Advanced search    Help

Clear all search criteria

Only 2/3! You are seeing results from the Public Collection, not the complete Full Collection. Sign in to search everything (see eligibility).

• Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Reauthorization Issues for Congress [May 29, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has been providing federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations such as runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equipment. The funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as the trust fund), which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. The AIP is one of five major sources of airport capital development funding. The other sources are tax exempt bonds, passenger facility charges (PFCs: a local tax levied on each boarding passenger), state and local grants, and airport operating revenue. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual airport's financial situation and the type of project being considered. Small airports are more dependent on AIP grants than large or medium-sized airports. The larger airports, whose projects tend to be much more costly, are more likely to participate in the tax-exempt bond market or finance capital development projects with a PFC."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2009-05-29
• Airport Improvement Program (AIP): Reauthorization Issues for Congress [January 27, 2010]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has been providing federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations such as runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equipment. The funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as the trust fund), which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. The AIP is one of five major sources of airport capital development funding. The other sources are taxexempt bonds, passenger facility charges (PFCs: a local tax levied on each boarding passenger), state and local grants, and airport operating revenue. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual airport's financial situation and the type of project being considered. Small airports are more dependent on AIP grants than large or medium-sized airports. The larger airports, whose projects tend to be much more costly, are more likely to participate in the tax-exempt bond market or finance capital development projects with a PFC."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2010-01-27
• Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [Updated July 15, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  This CRS report, updated July 2008, discusses highway bridges. "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role in funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expects to determine probable cause of the collapse by the end of 2008. An interim NTSB finding implicated a flaw in the original bridge design as a contributing factor. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 72,000, were classified as structurally deficient as of 2007. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. [...]. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or by catastrophic failures. The program provides funds for emergency repairs immediately after the failure to restore essential traffic, as well as for longer-term permanent repairs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2008-07-15
• Selected Aviation Security Legislation in the Aftermath of the September 11 Attack [Updated December 14, 2001]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  The September 11, 2001 hijacking of four airliners, and the enormous loss of life from the use of these airplanes as weapons, has focused congressional concerns on aviation security. During the debate in Congress the overarching issue was the degree of federal involvement needed both to make commercial air travel safer and to restore the public's confidence in the security of our Nation's airway and airports. On October 11, 2001, the Senate passed, after multiple amendments, the Aviation Security Act of 2001, S. 1447 (introduced by Senator Hollings). The bill provided for the federalization of most aspects of airport security. The responsibility for much of the law enforcement aspect of airport security would have been shifted from the Department of Transportation (DOT) to the Department of Justice (DOJ). Front-line screening of passengers and baggage would be carried out by federal agents under the authority of the Attorney General. DOT would have continued to administer the Federal Air Marshals (FAM) program but under DOJ guidelines.

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2001-12-14
• Airline Passenger Rights Legislation in the 107th Congress [Updated August 17, 2001]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Congressional advocates of enhanced airline passenger rights have introduced legislation in the 107th Congress that proposes remedies to a variety of consumer complaints. Most of the bills include provisions requiring prompt and truthful disclosure of reasons for delays, cancellations, and diverted flights. Others, found in some of the bills, include: preventing airlines from assessing a fee against, or prohibiting a ticket holder from using, only part of a ticket; requiring airlines to make available information on all fares offered through any media (phone, internet, etc.); and giving passengers the right to exit flights delayed on the ground beyond a certain length of time. Some bills would increase penalties for violating aviation consumer protection law or increase the airlines' liability for mistreatment of passengers."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2001-08-17
• Transportation and Transportation Security Related Provisions of House and Senate Stimulus Legislation (H.R. 1) [February 17, 2009]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report discusses the major transportation and transportation security related provisions of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (H.R. 1) as passed by the House on January 28, 2009, and the Senate on February 10, 2009. The report also discusses the major transportation provisions of the conference report on H.R. 1 (H.Rept. 111-16), which was passed by both the House and Senate on February 13, 2009, and signed by President Barack Obama on February 17, 2009."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Fischer, John W. (John Werner); Mallett, William

