Order Code IB10032
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated February 24, 2003
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
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization Issues
Congestion
Environmental Issues
Safety Issues
Infrastructure
Traffic Safety and Associated Grants
Truck and Bus Safety
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Surface Transportation Research
Aviation Reauthorization
Transportation Security
Aviation Security
Surface Transportation Security
Ports and Maritime Security
Amtrak Issues
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
Environmental Issues
Conformity
Diesel Engines and Fuel
Alternative Fuels and Vehicles

---

IB10032
02-24-03
Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
FY2008. In FY2003, Amtrak is set to receive
tion issues facing the 108th Congress.
$1.05 billion, plus a $105 million loan repay-
ment extension, which is considerably more
Transportation Budget. Congress passed an
than the Administration’s FY2003 request of
Omnibus FY2003 Appropriations bill
$521 million. Because Amtrak’s authoriza-
(H.J.Res. 2) on February 13, 2003, and the
tion expired at the end of FY2002, Congress is
President signed the resolution on February
also likely to take up reauthorization. In doing
20, 2003. It provides a total of $64.6 billion
so, it may consider the future of the railroad,
for the Department of Transportation. High-
including Amtrak’s long-haul routes.
way spending was set at $32.6 billion, or $8.5
billion more than the Administration request.
Airline Industry Turmoil. United Airlines,
In an effort to keep total non-defense spending
the Nation’s 2nd largest airline, filed for Chap-
in line with the Administration’s request, the
ter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 9,
act included a 0.65% across-the-board cut.
2002, joining the Nation’s 6th largest airline,
US Airways, in operating under bankruptcy
Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
protection. The filing followed a decision by
Authorizing legislation for the existing federal
the Air Transportation Stabilization Board
highway and transit programs will expire at
(ATSB) to deny United’s application for a
the end of FY2003. Reauthorization of these
guaranteed loan. Many Members of Congress
programs will be considered in the 1st Session
supported the loan and several Members have
of the 108th Congress.
made it clear that they believe the board has
failed in its mission to stabilize the industry
Aviation Reauthorization. The authoriza-
and that its mandate should be revisited during
tion for key functions of the Federal Aviation
the 108th Congress. The airline industry is
Administration (FAA) will expire at the end
also publically asking Congress to provide it
of FY2003. The 108th Congress will likely
with tax relief, as a potential way to help stem
address the issue of reauthorization for FAA
its financial losses.
programs beyond FY2003.
Environmental Issues. The 108th Congress
Transportation Security. Since September
may consider, either through oversight or in
11, 2001, transportation security has emerged
connection with surface transportation
as a key policy issue for Congress. The over-
reauthorization, several environmental issues
arching issue for the 108th Congress is what
related to transportation. These include the
reasonable security actions can be taken in
conformity of transportation plans with the
each transportation mode without excessively
Clean Air Act, implementation of more strin-
impeding commerce and travel.
gent regulations on diesel engines and fuel,
and alternative fuels and vehicles programs.
Amtrak Issues. The 108th Congress will have
to reach agreement on the size of Amtrak’s
annual appropriation. Amtrak has stated that
it needs about $2 billion annually through
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
02-24-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
Congress passed the Omnibus FY2003 Appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2) on February 13,
2003, and the President signed the resolution on February 20, 2003. It provides a total of
$64.6 billion for the Department of Transportation. Highway spending was set at $32.6
billion, or $8.5 billion more than the Administration request. In an effort to keep total non-
defense spending in line with the Administration’s request, the act included a 0.65% across-
the-board cut. Amtrak is set to receive $1.05 billion (plus a $105 million loan repayment
extension), which is considerably more than the Administration’s FY2003 request of $521
million. In a press release, Amtrak stated that “the funding level should be sufficient to
operate the national system for the remainder of the fiscal year.” In a change of policy,
Congress directed that Amtrak funding not go directly to Amtrak; instead, funding is
allocated to the Secretary of Transportation, who will make quarterly grants to Amtrak. The
Omnibus Appropriations bill also provides for tighter control over Amtrak’s activities.
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
This issue brief provides an overview of key issues on the transportation agenda of the
108th Congress. The issues are organized under the headings of budget, highway and transit
reauthorization, aviation reauthorization, transportation security, Amtrak, airline industry
financial turmoil, and environmental issues, 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.
Budget
Transportation Budgeting
The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21)(P.L. 105-178) enacted in
late 1998, changed the way the highway trust fund relates to the Federal Unified Budget.
First, it created new budget categories and, second, it set statutory limitations on obligations.
The Act amended the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 to create
two new budget categories: highway and mass transit. The Act further amended the budget
process by creating a statutory level for the limitation on obligations in each fiscal year from
FY1999 to FY2003. In addition, TEA-21 provided a mechanism, revenue aligned budget
authority (RABA), to adjust these amounts in the highway account, but not the transit
account, so as to correspond with increased or decreased receipts in highway generated
revenues.
The net effect of the changes was to set a predetermined level of funding for core
highway and transit programs, referred to in TEA-21 as a discretionary spending guarantee.
CRS-1

