Order Code IB10032
Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated April 3, 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
Transit
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
04-03-03
Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
Amtrak Issues. The 108th Congress will have
tion issues facing the 108th Congress.
to reach agreement on the size of Amtrak’s
annual appropriation. Amtrak has stated that
Transportation Budget. Transportation
it needs about $2 billion annually through
Budget. The Administration has requested
FY2008. In FY2003, Amtrak is set to receive
$53.9 billion for the Department of Transpor-
$1.05 billion, plus a $105 million loan repay-
tation for FY2004, or 4% less than compara-
ment extension, which is considerably more
ble funding for FY2003 ($56.1 billion, exclud-
than the Administration’s FY2003 request of
ing funds for programs transferred to the
$521 million. Because Amtrak’s authoriza-
Department of Homeland Security in
tion expired at the end of FY2002, Congress is
FY2003).
also likely to take up reauthorization. In doing
so, it may consider the future of the railroad,
Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
including Amtrak’s long-haul routes.
Authorizing legislation for the existing federal
highway and transit programs will expire at
Airline Industry Turmoil. The war in Iraq
the end of FY2003. Reauthorization of these
and, more recently, the outbreak of a virus
programs will be considered in the 1st Session
known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
of the 108th Congress.
(SARS) have dramatically affected the airline
industry. Air travel has dropped approxi-
Aviation Reauthorization. The authoriza-
mately 10% and advance bookings for the
tion for key functions of the Federal Aviation
months ahead appear to be dropping by about
Administration (FAA) will expire at the end
30%. All of this is happening against the
of FY2003. The FAA recently released its
backdrop of the events of September 11th,
proposals for reauthorization. The FAA’s bill,
which also had a huge negative impact on the
the Centennial of Flight Aviation Authoriza-
industry. The airlines lost record amounts of
tion (FLIGHT-100), provides for essentially
money in 2002, which followed what had
flat funding during the next four years. The
been the previous record loss experienced in
108th Congress will likely address the issue of
2001. Congress has proposed providing some
reauthorization for FAA programs beyond
short-term relief for the ailing airline industry.
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. Congress
gent regulations on diesel engines and fuel,
continues to consider legislative proposals to
and alternative fuels and vehicles programs.
strengthen aviation and surface transportation
security.
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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.
For FY2004, the Administration has requested $53.9 billion for DOT, 4% less than the
comparable figure for FY2003 ($56.1, excluding funds for the Coast Guard and the
Transportation Security Administration, which were transferred to the Department of
Homeland Security in FY2003). The major difference is a proposed 7% reduction in funding
for the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), from $32.6 billion to $30.4 billion.
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.
CRS-1

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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.
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. Also, all of these funding
mechanisms are subject to review as part of the surface transportation and aviation
reauthorization bills likely to be considered in the 108th Congress. 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.
DOT appropriations for FY2003 were part of an Omnibus FY2003 Appropriations bill
(H.J.Res. 2/P.L. 108-7) which Congress passed on February 13, 2003 and the President
signed on February 20, 2003. It provided a total of $64.6 billion for the Department of
Transportation (see Table 1), $9.4 billion more than the Administration’s FY2003 request;
two major differences were $8.5 billion more in highway spending and $529 million more
for Amtrak (see below for more discussion of Amtrak issues). 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 (the numbers in Table 1 do not reflect that cut).
CRS-2

