Order Code IB10032
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated July 16, 2002
Glennon J. Harrison, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Department of Homeland Security
Coast Guard Issues
Transportation Security
Transportation Security in the Aftermath of the September 11 Attack
Aviation Security
Surface Transportation Security
Transportation Security Funding
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
Pipeline Security and Safety
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
Highway Finance, FY2003: The RABA Dilemma
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Aviation
FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
Surface Transportation
Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21
Traffic Congestion
Amtrak Funding
Amtrak Oversight
High Speed Rail Infrastructure Funding
Railroad Safety Reauthorization
Maritime
Harbor Maintenance Funding

---

IB10032
07-16-02
Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
collected, with additional highway funds
tion issues facing the 107th Congress.
provided through a mechanism called
“Revenue Aligned Budget Authority”
Department of Homeland Security.
(RABA). RABA funds accrue to the trust
Congress is considering an Administration
fund as a result of increased trust fund
proposal to create a new cabinet-level Depart-
revenues. For FY2003, revenues will
ment of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005,
decrease, with an estimated year-over-year
introduced by request). The new department
$8.6 billion drop in the availability of highway
would consolidate the antiterrorist activities of
obligational funding. Legislation that would
22 federal agencies and would transfer the
restore the highway program to its authorized
Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
level of $27.7 billion by raising the existing
and Coast Guard from the DOT to the new
limitation on obligations has been introduced.
department. Coast Guard Issues. Major
A majority of both the House and Senate have
issues include the President’s proposal to
signed on as cosponsors of this legislation.
transfer the Coast Guard from DOT to the new
Department of Homeland Security; replacing
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil.
aging vessels; and addressing expanded opera-
Following September 11th, Congress and the
tional responsibilities
Administration moved quickly to pass the Air
Transportation Safety and System
On Nov. 19, 2001, the President signed the
Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) to provide
Aviation and Transportation Security Act
airlines access to up to $15 billion in short-
(ATSA), establishing a new Transportation
term assistance. The first $5 billion, now
Security Administration. Congress is expected
largely paid out, provided direct aid for
to continue to pay close attention to the secu-
industry losses associated with the Sept. 11th
rity of aviation and other modes of transporta-
attacks. Access to the remaining $10 billion,
tion as the ATSA is implemented. Transporta-
available as guaranteed loans, is subject to
tion security funding has been authorized
approval by the Air Transportation
through FY2005. The major issue for all
Stabilization Board. To date, the Board has
modes is what reasonable transportation
approved a loan for America West Airlines
security measures can be taken without exces-
and tentatively approved a loan for US
sively inhibiting commerce and travel. The
Airways.
terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, have
placed increased emphasis on the security of
Amtrak. Amtrak’s current authorization
pipelines and transport of hazardous materials.
expires at the end of FY2002. Because of
Hazardous Materials Transportation
Amtrak’s financial situation, Congress faces
Safety was not reauthorized during the 106th
questions about Amtrak’s future. In recent
Congress. Pipeline Safety measures are under
years, Amtrak has run operating deficits of
active consideration in the 107th Congress.
about $900 million. Various bills have been
introduced in the 107th Congress to
Transportation Budgeting. Under the
reauthorize Amtrak. Some would increase
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Amtrak’s funding significantly; others would
(TEA21), spending for highway and transit
restructure Amtrak.
programs is linked directly to revenue
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
07-16-02
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On June 6, 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a plan to create a new cabinet-
level Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005, introduced by request). The new
department would consolidate the antiterrorist activities of 22 federal agencies and would
transfer the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard from the DOT
to the new department. On July 11, 2002, the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee marked up sections of H.R. 5005 dealing with transportation-related issues. The
committee adopted a substitute amendment by Chairman Don Young. The amended bill,
which was reported to the full House, eliminated all references to the Coast Guard, thus
keeping the Coast Guard in the Department of Transportation. The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) would be transferred to the new department, but the transfer of the
TSA functions would not occur until the top level management of the department and TSA
are in place; until TSA gets explosive detection systems deployed at all airports where they
are required; and the secretary certifies that a sufficient number of airport security and law
enforcement officers have been deployed at all airports where screening is required.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This issue brief provides an overview of key issues on the transportation agenda of the
107th Congress. The issues are organized under the headings of budget, aviation, surface
transportation, and maritime, with the author of each issue identified. Relevant Congressional
Research Service (CRS) reports are cited in the text. Consult the CRS Home Page
[http://www.crs.gov/] or the Guide to CRS Products, or call CRS on (202) 707-5700 to
obtain the cited reports or identify materials in other subject areas.
Department of Homeland Security

On June 6, 2002, President George W. Bush unveiled a plan to create a new cabinet-
level Department of Homeland Security (H.R. 5005, introduced by request). The new
department would consolidate the antiterrorist activities of 22 federal agencies and would
transfer the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and Coast Guard from the DOT
to the new department. The proposal builds significantly on congressional proposals (see
H.R. 4660; S. 2452) that were introduced on May 2, 2002. H.R. 4660/S. 2452 would transfer
the Coast Guard to the new department, but not the TSA. Members in both parties have
expressed general support for a new department.
On July 11, 2002, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee marked up
sections of H.R. 5005 dealing with transportation-related issues. The committee adopted a
substitute amendment by Chairman Don Young. The amended bill, which was reported to
the full House, eliminated all references to the Coast Guard, thus keeping the Coast Guard
in the Department of Transportation. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
would be transferred to the new department, but the transfer of the TSA functions would not
occur until the top level management of the department and TSA are in place; until TSA gets
CRS-1

