Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment*
|
Redistributed as a Service of the National Library for the Environment* |
|
|
|
IB10032: Transportation Issues in the 107th Congress Glennon J. Harrison, Coordinator April 30, 2001 CONTENTS
This issue brief identifies key transportation issues facing the 107th Congress. Transportation Budgeting. Spending for highway and transit programs is linked directly to revenue collected. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21) guarantees funding for certain FAA programs. DOT Appropriations for FY2001 provide nearly $58 billion for DOT, an increase of more than 14% over FY2000. President Bush's budget blueprint for FY2002 requests roughly $60 billion for DOT. The Airport Improvement Program was reauthorized through FY2003 by the 106th Congress. Aviation Delays are at record levels with little relief in sight. Airline Consumer Protection issues stem from the growing dissatisfaction expressed by airline consumers in the press and to Congress. Airline Mergers. The United-USAirways merger has heightened congressional interest in airline industry concentration. Airline Labor Disputes, which are covered by the Railway Labor Act, may disrupt travel during the peak summer period. European Hushkit Dispute. A ban on newly hushkitted aircraft into European airline fleets risks U.S. retaliation. The Airbus 380 trade dispute once again raises the issue of European subsidies for aircraft projects that compete directly against non-subsidized U.S. products. TEA21 Traffic Safety Grants. Interest centers on how effectively federal and state agencies are implementing TEA21 traffic safety grant programs. Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21. Oversight of environmental streamlining provisions of TEA21 will continue into the 107th Congress. Traffic Congestion is worsening in many urbanized areas. In the 107th Congress, federal transportation policies may be examined to explore possible solutions to this problem. Amtrak funding will be reviewed early in the 107th Congress to reconsider a $10 billion bond proposal that failed to be passed in the closing days of the 106th Congress. Amtrak reform is on the agenda as Amtrak attempts to meet a statutory requirement that it cover its operating expenses out of its own revenues by the end of FY2002 or go out of business. Rail Safety programs have not been reauthorized since they expired at the end of FY1998. Hazardous Materials Transportation Safe-ty was not reauthorized during the 106th Congress. Pipeline Safety measures may again be considered during the 107th Congress. Motor Carrier Safety issues include proposed revisions to the Hours-of-Service regulations and promoting the safety of Mexican-domiciled trucks entering the United States. The Firestone Tire Recall will spur congressional review of NHTSA's efforts to implement the TREAD Act passed by the 106th Congress. Harbor Maintenance User Fees. The 107th Congress may consider whether to create a fee-based system to pay for harbor maintenance or use the General Fund. Coast Guard Reauthorization. Major issues include replacing aging vessels and addressing expanded operational responsibilities. On April 9, 2001, the Bush Administration released its budget proposal for FY2002. The proposed FY2002 budget total for the Department of Transportation (DOT) is roughly $59.4 billion. This represents a less than 2% increase above the FY2001 enacted level. The FY2001 budget included over $2.7 billion in what the Administration refers to as "one time projects" added to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) budget. If these are subtracted, the Administration's proposed increase could be seen as a 6%. Most agencies would receive budgets equal to or slightly above their FY2001 budgets. The major agencies that would receive less in FY2002 are FHWA, and the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). On February 13, 2001, DOT Inspector General Kenneth Mead released a report analyzing the progress of airlines toward fulfilling their voluntary "Customer Service Commitment," which they had agreed to in 1999 to forestall legislation. The report concludes that, although progress has been made, significant shortfalls remain, especially in providing timely and accurate information concerning delays and cancellations, and also in meeting customers' essential needs during extended on-aircraft delays. On the same day, Senators McCain, Hollings, and Hutchison introduced the Airline Customer Service Act (S. 319). The bill includes significant enforcement and disclosure provisions. On March 15, 2001, S. 319 was reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. Provisions from another bill, S. 483 (Senator Wyden), were incorporated into S. 319 during mark-up. A related bill, the Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633) has been introduced by Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller. The intent of the bill is to provide some near term relief to airport congestion by spreading out peak hour schedules and accelerating capacity-enhancing airport improvements. On February 6, 2001, an international arbitration panel issued a ruling on a complaint filed by Mexico under the dispute resolution procedures of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The panel concluded that the U.S. refusal to approve any applications from Mexican-owned carriers for authority to provide cross-border trucking services was and remains a breach of NAFTA. This decision, plus the Bush Administration's support for opening up the border to Mexican-trucks as specified under NAFTA, is likely to accelerate the granting of new operating authority to Mexican carriers. On October 6, 2000, the House and Senate approved the conference report on H.R. 4475, the FY2001 Department of Transportation Appropriations bill, sending the measure to the President. President Clinton signed the FY2001 Department of Transportation (DOT) and Related Agencies Appropriations Act (P.L. 106-346; H.Rept. 106-940) on October 23, 2000. The agreement provides $58.4 billion for DOT. This amount is an increase of almost $8 billion over (or 14%) the enacted FY2000 level. The