  2009-02-17
• Airport Improvement Program [Updated August 29, 2003]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) (49 U.S.C. Chapter 471) has provided federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations including runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety, emergency or snow removal equipment. Funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund, which is supported by user fees and fuel taxes. The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington led to passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA) (P.L. 107-71). ATSA broadened the range of security activities and projects that are eligible for AIP grants."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2003-08-29
• Taxation of Aviation Prior to 1970 [April 10, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Prior to the 1970 creation of the airport and airway trust fund and the aviation taxes that supported it, there were no aviation specific taxes (taxes levied on aviation use or users solely for the support of aviation infrastructure) in the United States. Aviation users were, however, subject to manufacturers' excise taxes such as those on gasoline, oil lubricants, tires, and inner tubes. Excise taxes on the transportation of persons and property were imposed during the early 1940s as war revenue measures. Although efforts were made, beginning almost immediately after the end of World War II, to eliminate some of these taxes, most were retained in some form until passage of the Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 (P.L. 91-258). This act imposed six taxes and extended one, all of which applied only to aviation, and dedicated all the revenues to the airport and airway trust fund. This report will not be updated."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2007-04-10
• Surface Transportation Funding and Finance [September 2, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through federal fuel taxes on gasoline, diesel, and other fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the basic fuel taxes have not been increased at the federal level since 1993. Prior to the recession that began in 2007, annual increases in driving, with a concomitant increase in fuel use, were sufficient to keep revenues rising steadily on an annual basis. This is no longer the case. Further, future changes in the nation's vehicle fleet as a result of federal fuel economy standards, including increased use of electric hybrid and fully electric vehicles, are expected to suppress future fuel use even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume. Congress has yet to address the surface transportation program's revenue issues, except by increasing transport spending from the U.S. Treasury general fund. Many Members of Congress have expressed an aversion to raising fuel taxes, and alternative methods of financing surface transportation have not received serious legislative consideration. […] With efforts to reauthorize the existing, but already expired, surface transportation program at a standstill, the programs authorized by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU or SAFETEA) (P.L. 109-59) continue to operate as a result of extension legislation and cash infusions to the trust fund from the U.S. Treasury general fund. This report focuses on possible revenue sources for surface transportation infrastructure. It begins with a brief discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system and then explores possible immediate and longer-term solutions to the financing problem."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2011-09-02
• Surface Transportation Funding and Programs Under MAP-21: Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (P.L. 112-141) [September 27, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On July 6, 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). The act authorized spending on federal highway and public transportation programs, surface transportation safety and research, and some rail programs and activities through September 30, 2014. MAP-21 authorized roughly $105 billion for FY2013 and FY2014 combined. It also extended FY2012 surface transportation authorizations to the end of the fiscal year, raising the total authorization to approximately $118 billion. Most of the funding for surface transportation bills has been drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF) since its creation in 1956, but the HTF, which receives revenue mainly from federal motor fuel taxes, has, due to a sluggish economy and improvements in fuel efficiency, received revenue substantially below projections. For the past several years, HTF revenue has been insufficient to finance the government's surface transportation programs, leading Congress to delay reauthorization for 33 months following expiration of the last multi-year reauthorization. Although Congress was unable to agree on a long-term solution to the HTF revenue issue, MAP- 21 did provide for the transfer of sufficient general fund revenues to the HTF to fund a two-year bill. MAP-21 made major changes in the programmatic structure for both highways and public transportation and included initiatives intended to increase program efficiency through performance-based planning and the streamlining of project development."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Frittelli, John; Kirk, Robert S.; Luther, Linda G. . . .