---

IB10032
02-24-03
These categories are separated from the rest of the discretionary budget in a way that prevents
the use of funds assigned to these categories for any other purpose. These so called
“firewalls” were viewed, in the TEA-21 context, as guaranteed and/or minimum levels of
funding for highway and transit programs. Additional funds above the firewall level could
be made available for highway and transit programs through the annual appropriations
process, but for the most part this has not occurred.
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 TEA-21. 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 TEA-21. Congress can, and sometimes does,
waive points-of-order during consideration of legislation. Enactment of TEA-21 and
FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators now have total control only over spending
for the Coast Guard (now in the Department of Homeland Security, together with the
Transportation Security Administration), 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 RL31665, Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization and CRS Report
RS20177, Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress. (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.
Neither the House nor the Senate passed FY2003 DOT appropriations bills in the 107th
Congress. DOT programs were funded through February 20, 2003 through a series of
continuing resolutions (CRs), which provide agencies the same level of funding they
received in FY2002 (minus extraordinary one-time appropriations) prorated on a daily basis
for the life of the CR.
Congress passed an Omnibus FY2003 Appropriations bill (H.J.Res. 2) on February 13,
2003 and the President signed the resolution on February 20, 2003. It provides a total of
$64.6 billion for the Department of Transportation, $9.4 billion more than the Administration
request (see Table 1); two major differences are $8.5 billion more in highway spending and
$529 million more for Amtrak (see below for more discussion of Amtrak issues). In an effort
CRS-2

---

IB10032
02-24-03
to keep total non-defense spending in line with the Administration’s request, the act included
a 0.65% across-the-board cut (the numbers in Table 1 do not reflect that cut).
Table 1 shows funding for FY2002, as well as the FY2003 amounts proposed by the
Bush Administration and Congressional action to date. For more information see CRS
Report RL31008, Appropriations for FY2003: Department of Transportation and Related
Agencies. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Table 1. Department of Transportation Appropriations
(for selected agencies, in millions)
Agency
Enacted
Requested
House
Senate
Enacted
FY2002
FY2003
Committee
Passed
FY2003
Federal Highway Administration
33,306
24,098
28,695
32,893
32,617–
Federal Aviation Administration
13,512
13,582
13,599
13,552
13,578–
Federal Transit Administration
6,871
7,226
7,226
7,226
7,226–
United States Coast Guard*
5,495
6,058
6,061
6,099
6,079–
Transportation Security Administration*
2,200
5,346
5,146
5,346
5,180–
Federal Railroad Administration
1,045
711
958
1,423
1,269–
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
423
425
430
440
437–
Office of the Secretary
155
141
181
182
175–
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
52
57
57
57
57–
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
18
18
18
18
18–
Budgetary Resources Net Grand Total
66,376
55,153
60,028
64,977
64,560
* Transferred to Department of Homeland Security (P.L. 107-296).
Source: Figures in Table 1 are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except for Senate
figures. Some figures include offsetting collections. Enacted FY2002 figures have been adjusted to reflect the emergency
supplemental, rescissions, additional appropriations, transfers, and carry-overs. FY2003 figures will be reduced by a 0.65%
across-the-board cut.
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization Issues
Authorizing legislation for the existing federal highway, highway safety, and transit
programs will expire at the end of FY2003. Reauthorization of these programs is likely to
be considered in the 1st Session of the 108th Congress. The Transportation Equity Act for the
21st Century (TEA-21)(P.L.105-178 & P.L. 105-206) provided for a dramatic increase in
funding for federal surface transportation programs. This was in large part the result of a
successful effort to link the revenue stream for the highway trust fund to significant
increases in spending for the highway, highway safety, and transit programs. The total TEA-
21 authorization was about 40% more than the amount that had been authorized in the
previous 6-year program authorization. Further, a mechanism created by TEA-21, RABA,
has provided the program with an additional $9.1 billion over TEA-21's 6-year life.
From the public’s perspective, the surface transportation reauthorization is taking place
against the backdrop of growing concern about congestion and sprawl in urbanized areas, and
increased concern about maintaining access to the national system in rural areas. The
congressional debate that will take place as part of the highway and transit program
reauthorization process in the 108th Congress is shaping up primarily as a debate about
CRS-3

---

IB10032
02-24-03
money. Given the large increase in funding made available by TEA-21, there appears to be
an expectation in some quarters that the reauthorization under discussion should also provide
for a large increase in funding. Much of the lobbying in preparation for reauthorization is
predicated on the belief that some significant level of new funding can be identified for the
highway, highway safety, and transit programs. Given the existing state of the economy and
concerns about the costs associated with the war on terrorism and a possible war with Iraq,
such a conclusion, however, is far from foregone. In fact, the Bush Administration FY2004
budget proposal suggests that the Administration will propose only a limited increase in
funding over the reauthorization period as part of its proposal due out next month.
The money question aside, there appears to be very little interest in making major
changes to the overall structure of the highway, highway safety, and transit programs.
Rather, the interest appears to be in tweaking these programs to allow spending for some
additional activities and perhaps adding some new stand alone programs or consolidating
several traffic safety programs into a single program. Among the issues likely to be
considered are: allowing states greater flexibility in how they use their transportation funds;
retention of the existing highway trust fund funding framework established by TEA-21;
financial assistance for physical infrastructure security; streamlining of environmental
evaluations required by the project approval process; a new categorical grant program for
highway safety; and an increased focus on reducing drunk driving and increasing seat belt
use. For more information see: CRS Report RL31665, Highway and Transit Program
Reauthorization. (CRS contact: John Fischer.)
Congestion. 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
108th Congress’ reauthorization discussion, congestion issues can be expected to play a major
role. (CRS contact: John Fischer.)
Environmental Issues
The use of federal highway funding to mitigate the environmental impacts of surface
transportation will be a likely topic of discussion in the reauthorization of TEA-21. The law
authorized over $12 billion for several environmental programs. The majority of this
funding was reserved for the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program
(CMAQ) to assist states in complying with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Reauthorization of this program is likely to receive attention due to questions that have been
raised as to whether it has made a significant impact on state compliance. Proposals to
enhance the program’s effectiveness, or to shift its focus away from air quality to reducing
traffic congestion in general, may be considered. The adequacy of funding to continue other
CRS-4

---

IB10032
02-24-03
environmental programs will likely be discussed as well. For more 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 addition to specific programs, another
issue that may arise during reauthorization is whether to take further legislative action to
streamline the environmental review process for highway and transit projects. Some
Members of Congress have expressed disappointment that the Secretary of Transportation
has not finalized regulations to implement the streamlining requirements of TEA-21, and
proposals to establish a statutory process to streamline project reviews may be subject to
debate. For more 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)
Safety Issues
During the first session of the 108th Congress, debate over the purpose, structure, and
funding amounts for various highway safety programs is likely to be conducted within the
larger context of federal surface transportation reauthorization. Federal highway and traffic
safety programs are set to expire at the end of FY2003. Various interest groups seek
additional funding to improve highway infrastructure and operations, increase seat belt use
rates, reduce impaired driving, strengthen driver licensing, and increase commercial motor
vehicle safety. Some groups seek new safety requirements or fundamental changes in federal
transportation safety programs. A key challenge will be finding the additional funds to
increase federal support for safety and evaluating the costs and benefits of changes in federal
policy. These issue areas can be grouped into four categories:
Infrastructure. Billions of dollars derived from federal highway categorical grants
are used each year by state and local governments to improve the design, throughput, and
overall performance of the highway infrastructure. Collectively, these investments are
intended to improve safety. For example, the authorization for the Surface Transportation
Program found in Title I of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), as
amended, includes mandatory set asides to eliminate hazards (such as by installing barriers
and guard rails) and improve grade crossings (such as by installing signals and signs).
Congress will decide the authorization levels for various federal highway categorical grants,
the amount of set asides for safety, and whether a separate categorical grant for safety is
established.
Traffic Safety and Associated Grants. Congress will likely decide how much
funding to authorize for Section 403 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which funds the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) driver/passenger (behavioral) program,
and whether funding emphasis and priority setting regarding these activities should be
changed. TEA-21 reauthorized two traffic safety grants, and authorized six new grant
programs. In retrospect, many state officials maintain that TEA-21 authorized too many
traffic safety grants to administer effectively. Not surprisingly, the states seek a unified grant
approach with rewards for a states’ performance. Congress is debating how to structure such
a unified traffic safety incentive program, perhaps combining the existing Section 402 (state
and community grants), and alcohol countermeasures and occupant protection enhancement
grants.
CRS-5

---

IB10032
02-24-03
Truck and Bus Safety. Key concerns include funding levels for various motor
carrier safety activities conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
(FMCSA); grants and programs overseen by FMCSA; and changes to federal regulations
regarding motor carrier safety. Attention is focusing on the issues of: how the Motor Carrier
Safety Assistance Program could be made a more effective federal/state partnership; how
the Commercial Drivers Licensing Program could be improved; and whether the federal
truck and bus safety programs should focus more on the role of the noncommercial driver.
Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) and Surface Transportation
Research. Advances in safety depend partly on investments made to develop and test new
technologies to “push the envelope.” ITS crash avoidance technologies offer much promise,
but substantial costs and lead times before widespread deployment are generally involved.
Debate is likely to focus on the funding level and purposes of the federal surface
transportation research program and whether to authorize a new Strategic Highway Research
Program financed by an administrative takedown off of the federal aid program, and
managed by the National Research Council/ Transportation Research Board.

A recent NHTSA study estimating the costs to society of all traffic crashes at over $230
billion per year raises questions of whether a sufficient amount of federal funds are allocated
to promote traffic safety and whether existing funds are being wisely allocated. Requests for
additional funding to enhance safety are likely to be considered within the context of the
financial status of the Federal Highway Trust Fund, numerous other requests for alternative
use of these funds, and the desire of the states to gain maximum flexibility in the use of
federal funds. (CRS contact: Paul Rothberg.)
Aviation Reauthorization
The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century
(FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides authorization for key functions of the Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) through FY2003. Consequently, the first session of the 108th
Congress will likely address the issue of reauthorization for FAA programs beyond FY2003.
With the core aviation security function transferred from the FAA to the Transportation
Safety Administration (TSA), FAA’s program agenda will be primarily focused on issues
related to the safety and capacity of the national airspace system. However, these FAA
programs are likely to face fiscal challenges arising from the economic downturn in the
aviation industry that has resulted in significantly reduced revenues for the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund.
The FAA’s agenda for improving safety in the national airspace system is detailed in
the agency’s Safer Skies initiative. FAA announced the initiative in 1998 and established
goals to significantly reduce accident rates across the entire spectrum of aviation operations,
including a target reduction in fatal accidents among commercial aviation operations of 80%
by 2007. Key issues in the debate over FAA reauthorization will likely focus on FAA’s
progress in achieving these safety objectives. One key safety issue for FAA reauthorization
is progress on FAA initiatives to reduce runway incursions and improve runway safety.
Another key issue that may be examined during discussion of FAA safety programs is FAA
regulations and oversight to ensure the continued airworthiness of aging aircraft and aircraft
components. Other key safety issues that may arise during congressional review of FAA
CRS-6

---

IB10032
02-24-03
programs include: safety of carry-on baggage, passenger seat-belt usage, aircraft certification
standards, flight operations quality assurance (FOQA) programs, FAA oversight of air carrier
maintenance practices, and operator fatigue.
FAA management of efforts to modernize the national airspace system and improve
system capacity to meet projected increases in demand will likely be scrutinized by the 108th
Congress. Despite the economic downturn that has significantly reduced demand on the
national airspace system over the past 2 years, FAA forecasts suggest that, with stabilization
and recovery, growth in the airline industry will return to near normal levels at some point
requiring future expansion of air traffic services to meet increasing demand for air travel.
Congress may scrutinize FAA’s management of technology and infrastructure improvement
programs to modernize air traffic control systems.

Another key issue related to air traffic services likely to be debated by the 108th
Congress is whether air traffic services can be safely and effectively carried out by
commercial sources or whether air traffic services are an inherently governmental function.
Executive Order (E.O.) 13180, signed by President Clinton on December 7, 2000, established
a performance-based organization known as the “Air Traffic Organization,” which
encompasses FAA’s air traffic services and related research and acquisition functions. That
Executive Order designated air traffic services as an inherently governmental function; that
is, a function that is so intimately related to the public interest as to require performance by
federal government employees. However, on June 6, 2002, President Bush issued E.O.
13264 removing the designation of air traffic services as an inherently government function,
thereby allowing consideration of such services as commercial activities. Consequently,
“privatization” of air traffic services and the associated risks and benefits to system safety,
efficiency, and cost will likely be an issue for debate during consideration of FAA
reauthorization.
With regard to improving capacity and efficiency of the national airspace system,
Congress may also debate programs for funding airport improvements. Under FAIR21, the
Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants that are typically expended on
capital projects to support airport operations such as runways, taxiways, and noise abatement.
Since September 11, 2001, much AIP funding has been used instead to fund airport security
improvements, potentially affecting other airport improvement projects. Congress is likely
to consider options for funding capital programs to improve capacity at various airports as
part of long range planning to meet increased demand for aviation service. Congress may
also debate whether streamlining environmental assessments of airport capital projects would
serve to expedite airport improvement programs. Another potential issue for debate is the
effectiveness of alternative methods for relieving demand at certain airports, including the
potential use of demand management techniques (such as slots) at busy airports, and using
economic incentives, like pricing and fee structures, to relive congestion during busy periods.
While primary aviation security functions such as passenger and baggage screening and
the Federal Air Marshal Program have been transferred to the TSA, FAA still faces
significant challenges to ensure the security of critical infrastructure that supports the
national airspace system. This infrastructure includes facilities and information technology
that comprise critical navigation, air traffic control, weather, and communications systems.
In addressing FAA reauthorization, Congress may debate policy regarding the protection of
these assets. With continued focus on aviation security, the 108th Congress may also debate
CRS-7

---

IB10032
02-24-03
the continued role of FAA certification programs for aircraft security measures such as blast-
resistant cargo containers, reinforced cockpit doors and bulkheads, and technologies to
protect passenger aircraft against missile attacks. (CRS Contacts: Bart Elias and John
Fisher)
Transportation Security
Since September 11, 2001, transportation security has emerged as a key policy issue for
Congress. The 108th Congress is likely to assess a number of proposed security measures and
determine if the proposals increase security without excessively impeding commerce and
travel. On November 19, 2001, President Bush signed the Aviation and Transportation
Security Act (ATSA, P.L. 107-071). The Act established a new Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) that is responsible for the security of all modes of transportation,
passenger and cargo. On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). The Act creates a new cabinet-level Department of Homeland
Security which will consolidate the antiterrorist activities of 22 federal agencies and transfer
the TSA and the Coast Guard from the DOT to the new department. (See CRS Report
RL31549, Department of Homeland Security: Consolidation of Border and Transportation
Security Agencies).
Aviation Security
ATSA established a timetable for the federalization of security functions at airports with
commercial passenger air service. These functions include screening of passengers, carry-on
and checked baggage, cargo, mail, and other articles carried aboard passenger aircraft. Other
airport security enhancements under ATSA involve improved airport perimeter security and
improved secured-area access control. ATSA also provided for the transfer of a greatly
expanded Federal Air Marshal Service to the TSA, and mandated deployment of federal air
marshals on every flight that is judged to present a high security risk. ATSA required
strengthening of cockpit doors, further limited access to the cockpit, and provided for
security training for flight and cabin crew. Over 44,000 federal screeners have been hired
by TSA and are in place at all 429 commercial airports, including 5 airports participating in
a pilot program using federally trained private screeners. Under ATSA, airports may elect
to return to a system utilizing private security screeners on November 19, 2004.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 contained provisions for training and deputizing
volunteer pilots as federal flight deck officers, allowing them to carry firearms and use force,
including lethal force, to protect the flight deck. Implementation of the Federal Flight Deck
Officer Program is to begin no later than February, 2003. The legislation also established
a requirement for crew training in self-defense and cabin security, and completion of a study
examining the benefits and risks associated with arming cabin crew with non-lethal weapons.
Further provisions under the Homeland Security Act of 2002 allow the TSA to implement
interim alterative baggage screening methods at airports unable to meet a December 31,
2002, deadline for deployment of explosive detection systems and establish a plan for
compliance with requirements to screen all checked baggage with explosive detection
systems no later than December 31, 2003.
CRS-8

---

IB10032
02-24-03
During the first session of the 108th Congress, attention is expected to be focused on
oversight of the aforementioned aviation security initiatives. Key issues include the
comparative effectiveness of the federal aviation security workforce, and the effectiveness
and efficiency of baggage and cargo screening. Additionally, implementation of in-flight
security measures, especially the Federal Flight Deck Officer program, will likely be the
subject of congressional scrutiny. Additionally, the 108th Congress will consider legislation
to enhance aviation security, such as the screening and inspection of cargo transported on all-
cargo aircraft as well as passenger aircraft, security measures at air cargo shipping facilities,
air cargo operations areas, and air cargo acceptance areas. A bill (S. 165) containing such
provisions to enhance air cargo security was introduced by Senators Hutchison and Feinstein
on January 15, 2003. Another topic under consideration is the use of methods for detecting
false or fraudulent transportation worker and passenger identification and technologies to
improve the verification and validation of passenger and employee identification. For
example, The Aviation Biometric Badge Act (H.R. 115) introduced by Congressman Hefley
would require biometric identification of airport security screeners. A related issue that may
be addressed during the first session of the 108th Congress is the use of passenger background
screening and concerns over the protection of privacy and civil liberties while using methods
to identify passengers that may pose security risks.
Other issues that may be debated during the first session of the 108th Congress include
civil and criminal penalties for interfering with or attempting to circumvent aviation security
systems and procedures, and requirements for background checks of individuals seeking to
obtain certain types of flight training in the United States. Congress may also address the use
and effectiveness of temporary flight restrictions to protect airspace, particularly over
stadiums during sporting events and other public assemblies, and in the vicinity of certain
locations and special events. Proponents argue that such restrictions will provide for
enhanced security at vulnerable locations, while opponents of flight restrictions maintain that
they will negatively affect air traffic operations and safety, as well as certain commercial
entities such as aerial advertising and aerial broadcast coverage. (See 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 contact: Bart Elias - Aviation; Dan Morgan - Security
Technology)
Surface Transportation Security
World-wide, roughly one-third of terrorist attacks target transportation systems; the
most common transportation mode attacked is public transit. The effectiveness of transit
depends on ease of access. As a result, security measures applied in aviation cannot be easily
applied to transit. 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). The overland
crossings with Canada and Mexico are also a concern.
The 107th Congress considered, but did not pass, intercity bus and intercity rail security
legislation. A bus security bill (107th Congress: H.R. 3429, S. 1739) would have provided
federal grants to intercity bus companies to protect drivers, implement passenger screening
programs, train employees in threat assessments, and install video surveillance and
communications equipment. Surface transportation security bills will likely be taken up by
CRS-9

---

IB10032
02-24-03
the 108th Congress. Among the major concerns regarding rail security are the rail tunnels
leading to the train stations in New York City, Washington, DC, and Baltimore. The
FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.J. Res. 2) provides $244.8 million to the
Transportation Security Administration for maritime and land security activities, including
$25 million for trucking industry security grants and $10 million for intercity bus security
grants. The National Defense Rail Act (S. 104) would provide funds for improvements to
these tunnels, as well as for an assessment of security risks in rail transportation. (CRS
contacts: Transit and Passenger Rail - D. Randy Peterman; Freight Railroads - John
Frittelli; Highways and Pipelines - Paul Rothberg. )
Ports and Maritime Security
Government leaders and security experts are concerned that the maritime transportation
system could be used by terrorists to smuggle a weapon of mass destruction into the United
States. Experts have found ports to be vulnerable to terrorist attack because of their size,
easy accessibility by water and land, proximity to urban areas, and the tremendous amount
of cargo that is typically transferred through them.
On November 14, 2002, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002 (P.L. 107-295). The Act creates a U.S. maritime security system and requires federal
agencies, ports, and vessel owners to take numerous steps to upgrade security. Some of the
major provisions include developing standardized port security plans; conducting
vulnerability assessments at each port; creating port security committees at each port to plan
and oversee security measures; and establishing background checks and access control to
sensitive areas for port workers. A dispute over how to pay for the cost of enhancing seaport
security was resolved by eliminating controversial user fee provisions from the conference
report. The 108th Congress may again face questions about how to cover the cost for
enhancing port security.
In the 108th Congress, policymakers are likely to focus on the implementation of the port
security provisions in the Act. Some of the broader policy issues likely to be debated include
finding the best way to strike a balance between port security and port, or trade, efficiency.
For example, what is the best way to ensure that cargo containers are not used to smuggle
terrorist weapons or terrorists themselves without disrupting the flow of legitimate
commerce. Another challenge is finding the right balance between standardized versus site-
specific security measures. A key question is what elements of seaport security might be best
addressed through a standardized, top-down approach, and what elements of seaport security
might be best addressed through a tailored, bottom-up approach.
Congress is also likely to consider how much of the potential solution lies in
international actions and the implications these actions may have for U.S. agencies and port
operations. The International Maritime Organization recently adopted international standards
for vessel and port security and the World Customs Organization is working towards
adopting standards for cargo security. Improving seaport security will require effective
cooperation between all levels of government – federal, state, and local – as well as between
government agencies and private sector entities. The proper division of roles between all of
these interests and how to ensure their cooperation is an important issue for U.S.
policymakers. (See CRS Report RL31733, Port and Maritime Security: Background and
Issues for Congress.) (CRS contact: John Frittelli)
CRS-10