Act provided increases for all major DOT agencies except the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA). This issue brief provides an overview of key issues on the transportation agenda of the 107th Congress. The issues are organized under the headings of budget, aviation, surface transportation, and maritime, with the author of each issue identified. Relevant Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports are cited in the text. During the 105th and 106th Congresses, major legislation changed the relationships between the largest transportation trust funds and the federal budget. The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178) linked spending for highway programs directly to revenue collections for the highway trust fund. In addition, core highway and mass transit program funding has been given special status in the discretionary portion of the federal budget by virtue of the creation of two new budget categories. The Act thereby creates a virtual "firewall" around highway and mass transportation spending programs. Additional funds provided annually by a mechanism called "Revenue Aligned Budget Authority" (RABA) are also guaranteed by this process. (RABA funds accrue to the trust fund as a result of increased fuel tax revenues.) The funding guarantees are set up in a way that makes it difficult for funding levels to be altered as part of the annual budget/appropriations process. The Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (FAIR21 or AIR21)(P.L. 106-181) provides a so-called "guarantee" for Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program spending. The guarantee for aviation spending, however, is significantly different from that provided by TEA21. Instead of creating new budget categories, the FAIR21 guarantee rests on adoption of two point-of-order rules for the House and the Senate. Supporters of FAIR21 believe the new law requires significant new spending on aviation programs; and, for at least the FY2001 appropriations cycle, new spending was significantly higher. Most observers view the FAIR21 guarantees, however, as being somewhat weaker than those provided by TEA21. Congress can, and sometimes does, waive points-of-order during consideration of legislation. Enactment of TEA21 and FAIR21 means that transportation appropriators have total control over spending for the Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration (including Amtrak), and a number of smaller DOT agencies. All of these agencies are concerned about their funding prospects in a constrained budgetary environment. In FY2001, additional funds for transportation provided as a result of the budget surplus largely negated these concerns. For more information, see CRS Report 98-749E, The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) and the Federal Budget and CRS Report RS20177. Airport and Airway Trust Fund Issues in the 106th Congress. 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 2. Department of Transportation
Appropriations
Source: Figures in Table 2 are drawn from tables provided by the House Committee on Appropriations. Some figures include offsetting collections. Enacted FY2001 figures have been adjusted to reflect the impact of the 0.22% rescission, additional appropriations, transfers, and carry-overs. FY2002 requested figures are taken from the Budget of the United States Government, 2002. Internet address: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/dot.pdf. The FY2002 agency total of $59.4 billion was drawn from the DOT Budget in Brief minus the budget of the Maritime Administration which is not funded by the DOT appropriations bill. The FY2001 Appropriations Act (PL. 106-346) provided just over $58.4 billion for DOT. This is an increase of more than 14% over the amount provided for FY2000. President Bush's FY2002 budget request for DOT is roughly $59.4 billion, an increase of under 2%. The appropriations debate for FY2001 was less contentious than for FY2000. It can be argued that this is a direct result of a less constrained budgetary environment. For FY2002, it is uncertain whether this will again be the case. Table 2 shows, for selected agencies and offices that receive funding under the DOT appropriations act each year, enacted amounts for FY2001 and amounts for FY2002 proposed by the Bush Administration. For more information see CRS Report RL30050 (pdf)8, Appropriations for FY2001: Department of Transportation and Related Agencies. FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP) The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) provides federal grants for airport development and planning. AIP grants are usually spent on capital projects that support airport operations including runways, taxiways, aprons, and noise abatement. A number of issues that could be subject to congressional scrutiny in the 107th Congress include: whether the pattern of spending of both AIP grants and Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) revenues encourage competition or benefit incumbent carriers; how well FAIR21's spending guarantees hold up; the effectiveness of aircraft noise mitigation at or near airports; and the earmarking of dollar amounts for airports identified in the report language of the FY2001 conference report (H.Rept. 106-940) and its potential impact on the FAA's grant application process. President Bush's FY2002 budget call for funding AIP at the fully authorized level of $3.3 billion. For more information on AIP, see CRS Issue Brief IB10026, Airport Improvement Program. Flight delays and cancellation in the U.S. air transportation system rose to record levels in 2000. The problem costs the airlines an estimated $3 billion annually and causes great inconvenience for shippers and passengers. The airlines, weather, air traffic control (ATC), and airport capacity have all been blamed. On the federal side, billions of federal dollars are being spent each year to modernize the air traffic control system, purchase new equipment, and expand airport capacity. But the airlines express little confidence that these efforts will provide near-term relief or be sufficient in the long term to accommodate the forecasted growth in air traffic-up from about 670-million passengers in 2000 to 1.0-billion forecast by 2010 and 1.5 billion by 2025. The ability of the FAA to manage the ATC system while overseeing airline safety has been a disputed issue for some time. The increase in delays adds voice to calls for ATC reform and/or regulatory remedies. It is generally agreed that the delay problem is likely to get worse before it gets better and that correcting it is an evolutionary process that will take years to accomplish. The answer may lie in a mix of solutions - technology, more runways, airline scheduling, and airspace redesign among them. Congress has taken steps to make airlines provide better information on the sources of delay, but there is much about the delay problem that is still not known. For example, the FAA does not know what traffic load the ATC and airport systems can handle without suffering major delays - now and into the future; or how much relief technological options can provide - and on what timetable. The effective allocation of resources may depend upon Congress having answers to questions such as these. The Aviation Delay Prevention Act (S. 633), introduced by Senators Hutchison and Rockefeller, is intended to provide some near term relief to airport congestion and delay. S. 633 has three main provisions. First, it calls for a review and report on air carrier over-scheduling at large hub airports, an analysis of the congestion mitigation authority of the Secretary of Transportation, and recommendations for increasing this authority. Second, the bill would provide air carriers with a limited exemption form antitrust laws to allow them to discuss cooperative scheduling arrangements to reduce over-scheduling during peak hours. Third, the bill calls for DOT to implement an expedited coordinated environmental and judicial review process (done concurrently, not consecutively) for airport capacity-enhancement projects. For additional information, see CRS Report RS20734, Aviation Delays. Airline Consumer Protection Legislation The growing dissatisfaction that airline consumers have expressed in the press and increasingly to Members of Congress was an issue in the 106th Congress and remains an issue for the 107th Congress. Two summers of record delays and flight cancellations by the major airlines and a perception of complacency by the airlines to passenger discontent has led to calls for changes in airline customer service and business practices. Specific issues include: disclosure of the reasons for cancellation, delay, or flight diversion; partial ticket use; access to all fares regardless of the technology used to access the information; the right to deplane from delayed aircraft; and "bumping" rights. There are also broader overarching questions including: what is the appropriate federal oversight role in a deregulated airline environment; should certain practices such as over booking of flights be considered unfair or deceptive practices; how much of the seeming decline in the quality of passenger treatment is due to existing record demand for air travel; and is there a mismatch between demand and capacity that industry could better address? The Air Transport Association (ATA), which represents the major air carriers, insists that legislative remedies are not needed because air carriers are implementing "customer service plans," based on voluntary "Customer Service Commitments," that are designed to restore consumer confidence in airline service. Among these are commitments to offer the lowest fare available; to notify customers of known delays, cancellations, and diversions; to handle "bumped" passengers with fairness and consistency; and to meet customers' essential needs during long on-aircraft delays. On February 13, 2001, the DOT Office of the Inspector General (IG) released a congressionally mandated report analyzing the progress made by the airlines under the voluntary "Customer Service Commitment." The IG report concludes that, although progress has been made, there are still significant shortfalls, especially in provisions that "trigger when there is a flight delay or cancellation." These provisions include keeping customers informed of delays and cancellations and also meeting customers' "essential needs" during extended on-aircraft delays. Among the IG's recommendations is to make the Customer Service Commitment enforceable either by requiring their inclusion in the airlines' contracts of carriage or by regulation. The introduction of the Airline Customer Service Improvement Act (S. 319) coincided with the release of the IG's report. S. 319 requires that all ATA member airlines incorporate the Customer Service Commitment in their contracts of carriage. It also requires disclosure of the on-time performance and cancellation rate for chronically-delayed or canceled flights when a customer makes a reservation. For more information see CRS Report RL30940, Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress. On May 24, 2000, United Airlines announced its intention to acquire and merge with US Airways. This complex, $11.4 billion proposal created immediate concern that it was a precursor for further consolidation in the U.S. airline industry. The proposed merger joins the nation's largest and sixth largest carriers, creating a firm that would be almost double the size of its next largest competitor, American Airlines. The proposed merger would also result, over time, in the creation of a new airline operating from Reagan National Airport. The new airline, DC Air, would be the nation's only minority-owned airline. In January 2001, the merger picture was further complicated by American Airline's announcement that it would purchase TWA. As part of the purchase agreement, TWA filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and the Bankruptcy Court has allowed American to provide debtor-in-possession funding for the carrier until such time as final purchase can be approved. In a separate but somewhat related deal, American agreed to become a major investor in DC Air and has offered to purchase some US Airways assets as part of the proposed United-US Airways merger. The most controversial portion of this agreement allows American to jointly provide shuttle service in the Northeast corridor. The authority to approve or disapprove airline mergers rests entirely with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Department of Transportation (DOT) makes recommendations to DOJ based on its evaluation of the effect of a proposed merger on airline industry competition. The DOJ has already begun its evaluation of all the proposed mergers. A ruling in the United-US Airways-American merger is not expected before the end of April 2001 at the earliest. American has obtained approval of its proposed TWA purchase under the "failing firm" provisions of antitrust law from both the bankruptcy court and DOJ. American expects to complete its takeover of the firm by mid-April 2001. Congress has no specific statutory role in the airline merger process. Individual Members of Congress have taken positions both for and against the mergers. Congress has already held hearings in the 106th and 107th Congresses on the possible impacts of these mergers and acquisitions. Legislation that would provide for a moratorium on mergers for one year has recently been introduced, H.R. 761. In addition, legislation that would affect DOJ's merger approval process has also been introduced: H.R. 142, S. 199, S. 415 and S. 520 A markup of S. 415 was held on March 15, 2001, that largely eliminated the approval provisions in the bill but retained the bills competition provisions. Airline Labor Disputes and the Railway Labor Act Comair's pilots are currently on strike. Delta's pilots could strike as early as April 28, 2001. Unresolved labor problems at United and American could lead to strikes later this summer. Airline strikes by their nature are disruptive, but when they occur in the peak summer air travel periods their economic effects can be significantly magnified. Labor disputes in the airline industry are fairly common, but it is uncommon to have so many potential disputes arising at the same time. The Federal government and Congress play a more active role in airline industry labor disputes then they do in most other industries. Labor disputes in the railway and airline industries are covered by the Railway Labor Act. (1) The Act sets forth procedures for negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. If the dispute is not settled through these procedures and the National Mediation Board determines that the dispute "threatens substantially to interrupt interstate commerce to a degree such as to deprive any section of the country of essential transportation service," the Board shall notify the President of the threat, at which point the President may appoint an Emergency Board to investigate the dispute and report back to him. (2) The Emergency Board's recommendations are not binding on the parties, and either party may reject them triggering a final 30-day cooling-off period prior to a strike. (3) However, Congress may enact legislation requiring the parties to submit the dispute to another emergency board; to submit to final and binding arbitration; or to accept the emergency board's recommendations. (4) The European Union Hushkit Dispute Early in 1999, the European Parliament adopted legislation that banned the introduction of new hushkitted aircraft into European airline fleets. ("Hushkits" consist of jet engine modifications designed to bring older, noisy engines into compliance with current noise standards.) Beginning in April 2002, hushkitted non-European aircraft would be banned from operating within the European Union (EU) unless they had already been operating in April 1999. This legislation responds to what the European Parliament believes is a growing concern about noise levels around airports throughout the EU. This legislation required the approval of EU Transport Ministers prior to implementation. On March 29, 1999, the Ministers extended the deadline to April 29, 1999, to allow the possibility of further discussion with the United States. The EU did adopt the rule on April 29, 1999. Implementation of the rule was delayed, however, until May 4, 2000. In March 2000 the United States filed a memorial with the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) asking it to rule on the EU's proposed policy. The EU has since suggested that the U.S. action forces it to implement the rule. The United States is opposed to the EU hushkit rules. The United States believes that the EU is creating an aircraft noise regulatory framework that is at odds with international rules on noise reduction agreed to by the ICAO. FAIR21 contains language that instructs the Secretary of Transportation to continue to work to develop, through the ICAO, new performance standards for aircraft and aircraft engines that will lead to a further reduction in aircraft noise levels. That Act directs the Secretary to give high priority to developing standards that ensure that U. S. air carriers and aircraft engine and hushkit manufacturers are not put at a competitive disadvantage. The EU's hushkit legislation primarily applies to aircraft and aircraft engines produced in the United States. In addition, all aircraft engine hushkit producers are U.S. firms. As a result, the United States believes the EU legislation is discriminatory and could cause serious economic damage to U.S. firms. In the 106th Congress, the House passed a bill "to direct the Secretary of Transportation to prohibit the commercial operation of supersonic transport category aircraft that do not comply with stage-3 noise levels if the EU adopts certain aircraft noise regulations." The only aircraft that fits this definition is the Concorde, and its only regularly scheduled routes were between New York and London, and New York and Paris (the Concorde is currently grounded for safety reasons). The bill was viewed by its supporters as a way to retaliate for the EU legislation. A similar bill was introduced in the Senate but not considered. In September 1999, the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure marked up a resolution that called on the Clinton Administration to use "all reasonable means" to prevent EU implementation of its hushkit ban. The Senate meanwhile approved a similar resolution in its version of the FY2000 Commerce, Justice, and State Appropriations Act. The resolution is supported by the U.S. Aerospace Industries Association (AIA), but was opposed by the Clinton Administration. Further legislative action is unlikely pending ICAO's ruling on the United State's complaint currently before it. For more information, see CRS Report RL30547, Aircraft Hushkits: Noise and International Trade. The 107th Congress is likely to react to the December 19, 2000 Airbus Industrie announcement that it has formally launched a program to construct the world's largest commercial passenger aircraft, the newly numbered Airbus A380. This long expected launch reopens a long-standing trade dispute between the United States and Europe about subsidization of aircraft projects that compete directly with non-subsidized U.S. products, in this case the Boeing 747 series aircraft. Several Members of Congress are likely to call for hearings and other possible actions on this issue in the near future. The Airbus A380 will be offered in several versions seating between 500 and 800 passengers. The project is expected to cost at least $10.7 billion and might cost significantly more. Airbus has 50 firm orders for the aircraft and an additional 42 options. Airbus expects that its member firms will contribute 60% of this sum, with the remaining 40% coming from subcontractors. State-aid, which is limited to one-third of the project's total cost, by a 1992 Agreement on Government Support for Civil Aircraft between the United States and the EU, would be used to assist the Airbus partner firms. Boeing does not perceive that an adequate market exists to justify the large expenses needed to develop an aircraft of this size, and has instead decided to pursue a totally different strategy by developing a new class of fast mid-sized aircraft, approximately 250 seats, known as sonic cruisers. At issue is at least $2.5 billion in already identified direct loans to be provided to Airbus member firms by the governments of France, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom. Additional funds are likely to be provided to subcontractors by other European nations such as Belgium and Italy. The United States is concerned that the level of state-aid needed for this project could violate the aforementioned bilateral agreement. There are also concerns, expressed by then-President Clinton and the U. S. Trade Representative (USTR), that these loans will not be at commercial rates and that they might be forgiven if the A380 Airbus is a commercial failure. The European Union disputes these claims. Oversight of the Traffic Safety Grant Provisions of TEA21 The Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21) (P.L. 105-178) authorizes funding through FY2003 for a variety of traffic safety grant programs conducted by the states. Collectively, these grants are intended to encourage the states to: strengthen their laws and programs dealing with drunk driving, including the adoption and enforcement of a law which makes it illegal for someone with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.08% or higher to drive a motor vehicle; increase seat belt use rates; improve the timeliness, accuracy, completeness, uniformity, and accessibility of state crash and related highway data; and conduct innovative strategies to deal with a variety of traffic safety challenges. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) have issued regulations to implement each of the new grant programs established by TEA21. Various committees of the 107th Congress are likely to oversee the implementation of these grant programs. Policy issues and key questions associated with the grant programs include: How effectively are these programs being administered? Can the grant application processes be streamlined while still ensuring accountability for the use of federal funds? Are larger financial incentives needed to accelerate increases in seat belt use rates and reductions in the percentage of traffic crashes involving alcohol? How useful are the various grant programs in reducing traffic safety challenges? Discussions over the reauthorization of most of these grant programs, perhaps with some modifications, is expected to intensify during the 2nd Session of the 107th Congress. For additional information, see CRS Report 98-890, Traffic Safety Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century. Oversight of the Environmental Provisions of TEA21 In the 107th Congress, oversight of TEA21's environmental provisions will likely focus on the implementation of requirements to streamline the environmental review process for highway projects. On May 25, 2000, the Federal Highway Administration and the Federal Transit Administration jointly proposed regulations to streamline the environmental review process for highway and transit projects, and public comments were accepted through September 23, 2000. During oversight hearings held during the 106th Congress, some Members in the House and Senate criticized the proposal for not fully addressing the streamlining requirements under TEA21, and for addressing other planning and regulatory issues not required under the law. Some of the principal criticisms of the proposal were the absence of a requirement for environmental reviews to be conducted concurrently, rather than sequentially, and to be completed within a cooperatively determined time period. Some Members also criticized the proposal for not including a dispute resolution mechanism to ensure that federal agencies complete their environmental reviews within mutually agreed upon time frames. During oversight hearings in the 106th Congress, the Federal Highway Administration testified that it would evaluate all of the comments on its proposal when developing the final version of the streamlining regulations. However, the Clinton Administration did not issue a final rule prior to the inauguration of President Bush, and it is unclear what action the Bush Administration will take. At a "Washington Briefing" held by the American Association of State and Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in February, Cynthia Burbank, Federal Highway Administration Program Manager for Planning and Environment, outlined several options that are available to the Bush Administration. Such options include issuing final rules based on the comments already received, starting over and issuing a new proposal, or deferring rulemaking altogether and proceeding with work on reauthorizing TEA21, which expires on September 30, 2003. For additional information, see CRS Report RS20841, Environmental Streamlining Provisions in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century: Status of Implementation. The Economist and others estimate that delays caused by congestion cost the United States $100 billion per year. Most of these estimates are predicated on assigning a dollar value to time lost by individuals and businesses as a result of people and products being stuck in traffic. Sometimes these estimates also include energy and pollution costs. By necessity these estimates are very generalized. Nonetheless, these estimates are illustrative of a massive problem for American society. There are few individuals living near major urbanized areas who could honestly claim to be unaffected by congestion-caused delays. In the last several decades there have been numerous attempts to reduce traffic congestion, primarily at the state, local, and regional levels. DOT has often provided funding for specific projects, and has offered the expertise of its employees in the battle against congestion. The crux of federal transportation spending, however, has been and continues to be aimed at overall infrastructure improvement, with air quality improvement, congestion improvement, and other issues essentially have been secondary goals. There is a sense that there is no one good solution to congestion problems and that successful congestion reduction strategies require multiple remedies. New infrastructure alone, at the level currently being constructed, has not been able to stay ahead of the congestion problem. Efforts aimed at alleviating congestion by changing individual travel behaviors have also been largely unsuccessful. During the 107th Congress, discussion will begin on how, or whether, to modify the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA21). Congestion issues can be expected to play a major role in this discussion, especially as regards changes to specific federal initiatives such as the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality program (CMAQ), whose purpose is to fund projects and programs in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas for ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), and small particulate matter (PM-10) which reduce transportation related emissions. In the 106th Congress, Amtrak and its congressional supporters sought, but failed to achieve, the passage of the High-Speed Rail Investment Act of 2000 (106th Congress: S. 1900/H.R. 3700). Under the bill, Amtrak would have been allowed to raise up to $10 billion over the next 10 years by issuing up to $1 billion in bonds each year to pay for track improvements in the 10 high-speed rail corridors designated by the Department of Transportation. (5) The bonds would not have paid interest; instead the bondholders would have been eligible to deduct a certain amount from their taxes. The estimated cost to the federal government over the 10-year period was $3.2 billion. Participating states were to provide a 20 % match. In exchange for holding this bill, Senate leaders pledged to reintroduce the legislation early in the 107th Congress; Senator John McCain, Chairman of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, opposed the bill but promised to hold hearings on the reintroduced bill during the 107th Congress and to allow the legislation to move forward. (6) The bill has been reintroduced (107th Congress: S. 250); it now provides for $12 billion in bonding authority over 10 years. The Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-134, December 2, 1997) requires that Amtrak be able to operate without using federal funds to cover operating expenses by the end of FY2002. Amtrak has been using federal funds to help cover both its capital expenses and operating expenses. If Amtrak is not able to cover its operating expenses out of its own revenues by the end of FY2002, the Act provides that Congress will consider an Amtrak reform plan. The reform plan would be drawn up by the Amtrak Reform Council, another creation of the Act. Additionally, the Act provides for an Amtrak liquidation plan that would be drawn up by Amtrak. Both the General Accounting Office and the Inspector General of the Department of Transportation have noted that Amtrak does not appear likely to achieve the congressionally-mandated goal. (7) The Amtrak Reform Council's second annual report recommends a separation of Amtrak's infrastructure responsibility from its business operations, with increased federal funding for infrastructure. (8) Railroad Safety Reauthorization The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is the primary federal agency that promotes and regulates railroad safety. The development of new or revised regulations, the assessment of the safety operations of railroads, and the promotion of compliance with the federal safety regulations form the core of FRA's safety program. The combined impact of FRA's activities, billions of dollars of investment in railroad infrastructure, as well as many other industry and labor initiatives, have yielded improvements in the long-term safety record of the railroad industry, especially during the last 20 years. Nevertheless, a tragic and well-publicized train crash historically occurs every few years that heightens interest in railroad safety. Further improvements in both rail safety and FRA's safety regulations and programs are possible, but each approach has its own potential benefits and costs. The last railroad safety reauthorization statute was enacted in 1994, and its funding authority expired at the end of FY1998. FRA's safety programs continue using the authorities specified in existing railroad safety law and the funds that are appropriated annually. The reauthorization process provides an opportunity to review federal policies and programs, to consider the current state of railroad safety, and to explore various options intended to further improve the long-term safety record. Some of the issues likely to be debated as part of the reauthorization process include: Should railroads be required to implement operator fatigue management plans? Should the hours-of-service regulations be extended to cover additional railroad workers? What should be done, if anything, to deal more effectively with alleged harassment and intimidation of railroad workers? What might be done to further reduce death and injury at highway-rail grade crossings? Should FRA's current safety program simply be reauthorized without any new authorities or regulatory mandates? Forging new legislation in the railroad safety arena is difficult, especially when a balance is sought among the interests of public safety, railroad labor, and management. For more information, see CRS Issue Brief IB10030, Federal Railroad Safety Program and Reauthorization Issues. Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety The 107th Congress is likely to consider several bills that would reauthorize the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA), as amended (including P.L. 93-633 and P.L. 101-500). That body of law specifies the broad purposes and operating authorities for DOT's hazardous materials (hazmat) safety program. Although hearings were held during the 106th Congress, none of the committees of jurisdiction reported out a reauthorization bill. Among the key issues under consideration are: the level of funding to support DOT's hazmat emergency preparedness grant program; development of cost-effective strategies to improve further hazmat safety; proposed exemptions for various industries from the safety regulations; and the appropriate role of DOT in the regulation of hazmat transportation. Similar issues are likely to be debated during the 107th Congress. For additional information see: CRS report RS 20580, Hazardous Materials Transportation Safety-Federal Program and Legislative Issues. The 107th Congress is considering legislation that would amend federal pipeline safety law, which directs the U.S. Secretary of Transportation to regulate pipeline transportation and storage of natural gases and hazardous liquids. Those bills would also authorize funding for the Office of Pipeline Safety (OPS) of the DOT, which is charged with implementing pipeline safety law. Among the topics being discussed as part of the process of reauthorizing the OPS program are: state versus federal roles in pipeline safety, increased community involvement in promoting pipeline safety, funding amounts to support OPS, and new regulatory directives and authorities intended to improve the OPS program and associated state activities. For additional information, see CRS Report RS20640, Pipeline Safety: Federal Program and Reauthorization Issues. Motor Carrier Safety (Hours-of-Service and Border Trucking Issues) The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) issues and enforces regulations governing the operation and maintenance of heavy trucks and commercial buses. Several congressional committees are evaluating this agency's implementation of the Motor Carrier Safety Improvement Act (MCSIA) (P.L. 106-159). FMCSA faces numerous challenges. Many regulatory provisions of the MCSIA have not yet been issued and some congressionally-set deadlines have lapsed. The Congress will also provide oversight on FMCSA's rulemaking to revise its hours-of-service regulations. The issuance of FMCSA's hours-of-service (HOS) proposal led to a variety of administrative and congressional actions. The FY2001 DOT Appropriations Act (P.L 106-346) includes a provision that prohibits the use of funds to issue a revised HOS rule for one year, but allows the FMCSA to continue working on this rulemaking. Given the potential impacts of the proposed rule, some industry spokesmen and Members of Congress have advised FMCSA to proceed cautiously. The 107th Congress is likely to review FMCSA's response to the concerns that have been raised concerning HOS proposal. A second issue concerns efforts to promote the safety of an increased number of Mexican-domiciled carriers that are expected to conduct operations beyond the commercial zones (which are typically located within 25 miles of the southern border). FMCSA is working on a rulemaking that would specify the criteria for the granting of expanded operating authority to Mexican-domiciled carriers pursuant to implementation of the NAFTA. On February 6, 2001, an international arbitration panel, convened to hear a complaint filed by Mexico under the dispute resolution procedures of NAFTA, ruled that U.S. refusal to approve any applications from Mexican-owned carriers for authority to provide cross-border trucking services was and remains a breach of NAFTA. This decision, plus the Bush Administration's support for opening up the border to Mexican trucks as specified under NAFTA, is likely to accelerate the granting of new operating authority to Mexican carriers. For additional information, see CRS Report RL30774, Hours-of-service Regulations for Commercial Drivers - Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration's Proposal. On August 9, 2000, Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (Firestone) issued a voluntary safety recall of some 14.4 million, 15-inch tires. Based on about 4300 complaints and other data, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is aware of reports totaling 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries allegedly related to certain Firestone tires. Most of the incidents that resulted in deaths reportedly involved sport utility vehicles (SUVs), primarily Ford Explorers. On September 1, 2000, NHTSA issued a warning to consumers recommending that users of an additional 1.4 million Firestone tires should take a number of actions to enhance their safety. Firestone declined to extend its recall to include these additional tires. The Agency is investigating whether the scope of Firestone's voluntary recall should be expanded to a NHTSA-issued mandatory recall affecting additional Firestone tires. The Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability, and Documentation (TREAD) Act (P.L. 106-414), was enacted to strengthen NHTSA's ability to detect and investigate defects. More specifically, the bill includes provisions to: increase or strengthen reporting requirements for manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, increase civil penalties for violations of the federal motor vehicle safety regulations, provide criminal penalties under certain conditions, require a rulemaking to revise and update NHTSA's tire standards, increase the number of years that a remedy for a defect must be provided without charge to the vehicle owner, and authorize increased funding for NHTSA. The 107th Congress is likely to review NHTSA's efforts to develop regulations and new information programs required to implement this Act. For additional information, see CRS Report RL30710, Firestone Tire Recall: NHTSA, Industry, and Congressional Responses. User fees for deepening harbor channels for ships and for maintaining current depths by dredging were established in 1986. The fees cover the federal contribution to the cost of such services. Prior to 1986, the federal contribution came from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury. On March 31, 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court declared the portion of the user fees levied on exports to be unconstitutional, and such collections were discontinued. Fees on imports continue to be collected. However, these have generated opposition from foreign countries, which oppose import fees on the basis that such fees unfairly discriminate against imports. On August 24, 1998, the Clinton Administration proposed a new user-fee system based on the cargo-carrying capacity of the vessel, the type of ship, and the number of times the ship enters or leaves a port. The Administration included the proposal again as part of its FY2001 budget, but the new user fee was not approved during the 106th Congress. It was opposed by most shipping groups, including representatives of ports, because they prefer using monies obtained from the General Fund of the U.S. Treasury rather than levying a user fee to pay for harbor maintenance. For additional information, see CRS Report RS20888 (pdf), Harbor Maintenance Funding. In the 107th Congress, a major issue may be how effectively the Coast Guard is managing its increased responsibilities to interdict illegal drugs and immigrants while continuing its traditional functions of search and rescue and aiding navigation. Coast Guard capital needs are at the core of this issue. Congress generally authorizes funds for the Coast Guard for 2-year periods and appropriates these monies annually in the DOT appropriations bill. Issues for the 107th Congress include how the agency is operationally responding to new demands and managing plans to replace many of its aging vessels and aircraft. The Coast Guard's major acquisition program, the "Integrated Deepwater System," would require an estimated $9.6 billion to fund acquisitions over 20 years beginning in FY2002. Planning funds only were provided in FY2000 and FY2001 appropriations. On March 1, 2000, at a hearing of the House Committee on Appropriations' Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies, DOT's Inspector General reported that the Coast Guard planned to request $350 million in FY2002 and $500 million annually over the next 19 years to implement its acquisition strategy. With acquisitions programmed to begin in FY2002, Congress will be confronted with this issue in the FY2002 appropriations bill. On March 22, 2001, the House passed H.R. 1099, the Coast Guard Personnel and Maritime Safety Act of 2001. It is unclear when the Senate will consider this bill. H.R. 1173, the FY2001 Emergency Supplemental, would appropriate $100 million more in FY2001 appropriations for Coast Guard operating expenses for personnel expenses, fuel costs, spare parts, and health care costs. According to the President's Budget Blueprint, the Coast Guard FY2002 request will be $5.1 billion, a $600 million increase over the enacted $4.5 billion level. For further discussion of issues associated with the deepwater program, see CRS Report 98-830 (pdf), Coast Guard Integrated Deepwater System: Background and Issues for Congress. For further discussion on funding, see CRS Report RS20117 (pdf), Coast Guard FY2000 and FY2001 Authorization Issues. (CRS contact: Martin Lee) U.S. General Accounting Office. Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: Department of Transportation. GAO-01-253. January 2001. U.S. Department of Transportation. Office of Inspector General. Top 10 Management Issues: Department of Transportation. Jan. 18, 2001 Report Number PT-2001-017 http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/pt2001017.htm Final Report on the Airline Customer Service Commitment. February 12, 2001. Report Number AV-2001-020. http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2001020.htm Key Safety, Modernization and Financial Issues Facing FAA. April 11, 2000. Report Number AV-2000-072. http://www.oig.dot.gov/audits/av2000072.htm 1. (back)45 U.S.C. 151 et seq. 3. (back)The Railway Labor Act 224 (Douglas L. Leslie et. al. eds., 1995). 5. (back)A map and matrix of designated high-speed rail corridors can be found on the FRA website at http://www.fra.dot.gov/o/hsgt/states/index.htm 6. (back) "Amtrak Faces Funding Obstacles; Senator McCain Seeks Debate on Type of System U.S. Needs," Washington Post, January 11, 2001. 7. (back) U.S. GAO, Amtrak's Costs and Capital Needs, GAO/RCED-00-138; U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, 2000 Assessment of Amtrak's Financial Performance and Requirements, CR-2000-121 8. (back) The Amtrak Reform Council report, Intercity Rail Passenger Service in America: Status, Problems, and Options for Reform, March 20, 2001, is available at http://www.amtrakreformcouncil.gov/second.html Return to CONTENTS section of this Issue Brief. |
CRS Reports Home
|
||
 |
National Council for Science and the Environment 1725 K Street, Suite 212 - Washington, DC 20006 202-530-5810 - info@NCSEonline.org |
 |