---

IB10032
07-16-02
explosive detection systems deployed at all airports where they are required; and the
secretary certifies that a sufficient number of airport security and law enforcement officers
have been deployed at all airports where screening is required. The transfer would be
delayed to ensure that the transfer of TSA to a new Department would not disrupt the effort
to get the TSA operating properly during its transitional period. As reported, the bill would
also prohibit the use of funds derived from the transportation trust funds to be transferred or
otherwise made available to the new department; prohibit the department from spending any
AIP funds, but require FAA to consult with the department before it makes security related
grants; and establish a liaison office within the department to facilitate consultation with the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on any action that might affect aviation safety, air
carrier operations, airworthiness of aircraft, or airspace use. Eleven other committees also
marked-up H.R. 5005 and reported provisions under their jurisdiction to the full House. (See
CRS Report RS21244, Department of Homeland Security: Should the Transportation
Security Administration Be Included?)
Coast Guard Issues
In the 107th Congress, a major issue is how effectively the Coast Guard is managing its
increased responsibilities to protect the U.S. and interdict illegal drugs and immigrants while
continuing its traditional functions of search and rescue and aiding navigation. Coast Guard
capital needs are at the core of this issue. Congress generally authorizes funds for the Coast
Guard for 2-year periods and appropriates these monies annually in the DOT appropriations
bill. Issues for the 107th Congress include how the agency is operationally responding to new
demands and managing plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft.
Administration-supported H.R. 5005 and S 2452, as reported, would move the Coast
Guard from the Department of Transportation to the proposed Department of Homeland
Security. The proposed transfer of the Coast Guard into the proposed Department of
Homeland Security has raised the issue whether traditional functions, especially search and
rescue, will still receive a high priority in the new department. In reporting S. 2452 (S. Rept.
107-175), the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs included report language
encouraging the maintenance of non-security functions. The House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has recommended that the Coast Guard remain in the
Department of Transportation. (For further discussion on Coast Guard-related legislation,
see CRS Report RS20924, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Legislation in the 107th
Congress and CRS Report RS21125, Homeland Security: Coast Guard Operations
–Background and Issues for Congress, discusses the issues associated with this proposal.)
The Coast Guard’s major acquisition program, the “Integrated Deepwater System,”
would require an estimated $9.6 billion to fund acquisitions over 20 years beginning in
FY2002. Planning funds only were provided in FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations. In
FY2002, the first acquisition funds were appropriated ($320 million) and the FY2003 budget
seeks $500 million. A major $17 billion multi-year contract was made in June 2002. The
main issue is how effectively the Coast Guard will administer this major acquisition contract.
(For further discussion see CRS Report RS21019, Coast Guard Deepwater Program:
Background and Issues for Congress.)

The House passed under suspension an FY2002 authorization bill, H.R. 3507, on
December 20, 2001. It would authorize Coast Guard programs at $5.9 billion. Another bill,
CRS-2

---

IB10032
07-16-02
H.R.1099, the Coast Guard Personnel and Maritime Safety Act, has already passed the House
and has been referred to the Senate. A Senate authorization bill, S. 951, introduced May 24,
2001, would authorize Coast Guard programs at $5.2 billion. It was reported October 31,
2001 (S.Rept. 107-89) by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
Another House bill, H.R. 2481 reported (H.Rept 107-243) on October 16, 2001, by the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, includes numerous provisions on Coast
Guard operations. The Senate passed a port security bill S. 1214 (S.Rept. 107-64) on
December 20, 2001. On June 4, 2002, the House passed a similar bill, H.R. 3983, after
incorporating the FY2002 authorization provisions of House-passed H.R. 3507. They are
now in conference. The Senate Commerce Committee approved a seaport security bill, S.
2329, on May 17. (For further discussion of port security, see CRS Report RS21079
Maritime Security: Overview of Issues)
The Administration requested $5.056 billion for Coast Guard funding in FY2002. The
final version, P.L. 107-87 (H.Rept. 107-308, ) included $5.03 billion for the Coast Guard.
P.L. 107-20 (H.R. 2216), the FY2001 emergency supplemental appropriations bill, increased
FY2001 Coast Guard funding by $92 million. A terrorism FY2001 supplemental of
September 21, 2001, P.L. 107-38, included $18 million in additional FY2001 funds for the
recall of Coast Guard reservists, search and rescue. The terrorism supplemental, P.L. 107-118
(H.R. 3338, Division B), included $209 million in FY2002 supplemental funds for Coast
Guard terrorism-related activities.
The Administration requests budget authority of $7.275 billion for Coast Guard funding
in FY2003. Compared to the $5.702 billion appropriated in FY2002, the FY2003 request
would be $1.573 billion, or 28%, more. Planned increases of $733 million for Coast Guard
operating expenses, $92 million for acquisitions, and a new $736 retirement fund payment
account for most of the proposed increase. The chief current issue is how Coast Guard is
handling heightened security responsibilities with its many other responsibilities such as
search and rescue, and enforcement of laws and treaties. The planned $733 million increase
for operating activities is to be allocated among Homeland Security and these traditional
activities. (CRS contact: Martin Lee.)
Transportation Security
Transportation Security in the Aftermath of the September 11
Attack
The September 11, 2001 hijacking of four airliners from three different airports and the
enormous loss of life that resulted from terrorist attacks using those aircraft as weapons has
focused concerns in Congress on aviation security and on the security of the other modes of
transportation in the United States. The overarching issue for all modes is what reasonable
transportation security actions can be taken without excessively inhibiting commerce and
travel. For aviation security in particular, the issue is implementation of recently passed
transportation security legislation within the tight deadlines set forth in the Act.
On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation Security
Act (ATSA). The Act establishes a new Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
CRS-3