---

IB10032
02-24-03
Amtrak Issues
Amtrak does not earn enough revenue or receive enough federal assistance to cover its
operating and capital needs. Amtrak revenues are around $2 billion a year, but it spends
nearly $3 billion a year, producing operating deficits of almost $1 billion 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. The Amtrak Reform Council and the
DOT Inspector General’s Office have both estimated that Amtrak, as currently structured,
requires around half a billion in operating support and around a billion in capital spending
annually, a considerably higher level of funding than Amtrak has ever consistently received.
The Omnibus Appropriations bill for FY2003 (H.J.Res. 2) provides $1.05 billion for
Amtrak (minus a 0.65% across the board cut), plus a $105 million loan repayment extension
(H.J.Res. 2, the FY2003 Omnibus Appropriations bill). This is considerably more than the
Administration’s FY2003 request of $521 million. In a press release, Amtrak stated that “the
funding level should be sufficient to operate the national system for the remainder of the
fiscal year.” In a change of policy, Congress directed that Amtrak funding not go directly to
Amtrak; instead, funding is allocated to the Secretary of Transportation, who will make
quarterly grants to Amtrak. H.J. Res. 2 also provides for tighter control over Amtrak’s
activities by requiring Amtrak to submit capital and operating plans to Congress and the
Secretary; Amtrak may not spend money on projects not in the plans, and must submit
changes to the plans to Congress, with justifications. With limited exceptions, Amtrak will
have to follow DOT guidelines for reprogramming funding. Before the Secretary can release
any funds to Amtrak, Amtrak must agree to continue to abide by provisions of the loan
agreement of June 28, 2002, including financial reporting requirements and the identification
of $100 million in cost saving options for 2003. The Secretary will also have to vouch for
the accuracy of financial information that Amtrak reports to Congress.
Amtrak’s president has said that the corporation needs at least $2 billion annually
through FY2008. In its budget submission, the Bush Administration requested $900 million
for Amtrak for FY2004. On February 20, 2003, Amtrak requested $1.8 billion in federal
capital and operating subsidies for FY2004, with $1.04 billion in support for capital needs
and $768 for operations.
In June 2002, DOT Secretary Mineta proposed a set of principles for Amtrak reform,
including the elimination of Federal operating support; separation of ownership of the
Northeast Corridor infrastructure from train operations; introduction of competition for
certain routes; and shared responsibility for passenger rail financing between the Federal
government and the states. These reforms are extensive, controversial, and are expected to
figure in the debate over Amtrak reauthorization.
Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002. Reauthorization proposals during
the second session of the 107th Congress, other than the Administration’s principles for
reform, included S. 1958 (McCain), which would have restructured Amtrak along the lines
suggested by the Amtrak Reform Council’s plan, An Action Plan for the Restructuring and
Rationalization of the National Intercity Rail Passenger System, February 7, 2002, available
at [http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov], and S. 1991 (Hollings), which would have
authorized greatly increased spending on Amtrak as it is currently structured. S. 1991 has
been reintroduced by Sen. Hollings as S. 104, the National Defense Rail Act. For more
CRS-11

---

IB10032
02-24-03
information on Amtrak, see CRS Report RL31743, Amtrak Issues in the 108th Congress.
(CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
United Airlines filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on December 9, 2002. The
nation’s 2nd largest airline now joins the nation’s 7th largest airline, US Airways in operating
under bankruptcy protection. Since the events of September 11th, a couple of smaller airlines,
National and Vanguard, have stopped flying. Air travel is down by at least 10% over pre-
September 11th levels and the airline industry as a whole experienced record financial losses
in 2002.
Just weeks after September 11th, Congress and the Bush Administration had moved
swiftly to provide the airline industry with federal financial support. The Air Transportation
Safety and System Stabilization Act (P.L. 107-42) signed into law on September 22, 2001,
gave the airlines access to up to $15 billion in short-term assistance. The first $5 billion, now
largely paid out, provided 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
(ATSB) and to regulatory requirements established by the Office of Management and
Budget. To date, the Board has approved loans for America West Airlines, US Airways,
American Trans Air (ATA), Frontier, and Aloha. It has also rejected loan applications from
United, Vanguard, Spirit, National, and Frontier Flying Service (an Alaskan based carrier not
to be confused with Frontier Airlines).
The decision to deny United’s loan application has been extremely controversial. Many
Members of Congress had publically supported United’s loan application. Several of these
Members have made it clear that they believe the ATSB has failed at its mission of industry
stabilization and that its mandate should be revisited during the 108th Congress. At the same
time, the airline industry is publically asking Congress to provide it with tax relief or changes
in labor law as potential ways to help stem its financial losses. All of these issues are likely
to be addressed during the 108th Congress. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
Environmental Issues
Several environmental issues related to transportation may also be on the agenda of the
108th Congress, either as oversight issues or in connection with TEA-21 reauthorization.
These include the conformity of transportation plans with the Clean Air Act, implementation
of more stringent regulations on diesel engines and fuel, and alternative fuels and vehicles
programs. Streamlining the environmental review process for highway and transit projects
is another likely issue (which is discussed elsewhere in this document as a topic under
surface transportation reauthorization).
CRS-12