---

IB10032
04-03-03
The Administration requested $53.9 billion for DOT for FY2004, 4% less than the
comparable figure for FY2003 (the FY2003 DOT appropriation included funds for the Coast
Guard and the Transportation Security Administration, which were transferred to the
Department of Homeland Security during FY2003 and are not part of DOT’s FY2004
appropriation request). The major difference is a 7% reduction in funding requested for the
Federal Highway Administration.
Table 1 shows funding for FY2003, as well as the FY2004 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
FY2003
FY2004
Committee Committee
FY2004
Federal Highway Administration
32,617
30,412
Federal Aviation Administration
13,578
14,007
Federal Transit Administration
7,226
7,226
Federal Railroad Administration
1,269
1,089
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
437
665
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
307
447
Office of the Secretary
175
210
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
57
55
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
18
18
Budgetary Resources Net Grand Total
56,095
53,924
* The Maritime Administration is part of the DOT but is not included in the DOT appropriations bill. The
United States Coast Guard and the Transportation Security Administration were included in the DOT
appropriations bill through FY2003; they were transferred to Department of Homeland Security during FY2003
(P.L. 107-296), and so are no longer included in DOT’s appropriation. For comparison purposes, their FY2003
numbers have been deleted from this table.
Source: Figures in Table 1 are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations, except for
“Requested FY2004" figures, which are from the President’s budget request. Some figures include offsetting collections.
Enacted FY2003 figures will be reduced by a 0.65% across-the-board cut, which will reduce the Net Grand Total to
approximately $55,730 million.
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.
CRS-3

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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
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.)
Transit. The Administration’s FY2004 budget request for FTA reflects changes that
the Administration will seek in its reauthorization bill. Foremost among these is a proposal
to eliminate the Bus and Bus Facilities Program and divide its funding ($607 million in
FY2003) between the Urbanized Areas Formula Program and the New Starts Program. This
would eliminate the largest discretionary FTA program and reduce the overall amount of
money available annually for purchase of buses and bus facilities, while increasing the
amount of funding available for new and enlarged fixed guideway systems (including bus
rapid transit systems). (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
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
CRS-4

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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
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. With federal highway and
traffic safety programs 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. Key challenges will be finding 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.
CRS-5

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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.
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
CRS-6

---

IB10032
04-03-03
aviation industry that has resulted in significantly reduced revenues for the Airport and
Airway Trust Fund.
The FAA recently released its proposals for reauthorization. The FAA’s bill, the
Centennial of Flight Aviation Authorization (FLIGHT-100), provides for essentially flat
funding during the next four years. The FAA’s bill is largely based on its existing agenda
for improving safety in the national airspace system, 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 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. Senator Frank Lautenberg has introduced legislation (S. 338) that would
classify air traffic control as an inherently governmental function and prohibit the use of any
funds to privatize air traffic control functions except for the existing contract tower program.
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
CRS-7

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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
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
CRS-8

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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 of commercial passenger aircraft as federal flight deck officers, allowing
them to carry firearms and use force, including lethal force, to protect the flight deck. A
prototype program to train 48 pilots as federal flight deck officers has been initiated by TSA,
and legislation (H.R. 765; S. 516; Amendment to S. 165) has been introduced that would
allow cargo pilots to participate in the program. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 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.
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. 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 has been introduced in both the Senate and the House (S. 165, H. R.
1103). On March 13, 2003, the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and
Transportation ordered S. 165 reported with amendments including an amendment to include
all-cargo pilots in the Federal Flight Deck Officer Program.
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 Rep. 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. While current regulations require
background checks of aliens seeking training in aircraft weighing more than 12,500 pounds,
legislation introduced by Senator Bill Nelson (S. 236; Amendment to S. 165) seeks to require
background checks for aliens seeking flight training regardless of aircraft weight, but would
CRS-9

---

IB10032
04-03-03
waive this requirement for applicants who are already qualified to fly aircraft weighing more
than 12,500 pounds. 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. A provision in
the FY2003 consolidated appropriations bill (P.L. 108-7) extends restrictions on stadium
overflights during major events for a period of one year and places tighter controls on the
issuance of waivers to this restriction. Legislation (H.R. 580; S. 311) has also been
introduced that seeks to protect U.S. airliners from terrorist missiles by installing missile
countermeasure systems on aircraft, and in the interim deploying National Guard and Coast
Guard Units to patrol areas near airports. An amendment to S. 165 offered by Sen. Boxer
and adopted by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation seeks a
study of the shoulder-launched missile threat and recommendations from the Secretary of
Homeland Security. (See CRS Report RL31151, Aviation Security Technology and
Procedures: Screening Passengers and Baggage; CRS Report RL31150, Selected Aviation
Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the September 11 Attack; and CRS Report RL31741,
Homeland Security: Protecting Airliners from Terrorist Missiles) (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 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. Surface transportation security legislation will likely be taken up by 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 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
CRS-10

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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)
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 (P.L. 108-7/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.” However, in a March 13, 2003 hearing, the DOT Inspector General
cautioned that lower than projected revenues for Amtrak in recent months raise the
possibility of another Amtrak cash crisis before the end of the current fiscal year.
CRS-11

---

IB10032
04-03-03
In a change of policy, Congress directed (in P.L. 108-7) that Amtrak funding not go
directly to Amtrak; instead, funding is allocated to the Secretary of Transportation, who will
make quarterly grants to Amtrak. P.L. 108-7 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. These plans are due May 1, 2003.
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. 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
introduced in the 108th Congress include S. 104 (Hollings), which would authorize
significant increases in funding for Amtrak, with detailed allocations of funding to specific
purposes. Senator McCain is expected to introduce reauthorization legislation; in the second
session of the 107th Congress he introduced S. 1958, which would have restructured Amtrak
along the lines proposed in 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 [htp://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov]. No legislation has yet been
introduced embodying the Administration’s principles for Amtrak reauthorization. For more
information on Amtrak, see CRS Report RL31743, Amtrak Issues in the 108th Congress.
(CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman.)
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
The onset of the War in Iraq and, more recently, the outbreak of a virus known as
Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), have dramatically affected the airline industry.
Air travel in the short term has dropped approximately 10% according to the Air Transport
Association (ATA). More worrisome for the airlines, advance bookings for the months
ahead appear to be dropping on an order of magnitude of approximately 30%. All of this is
happening against the backdrop of the events of September 11th, which also had a huge
negative impact on the industry. The airlines lost record amounts of money in 2002, which
followed what had been the previous record loss experienced in 2001.
CRS-12

---

IB10032
04-03-03
Among major airlines, only Southwest was profitable in 2002, and Southwest is the
only major carrier believed to have a shot at profitability in 2003. The industry’s second
largest airline United, is operating in receivership and the possibility exists that other carriers
could find themselves in this position in the near future. There is, therefore, considerable
concern that the airline industry as we have known it over the last few years is likely to go
through a period of major structural change.
After September 11th, Congress and the Bush Administration moved swiftly to provide
the airline industry with $15 billion in federal financial support (Air Transportation Safety
and System Stabilization Act (Stabilization Act)(P.L. 107-42). The first $5 billion provided
direct aid to pay for industry losses associated with the results of the September 11th attacks.
The vast majority of these funds have already been distributed to the airlines (a listing of
airlines receiving funds is available from the Department of Transportation at
[http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/aviation/]). A second source of funding, access to $10 billion in
government backed loans, required approval by the newly created Air Transportation
Stabilization Board (ATSB). Thirteen airlines applied for the loan program. The majority
received some form of assistance, but the largest single applicant, United, was denied a loan.
Of the $10 billion authorized by this program only about $1.5 billion has been committed.
In the FY2003 Emergency Supplemental under consideration at this time, Congress has
again proposed providing some short term relief to the airline industry. At the time of this
writing the House appears to be willing to provide $3.2 billion in assistance while the Senate
would provide $3.5 billion. Both bills have the same intent, but there are differences in how
aid would be provided. Both the House and the Senate would provide significant funding
for security costs and both would provide a tax holiday for collections of the existing $2.50
per flight segment security fee charged to airline passengers. The Senate would also extend
war risk insurance provisions in existing legislation that expire at the end of this year to the
end of 2004. In addition, the Senate would provide $225 million to fund additional
unemployment insurance to displace airline industry employees. Both bills have provisions
that would limit airline industry executive compensation.
(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).
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
CRS-13

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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, as well as the need for better coordination between the
TIP and SIP planning cycles, 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)
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
CRS-14

---

IB10032
04-03-03
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-15

---