---

IB10032
07-16-02
headed by an Under Secretary of Transportation Security. The Under Secretary is responsible
for the security of all modes of transportation. On January 7, 2002, President Bush
announced the recess appointment of John Magaw as Under Secretary for Transportation
Security. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk.)
Aviation Security. There are three overall areas of concern in aviation security: the
screening of passengers and baggage and cargo; the security of restricted areas at an airport
(access to the aprons, taxiways, runways, baggage and cargo processing areas, etc.); and
security measures on board the aircraft (stationing of air marshals, securing of cockpit doors,
cabin video cameras, etc.). ATSA provides for a one-year transition during which federal
workers will be phased in to replace contract screeners. For the next two years federal
workers will provide all screening activities at all commercial service airports (except at five
pilot program airports that would contract private screening services under federal oversight).
After the two years (i.e. three years after enactment), airports will have the option of ending
this arrangement and contracting private companies. The Act requires the screening of all
individuals, goods, property, vehicles, and other equipment seeking access to secure areas
at airports. ATSA provides for the transfer of a greatly expanded Federal Air Marshal
program to the TSA. The marshals may be deployed on every passenger flight but must be
deployed on every flight determined to present a high security risk. ATSA also requires the
strengthening of cockpit doors and limits cockpit access to authorized persons. As of this
writing, TSA maintains that, to date, it has successfully implemented the ATSA’s provisions
within the time-line required by the Act. Despite this success so far, most observers argue
that the most difficult deadlines are the upcoming November 19, 2002 deadline to have all
federal screener personnel in place at all commercial service airports and the December 31,
2002 deadline for having all checked baggage screened by explosive detection systems
(EDS). (See Aviation Security [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter116.html] in the
CRS Terrorism Electronic Briefing Book as well as CRS Report RL31151, Aviation Security
Technology and Procedures: Screening Passengers and Baggage, and CRS Report
RL31150, Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the September 11
Attack). (CRS contacts: John Fischer and Bob Kirk.)
Surface Transportation Security. The newly created Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation, passenger
and cargo. The September 11 attack has led to increased concerns about the security of rail,
highway, pipeline, transit, and maritime transportation. World-wide, roughly one-third of
terrorist attacks target transportation systems; the most common transportation mode
attacked is public transit. Because transit systems’ effectiveness depends on ease of access
to the system, security measures common in aviation are difficult to nearly impossible to
apply. Likewise, the many miles of rail, highway, and pipeline networks are impossible to
guard thoroughly. Of particular concern are the daily shipments by rail and truck of
hazardous materials (especially flammable and poisonous gases). Seaports, which are
typically located in large urban areas, are also vulnerable to attack as are the inland cities to
which containers are shipped, often without inspection. DOT has asked the domestic
transportation industry to assume a heightened state of alert and to take security measures
accordingly. One of the items the TSA is working on in surface modes is establishing a
standardized credentialing program for transportation workers to ensure that only authorized
workers have access to secure areas. Numerous bills have been introduced in the 107th
Congress to address surface and maritime security concerns. (See Surface Transportation
Systems [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter151.html] in the CRS Terrorism
CRS-4

---

IB10032
07-16-02
Electronic Briefing Book) (CRS contacts: Transit-D. Randy Peterman; Railroads and
Seaports-John Frittelli; and Highways and Pipelines-Paul Rothberg.)
Transportation Security Funding. ATSA authorizes such sums as may be
necessary for aviation security for FY2002, FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005. To pay the costs
of the new and expanded aviation security programs, ATSA authorizes a passenger fee of
$2.50 per enplanement (capped at $5 per one-way ticket; projected annual revenue $1.5
billion). Additional funds may be appropriated or come from a fee imposed on air carriers
(projected annual revenue, $1.5 billion). The Act authorizes a total of $1.5 billion for
FY2002 and FY2003 to reimburse airport operators and on-airport service providers for the
cost of post-September 11 FAA security mandates. ATSA also authorizes $500 million for
air carriers to defray the costs of security enhancements to aircraft such as fortifying cockpit
doors or installing video surveillance cameras. In addition, the eligibility of Airport
Improvement Program and Passenger Facility Charge grants for security purposes is
expanded significantly.
The 2001 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and
Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-38) provided $40 billion for
anti-terrorism security including for transportation security purposes. Just under $2 billion
went to DOT. On March 21, 2002, the Bush Administration requested an FY2002
emergency supplemental appropriation of $27.1 billion that included $4.4 billion for TSA,
$255 million for the Coast Guard, $167 million for the FHWA, $19.3 million for the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s Border Enforcement Program, $3.5 million to upgrade
and convert the DOT’s Crisis Management Center into a new Transportation Information
Operations Center, and $1.8 billion for the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) to fully
fund rebuilding of public mass transportation in Manhattan. The total request for
transportation is $6.645 billion. The House and Senate-passed versions of the supplemental
(H.R. 4775) would provide $5.075 billion and $7.428 billion, respectively. For FY2003,
President bush has proposed a TSA budget of $4.8 billion. Some observers argue that this
proposed level will be insufficient and predict that further supplemental appropriations will
be needed. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk.)
Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety
The 107th Congress is likely to consider several bills that would reauthorize the
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended (including P.L. 93-633 and
P.L. 101-500). That body of law specifies the broad purposes and operating authorities for
DOT’s hazardous materials (hazmat) safety program. Although hearings were held during
the 106th Congress, none of the committees of jurisdiction reported out a reauthorization bill.
Among the key issues under consideration are: the level of funding to support DOT’s hazmat
emergency preparedness grant program; development of cost-effective strategies to improve
further hazmat safety; proposed exemptions for various industries from the safety
regulations; and the appropriate role of DOT in the regulation of hazmat transportation.
Similar issues are likely to be debated during the 107th Congress. For additional information
see: CRS Report RS20580, Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety–Federal Program
and Legislative Issues. (CRS contact: Paul Rothberg.)
CRS-5

---

IB10032
07-16-02
Pipeline Security and Safety
The terrorists attacks of September 11, 2001, have placed increased emphasis on
pipeline security. S. 235, as amended, the “Pipeline Safety Improvement Act of 2001,”
passed the Senate. S. 517, as amended, includes the previously passed Senate pipeline safety
bill (S. 235) plus a new provision seeking a balance between the release of information to
meet “community right to know” interests and the withholding of security-sensitive data
about pipeline vulnerabilities. S. 517, as amended, has been included with minor changes
into the Senate-passed version of the omnibus energy bill, H.R. 4. Different versions of H.R.
3609, the “Pipeline Infrastructure Protection To Enhance Security and Safety Act,” have been
reported out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee.
The 107th Congress is considering legislation that would amend federal pipeline safety
law, which directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation
and storage of natural gases and hazardous liquids. Those bills also would authorize funding
for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT),
which is charged with implementing federal pipeline safety law. Among the topics discussed
as part of the process of reauthorizing the OPS program are: qualification requirements for
pipeline operators, integrity management of pipelines, funding amounts to support OPS and
the grant programs it administers, state versus federal roles in pipeline safety, and increased
community involvement in pipeline safety.(CRS contact: Paul Rothberg.)
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the relationships
between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget. The Transportation
Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21)(P.L. 105-178) linked spending for highway
programs directly to revenue collections for the highway trust fund. In addition, core highway
and mass transit program funding were given special status in the discretionary portion of the
federal budget by virtue of the creation of two new budget categories. The Act thereby
creates a virtual “firewall” around highway and mass transportation spending programs. The
funding guarantees are set up in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered
as part of the annual budget/appropriations process. Additional highway funds can be
provided annually by a mechanism called “Revenue Aligned Budget Authority” (RABA).
RABA funds accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased trust fund revenues. For
FY2003, however, the RABA adjustment would lead to a significant and unexpected drop
in the availability of highway obligational funding. It now appears that Congress will restore
at least some of this funding.
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called “guarantee” for Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is
significantly different from that provided by TEA21. Instead of creating new budget
categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two point-of-order rules for the House
CRS-6

---

IB10032
07-16-02
and the Senate. Supporters of FAIR21 believe the new law requires significant new spending
on aviation programs; and, for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, new spending was
significantly higher. Most observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being
somewhat weaker than those provided by TEA21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive
points-of-order during consideration of legislation. Enactment of TEA21 and FAIR21 means
that transportation appropriators have total control over spending for the Coast Guard, the
Federal Railroad Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies.
All of these agencies are concerned about their funding prospects in a constrained budgetary
environment. For more information, see CRS Report 98-749E, The Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Federal Budget and CRS Report RS20177, Airport
and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress. (CRS contact: John Fischer.)
Highway Finance, FY2003: The RABA Dilemma
According to estimates by the Department of Transportation (DOT), revenues (fuel
taxes and other fees) accruing to the Highway Trust Fund decreased in FY2001 as a result
high fuel prices and the onset of the recession. Most of the decrease in the transportation
sector seems to be related to problems in the trucking industry. The RABA process created
by TEA21 requires that federal highway obligational authority be adjusted accordingly. In
simple terms, this means that the RABA adjustment for FY2003 is a negative $4.369 billion.
Core highway program obligational authority for FY2003 will therefore be limited to
approximately $23.3 billion, a $8.6 billion reduction from the FY2002 level.
This is an unexpected and unwelcome development for state and local governments
whose long-term transportation improvement plans (TIPs) are largely predicated on
continued growth in the federal contribution to highway-program funding. The RABA
situation is equally unwelcome among those interests that build roads or associated
transportation infrastructure and those who support continued highway improvements.
Concern has been expressed that DOT’s estimates are incorrect. Some national travel
indicators do not indicate any significant falloff in travel. The House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure has already asked that the General Accounting Office
(GAO) investigate how DOT and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) arrived at
the $5 billion negative RABA figure. The effects of the RABA reduction would not be felt
immediately; highway construction is a multi-year process. DOT is suggesting that the
RABA reduction would reduce the government’s ability to spend on highway projects by
only 1.8% in FY2003. Longer term, however, the effects of this decrease would be dramatic.
Hearings on this issue have already been held on this issue in both the House and the
Senate. At this time legislation that would restore the highway program to its authorized level
of $27.7 billion by raising the existing limitation on obligations has been introduced, H.R.
3694 and S. 1917. A majority of both the House and Senate have signed on as cosponsors
of this legislation. An amended version of H.R. 3694 was reported out of the House
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure on May 1st. A second legislative approach
introduced more recently, H.R. 3900 would also restore the program to its authorized level,
but would do so by eliminating the entire RABA program for FY2003. Finally, the House
Budget Committee has passed a budget that allows sufficient new outlay authority to for the
program to operate at the $27.7 billion level. A bill passed by the Senate Budget Committee
CRS-7

---

IB10032
07-16-02
would raise the FY2003 spending level by an additional $1.3 billion over the House level.
(CRS contact: John Fischer.)
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) (Function 400 in the
federal budget) provide funding to a variety of programs that include regulatory, safety,
research, and construction activities.
Money for over half of DOT programs comes from highway fuel taxes, which are
credited to the highway trust fund. In turn, the trust fund supports two accounts: the federal-
aid highway account and the mass transit account. Aviation programs are also supported, in
part, by fuel taxes but rely more heavily on other user fees such as the airline ticket tax. The
DOT annual appropriations also include significant monies from Treasury general-fund
revenues.
Table 1. Department of Transportation Appropriations
(for selected agencies, in millions)
Agency
Enacted Requested
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2002
FY2003
Passed
Passed
FY2003
Federal Highway Administration
33,081
24,694
--
--
--
Federal Aviation Administration
13,512
13,582
--
--
--
Federal Transit Administration
6,871
7,226
--
--
--
United States Coast Guard
5,240
5,893
--
--
--
Transportation Security Administration
2,200
4,800
--
--
--
Federal Railroad Administration
840
711
--
--
--
National Highway Traffic Safety
423
425
--
--
--
Administration
Office of the Secretary
155
141
--
--
--
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
52
57
--
--
--
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
18
18
--
--
--
Source: Figures in Table 2 are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. Some figures
include offsetting collections. Enacted FY2002 figures have been adjusted to reflect the emergency supplemental,
rescissions, additional appropriations, transfers, and carry-overs.
The FY2002 enacted appropriation (P.L. 107-87) for DOT is $59.6 billion. This is 2.5%
above the $58.1 billion provided for FY2001 and 6% above the $56.1 billion requested by
the Bush Administration. Table 2 shows, for selected agencies and offices that receive
funding under the DOT appropriations act each year, the amounts enacted for FY2002, as
well as the FY2003 amounts proposed by the Bush Administration.
Following the September 11 terrorist attack Congress quickly passed the 2001
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Recovery from and Response to Terrorist
Attacks on the United States (P.L. 107-38). The Act provided $40 billion for a variety of
responses to the attacks, including “providing for increased transportation security.” P.L.
107-38 provided roughly $1.9 billion for transportation security purposes, most of which
went to the new Transportation Security Administration.
CRS-8