---

IB10032
02-24-03
Conformity
Under the Clean Air Act, areas that have not attained any of the six National Ambient
Air Quality Standards established by EPA must develop State Implementation Plans (SIPs)
demonstrating how they will reach attainment. As of December 2002, 107 areas with a
combined population of 97.8 million people were subject to the SIP requirements. Section
176 of the Clean Air Act prohibits federal agencies from funding projects in these areas
unless they “conform” to the SIPs. Specifically, projects must not “cause or contribute to any
new violation of any standard,” “increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation,”
or “delay timely attainment of any standard.” Because new highways generally lead to an
increase in emissions, both the statute and regulations require that an area’s Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) provide a new demonstration of conformity no less frequently
than every three years. Highway and transit projects cannot receive federal funds unless they
are part of a conforming TIP.
As a result of growth of emissions from SUVs and other light trucks, greater than
expected increases in vehicle miles traveled, recent court decisions that tightened conformity
rules, and the scheduled implementation of more stringent air quality standards in 2004, the
impact of conformity requirements is expected to grow in the next several years. Numerous
metropolitan areas will face a cutoff of highway and transit funds unless they impose sharp
reductions in vehicle and industrial emissions. The Clean Air Act provides no authority for
waivers or grace periods; and, during a conformity lapse, only a limited set of exempt
projects (mostly safety-related or replacement and repair of existing transit facilities) can be
funded. The rules do not allow funding of new projects that might reduce emissions, such
as new transit lines. These factors may be raised by those seeking to amend the conformity
provisions. Modifying conformity would be controversial, however, since it provides one
of the most effective tools for ensuring that transportation and air quality planning are
coordinated. (CRS Contact: Jim McCarthy)
Diesel Engines and Fuel
New emission standards for highway diesel engines took effect October 1, 2002, but 6
of the 7 engine manufacturers that serve the U.S. market were unable to certify a compliant
engine by the October deadline. All seven have now certified at least one compliant engine,
according to EPA, but until they obtain certification for all of their engines, they are subject
to non-conformance penalties that vary depending on the size of the engine and the amount
by which its emissions exceed the standard. Far more stringent standards will take effect in
the 2007 model year, and the manufacturers generally argue that they will be unable to meet
these standards as well. Diesel fuel will be subject to new standards beginning in 2006; these
may pose difficulty for some refiners, and could add to the cost of diesel fuel. EPA and a
Federal Advisory Committee Act panel have both reviewed the engine and fuel standards and
concluded that they are achievable; but given the importance of diesel engines and fuel to the
nation’s economy, Congress may conduct its own oversight of diesel-related issues. (CRS
Contacts: Jim McCarthy, 7-7225, and Brent Yacobucci, 7-9662)
CRS-13

---

IB10032
02-24-03
Alternative Fuels and Vehicles
Several federal laws, including TEA-21, have requirements and/or provide incentives
for the use of alternative fuels and vehicles. Within TEA-21, the Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Program provides funding for state and local initiatives
to reduce air pollution. Eligible initiatives include the purchase of alternative fuels and
vehicles, as well as the development of alternative fuel infrastructure. TEA-21 allows for
other incentives, including permitting states to exempt alternative fuel vehicles from HOV
restrictions. Outside of TEA-21 reauthorization, the Bush Administration has made research
and development of fuel cell vehicles and hydrogen fuel a priority. In January 2002, the
Administration announced the FreedomCAR program, which increases federal research on
fuel cell vehicles. In January 2003, the Administration announced the FreedomFuel program,
which complements FreedomCAR and increases research funding for hydrogen fuel. For
additional discussion, see CRS Report RL30484, Alternative Transportation Fuels and
Vehicles, and CRS Report RL30758, Advanced Vehicle Technologies. (CRS Contact:
Brent Yacobucci).
CRS-14

---