Order Code IB10032
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues
in the 107th Congress
Updated September 4, 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
09-04-02
Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
(RABA). RABA funds accrue to the trust
tion issues facing the 107th Congress.
fund as a result of increased trust fund
revenues. For FY2003, revenues will
Department of Homeland Security. The
decrease, with an estimated year-over-year
House has passed an Administration proposal
$8.6 billion drop in the availability of highway
to create a new cabinet-level Department of
obligational funding. The second FY2002
Homeland Security (H.R. 5005, introduced by
emergency supplemental appropriations bill
request). The new department would consoli-
(P.L. 107-206) contained a provision that
date the antiterrorist activities of 22 federal
blocked the RABA adjustment for FY2003.
agencies and would transfer the Transporta-
The net effect of this provision is to set
tion Security Administration (TSA) and Coast
program spending at its authorized $27.7
Guard from the DOT to the new department.
billion level. It remains to be seen whether
The Senate is considering a bill that is similar
pending legislation in the House and Senate to
but contains personnel provisions that are
increase spending above authorized levels will
opposed by the Administration. Major Coast
be enacted.
Guard issues include the President’s proposal
to transfer the Coast Guard from DOT to the
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil.
new Department of Homeland Security; re-
Following September 11th, Congress and the
placing aging vessels; and addressing ex-
Administration moved quickly to pass the Air
panded operational responsibilities
Transportation Safety and System
Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) to provide
On Nov. 19, 2001, the President signed the
airlines access to up to $15 billion in short-
Aviation and Transportation Security Act
term assistance. The first $5 billion, now
(ATSA), establishing the Transportation
largely paid out, provided direct aid for
Security Administration. Congress is expected
industry losses associated with the Sept. 11th
to continue to pay close attention to the secu-
attacks. Access to the remaining $10 billion,
rity of all modes of transportation as the
available as guaranteed loans, is subject to
ATSA is implemented. Transportation secu-
approval by the Air Transportation
rity funding has been authorized through
Stabilization Board. To date, the Board has
FY2005. The major issue for all modes is
approved a loan for America West Airlines
what reasonable transportation security mea-
and tentatively approved a loan for US
sures can be taken without excessively inhibit-
Airways.
ing commerce and travel. Increased emphasis
is also being placed on the security of pipe-
Amtrak. Amtrak’s current authorization
lines and transport of hazardous materials.
expires at the end of FY2002. Because of
Amtrak’s financial situation, Congress faces
Transportation Budgeting. Under the
questions about Amtrak’s future. In recent
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
years, Amtrak has run operating deficits of
(TEA21), spending for highway and transit
about $900 million. Various bills have been
programs is linked directly to revenue
introduced in the 107th Congress to
collected, with additional highway funds
reauthorize Amtrak. Congress provided $205
provided through a mechanism called
million in emergency funding to Amtrak to
“Revenue Aligned Budget Authority”
prevent an imminent shutdown.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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 26, 2002, the House passed H.R. 5005, as amended, to
create a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security. As passed, the bill closely
resembles the plan put forward by President Bush. In the Senate the National Homeland
Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002 (S. 2452) was agreed to by the Committee
on Governmental affairs on July 25, 2002. On August 1, 2002, Senator Lieberman submitted
S. Amdt.4467 (which corresponds to the text of S. 2452) as a substitute amendment to H.R.
5005. The Senate began consideration of H.R. 5005 on September 4, 2002. For the most
part the transportation security provisions could be considered to be in conformance with
the President’s plan. The major area of conflict in the debate in the Senate, and perhaps in
conference, is the President’s promise to veto any bill that does not include provisions for
increased flexibility in organizing, hiring, firing, and managing the new department’s
personnel.
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.
On July 26, 2002, the House passed an amended version of H.R.5005 which was
substantially in conformance with President Bush’s plan. The House-passed bill did,
however, include some modifications of the plan as unveiled. The Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) would be transferred, to the new department, as a distinct entity and
would remain a distinct entity for two years. In addition, the bill would: prohibit the use of
funds derived from the transportation trust funds to be transferred or otherwise made
CRS-1

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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 airport 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. The bill also includes a provision that,
in effect, gives airports an extra year to meet the requirement that all checked baggage be
screened for explosives. The bill accomplishes this by allowing airports that cannot make
the modifications to their terminal buildings needed to accept explosive detection systems
(EDS) in a cost effective manner by the December 31, 2002 deadline, to submit a plans for
completing the necessary modifications by December 31, 2003.
In the Senate the National Homeland Security and Combating Terrorism Act of 2002
(S. 2452) was agreed to by the Committee on Governmental affairs on July 25, 2002. For
the most part the transportation security provisions could be considered to be in conformance
with the President’s plan. S. 2452 does, however, differ from H. R. 5005's transportation
security provisions in that S. 2452, as reported, does not require that the TSA be maintained
as an entity within the DHS for two years, does not extend the EDS deadline, and does not
prohibit the use of transportation trust fund revenues for the proposed department.
What has emerged as the major area of conflict in the upcoming debate in the Senate,
and perhaps in conference, is the President’s promise to veto any bill that does not include
provisions for increased flexibility in organizing, hiring, firing, and managing the new
department’s personnel. (See CRS Report RS21244, Department of Homeland Security:
Should the Transportation Security Administration Be Included?; CRS Report RL31513,
Homeland Security: Side-by-side Comparison of H.R. 5005 and S. 2452, 107th Congress;
CRS Report RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: proposals to Consolidate Border
and Transportation Security Agencies). (CRS contact: Bob Kirk.)
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 House-passed H.R. 5005 and S 2452, as approved, would
move the Coast Guard from the Department of Transportation to the proposed Department
of Homeland Security. The proposed transfer has raised the issue whether traditional
functions, especially search and rescue, will still receive a high priority in the new
department. In approving the Lieberman Substitute to S. 2452, the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs included bill language mandating the maintenance of non-security
functions. The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure had 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:
CRS-2

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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,
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. Another FY2002 supplemental, P.L. 107-206 (H.R. 4775),
included $189.0 million.
The Administration requests discretionary budget authority of $5.9 billion for Coast
Guard funding in FY2003. Compared to the $5.702 billion appropriated in FY2002, the
FY2003 request would be $862 million or 17%, 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. On July 26, the Senate Committee on Appropriations
approved S. 2808 (S. Rept. 107-224), providing $6.1 billion for the agency. (CRS contact:
Martin Lee.)
CRS-3

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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)
headed by an Under Secretary of Transportation Security. The Under Secretary is responsible
for the security of all modes of transportation. (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).
During the process of forming the TSA and implementing ATSA, some airport, as well
as airline, executives have complained that TSA employees and contractors have shown a
lack of understanding of, and concern for, airport and air carrier methods of operation. Some
speculate that, in part, this as an outgrowth of a tension between the law enforcement
perspective of many of TSA’s recently hired former law enforcement officials and the
transportation industry perspective of airport and airline officials. Many also complained
that the fledgling TSA also exhibited an institutional reticence in its dealings with Congress
that weakened the agency’s support on the Hill. In July, DOT Secretary Mineta asked for
CRS-4

---

IB10032
09-04-02
and received the resignation of TSA Director John W. Magaw and replaced him with former
U.S. Coast Guard commandant James M. Loy. Director Loy has since made efforts to
improve relations with airport directors as well as with members of Congress. He has also
begun reviewing TSA’s position on policy issues such as arming pilots, implementing
trusted traveler program, and has conceded that TSA cannot meet its bomb detection
deadline. (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
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 August 2, 2002 President Bush signed the FY2002 Emergency
CRS-5

---

IB10032
09-04-02
Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206). The Act provides a net total of $28.9
billion, including $25 billion in emergency funds and $5.1 billion in contingent emergency
appropriations. Of this amount, DOT is to receive $6.6 billion, mostly for security purposes.
$1.1 billion of this amount are funds that are contingent on a request by the Administration
for their use. On August 13, 2002, President Bush announced that he would not utilize the
$5.1 billion in contingent emergency funds. P.L. 107-206 includes $255 million for the
Coast Guard, $3.8 billion for the TSA, as well as $167 million for highways, roads, and $1.8
billion for mass transit in New York City. The decision not to utilize the authorized
contingent emergency appropriations prevents the distribution an additional $480 million to
TSA, $150 million for airport grants, $42 million for FAA operations, $273 million for the
Coast Guard, and $98 million for emergency relief. (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.)
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. On July 23, 2002, the House passed a modified version of
H.R. 3609.
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
CRS-6

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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 have led 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
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 meant that the RABA adjustment for FY2003 would have been a negative
$4.369 billion. Core highway program obligational authority for FY2003 would therefore
CRS-7

---

IB10032
09-04-02
have been limited to approximately $23.3 billion, a $8.6 billion reduction from the FY2002
level. This was 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 was equally unwelcome among those interests that build roads or associated
transportation infrastructure and those who support continued highway improvements.
As a result of a provision included in the second FY2002 emergency supplemental
appropriations bill (P.L. 107-206)(August 2, 2002) the RABA adjustment proposed for
FY2003 has been blocked. The net effect of this provision is to set the program at its
authorized $27.7 billion level. Prior to this action both the House and the Senate held
hearings on this issue. Also legislation raising the existing limitation on obligations was
introduced, H.R. 3694 and S. 1917. A majority of both the House and Senate 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. S. 1917 as reported to
the Senate on June 17th allows for an additional $1.3 billion in spending over the $27.7
billion level. Most recently the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 2808 which
would increase spending to the FY2002 level. It remains to be seen if any of these increases
over the $27.7 level will survive conference with the House. (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.
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
–
–
–
Budgetary Resources Net Grand Total
59,588
56,060
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.
CRS-8

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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.
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 for FY2003. 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.
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.
On July 26, 2002 the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the DOT
appropriations bill. The Committee recommended $64.7 billion, $8.6 billion more than the
Administration request. The major differences were an increase in FHWA spending to
FY2002 levels, $8.8 billion above the FY03 request, and an increase of $679 million for
Amtrak, to $1.2 billion.
On August 2, 2002, the President signed the second FY2002 emergency supplemental
bill (P.L. 107-206). This bill included an additional $6.6 billion for the DOT for FY2002.
This included $3.9 billion for the Transportation Security Administration, $1.8 billion for the
Federal Transit Administration (for grants to rebuild New York City’s subway system in
Manhattan), $728 million for the Coast Guard, and $205 million for Amtrak.
On August 9, 2002, the President announced that he would not ask for the $5.1 billion
in contingency emergency funding that was included in the supplemental bill (P.L. 107-206).
The act provides that if the President requests any of the contingency emergency funding, all
of it is released. This decision will reduce the supplemental funding to DOT by $1.1 billion,
from $6.6 billion to $5.5 billion. The biggest reductions are to the TSA ($480 million), the
Coast Guard ($262 million), and the FAA’s Grants-in-Aid to Airports ($150 million). For
more information see CRS Report RL31008, Appropriations for FY2002: Department of
Transportation and Related Agencies. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
CRS-9

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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. In addition, the
FY2002 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act (P.L. 107-206) includes a provision
for $150 million for emergency grants, contingent on a request by the Administration for
their use, to airports to offset the costs of FAA security mandates. The Bush Administration,
however, has announced that it will not utilize any of the contingent emergency funds in P.L.
107-206.
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
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
CRS-10

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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. It has also rejected loan
applications from Vanguard (now in receivership), Spirit, National, and Frontier Flying
Service (an Alaskan based carrier not to be confused with Frontier Airlines which has also
applied for a loan). Only a few additional 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 exceeded 100,000 and still
continue. 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 continuing into 2002. Most recently, US Airways has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy
protection. There are concerns that continued financial problems could lead to further airline
business failures and perhaps to a new round of airline mergers in the foreseeable future.
Even with the Air Transportation Stabilization Board operating, the issue of how much
aid will ultimately be distributed remains. 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)
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
CRS-11

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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. 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. The FHWA, however, has proposed regulations that address some of the provisions
of TEA21 for a coordinated environmental review, 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. As reported, the Department
of Transportation and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2003 (S. 2808, S.Rept.
107-224) does not indicate how much funding would be provided for streamlining projects,
nor does report language include commentary on the pace at which the FHWA has
implemented the streamlining provisions in TEA21. 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 been addressed only 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 regulatory proposal lacked
requirements to establish time frames for review, 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 proposal, or to
withdraw it and possibly draft a new regulatory 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
CRS-12

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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. In the 2nd FY2002 emergency supplemental
bill (P.L. 107-206), Congress provided $205 million to Amtrak, to cover the remaining $105
deficit and repay the $100 million loan.
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. Amtrak’s new President, David Gunn, appointed on April 28, 2002, has said
CRS-13

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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. 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 significantly reformed. Secretary Mineta presented a list of
principles for Amtrak reform; they include eliminating Federal operating support, separating
ownership of the Northeast Corridor infrastructure from train operations, introducing
competition for certain routes, and sharing responsibility for passenger rail financing 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 before FY2003,
even if there was consensus on the Administration’s principles, which there is not.
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/H.R. 5216) 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.
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
CRS-14

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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.
The Amtrak Reform Council’s restructuring plan, submitted to Congress on February
7, 2002, recommends separating Amtrak into three components–operations, infrastructure,
CRS-15

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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).
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
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.
4 The cost estimate appears in a September 25, 2001, press release from the House Committee on
(continued...)
CRS-16

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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
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
4 (...continued)
Transportation and Infrastructure, “Historic Rail Infrastructure Legislation Introduced In U.S.
House,” available at http://www.house.gov/transportation/
CRS-17

---

IB10032
09-04-02
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-18

---