---

IB10032
07-16-02
On February 4, 2002, President Bush submitted his FY2003 budget request. For DOT,
the budget requests just over $59 billion (the Administration figure includes some proposed
user fees and offsets normally not included in Appropriations Committee figures, which total
$56.1 billion). This would represent a slight decrease from FY2002; however, this decrease
is not evenly spread. The features of the budget that have generated the most interest are the
impact of the $4.369 billion RABA reduction on highway spending, the large increase in the
Transportation Security Administration budget, and the record increase for the Coast Guard.
For more information see CRS Report RL31008, Appropriations for FY2002: Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Aviation
FAA’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP)
The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport
development and planning. AIP grants are usually spent on capital projects that support
airport operations including runways, taxiways, aprons, and noise abatement. A number of
issues that could be subject to congressional scrutiny in the 107th Congress include: whether
the pattern of spending of both AIP grants and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues
encourage competition or benefit incumbent carriers; how well FAIR21's spending
guarantees hold up; the effectiveness of aircraft noise mitigation at or near airports; the
earmarking of dollar amounts for airports identified in the report language of the FY2001 and
FY2002 conference reports (H. Rept. 106-940; H. Rept. 107-308) and impact this extensive
earmarking on the FAA’s grant application process; and the impact of the use of AIP grants
to defray post-September airport security costs on the availability of funding for AIP’s other
traditional priorities of assuring safety, stimulating capacity and mitigating airport noise.
President Bush’s FY2003 budget called for funding AIP at the fully authorized level of
$3.4 billion. The enacted FY2002 DOT appropriations bill (P.L. 107-87) provided $3.3
billion. In addition, the FY2002 Department of Defense Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-117)
provided $175 million of funds made available under the 2001 Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-38) for reimbursement to airports for direct costs associated
with additional or revised security requirements since September 11. The recently passed
House and Senate versions of the FY2002 supplemental appropriations bill (H.R. 4775)
would provide an additional $200 million and $100 million, respectively, for AIP security
related grants.
The September 11 terrorist attack led to increased interest in using AIP and PFC funds
for security projects. Following the attack FAA lifted some policies that restricted AIP
funding to broaden its use for security improvements. AIP and PFC funds can be used a
broad range of security projects including, blast fences, bomb detection dogs and kennels,
cameras, security lighting, body armor, reconstruction of terminals to isolate threats, cargo
area security equipment or facilities, and others. Items that remained ineligible included,
personnel costs, utility costs, maintenance costs, and operational costs. Provisions in ATSA
(P.L. 107-71) broaden eligibility for FY2002 to cover the costs to airports of post-September
11 security mandates. Also eligible in FY2002 are payment for debt service to certain airport
sponsors under certain conditions. For non-primary airports affected by post-September 11
airspace restrictions, FY2002-FY2003 AIP apportionments can be used to defray any costs
CRS-9

---

IB10032
07-16-02
incurred while the restriction was in effect. For more information on AIP, see CRS Issue
Brief IB10026, Airport Improvement Program. (CRS contact: Bob Kirk.)
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
Congress and the Bush Administration moved swiftly to provide the airline industry
with federal financial support in the wake of the events of September 11, 2001. The Air
Transportation Safety and System Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) signed into law on
September 22, 2001, gives the airlines access to up to $15 billion in short-term assistance.
The first $5 billion, now largely paid out, provides direct aid to pay for industry losses
associated with the results of the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. Access to the
remaining $10 billion, available as guaranteed loans, is subject to approval by the Air
Transportation Stabilization Board and to stringent regulatory requirements established by
the Office of Management and Budget. To date, the Board has approved a loan for America
West Airlines and tentatively approved a loan for US Airways. Only a few other airlines have
applied for loan funds, most notably United and ATA.
In the time since the attacks, significant airline employee layoffs and scheduled-flight
reductions have taken place. United and American, for example, both announced layoffs of
20,000 employees and both announced schedule reductions of approximately 20%. Other
airlines made similar announcements, and layoffs industry-wide exceed 100,000, although
some of these individuals are now starting to be rehired. Over 1,000 aircraft are now in
storage and additional aircraft, primarily Boeing 727s, have been retired. The actions of the
airlines are obviously affecting related industries. Boeing announced layoffs of up to 30,000
employees by the end of 2002, and expects to reduce production of new aircraft
proportionately. Airline service providers, such as caterers, airports, and the travel industry,
are also losing revenue.
The airline industry was already in financial trouble before the attacks. Most Wall Street
analysts were projecting an overall financial loss for the industry in the range of $1-$2 billion
for 2001. Actual losses for 2001, largely due to September 11, were over $7 billion. Losses
are now expected to continue well into 2002. There are concerns that continued financial
problems could lead to airline business failures and to a new round of airline mergers in the
foreseeable future.
Even with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board in place, the issue of how aid will
ultimately be distributed remains an issue. This is because of a clear desire amongst
policymakers to limit aid to a level needed to stabilize the industry, but not to pay for losses
incurred by the industry before September 11. Further, there is concern that the industry
remain competitive after its financial stabilization. This means making sure that any aid
distribution scheme ensures that a sufficient number of airlines survive the current turmoil.
(CRS contact: John Fischer)
CRS-10

---

IB10032
07-16-02
Surface Transportation
Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21
Meeting public needs for surface transportation, while ensuring that the protection of
the environment is not comprised, has been a longstanding issue among states and affected
communities in local areas. TEA21 authorized funding for federal highway and mass transit
programs from FY1998 to FY2003, and set aside approximately $12.5 billion for several
programs to mitigate the environmental impacts of surface transportation. Most of this
funding is reserved for air quality projects to assist states in complying with federal air
quality standards. The law also increased funding for environmentally related transportation
enhancements, established several new programs, and required the Secretary of
Transportation to streamline the environmental review process for highway projects. For
additional information, refer to CRS Report 98-646 ENR, Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (P.L. 105-178): An Overview of Environmental Protection Provisions.
In the 107th Congress, several oversight hearings have been held to examine the
Department of Transportation’s implementation of TEA21, and oversight of the law’s
environmental provisions has focused on the implementation of requirements to streamline
the environmental review process for highway projects. While the law did not specify a
deadline for meeting these requirements, some Members of Congress have expressed
concerns over the pace at which implementation has proceeded. Final regulations to
implement the environmental streamlining requirements under TEA21 have not been issued
to date. However, the FHWA has proposed regulations for a coordinated environmental
review process that address some of the provisions of TEA21, signed a National
Memorandum of Understanding with six other federal agencies, and established a pilot
program to gain practical experiences in exercising the principles of streamlining before
applying them on a national scale. The Administration has requested $6 million to support
the FHWA’s streamlining initiatives in FY2003, about $3 million more than in FY2002. In
addition to federal efforts, numerous states are implementing a variety of demonstration
projects that may help to identify environmental requirements earlier in the planning stage
and speed the review process.
The FHWA’s proposed streamlining regulations have been at the center of the oversight
debate. Some Members of Congress have criticized the proposal for not fully addressing the
streamlining requirements under TEA21, and for addressing other planning and regulatory
issues not required under the law. Some of the principal criticisms are that there is no
requirement for environmental reviews to be conducted concurrently, rather than
sequentially, and to be completed within a cooperatively determined time period. Thus far,
this requirement has only been addressed outside of the regulatory process through a
memorandum of understanding with the federal agencies that are responsible for performing
environmental reviews. Some Members also have criticized the proposal for not fulfilling
the law’s requirement to develop procedures for resolving disputes when federal agencies do
not complete their reviews within mutually agreed upon time frames. To address this
requirement, the FHWA has been working with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict
Resolution, and has issued a discussion draft for dispute resolution procedures, which the
Administration expects to complete by the end of 2002. The Department of Transportation
reports that its proposal lacked regulatory requirements to establish time frames for review,
CRS-11

---

IB10032
07-16-02
and to resolve disputes, due to its absence of authority over other federal agencies and a
concern that “one-size-fits-all” approaches could limit flexibility. A decision on whether to
proceed with the original regulatory proposal, or to withdraw it and possibly draft a new
proposal, has not been announced to date. Congressional oversight of this issue will likely
continue as the Department of Transportation proceeds with its streamlining initiatives and
as Congress considers the reauthorization of TEA21. For additional information, refer to
CRS Report RS20841, Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity
Act for the 21st Century: Status of Implementation. (CRS contact: David Bearden)
Traffic Congestion
The Economist and others estimate that delays caused by congestion cost the United
States $100 billion per year. Most of these estimates are predicated on assigning a dollar
value to time lost by individuals and businesses as a result of people and products being
stuck in traffic. Sometimes these estimates also include energy and pollution costs. By
necessity these estimates are very generalized. Nonetheless, these estimates are illustrative
of a massive problem for American society. There are few individuals living near major
urbanized areas who could honestly claim to be unaffected by congestion-caused delays.
In the last several decades there have been numerous attempts to reduce traffic
congestion, primarily at the state, local, and regional levels. DOT has often provided funding
for specific projects, and has offered the expertise of its employees in the battle against
congestion. The crux of federal transportation spending, however, has been and continues
to be aimed at overall infrastructure improvement, while air quality improvement, congestion
improvement, and other issues essentially have been secondary goals. There is a sense that
there is no one good solution to congestion problems and that successful congestion
reduction strategies require multiple remedies. New infrastructure alone, at the level currently
being constructed, has not been able to stay ahead of the congestion problem. Efforts aimed
at alleviating congestion by changing individual travel behaviors have also been largely
unsuccessful.
During the 107th Congress, discussion will begin on how, or whether, to modify the
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Congestion issues can be expected
to play a major role in this discussion, especially as regards changes to specific federal
initiatives such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), whose
purpose is to fund projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas
for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and small particulate matter (PM-10) which reduce
transportation related emissions. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
has already held several hearings on this subject. (CRS contact: John Fischer.)
Amtrak Funding
In June of 2002, Amtrak announced that it had lost access to its line of short-term credit,
and consequently needed $205 million from the Federal government to continue operating
until the end of the fiscal year (September 30). Otherwise, it would have to begin shutting
down its system in July. The DOT agreed to provide Amtrak with a $100 million loan
guarantee on June 28, in exchange for certain conditions, saying that it would be up to
Congress to provide the remaining $105 million.
CRS-12

---

IB10032
07-16-02
The Administration’s FY2003 budget requests $521 million for Amtrak, while noting
that figure is only a placeholder while the Administration develops a proposal for Amtrak
reauthorization. However, in statements during the negotiations to keep Amtrak operating,
DOT Secretary Mineta said the Administration would oppose any efforts to provide Amtrak
with more than $521 million for FY2003 unless Amtrak was reorganized. Secretary Mineta
presented a list of principles for Amtrak reform; they include eliminating Federal operating
support, separating ownership of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure train operations,
introducing competition for certain routes, and sharing responsibility for passenger rail
service between the Federal government and the states. These reforms are extensive; given
the time remaining before FY2003 begins, and the other issues Congress is dealing with, it
is unlikely that Congress could develop and pass Amtrak reauthorization legislation even if
there was consensus on the Administration’s principles, which there certainly is not.
Amtrak’s new President, David Gunn, who was appointed on April 28, 2002, has said that
if Amtrak does not receive at least $1.2 billion in FY2003, it would not be able to operate
throughout the year and would again face a shutdown.
Amtrak earns around $2 billion a year. Unfortunately, it spends nearly $3 billion a year,
producing operating deficits of around $900 million in recent years. In addition, it has
around $3 billion in long-term debt and capital lease obligations, and nearly $6 billion in
backlogged capital maintenance work. In the summer of 2001, Amtrak mortgaged part of
its Pennsylvania Station in New York City to raise $300 million to cover operating expenses
until the start of FY2002. At that time, the Secretary of Transportation observed that it was
clear that Amtrak would not be able to cover its operating expenses without federal support
by December 2002, as is called for by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997
(P.L. 105-134). This observation was formalized by the Amtrak Reform Council in
November 2001, when it declared that Amtrak will not meet the deadline set by the Act; in
accordance with the Act, the Reform Council submitted a plan to restructure Amtrak on
February 7, 2002. Amtrak’s authorization expires at the end of FY2002.
Four Amtrak reauthorization bills have been introduced. The National Defense Rail Act
(S. 1991) would authorize $14.5 billion for Amtrak over the next five years and remove the
requirement that Amtrak be operationally self-sufficient after December 2002. It would also
direct the Secretary of Transportation to develop a national high-speed rail transportation
policy and provide for federal support in both planning and implementing high-speed rail
corridors; it would authorize $9.3 billion over six years for that purpose. It would also
increase the authorization for the Rail Revitalization and Regulatory Reform Act of 1976 to
$35 billion. This bill was reported out of the Senate Commerce Committee on April 18,
2002.
The Rail Passenger Service Improvement Act (S. 1958) would authorize $1 billion for
operations, $3.6 billion for capital improvements, and $1.4 billion for safety and security
improvements for Amtrak over the next four years. It would require Amtrak to divide itself
into three separate subsidiaries with transparent accounting systems, and these organizations
would be privatized within four years of passage of the bill. The bill would also allow
competition for passenger rail operations through franchising of various routes. Amtrak
would turn over control of the Northeast Corridor to the Department of Transportation, and
by October 1, 2002, would cease operating any route whose revenue does not cover its
expense unless Amtrak has an agreement with some entity that will cover the deficit.
CRS-13

---

IB10032
07-16-02
The Railroad Advancement and Infrastructure Law for the 21st Century (S. 1530; RAIL-
21) would remove the requirement that Amtrak operate without federal support for operating
costs by December 2002 that was created by the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of
1997. It would also reauthorize Amtrak for one year (at $1.2 million); authorize $3.2 billion
in emergency spending on security personnel, infrastructure improvements and new
equipment for Amtrak over the next two years; and increase the authorization for the
Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing loan and loan guarantee program to $35
billion. No action has been taken on this bill.
H.R. 4545 would reauthorize Amtrak for one year at $1.9 billion; it would also require
that Amtrak’s appropriation be administered by the Department of Transportation, rather than
being given to the corporation directly. This provision is controversial; supporters say it
would increase Amtrak’s accountability. This bill was reported out of the Railroad
Subcommittee of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee, but has been held
up in the full committee by the Chairman’s insistence that it pass with H.R. 2950, which
authorizes funding for construction of high-speed rail lines, but which is stalled over labor
issues.
After September 11th, Amtrak ridership rose nationwide as some travelers sought
alternatives to flying. Also, heightened airline security increased the amount of time required
for air travel, making train travel more competitive in some corridors. However, this surge
in ridership proved temporary; by November, Amtrak’s ridership declined as Americans cut
back on travel. Moreover, while Amtrak revenues rose in the weeks after September 11th,
so did its security costs. S. 1550, the Rail Security Act of 2001, would provide $1.77 billion
in emergency assistance to Amtrak for security needs, including both new security personnel
and equipment and life-safety improvements to the escape routes of tunnels in New York.
It also calls for a DOT study of security improvements needed for rail transportation. S.
1991 would authorize $1.3 to Amtrak for security and life-safety needs. These bills have
been passed out of committee. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Amtrak Oversight
Amtrak’s current authorization expires at the end of FY2002. Its previous authorizing
legislation, the Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134), requires
Amtrak to operate without using federal funds to cover operating expenses by the end of
FY2002; that is, to be able to cover its operating expenses out of revenues. The Amtrak
Reform Council, a creation of the Act, is to notify the Congress if it judges that Amtrak will
not meet that goal. On November 9, 2001 the Council formally declared that Amtrak would
not meet the deadline. However, the Act does not prescribe any penalty if Amtrak fails to
meet that goal. The Act provides that the Council is to present a plan for a restructured
national intercity rail passenger system to Congress within 90 days of that finding (i.e., by
February 7, 2002); the Act also calls for Amtrak to present a plan to liquidate itself to
Congress by the same date. After receipt of these plans, the Act gives Congress 90 working
days to pass a restructuring plan; failing that, a liquidation disapproval resolution is to be
introduced in the Senate. However, nothing is prescribed in the Act in case that resolution
passes or fails. Also, a provision in the FY2002 Defense Appropriation Act conference
committee report (H.Rept. 107-350, p. 448) prohibits Amtrak from using any of its own
revenues or appropriated funds to develop a liquidation plan until after enactment of an
Amtrak reauthorization act.
CRS-14

---

IB10032
07-16-02
The Amtrak Reform Council’s restructuring plan, submitted to Congress on February
7, 2002, recommends separating Amtrak into three components–operations, infrastructure,
and policy planning–and increasing federal capital spending on passenger rail, including
establishing a Rail Infrastructure Trust Fund. It also encourages the idea of introducing
competition by franchising the operation of trains and Northeast Corridor maintenance
through competitive bidding.1 The notion is to put passenger rail service in a situation
comparable to other transportation modes, where infrastructure is a government
responsibility and operations are a commercial responsibility. For more information on
Amtrak, see CRS Report RL30659, Amtrak: Overview and Options. (CRS contact: D.
Randy Peterman.)
High Speed Rail Infrastructure Funding
In the first session of the 107th Congress, Amtrak and its congressional supporters
sought, but failed to achieve, the passage of the High-Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001
(107th Congress: S. 250, H.R. 2329). Under the bill, Amtrak would be allowed to raise up
to $12 billion over the next 10 years by issuing up to $1.2 billion in bonds each year to pay
for track improvements in the 11 high-speed rail corridors designated by the Department of
Transportation.2 The bonds would not pay interest; instead the bondholders would be
eligible to deduct from their taxes an amount equivalent to interest on the bonds. The
General Accounting Office and the Congressional Budget Office have estimated the total
cost of these bills, over the 30-year life of the program, at between $7 and $10 billion in 2001
dollars, while estimating that they would raise around $8 billion in 2001 dollars.3
Participating states would provide a 20% match, which would be used to redeem the bonds.
Given the uncertainty about Amtrak’s financial and institutional future, it is unclear how
attractive bonds offered by Amtrak would be to the market right now. Critics also observe
that $12 billion, divided among the 11 federal high-speed corridors, is only a fraction of the
amount needed to make high-speed rail service a reality. Also, some critics are not
convinced that Amtrak should be the one to manage such investments.
An alternative approach to funding, providing financial assistance for high-speed
passenger rail infrastructure through states rather than through Amtrak, is proposed in H.R.
2950, the “Rail Infrastructure Development and Expansion Act for the 21st Century” (RIDE-
21). It would authorize states or groups of states to issue up to $36 billion in tax-exempt
bonds over 10 years to develop high-speed rail corridors. In addition, RIDE-21 would
increase the authorization for the Railroad Rehabilitation and Infrastructure Financing loan
and loan guarantee program from $3.5 billion to $35 billion (recipients of loans can include
state, groups of state, and rail operators, including Amtrak as well as freight rail companies).
1 The report is available at [http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov]
2 For a map of the high-speed rail corridors, see [http://www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/states/index.htm]
3 General Accounting Office, The High-Speed Rail Investment Act of 2001 (S. 250); GAO-01-756R,
June 25, 2001; Congressional Budget Office, A Financial Analysis of H.R. 2329, The High-Speed
Rail Investment Act of 2001, September 2001.
CRS-15

---

IB10032
07-16-02
Thus, this bill would make up to $71 billion available for rail improvements, at an estimated
cost to the federal government of $6 billion.4
The reason RIDE-21 could provide so much more money than the High-Speed Rail
Investment Act of 2001 at less cost to the federal government is that most of the money
would come from the states. Critics observe that states already have the power to issue tax-
exempt bonds to pay for improvements to rail infrastructure; what holds them back is not the
limit on the amount of bonds they have outstanding, which this bill would raise, but rather
the question of where the money to pay off the bonds would come from, especially at a time
when state revenues are falling. This bill is stalled in the full Transportation & Infrastructure
Committee over labor issues.
The National Defense Rail Act (S. 1991) would require the Secretary of Transportation
to develop a national high-speed rail transportation policy and allow the Secretary to provide
both planning and implementation assistance to states in developing high-speed rail
corridors. The federal share for such projects would be 100 percent. The bill would authorize
$1.55 billion annually for FY2003-FY2008 for these purposes. This bill has passed out of
committee. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Railroad Safety Reauthorization
The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the primary federal agency that promotes
and regulates railroad safety. The development of new or revised regulations, the assessment
of the safety operations of railroads, and the promotion of compliance with the federal safety
regulations form the core of FRA’s safety program. The combined impact of FRA’s
activities, billions of dollars of investment in railroad infrastructure, as well as many other
industry and labor initiatives, have yielded improvements in the long-term safety record of
the railroad industry, especially during the last 20 years. Nevertheless, a tragic and
well-publicized train crash historically occurs every few years that heightens interest in
railroad safety. Further improvements in both rail safety and FRA’s safety regulations and
programs are possible, but each approach has its own potential benefits and costs.
The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994, and its funding
authority expired at the end of FY1998. FRA’s safety programs continue using the authorities
specified in existing railroad safety law and the funds that are appropriated annually. The
reauthorization process provides an opportunity to review federal policies and programs, to
consider the current state of railroad safety, and to explore various options intended to further
improve the long-term safety record. Some of the issues likely to be debated as part of the
reauthorization process include: Should railroads be required to implement operator fatigue
management plans? Should the hours-of-service regulations be extended to cover additional
railroad workers? What should be done, if anything, to deal more effectively with alleged
harassment and intimidation of railroad workers? What might be done to further reduce death
and injury at highway-rail grade crossings? Should FRA’s current safety program simply be
reauthorized without any new authorities or regulatory mandates? Forging new legislation
4 The cost estimate appears in a September 25, 2001, press release from the House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, “Historic Rail Infrastructure Legislation Introduced In U.S.
House,” available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/
CRS-16

---

IB10032
07-16-02
in the railroad safety arena is difficult, especially when a balance is sought among the
interests of public safety, railroad labor, and management. For more information, see CRS
Issue Brief IB10030, Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues. (CRS
contact: Paul Rothberg.)
Maritime
Harbor Maintenance Funding
User fees for deepening harbor channels for ships and for maintaining current depths
by dredging were established in 1986. The fees cover the federal contribution to the cost of
such services. Prior to 1986, the federal contribution came from the General Fund of the U.S.
Treasury. On March 31, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the portion of the user fees
levied on exports to be unconstitutional, and such collections were discontinued. Fees on
imports continue to be collected. However, these have generated opposition from foreign
countries, which oppose import fees on the basis that such fees unfairly discriminate against
imports. On August 24, 1998, the Clinton Administration proposed a new user-fee system
based on the cargo-carrying capacity of the vessel, the type of ship, and the number of times
the ship enters or leaves a port. The Administration included the proposal again as part of its
FY2001 budget, but the new user fee was not approved during the 106th Congress. It was
opposed by most shipping groups, including representatives of ports, because they prefer
using monies obtained from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury rather than levying a user
fee to pay for harbor maintenance. In August, 2001, Representative Borski introduced the
Support for Harbor Investment Program (SHIP) Act (H.R. 2737). The bill would repeal the
user fee and fund dredging from the General Fund. For additional information, see CRS
Report RL31264, Harbor Maintenance Funding. (CRS contact: John Frittelli.)
CRS-17

---