Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives Successful, GAO-02-993T
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2002).
[10] User fees are charged to users for goods or services provided by,
or activities regulated by the federal government. User fees generally
apply to activities that provide benefits to identifiable recipients,
and are normally related to the cost of the goods or services provided.
They may be paid into the general fund or, under specific statutory
authority, may be made available to an agency carrying out the
activity. An example is a fee for entering a national park. User fees
may also be collected through a tax such as an excise tax. Since these
collections result from the government‘s sovereign powers, the proceeds
are generally recorded as budget receipts, not as offsetting
collections. Excise taxes can also be dedicated to specific programs
and agencies. An example is the federal gasoline tax.
[11] U.S. Department of Transportation, An Assessment of the U.S.
Marine Transportation System: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.:
September 1999). GAO did not verify the accuracy of the information
contained in this report.
[12] On April 27, 1999, the President established the Interagency
Commission on Crime and Security in U.S. Seaports. The Commission
issued its report on August 28, 2000. GAO did not validate the
estimates contained in this report.
[13] Although $93.3 million was made available in the supplemental
appropriations bill, $1 million was authorized for administrative
expenses. As of June 17, 2002, 77 grants for 144 port security projects
were awarded.
[14] The Transportation Security Administration, the Coast Guard, and
the Maritime Administration reviewed applications under the Port
Security Grants Program, which is based on the seaport security
provisions contained in the Department of Defense and Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-117, H.R.
Conference Report 107-350).
[15] H.R. 1260 was introduced in the 106th Congress to repeal the
Harbor Maintenance Tax and return to funding the costs of operating and
maintaining federal navigation channels from general revenues.
[16] U.S. General Accounting Office, Port Security: Nation Faces
Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives Successful, GAO-02-993T
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2002).
[17] The 13 federal agencies are as follows: the Animal, Plant, and
Health Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Department of Defense; Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; Coast Guard,
Department of Transportation; Customs Service, Department of Treasury;
Federal Communication Commission; Federal Maritime Commission; Grain
Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration, Department of
Agriculture; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of
Justice; Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury; Maritime
Administration, Department of Transportation; National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Department of Commerce; and Saint Lawrence
Seaway Development Corporation, Department of Transportation.
[18] This amount does not include the U.S. Maritime Administration‘s
Title XI program, which has been established pursuant to Title XI of
the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended. Under the Title XI
program, the U.S. Maritime Administration provides credit guarantees by
the U.S. Government of debt obligations for the financing of vessels
constructed, reconstructed, or reconditioned in U.S. shipyards. Under
this same program, credit guarantees are provided to U.S. shipyards for
the purpose of financing advanced shipbuilding technology and modern
shipbuilding technology. Since this program is a guarantee program,
funds for the guaranteed debt obligations are obtained in the private
sector. During fiscal years 1999, 2000, and 2001, the federal
government guaranteed loans amounting to $1.8 billion, $886 million,
and $730 million, respectively.
[19] The 11 federal agencies include the Animal, Plant, and Health
Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, Department of Health and Human Services; Coast
Guard, Department of Transportation; Customs Service, Department of
Treasury; Federal Communications Commission; Federal Maritime
Commission; Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration,
Department of Agriculture; Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Department of Justice; Internal Revenue Service, Department of
Treasury; Maritime Administration, Department of Transportation; and
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Department of
Commerce.
[20] The six federal agencies involved in expenditures for the aviation
system are the Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection Service, Department
of Agriculture; Customs Service, Department of Treasury; Federal
Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation; Federal
Communications Commission; Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Department of Justice; and Internal Revenue Service, Department of
Treasury.
[21] The five federal agencies involved in expenditures for the highway
transportation system are the Animal, Plant, and Health Inspection
Service, Department of Agriculture; Customs Service, Department of
Treasury; Federal Highway Administration, Department of
Transportation; Immigration and Naturalization Service, Department of
Justice; and Internal Revenue Service, Department of Treasury.
[22] The five federal agencies that levy assessments on users of the
aviation transportation system are the Animal, Plant, and Health
Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; Customs Service,
Department of Treasury; Federal Communications Commission; Immigration
and Naturalization Service, Department of Justice; and Internal Revenue
Service, Department of Treasury.
[23] The four federal agencies that levy assessments on users of the
highway transportation system are the Animal, Plant, and Health
Inspection Service, Department of Agriculture; Customs Service,
Department of Treasury; Immigration and Naturalization Service,
Department of Justice; and Internal Revenue Service, Department of
Treasury.
[24] Pub. L. No. 103-62.
[25] The 1999 MTS Report identified a number of issues and problems
facing the maritime transportation system. These included increased
dredging requirements to accommodate larger container ships, aging and
limited capacity of lock and dam systems on inland waterways, and
congestion due to ineffective intermodal connections. In January 2000,
the Secretary of Transportation chartered the Marine Transportation
System National Advisory Council to help implement the recommendations
in the 1999 MTS Report. An interagency committee was also established
to facilitate implementation of the recommendations in the report.
Recognizing the need to thoroughly analyze the issues and problems
facing the maritime transportation, the interagency committee is in the
process of seeking contract support for a comprehensive analysis
assessing the future needs and funding of the maritime system. (See
app. VI.)
[26] U.S. General Accounting Office, U.S. Infrastructure: Funding
Trends and Federal Agencies‘ Investment Estimates, GAO-01-986T
(Washington, D.C.: July 23, 2001).
[27] At least 13 federal agencies are involved in supporting the marine
transportation system.
[28] One exception has been intermodal connections, such as rail or
highway connections. The federal government has traditionally
participated in funding such projects.
[29] Metropolitan Planning Organizations are organizations responsible
for adopting transportation improvement programs in accordance with the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21).
[30] U.S. General Accounting Office, Federal Budget: Choosing Public
Investment Programs, GAO/AIMD-93-25 (Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1993).
[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Port Security: Nation Faces
Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives Successful, GAO-02-993T
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 5, 2002).
[32] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Leading Practices
in Capital Decision-Making, GAO/AIMD-99-32 (Washington, D.C.: December
1998).
[33] The commercial marine transportation system excludes noncommercial
activities such as search and rescue, and drug and migrant interdiction
conducted by the Coast Guard, and recreational activities.
[34] Under Section 612 of Title 7, about 30 percent of the gross
receipts from customs duties are designated for agricultural and food
programs. In addition, pursuant to 16 U.S.C. 3912, all duties on guns
and ammunitions go to the Migratory Bird Conservation Fund and pursuant
to 26 U.S.C. 9504, duties on fishing tackle and yachts and pleasure
craft go to the Sports Fish Restoration account of the Aquatic
Resources Trust Fund. Also, tariffs from wood and certain wood products
are transferred to the Reforestation Trust Fund up to a total of $30
million (16 U.S.C. 1606(a)).
GAO‘s Mission:
The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO‘s commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO‘s Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as ’Today‘s Reports,“ on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select ’Subscribe to daily E-mail alert for newly
released products“ under the GAO Reports heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office
441 G Street NW,
Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.
General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.
20548:
