Order Code IB10032
CRS Issue Brief for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Transportation Issues
in the 108th Congress
Updated August 11, 2003
David R. Peterman, Coordinator
Resources, Science, and Industry Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

CONTENTS
SUMMARY
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Introduction
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Surface Transportation Reauthorization
Highway and Transit Program Reauthorization Issues
Congestion
Transit Reauthorization
Environmental Issues
Safety Issues
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
08-11-03
Transportation Issues in the 108th Congress
SUMMARY
This issue brief identifies key transporta-
years. Conferees reached agreement on July
tion issues facing the 108th Congress.
24, 2003; however, the conference report is
not yet available.
Transportation Budget. The Administration
has requested $54.3 billion for the Department
Transportation Security. Transportation
of Transportation for FY2004, 2.5% less than
security continues to be a key policy issue for
comparable funding for FY2003 ($55.7 bil-
Congress. The overarching concern is what
lion, excluding funds for programs transferred
reasonable security actions can be taken in
to the Department of Homeland Security in
each transportation mode without excessively
FY2003). On July 24, 2003, the House Ap-
impeding commerce and travel. Congress
propriations Committee ordered reported its
continues to consider legislative proposals to
version of the FY2004 Transportation, Trea-
strengthen aviation and surface transportation
sury, and Independent Agencies appropria-
security.
tions bill; it recommended $58.4 billion, 8%
more than the Administration request.
Amtrak Issues. The 108th Congress will have
to reach agreement on the size of Amtrak’s
Surface Transportation Reauthorization.
annual appropriation. Amtrak has stated that
Authorizing legislation for the existing federal
it needs nearly $2 billion annually through
highway and transit programs will expire at
FY2008. The House Appropriations
the end of FY2003. The Administration has
Committee has recommended $900 million
now released its reauthorization proposal, the
for FY2004, the amount requested by the
Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient
Administration. Amtrak’s authorization
Transportation Equity Act of 2003
expired at the end of FY2002; Congress is
(SAFETEA), H.R. 2088 and S. 1072. The
considering reauthorization. In doing so, it
proposal calls for only minimal increases in
may consider the future shape of the railroad,
program spending over the next six years, and
including Amtrak’s long-haul routes.
calls for a decrease in year-over-year spending
in FY2004.
Airline Industry Turmoil. The war in Iraq
and, more recently, the outbreak of a virus
Aviation Reauthorization. The authoriza-
known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome
tion for key functions of the Federal Aviation
(SARS) have dramatically affected the airline
Administration (FAA) will expire at the end
industry. Air travel has dropped approxi-
of FY2003. The FAA has released its propos-
mately 10% and advance bookings for the
als for reauthorization. The FAA’s bill, the
months ahead appear to be dropping by about
Centennial of Flight Aviation Authorization
30%. All of this is happening against the
(FLIGHT-100), provides for essentially flat
backdrop of the events of September 11th,
funding during the next four years. On June
which also had a huge negative impact on the
11, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2115, Flight
industry. The airlines lost record amounts of
100 – Century of Aviation Reauthorization
money in 2002, which followed what had
Act, which calls for spending $58.2 billion
been the previous record loss experienced in
over 4 years. The next day the Senate passed
2001. Congress has proposed providing some
is version of H.R. 2115, as amended by S.
short-term relief for the ailing airline industry.
824, proposing spending $43.5 billion over 3
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

IB10032
08-11-03
MOST RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
On July 24, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee ordered reported the FY2004
Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies Appropriations bill (H.R. 2989). The
Committee recommended $58.4 billion for transportation programs, an 8% increase over the
Administration request. The major difference was an additional $4.4 billion for highways.
On June 11, 2003, the House passed H.R. 2115, Flight 100 – Century of Aviation
Reauthorization Act, which calls for spending $58.2 billion over 4 years. The next day the
Senate passed is version of H.R. 2115, as amended by S. 824, proposing spending $43.5
billion over 3 years. Conferees reached agreement on July 24, 2003; however, the
conference report is not yet available. This issue brief will be updated when the report is
released.
In May, the Bush Administration released its surface transportation reauthorization
proposal, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003
(SAFETEA), H.R. 2088 and S. 1072. The proposal calls for minimal increases in program
spending over the next six years, and calls for a decrease in year-over-year spending in
FY2004. The Administration proposal’s six-year spending level of $247 billion is well
below the stated goals of the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, $375 billion, and the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, $311 billion.
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.
CRS-1