  2012-09-27
• Federal-Aid Highway Program (FAHP): An Overview [October 26, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The federal government has provided some form of highway funding to the states for roughly 100 years. The major characteristics of the federal highway program have been constant since the early 1920s. First, most funds are apportioned to the states by formula and implementation is left primarily to state departments of transportation (state DOTs). Second, the states are required to provide matching funds. Until the 1950s, each federal dollar had to be matched by an identical amount of state and local money. The federal share is now 80% for non-Interstate System road projects and 90% for Interstate System projects. Third, generally, federal money can be spent only on designated federal-aid highways, which make up roughly a quarter of U.S. public roads."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2012-10-26
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [December 26, 2012]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Federal surface transportation programs are currently funded primarily through taxes on motor fuels that are deposited in the highway trust fund. Although there has been some modification to the tax system, the tax rates, which are fixed in terms of cents per gallon, have not been increased at the federal level since 1993. Prior to the recession that began in 2007, annual increases in driving, with a concomitant increase in fuel use, were sufficient to keep revenues rising steadily. This is no longer the case. Future increases in fuel economy standards are expected to suppress motor fuel consumption in the years ahead even if annual increases in vehicle mileage resume."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2012-12-26
• Tolling of Interstate Highways: Issues in Brief [February 13, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The prohibition of tolling of federal-aid highways dates back to the Federal Road Act of 1916 (39 Stat. 355). Subsequent legislation modified the prohibition to the point where now the only significant part of the federal-aid highway system under the toll prohibition is the Interstate Highway System, comprising approximately 47,000 miles of the roughly 1-million-mile federal-aid highway system. Congress, in approving the Federal-Aid Highway Act and Highway Revenue Act of 1956 (P.L. [Public Law] 84-621; 70 Stat. 374), rejected the use of tolls to finance construction in favor of creating a highway trust fund supported by dedicated fuel taxes. However, 2,102 miles of tolled expressway segments were incorporated into the Interstate Highway System in 1957, and these segments are not covered by the tolling prohibition. In recent years, the revenues flowing into the highway trust fund have been insufficient to maintain even current levels of federal funding for highways. Political resistance to raising the federal fuels tax is high. The fuel taxes dedicated to the highway trust fund, currently 18.3 cents per gallon of gasoline and 24.3 cents per gallon of diesel fuel, were last raised in 1993. Historically, interest in toll financing has increased during periods of constrained federal funding. Since the Interstate highways make up nearly all federal-aid highway segments that are still under the tolling prohibition, advocates of expanded use of tolling focus their efforts on giving states more flexibility to impose tolls on the Interstates within their borders."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-02-13
• Emergency Relief Program: Federal-Aid Highway Assistance for Disaster-Damaged Roads and Bridges [September 23, 2011]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The major highways and bridges damaged during Hurricane Irene in 2011and the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis of August 1, 2007 are part of the federal-aid highway system and were therefore eligible for assistance under the Federal Highway Administration's (FHWA's) Emergency Relief Program (ER). Following a natural disaster or catastrophic failure (such as the I-35W bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to pre-disaster conditions. The ER program is administered through the state departments of transportation in close coordination with FHWA's division offices (there is one in each state). Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. Most observers see the close and ongoing relationship between the FHWA's staff at the state level and their state counterparts as facilitating a quick coordinated response to disasters. The program is funded by an annual $100 million authorization from the highway trust fund and general fund appropriations that are provided by Congress on a such sums as necessary basis."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2011-09-23
• U.S. Airline Industry: Issues and Role of Congress [April 30, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Mergers, airline bankruptcies, aircraft safety and maintenance concerns, extensive flight delays and cancellations, $100-plus-per-barrel oil prices, and a litany of other issues define congressional interest in the airline industry at present. Congress does not play a day-to-day role in any of these issues. Most ongoing oversight of the industry, to the extent that it does occur, takes place within the executive branch. Congress periodically addresses airline issues through legislation, but for the most part the congressional role occurs primarily through oversight. The authority to approve or disapprove airline mergers rests entirely with the Department of Justice (DOJ). The Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) makes recommendations to DOJ based on its evaluation of the effect of a proposed merger on airline industry competition. Congress has no specific statutory role in the airline merger review and approval process, having legislatively charged the executive branch with that task. Members of Congress can, and do, file statements with DOJ expressing their views on a proposed merger. Congressional interest going forward is likely to focus on the proposed merger between Delta Airlines and Northwest Airlines. Recent incidents, including passengers being held in aircraft for eight or more hours awaiting takeoff, passengers being stranded by the shutdown of bankrupt air carriers, as well as deteriorating airline on-time arrival performance, have led to increasing congressional interest in airline passenger consumer issues. Currently, most passenger rights are set forth in the airlines' 'contract of carriage' language."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Elias, Bartholomew; Fischer, John W. (John Werner)

  2008-04-30
• Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [Updated January 31, 2008]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role in funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) expects to determine probable cause of the collapse by the end of 2008. An interim NTSB finding implicated a flaw in the original bridge design as a contributing factor. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 72,000, were classified as structurally deficient as of 2007. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. […]. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or by catastrophic failures. The program provides funds for emergency repairs immediately after the failure to restore essential traffic, as well as for longer-term permanent repairs."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2008-01-31
• Highway Bridges: Conditions and the Federal/State Role [August 10, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The sudden failure and collapse of the I-35W Interstate System bridge in Minneapolis has raised policy concerns in Congress regarding the condition of the nation's transportation infrastructure in general, and in particular the federal role funding, building, maintaining, and ensuring the safety of roads and especially bridges in the United States. Highway bridges are of particular interest both because of the recent tragedy in Minneapolis and the catastrophic results of a major bridge failure, in terms of loss of life and economic impact. Of the 600,000 public road bridges listed in the National Bridge Inventory, roughly 12%, or 74,000, are classified as structurally deficient. This is, however, roughly half the number classified as deficient in 1990. Given the I-35W collapse, however, even this lower number of deficient bridges leaves Americans potentially exposed to what some might consider an unacceptable level of risk. A policy question is how fast can and should the remaining deficient bridges be replaced or improved. At current annual spending levels, roughly $10.5 billion (2004 dollars at all levels of government), the bridge investment backlog (in dollar terms) would be reduced by roughly half by 2024. Reducing the backlog to near zero during the same period would require an estimated annual spending rate of roughly $12.4 billion (in 2004 dollars). The Emergency Relief Program (ER), administered by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), provides funding for bridges damaged in natural disasters or that were subject to catastrophic failures."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William