---

IB10032
08-11-03
Department of Transportation Appropriations
Appropriations for the Department of Transportation (DOT) (Function 400 in the
federal budget) provide funding to a variety of programs that include regulatory, safety,
research, and construction activities. Money for over half of DOT programs comes from
highway fuel taxes, which are credited to the highway trust fund. In turn, the trust fund
supports two accounts: the federal-aid highway account and the mass-transit account.
Aviation programs are also supported in part by fuel taxes, but rely more heavily on other
user fees such as the airline ticket tax. The DOT annual appropriations also include
significant monies from Treasury general-fund revenues.
Table 1 shows funding for FY2003, as well as the FY2004 amounts proposed by
the Bush Administration and Congressional action to date.
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
32,409
30,225
34,579
Federal Aviation Administration
13,510
14,007
14,028
Federal Transit Administration
7,179
7,226
7,231
Federal Railroad Administration
1,261
1,089
1,087
National Highway Traffic Safety
434
665
435
Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
305
447
474
Maritime Administration
230
219
219
Office of the Secretary
173
177
159
Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
55
55
55
Surface Transportation Board (STB)
18
18
18
Budgetary Resources Net Total
55,674
54,266
58,412
Source: Figures in Table 1 are drawn from the table at the end of the House Appropriations Committee report on H.R.
2989 (H.Rept. 108-243). Due to differing treatments of offsets, rescissions, and the structure of appropriations bills, the
figures will at times differ from those in the Administration’s Budget Request. Some figures include offsetting collections.
Enacted FY2003 figures reflect the 0.65% across-the-board rescission.
* 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). Since
they are no longer included in DOT’s appropriation, their FY2003 numbers are omitted from this table.
The Administration requested $54.3 billion for DOT for FY2004, 6% more than the
comparable amount requested for FY20031, and 3% less than the comparable amount enacted
for FY2003. The major difference between the level enacted for FY2003 and the
1 The FY2003 DOT appropriation included the Transportation Security Administration and the
United States Coast Guard, which were transferred to the Department of Homeland Security during
FY2003 and are not included in DOT’s FY2004 appropriation request; the FY2003 request did not
include the Maritime Administration, which is included in DOT’s FY2004 appropriation request.
The Administration’s FY2004 request is 14% more than its original FY2003 request, due to the
impact the Revenue-Aligned Budget Authority (RABA) provision had on FHWA’s FY2003
authorized funding level. Congress set the FY2003 RABA adjustment to $0, which effectively
increased the amount of funding the Administration’s requested for FHWA.
CRS-2

---

IB10032
08-11-03
Administration’s FY2004 request is a 7% reduction in funding requested for the Federal
Highway Administration. On July 24, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee ordered
reported its version of the FY2004 Transportation, Treasury, and Independent Agencies
appropriations bill. The Committee recommended $58.4 billion in transportation spending,
8% more than the Administration request. The major difference was an increase of $4.4
billion in highway funding. For more information see CRS Report RL31808, Appropriations
for FY2004: Transportation, Treasury, Postal Service, Executive Office of the President,
General Government, and Related Agencies. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman)
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 under
consideration 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, Revenue-
Aligned Budget Authority (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 transportation system in rural
areas. The congressional debate that is taking 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, the war
with Iraq, and the cost of Iraq’s reconstruction, such a conclusion, however, is far from
foregone. The Administration, in fact, went on record against major spending increases with
its FY2004 budget submission and its proposed reauthorization legislation: the Safe,
Accountable, Flexible, and Efficient Transportation Equity Act of 2003 (SAFETEA).2
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
2 [http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reauthorization/safetea_bill.htm]
CRS-3

---

IB10032
08-11-03
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.
In May 2003, the Bush Administration released its reauthorization proposal, SAFETEA,
introduced by request as H.R. 2088 and S. 1072. The proposal, as expected, calls for
minimal increases in program spending over the next six years; it also calls for a decrease
in year-over-year spending in FY2004. The bill makes some programmatic changes, for
example, by creating a consolidated highway-safety grant program and by establishing a new
program for ready-to-go highway and transit projects, but otherwise adopts the existing TEA-
21 structure. The Administration’s proposed six-year spending level of $247 billion is well
below the stated goals of the leadership of the House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, $375 billion, and the leadership of the Senate Environment and Public Works
Committee, $311 billion. As a result, it is unlikely that the Administration’s bill will receive
serious congressional consideration. Rather, elements of the Administration’s proposal will
probably be incorporated into the respective House and Senate bills once they are introduced.
At mid-summer, it does not appear that either the House or the Senate will consider
reauthorization legislation before the fall. 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)
Transit Reauthorization. The Administration’s reauthorization proposal,
SAFETEA, would make at least three significant changes to the federal transit program.
First, it would realign FTA programs into three groups: Formula Grants, Major Capital
Investments, and State-Administered Programs. The stated purpose is to provide transit
agencies more flexibility with their federal funding (in part through the redistribution to
formula programs of the Bus and Bus Facilities Program’s $607 million in funding, which
was completely earmarked in FY2003). Second, it would lower the maximum federal share
of costs for New Starts projects from the current 80% to 50%; this is to allow the FTA to
provide grants from the available New Starts funding to more projects. Third, the portion
of FTA’s authorized funding that comes from general-fund appropriations—about 18%
CRS-4

---

IB10032
08-11-03
under SAFETEA—would no longer be guaranteed as it was under TEA-21. This could lead
to less funding for FTA than authorized, as well as introducing uncertainty into the financial
planning of transit-funding recipients; as, prior to the TEA-21 funding guarantee, annual
transit appropriations were often less than the amount authorized. For more information, see
CRS Report RL31854, Transit Program Reauthorization in the 108th Congress. (CRS
contact: D. Randy Peterman)
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 federal 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.
SAFETEA would retain the basic structure of the CMAQ program and increase the
funding level by nearly $750 million above the previous authorization. It also would revise
the funding formula to ensure that states with areas that do not meet stricter federal air
quality standards receive greater funding, and would require further study of CMAQ’s
effectiveness. SAFETEA would continue support for other environmental programs as well,
with the exception of the Clean Fuels Formula Grant Program and the Advanced Vehicle
Technologies Program which would not be renewed. 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. SAFETEA would allow greater
participation of project sponsors and states in coordinating the review process, and would
provide states with the authority to make certain decisions necessary for project approvals.
SAFETEA also would amend current statutory requirements that specify the conditions
under which public parks, recreational lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, and historic
sites may be used for a transportation project. While some argue that these changes would
help to increase the pace of project approvals, others believe that environmental protections
might be compromised. 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 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 improve commercial motor
CRS-5

---

IB10032
08-11-03
vehicle safety. Some groups seek new safety requirements or fundamental changes in federal
transportation safety programs. In the SAFETEA, the Administration proposes major
changes in various federal grant programs that directly affect the amount of and conditions
under which funds from the Federal Highway Trust Fund are provided to the states. Key
challenges will be finding additional funds to increase federal support for safety, and
evaluating the costs and benefits of changes in federal policy. 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 (STP) 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 to improve grade crossings (such as by installing signals and
signs). Congress will decide the authorization levels for various federal-highway categorical
grants, the amount (if any) of set asides for safety, and whether a separate categorical grant
for safety is established. In SAFETEA, the Administration proposes to eliminate the
separate STP safety set aside and to create a separate, apportioned program called the
Highway Safety Improvement Program This program is to address safety problems and
opportunities on all roadways in a state and focus resources on the greatest needs as
identified through crash data analysis.
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 financial rewards for a state’s 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. In SAFETEA, the Administration proposes a limited
consolidation of the existing grant programs and requests funding for two new grant
programs: one for emergency medical services and one for state traffic record systems. The
Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation has reported out a bill (no
number yet assigned) that authorizes new grant programs to combat impaired driving and to
encourage the states to adopt and enforce primary safety belt laws and to increase safety-belt
use rates.
Truck and Bus Safety. Key concerns include funding levels for various motor
carrier safety enforcement and regulatory activities conducted by the Federal Motor Carrier
Safety Administration (FMCSA); grants to enhance the efforts of state enforcement agencies
and to improve the Commercial Driver Licensing (CDL) programs conducted by the states;
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 to ensure that CDL grant funds are effectively used;
and whether funds administered by the FMCSA should focus more on the role of non-
CRS-6

---

IB10032
08-11-03
commercial drivers affecting commercial motor vehicle safety. The Senate Commerce
Committee bill reauthorizes funding for both the federal and state motor carrier safety
programs, and creates a new program to improve state commercial driver licensing activities.
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 are generally involved before widespread deployment.
Also, 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. I n SAFETEA,
the Administration is proposing increased funding for both ITS and highway research and
development and technology deployment activities.

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 108th Congress has
been engaged in the process of drafting and debating legislation to reauthorize the FAA and
related aviation programs beyond FY2003.
On June 11, 2003, H.R. 2115, Flight 100– the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act,
was passed by the House of Representatives (Roll Call 264). The House bill proposes a total
budget of $58.2 billion over four years for airport improvements, facilities and equipment,
and FAA operations and maintenance. The bill does not include provisions for FAA’s
research, engineering, and development function, which is under the jurisdiction of the
House Science Committee, Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics.
On June 12, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2115, striking out the House
language and substituting the amended language of S. 824 (Record Vote Number 225). The
Senate proposal is for a three-year reauthorization totaling $43.5 billion, for airport
improvements; facilities and equipment; FAA operations and maintenance; and research,
engineering, and development. While the Senate proposal provides somewhat lower funding
levels than the House, both the Senate and the House bills would provide more funding than
the Administration’s request of $57.3 billion over four years. The Senate has asked for a
conference to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions.
CRS-7

---

IB10032
08-11-03
House legislation to reauthorize the FAA’s research, engineering, and development
functions has not received committee consideration, although at least two bills that would
reauthorize RE&D have been introduced, H.R. 2271 and H.R. 2734. It is now expected that
RE&D will be resolved directly in the now ongoing conference. For a more in-depth
discussion of issues related to FAA reauthorization, see CRS Issue Brief IB10121,
Reauthorization of the Federal Aviation Administration. (CRS Contacts: Bart Elias, John
Fischer, and Robert Kirk).
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 55,000 federal screeners were hired by TSA
and are in place at all 432 passenger airports, including five airports participating in a pilot
program using federally trained private screeners. TSA is currently downsizing its screener
workforce by 6,000 employees and reallocating screeners to better match checkpoint
passenger volume at the various airports. 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. The
initial class was trained in April 2003, and 44 pilots were deputized as federal flight deck
officers. TSA was appropriated $8 million for the program in FY 2003, and is requesting
$25 million to continue the program in FY 2004. While the program is currently limited to
pilots of passenger aircraft, legislation (H.R. 765; S. 516; H.R. 1049; S. 165) has been
CRS-8

---

IB10032
08-11-03
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 for 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, alternative baggage-screening
methods at airports unable to meet a December 31, 2002, deadline for deployment of
explosive detection systems and to 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 expand 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 passed by the Senate (S. 165) and similar legislation has
been introduced in the House (H.R. 1103). Other legislation (H.R. 2455; H.Amdt. 183 to
H.R. 2555) would require the screening of all cargo placed on passenger aircraft.
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 is the use of passenger
background screening and concerns over the protection of individual privacy and civil
liberties while using methods to identify passengers who may pose security risks. Legislation
under consideration would require reviews assessing the impacts of the next-generation
Computer Aided Passenger Pre-screening (CAPPS II) program on passenger privacy and
civil rights and assessing the efficiency and security of the system being developed (see H.R.
2555 as reported in the Senate; H.R. 2115 as agreed to by the Senate; S. 165).
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
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.
CRS-9

---

IB10032
08-11-03
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.
A provision in S. 165 seeks a study of the shoulder-launched missile threat and
recommendations from the Secretary of Homeland Security. The House-passed Homeland
Security appropriations bill (H.R. 2555; H.Rept. 108-169) identifies $60 million to develop
and evaluate an anti-missile device for commercial aviation, an amount identified for
developing this technology in the DHS program plan ordered by the Emergency Wartime
Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2003 (P.L. 108-11; H.Rept. 108-76). (See CRS Report
RL31969, Aviation Security: Issues Before Congress Since September 11, 2001 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 Consolidated Appropriations Resolution (H.J.Res. 2/P.L. 108-7) 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/H.R. 2726) would provide funds for improvements to
these tunnels, as well as for an assessment of security risks in rail transportation. The Over-
the-Road Bus Security and Safety Act of 2003 (H.R. 875/S. 929) would authorize the
Secretary of Transportation to make grants to private bus operators for extraordinary security
and safety improvements; S. 929 has been passed by the Senate. (CRS contacts: D. Randy
Peterman, Transit and Passenger Rail; John Frittelli, Freight Railroads; Paul
Rothberg, Highways and Pipelines)
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.
CRS-10

---

IB10032
08-11-03
On November 14, 2002, Congress passed the Maritime Transportation Security Act of
2002 (MTSA, 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 is debating the appropriate balance between taxpayer dollars for
port security and investment from the private sector.
Policymakers also are debating whether initiatives to fill gaps in port security are
proceeding at sufficient pace. Implementation of the port security provisions in MTSA are
also undergoing review. 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
The Bush Administration requested $900 million for Amtrak for FY2004; Amtrak has
requested $1.8 billion in federal capital and operating subsidies for FY2004, with $1.04
billion in support for capital needs and $768 million for operations. The House
Appropriations Committee has recommended $900 million (H.R. 2989).
As required by its FY2003 appropriation, Amtrak submitted a 5-year Strategic Plan to
Congress on April 25, 2003. This plan would maintain the current network and begin to
address Amtrak’s estimated $6 billion backlog of maintenance. The plan calls for an average
of $1.6 billion annually in federal assistance to Amtrak over FY2004-FY2008.
In a change of policy, for FY2003 Congress directed (in P.L. 108-7) that Amtrak
funding not go directly to Amtrak; instead, its funding is allocated to the Secretary of
Transportation, who will make quarterly grants to Amtrak. P.L. 108-7 also provides for
CRS-11

---

IB10032
08-11-03
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 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 nearly $5 billion in debt and capital lease obligations, and nearly $6 billion
in backlogged capital maintenance needs. The Amtrak Reform Council and the DOT
Inspector General’s Office have both estimated that Amtrak, as currently structured, requires
around a billion and a half dollars in operating and capital support annually, a considerably
higher level of funding than Amtrak has ever consistently received.
Amtrak’s authorization expired at the end of FY2002. 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 principles are
reflected in the Administration’s Amtrak reauthorization legislation, S. 1501, which would
split Amtrak into an operating company and an infrastructure company, phase out federal
operating support for passenger rail services, provide federal matching funds for state
investments in passenger rail capital improvements, and turn over responsibility for planning
and managing passenger rail service to the states, who would contract with Amtrak or,
eventually, perhaps other operators, to provide passenger service.
Other reauthorization legislation introduced in the 108th Congress includes legislation
that would authorize funding for Amtrak as it currently exists and legislation that would
restructure Amtrak. In the first category are S. 104 (Sen. Hollings), which would authorize
significant increases in funding for Amtrak, with detailed allocations of funding to specific
purposes; H.R. 2572 (Rep. Don Young), which would authorize $2 billion annually for
Amtrak for FY2004-FY2006; and the Senate Surface Transportation Safety Reauthorization
bill (no bill number), which includes an amendment from Sen. Hutchison that would
authorize $2 billion annually for Amtrak over FY2004-FY2009. In the second category are
S. 1501, the Administration’s proposal for restructuring Amtrak and passenger rail services,
which contains no authorization amounts; and S. 1505 (Sen. Hutchison), which would
authorize $2 billion annually for Amtrak, divide Amtrak’s infrastructure from its operations,
create a federal passenger rail office with responsibility for the passenger rail system, and
authorize $48 billion in tax-credit bonds to finance capital improvements to increase the
speed of passenger rail trains throughout the nation. H.R. 2572 and the Senate Surface
Transportation Safety Reauthorization bill have been passed out of committee (the Senate
bill has not yet been filed). For more information, see CRS Report RL31743, Amtrak Issues
in the 108th Congress. (CRS contact: D. Randy Peterman)
CRS-12

---

IB10032
08-11-03
Airline Industry Financial Turmoil
The March/April War in Iraq and, the outbreak of a virus known as Severe Acute
Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) (now in apparent remission), and concerns about the
reconstruction of Iraq, have dramatically affected the airline industry. Air travel in March
and April dropped significantly according to the Air Transport Association (ATA). In early
July, with the war over, there are some hopeful signs that traffic is returning, but no one in
the industry is expecting a full traffic recovery in 2003. All of these developments are
happening against the backdrop of the events of September 11th, which continues to have 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.
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 large
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, which has yet to fully play out.
Throughout this period the airline industry has come to Congress seeking assistance, by way
of tax relief or other means, in order to keep flying.
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 Wartime Supplemental (P.L. 108-11)(April 12, 2003),
Congress has again provided the industry with short term relief. Specifically, the Act
provides $2.3 billion in immediate assistance to reimburse air carriers for security expenses
( T r a n s p o r t a t i o n S e c u r i t y A d m i n i s t r a t i o n p r e s s r e l e a s e :
[http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=230]). It also provides the air
carriers with an additional $100 million to reimburse them for expenses involved in
hardening cockpit doors, and gives the industry a four-month tax holiday beginning June 1,
2003, during which time passenger and airline security fees will not be collected.
Notwithstanding this assistance, there are many observers who believe that this aid will be
insufficient to keep all U.S. airlines solvent. Rather it is the hope that this assistance will buy
the industry time and that an economic recovery later this year will restore the industry to
some semblance of health. (CRS contact: John Fischer)
CRS-13

---

IB10032
08-11-03
Environmental Issues
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, 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. Conformity provisions have been introduced in the Administration’s highway
and transit legislation (H.R. 2088 / S. 1072); Section 6001 of the bill would require
conformity demonstrations every five years instead of every three, and would shorten the
planning horizon over which conformity must be demonstrated to 10 years in most cases,
instead of the current 20 years. (CRS Contact: Jim McCarthy)
Diesel Engines and Fuel
New emission standards for highway diesel engines took effect October 1, 2002, but six
of the seven 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, manufacturers 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
CRS-14

---

IB10032
08-11-03
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 and Brent
Yacobucci)
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.
Alternative fuels—especially hydrogen—and vehicles will play a key role in the debate over
a comprehensive energy policy. On April 11, 2003, the House passed H.R. 6, which (among
other provisions) mandates the use of renewable fuel in gasoline and provides funding for
hydrogen research, grants for advanced buses, and tax incentives for fuel cell vehicles. The
Senate energy bill, S. 14, is currently being debated; many provisions of S. 14 are similar to
those in H.R. 6. 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

---