  2007-08-10
• Aviation Spending Guarantee Mechanisms [Updated October 6, 2006]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Since the 1971 creation of the user-supported airport and airway trust fund in the Airport and Airway Development and Revenue Acts of 1970 (P.L. 91-259) there has been disagreement over the appropriate use of the trust fund's revenues. Some Members of Congress viewed the trust fund as primarily a capital account that would fund the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) airport and airway (mostly air traffic control) capital requirements. Others, including the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), some executive agencies, as well as some members of congressional appropriations and budget committees, viewed the trust fund as the basis for a userpay system that would also fund some or all of the FAA's operations expenses. Aviation funding guarantees are expected to be considered in the FAA reauthorization debate during the 110th Congress and could include the current system, a modification of the current guarantees, a resurrection of a mechanism analogous to the cap and penalty provisions, a reconsideration of taking the trust fund 'off-budget,' or erecting budgetary 'fire walls' as was done for the highway and transit programs in 1998. This report's analysis necessarily assumes the spending levels and program structure of the times. There is an alternative view that too much is spent on the FAA, which is not discussed in detail in this report."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2006-10-06
• Federal Aviation Administration Reauthorization: An Overview of Selected Provisions in Proposed Legislation [Updated October 3, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Funding authorization for aviation programs set forth in Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (P.L. 108-176) and authorization for taxes and fees that provide revenue for the aviation trust fund expire at the end of FY2007. The FAA's [Federal Aviation Administration] reauthorization proposal, entitled the Next Generation Air Transportation System Financing Reform Act of 2007 (H.R. 1356/S. 1076, introduced by request), recommends a new system for financing aviation system costs through direct user fees and increased fuel taxes. The FAA proposal would also allow airports to increase passenger facility charges (PFC) and includes initiatives to simplify the apportionment of airport grants. It also includes several organizational reforms, including establishing an air transportation system advisory board and an independent commission for realigning and consolidating facilities and services. The proposal also seeks to better integrate development of the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NGATS) into ongoing planning and acquisition activities, and would allow airport and private investment in certain aviation facilities and services. The FAA proposal would authorize funding for research on aviation noise, air emissions, and water quality impacts, and seeks to modify the Essential Air Service Program (EAS). The Aviation Investment and Modernization Act of 2007 (S. 1300; S.Rept. 110- 144) proposes a four-year authorization with modest overall budget increases and larger increases specifically for facilities and equipment (F&E) modernization. S. 1300 proposes a $25 surcharge for certain flights and retention of existing taxes and fees as an alternative to the FAA's user fee proposal."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Elias, Bartholomew; Fischer, John W. (John Werner)

  2007-10-03
• Airport Improvement Program: Issues for Congress [February 26, 2007]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Airport Improvement Program (AIP) has been providing federal grants for airport development and planning since the passage of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248). AIP funding is usually spent on projects that support aircraft operations such as runways, taxiways, aprons, noise abatement, land purchase, and safety or emergency equipment. The funds obligated for the AIP are drawn from the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (hereafter referred to as the trust fund), which is supported by a variety of user fees and fuel taxes. The AIP is one of five major sources of airport capital development funding. The other sources are tax-exempt bonds, passenger facility charges (PFCs: a local tax levied on each boarding passenger), state and local grants, and airport operating revenue. Different airports use different combinations of these sources depending on the individual airport's financial situation and the type of project being considered. Small airports are more dependent on AIP grants than large or medium-sized airports […] During the FAA [Federal Aviation Administration] reauthorization debate in the 110th Congress, virtually all of the policy issues and options concerning AIP will be influenced by the broader budget issues of the adequacy of trust fund revenues and the availability of money for the FAA from the Treasury general fund. Should ample revenues be available, the reauthorization of AIP could maintain the program's structure and perhaps even increase AIP spending. A constrained-budget scenario would probably increase interest in such issues as defederalization or a tightening of program formula funding and eligibility criteria, which could provide cost savings. It could also increase interest in raising or eliminating the PFC ceiling, which could help airports fund more projects, either directly or by supporting increased bonding."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2007-02-26
• Sequestration at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): Air Traffic Controller Furloughs and Congressional Response [May 7, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. [Public Law] 112-25) provided for automatic reductions to most federal discretionary spending if no agreement on deficit reduction was reached by the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction. Such reductions, referred to as sequestration, went into effect on March 1, 2013, which was the extended deadline for a deficit reduction agreement established under the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P.L. 112-240). In general, sequestration requires agencies to reduce spending for certain suballocations of funds--programs, projects, and activities--within nondefense discretionary accounts by 5.3% in FY2013. To implement the sequester-related reductions, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) began to furlough personnel, including air traffic controllers, on April 21, 2013. In the wake of concerns about the adverse effects of furloughs on air travel, the Senate passed S. 853, the Reducing Flight Delays Act of 2013 (RFDA), on April 25, 2013, by unanimous consent. The bill provided new authority to the Secretary of Transportation to transfer up to $253 million to FAA's 'operations' account from other FAA accounts, including discretionary grants-in-aid for airports. The next day, the House agreed to H.R. [House Resolution] 1765 under suspension of the rules. Under agreement, H.R. 1765, being identical in content to S. 853, was presented to the President on April 30, 2013, and was enacted on May 1, 2013, becoming P.L. 113-9. FAA halted furlough actions even before the bill was signed by President Obama. This report provides a brief overview of FAA's implementation of the sequester in April 2013, as it relates to air traffic control operations and staff furloughs. It then considers the congressional response, including the potential impact of the funds transfers authorized under P.L. 113-9 on FAA's Airport Improvement Program (AIP)."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Elias, Bartholomew; Brass, Clinton T.; Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-05-07
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [May 7, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $15 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Luther, Linda G.; Canis, Bill; Frittelli, John . . .

  2014-05-07
• Tolling U.S. Highways [May 30, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The failure of federal highway user taxes and fees to provide sufficient revenues to support even baseline surface transportation spending levels has encouraged Congress to consider expanded toll financing. Congress has cautiously encouraged increased use of tolling in recent transportation legislation, including the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). Recent projections of a $15 billion annual gap between revenue anticipated from taxes dedicated to surface transportation and the cost of maintaining the current federal surface transportation program have stimulated interest in changing tolling policy in conjunction with reauthorizing or replacing MAP-21. Congress could achieve an expansion of tolling in several ways. At one extreme, it could simply encourage additional tolling pilot projects and a further expansion of tolling-supported innovative finance, such as more loans for road and bridge construction through the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT's) Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which would be repaid through user tolls. At the other extreme, Congress might authorize states to toll federal-aid highways as they see fit, or even require that Interstate Highway segments be converted to toll roads as they undergo reconstruction in the future, eventually turning all Interstates into toll roads."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-05-30
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [September 3, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  From the report summary: "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. [...] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-09-03
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [January 28, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. […] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2014-01-28
• Surface Transportation Program Reauthorization Issues for Congress [March 10, 2014]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "The authorization for federal spending on highway and public transportation programs, as well as surface transportation safety and research and some rail programs, expires September 30, 2014. The existing authorization, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141) was a two-year bill, funding FY2013 and FY2014. Nearly all the funding for highways and most of the funding for public transportation is drawn from the highway trust fund (HTF). However, the motor fuel taxes that are the main source of HTF revenue no longer raise enough money to support the programs Congress has authorized. Congressional Budget Office projections indicate that the shortfall between revenues and outlays will average roughly $16 billion annually from FY2015 through FY2020. MAP-21 made up the most of the difference between motor fuel tax revenue and spending authorization by transferring money from the Treasury general fund to the HTF. As Congress considers surface transportation reauthorization, the funding shortfall is the major issue framing the debate. The alternatives will involve choices among raising motor fuels taxes, cutting spending, finding other revenue sources for the HTF, approving further transfers from the general fund, and seeking to increase private investment in surface transportation infrastructure. MAP-21 made major changes in the program structure for both highways and public transportation. Some of the changes were designed to increase program efficiency by requiring performance measurement and streamlining project development. As these changes are recent, their effectiveness may be difficult to evaluate."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.; Mallett, William; Peterman, David Randall . . .

  2014-03-10
• Funding and Financing Highways and Public Transportation [September 23, 2013]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "This report begins with a discussion of the problems associated with the trust fund financing system (which supports both federal highway and public transportation programs) and then explores possible options for financing surface transportation infrastructure. Among the key points: [1] Raising motor fuel taxes could provide the highway trust fund with sufficient revenue to fully fund the program in the near term, but it may not be a viable long-term solution due to expected future declines in fuel consumption. [2] Replacing current motor fuel taxes with a fuel sales tax or a fee based on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) raise a variety of financial and administrative concerns. [3] The political difficulty of adequately financing the highway trust fund could lead Congress to consider the desirability of changes to maintain the trust fund system or eliminating it altogether. Such changes might involve a reallocation of responsibilities and obligations among federal, state, and local governments. [4] Interest in improving transportation infrastructure with private and non-grant funding sources, such as tolls, public-private partnerships (PPPs), and federal loan programs is increasing, but many projects may not be well suited to alternative financing."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Mallett, William; Kirk, Robert S.

  2013-09-23
• DRIVE Act Would Increase Highway Funding Faster than Projected Inflation [July 13, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On June 22, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee (EPW) ordered reported favorably the highway title of a six-year surface transportation reauthorization bill. The EPW bill, called the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (DRIVE Act; S. 1647), provides for spending on highways to rise faster than the projected rate of inflation. Three other Senate committees, the Committee on Banking, the Committee on Commerce, and the Committee on Finance, would need to add their pieces if the Senate is to approve a bill to supplant the existing authorization act, the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21; P.L. 112-141). That 2012 legislation, which provided for a major consolidation of highway programs, has been extended twice, most recently through July 31, 2015."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-07-13
• Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged-Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief [October 2, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "Major roads and bridges are part of the federal-aid highway system and are therefore eligible for assistance under the Emergency Relief Program (ER) of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Following a natural disaster (such as Hurricane Sandy in 2012) or catastrophic failure (such as the 2013 collapse of the Skagit River Bridge in Washington State), ER funds are made available for both emergency repairs and restoration of federal-aid highway facilities to conditions comparable to those before the disaster. State departments of transportation typically have close ongoing relationships with FHWA's division offices in each state, which facilitate a quick, coordinated response to disasters. Although ER is a federal program, the decision to seek ER funding is made by the state, not by the federal government. […] The 112th Congress authorized an emergency relief program for public transportation systems. However, this program does not have a permanent funding source, and funds are to be provided only by appropriation. The 2013 Disaster Relief Appropriations Act (P.L. 113-2) made available appropriations of $10.9 billion (reduced by $545 million by sequestration) for the Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program. There have been no further appropriations since 2013."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-10-02
• House Transportation Bill Would Hold Spending Below Senate Bill [October 29, 2015]

  Show summary     Open resource [pdf]     (open full abstract)

  "On October 22, the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (T&I) approved and ordered reported the Surface Transportation Reauthorization and Reform Act of 2015 (STRRA; H.R. 3763). The T&I bill provides only those spending increases the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has determined are needed to cover projected inflation in the cost of the existing surface transportation program. Unlike the Developing a Reliable and Innovative Vision for the Economy Act (DRIVE Act; H.R. 22), adopted by the Senate on July 30, 2015, STRRA does not increase spending beyond this CBO 'baseline.' The two bills have important similarities, which might simplify negotiations should the House pass STRRA and should both chambers agree to a conference committee to reconcile their differences: [1] Both bills would provide for six-year authorizations (FY2016-FY2021). Both bills would provide only three years of full funding for the Highway Trust Fund, requiring Congress to come up with new revenues or spending offsets starting in FY2019. [2] Both bills would create new discretionary programs administered by the Department of Transportation. STRRA's Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects program (NSFHP) would be funded at a higher level, averaging $740 million annually, whereas the DRIVE Act's Assistance for Major Projects program would average $525 million. [3] Both bills provide for a discretionary competitive grant program for buses and bus facilities. Both bills would make major reductions in the amounts available to support leveraged funding under the Transportation Infrastructure Financing and Innovation Act (TIFIA) program, which provides loans and loan guarantees for large transportation infrastructure projects. […] [4] With the exception of changes to the Surface Transportation Program (STP), much of the formula program structure for highways would remain similar to existing law, although some eligibility requirements have been modified."

  Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service

  Kirk, Robert S.

  2015-10-29